Volume 609 Week 26 - Wednesday 11 June 2003 
Volume 609 Week 26 - Wednesday 11 June 2003 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
Wednesday 11 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Education and Science Committee to meet outside New Zealand with the committees of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia from 15 to 19 June 2003 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meeting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I undertook to give consideration to replies to questions for written answer that are now conceded to be inaccurate. As I told the House yesterday Speaker’s ruling 142/3 makes it clear that anyone giving inaccurate information to the House should clear up the error as soon as he or she realises it has occurred. That obligation applies even though the member may not have all the information needed to clear the matter up fully at the time the error is appreciated. It is still incumbent on the member to take the first opportunity to acknowledge the error with a promise of a full correction in due course. It is not sufficient for a Minister to acknowledge an error only in answering further questions. Where there is an error the Minister should lodge with the Clerk a further reply indicating that it is believed that there are errors in identified replies and promising to lodge fully corrected replies in due course. I expect all Ministers to follow that course. 
Personal Explanations 
Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That sounds very much like a ministerial statement. I can well remember when the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley tried to make a personal explanation in this House and the Labour Party stopped that from occurring on the basis that it should be a ministerial statement because it related to answers given in the House. I think that exactly the same rules should apply now. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The same member raised that precise point in the last session of the House and you ruled then that the standard procedure throughout the time that you and I have been MPs is for a Minister to make a personal explanation to correct an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer is quite clear: it is in the hands of members. A member has asked for leave to make a personal explanation; if there is any objection then the member cannot make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you advise us as to what the situation is? You have just told us that it is the choice of the House as to whether a member can make a personal explanation but it is a requirement of the Standing Orders for the mistake to be corrected. If a mistake is made by a Minister surely the Minister is obliged to make a ministerial statement to correct his or her previous answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister has made a mistake in a written reply he can record the mistake by a written reply. I asked for the leave of the House. Is there any objection to the Minister making a personal explanation? There is. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House I said that I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now want to raise a quite serious matter which is a matter for future reference and is not in relation to this case. In relation to the ruling you have just given where a Minister discovers that a mistake has occurred in an answer seeks to make a personal explanation to correct that answer and the House denies that leave I see that as being the end of the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. All that the Minister now has to do is to supply the Clerk with an answer in writing and that will be sufficient. 
Questions to Ministers 
Immigrants—Qualifications 
1. DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she followed up on the correspondence tabled in the House yesterday by Dail Jones who alleged the Minister turned a blind eye to fraudulent and improper activity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I have. The individual concerned applied for residence on 5 August 1998. He had his qualifications approved by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in May 1999 and was approved residence in November 1999 all of which occurred under a National-led Government. The application was under the policy that applied at the time when New Zealand First was a coalition partner. I stand by the reply I gave yesterday. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What changes have occurred since she became Minister of Immigration that would reduce the likelihood of this occurring today? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am advised that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has increased the rigour of its evaluation. Changes made since I became the Minister together with the increased pass mark mean that the majority of the general skills applicants today have a job offer that is relevant to their qualifications or experience. The individual approved under the previous Government’s policy had no job offer at all. 
Dail Jones 
: Given the information that has now been made available to the Minister what action will she take now to review the evidence that has been made available to her by the writer of the correspondence an employer that the immigrant’s “knowledge of basic bookkeeping and accountancy was inferior to a 16-year-old employee who had dropped out of school without even NCEA” despite the so-called qualifications appearing to have a similar comparison to law and accountancy degrees from the University of Auckland; what will the Minister do to find out whether those qualifications allegedly approved by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority were fraudulent and what will the Minister do to act on that fraudulent information? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked three questions. The first two may be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Unlike the Opposition member I have had my office contact the writer of the letter. He advises me that he has not raised concerns with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in respect of those particular qualifications. I remind the member that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority assessment was done in May 1999 and that there is not one jot of evidence to suggest any fraudulent or improper behaviour on the part of the individual. I think an apology is deserved. 
Dail Jones 
: That being one example that I gave the Minister yesterday and given her concern now for the dubious activity within the immigration system when will she advise the House of the outcomes of her following up of—and I quote and refer to—the Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd the Ukrainian dairy workers the Russian asylum-seeking waitress the dog farm at Waiuku the sale of New Zealand visas under a tree outside the office of the New Zealand Immigration Service at New Delhi the Cambodian family scam run from Johnsonville the Algerian terrorist marriages of convenience and false English-language system certifications to name a few? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was too long. The Minister may comment on the first two parts. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I regret to inform the House that I believe that in almost every single one of those cases I will find there is not one jot of substance to the complaint. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain why she is trying to sheet home responsibility for an application received 7 days before the coalition with New Zealand First collapsed on 12 August 1998— 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —another nervous laugh as well—and secondly does she remember how embarrassed she was on the  
Assignment 
 programme when a series of allegations of fraudulent qualifications came before her she appeared on the programme to say she knew nothing of that and they instantly showed her how embarrassing it was whereupon she threw up her hands and said she would investigate it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was making the point that the policy under which that individual applied existed when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. In respect of the allegations made on the  
Assignment 
 programme there has been a referral to the police and I have also raised the question of the person who used my personal letter which was the one I reacted to in horror with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. An agreement has been reached that that breached the advertising standards in New Zealand. 
Te Mangai Paho—Maori Sportscasting International 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Following his reply to question for written answer No. 253 lodged on 13 February 2003 what is the total value of contracts Te Mangai Paho let to Maori Sportscasting International over the last 3 years through to 13 February and does he stand by the answer he supplied on 19 February 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 No. As I have indicated in my replacement answer to question for written answer No. 253 which I lodged today the total value of contracts Te Mangai Paho let to Maori Sportscasting International over the last 3 years was $709540. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why has it taken the Minister so long to come down to this House to apologise for incorrect answers when he accepted the apology of Te Puni Kokiri head Mr Leith Comer on 30 May for having embarrassed him with incorrect answers; and when will he make a proper apology? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is likely to invite disorder if a member asks when a Minister will make an apology after the Minister has been denied leave to do precisely that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Certainly the member has some validity in his point of order. However the question was asked and can be answered and the Minister can reply. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said yesterday in the House I had instructed my officials to assess those answers to parliamentary questions in the light of the external review report. I also said that my officials were also reviewing the other 200 parliamentary questions relevant to Te Mangai Paho since 2003 in order to find out whether any corrected replies are required and that is what I tried to do at the outset of the House. I want to thank that member while I am on my feet for the note he sent the review team thanking them for a job well done.  
Mahara Okeroa 
: Will the Minister provide corrected replies to parliamentary questions for written answer concerning Te Mangai Paho if they are found to be incorrect? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. As I said in my statement in answer to the previous question I have answered over 200 written questions on Te Mangai Paho. I have already lodged corrections to a number of those answers—five today. As information comes to hand that any further answers are incorrect I will immediately move to correct them. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Could I ask the Minister whether he could tell the House when—on what date—he discovered that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect; and what steps he took at that time to correct his response? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The reply to question for written answer No. 253 was given to me at a meeting where I and one of my staff members were with the board chair and chief executive on 20 February 2003.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be quite a stretch for anyone to accept that as an answer to the question just asked. It certainly did not address the question which related to when the Minister was advised the answer was of an incorrect nature. If the Minister knew in fact that the answer was incorrect as far back as February then I think he is in considerable difficulty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister said that he was given an answer on 20 February. That is perfectly specific. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was the date on which the Minister found out that the answer was wrong. The Minister’s answer said he found that out on the day he received it. In that case why did he submit it to this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. I will ask the Hon Parekura Horomia if he would clarify the answer. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I tried to say at the outset of this day that quite certainly the review has brought about two parts: one the forensic check-up on Mr Tame Te Rangi’s computer and the other the issues that have come out in the review. The answers to that question are in the answers I have forwarded to the Clerk today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked “on what date”. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was asked for the date on which he found the answer was wrong. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Shortly after. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer is that he found out that the answer he gave to this Parliament was wrong “shortly after”. Now I struggle to understand when he found out the answer was wrong—shortly after what? Was it shortly after I had said to him it was wrong shortly after he delivered it to Parliament or shortly after he received his report? What sort of answer is that from a Minister who has been caught misleading this Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister gave an answer. There can be further supplementary questions. He addressed the question. He might not have satisfied the member with the answer but then the member can carry on further. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I do not think we should challenge the credibility of the House to that extent. It is not an answer with due respect to say “shortly after” when he was asked when he found out a particular event. That is not acceptable and I think it lowers the standards of this House if we let that pass as an accepted answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There are a number of matters in here that are actually quite important ones. The first is that it is not a matter for members of this House to judge whether something is not acceptable. I have heard these phrases used rather frequently over recent weeks: “We find this answer unacceptable” and “We find this unacceptable”. Mr Speaker that is only up to you. You are the only person who can determine whether something in this House is acceptable; no other member of the House can make that judgment. Secondly the important point is whether the question was addressed and not whether the answer was one that members found satisfactory. The answer was “shortly after”. Members may now wish to ask the rather obvious question: shortly after what? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjection during points of order and that is the last warning for one member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If I was still in Opposition I would be happy to give those members some lessons on how to ask questions like that quickly instead of spending all their time trying to get there by way of points of order. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I think a possible explanation of this train of events is that the Minister may have misheard or misunderstood my supplementary question. I was going to ask whether the order of the House might best be served if I was to repeat the supplementary question and give him another opportunity to respond to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask a further supplementary question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can I seek leave for that course? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is. I just want to say that as far as the member is concerned he is perfectly entitled to ask a supplementary question. I want to make one point. If I start ruling on how adequate an answer is that goes right against every Speaker’s ruling that has occurred since I have been in this House. The Speaker is not required to judge the adequacy of the answer but to judge whether the question has been addressed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Opposition gets a certain number of questions in a day and you keep a very strict tally on that. Dr Cullen is asking that you accede by way of a ruling that when a Minister is asked for the date on which something happened the response can be “shortly after”— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or “Green cheese”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley will leave the House. I will not have any interjections during points of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was a valuable contribution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not. The member will please leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You can say “rhubarb” “green cheese” or whatever you like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please leave or he will be named. 
Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The Opposition has a certain number of questions in a day which you keep a very strict tally of Mr Speaker. If a Minister when asked for the date that something occurred or the date he was made aware of something says by way of answer “shortly after” and Dr Cullen’s view is that that is acceptable because the Opposition can then ask the obvious question “Shortly after what?” then that brings the House into disrepute. Ministers are effectively answering questions in a way that they know for the information to be given will cost the Opposition another question. I believe that at the end of the day you have a responsibility to uphold the rights of the minority in this House. Lots of questions ask about the day that something occurred and if Ministers answer “shortly after” or “just before” those sorts of answers make this place a nonsense. I appeal to you Mr Speaker to think of the rights of the Opposition parties. This is our only forum in which to ask questions. If we are denied that right by that sort of tactic then there is no point in question time at all. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is really threatening to make this place a nonsense—and a number of members have received a lot of correspondence on this—is the continued raising of points of order that merely repeat a matter raised in a previous point of order that has already been ruled on. I suggest that we have an endless waste of time in question time well beyond what is reasonable because members will not accept the rulings that are given. 
Ron Mark 
: In support of the concerns expressed by the Hon Roger Sowry I ask you Mr Speaker to look at Standing Order 372(1). That Standing Order states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” I put it to you Mr Speaker that the gamesmanship that is going on here in a play on the simple ruling that you are not responsible for the quality of the answer—which might even lead some to conclude that the standard is that there is no standard—means that when one reflects on that Standing Order surely one cannot support the line that has been suggested by the Leader of the House. 
Stephen Franks 
: I wonder whether it might help Mr Speaker if you were able to indicate those occasions on which it would be possible to ask another supplementary question without affecting the availability of subsequent questions to a party. I believe that that might be a straightforward way around this situation whereby you are not required to rule on the adequacy of the reply. That would enable you to give an indication when it appeared that a reply may be trifling with the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a very valid point. I gave a full ruling on that matter some weeks ago and I have repeated it a few times subsequently. If I think there is a trifling with the House then I will certainly not count that in a party’s allocation of questions. All I would like to say to the Minister of Maori Affairs is that perhaps he may want to give just a little more extension to his original answer. That just might help a little but it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to do so. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I was about to say earlier on the timing of a lot of these questions from the two members who have been leading the entry are on what dates—when and where? I well understood that I was to give the correct answers. We worked talked and discussed in February—earlier this year. Over a period of time there has been information that has not been correct and I have lodged that correctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is there any sense in asking him whether “shortly after” is after 20 February because it assumes that it is a date after 20 February or is this sort of inverse racism the kind of thing that the Prime Minister tolerates in her administration? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the second part of that question is out of order. The first part may be answered. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If there was enough sense in that it was after the 22nd. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that the Minister tells this House that he found out that his answers to this House— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague Rodney Hide but after numerous points of order and a question as to when after 20 February the Minister learnt the truth—because that was the clear inference from his original answer and he said shortly after the 22nd—we are no wiser. With the greatest respect my point regarding the Prime Minister is correct. It is my belief that that sort of behaviour is an acceptance of a performance that you would not accept from anybody else and it is inverse racism of the very worst sort. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not argue with me when I am on my feet or he will not be here in the House for very much longer. The member gave an answer to a question. I am not judging the quality of the answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that he found out his replies to questions in this House were incorrect “shortly after” why did he tell the House in respect of those very questions yesterday in answer to question for oral answer No. 6 “the advice given to me at the time was correct” when clearly the advice he was given was incorrect and he knew that it was incorrect because the Te Puni Kokiri head had apologised to him on 30 May for giving him incorrect advice? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I think the member has asked the question in answer to himself. That is correct. There were mistakes in the information given to me. I received this material on Monday 9 June which is a summary of all the correct answers I hope to date. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know where to go for advice. I honestly do not. Yesterday the Minister told us that the advice given to him at that time was correct. So OK— 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That’s right! 
Rodney Hide 
: So the advice was correct back then but it is not correct now? Do you see the dilemma we get into Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not here to judge the quality of the answers. I am here to see that the question is addressed and it was. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: By his earlier response that he learnt that the answer supplied by him to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect “shortly after” and given that he yesterday told the House his answers were correct does his answer mean he found out shortly after he gave his answer yesterday—or was he referring to some other date on which he found out—that his answer to question for written answer No. 253 was wrong; if so what was that date? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. In the sense of the response and the mistakes made I corrected them like I said—as I have lodged this morning and as I was trying to explain at the beginning of this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In most Parliaments and it used to include this one this sort of question and answer session when the date was itemised would see a potential breach of privilege case. Now with what we have seen eventuate here there is no possibility of that because no answer has been given at all after about 20 minutes of questioning on the issue including a series of points of order. Whatever the requirements of the Minister may or may not be there cannot be a circumstance where he can avoid an allegation of a breach of privilege because he has failed to give a certain specific date which has now been asked for about five times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot talk about breach of privilege here in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know that and the Clerk knows I know that. I am saying that by this procedure and your failing to ensure that the Minister gives an answer to Parliament and this country he avoids what would be a potential regulatory mechanism against his non-performance. That is a new phenomenon in this Parliament or any other Parliament for that matter—that is when a person could be gravely implicated because a date is important he fails to give the date even after numerous questions. That is what has crept into this Parliament. I want to know how that complies with any past Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have not basically changed in that regard since I have been in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Maybe it is just the way that they are being interpreted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not correct. I know that I interpret the Standing Orders in the same way as my predecessors did. I have the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings there to guide me and I have a very good Clerk of the House who can give me assistance. However I accept that what I say is my responsibility and no one else’s. The member can bring up the issue in the general debate or the debate on the Crown entities. It is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can do all that but I cannot seek a refuge somewhere else to get action because the critical item of information the date is being denied us. That is my very point. That was never envisaged in Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders in this or any other Parliament. I want to know how we have got as far as this down the track and though Mr McCully again specifically asked for the date in the third part of his question he was not given it. In my view that does not comply with the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does because the Minister addressed the question with an answer. The quality of the answer is nothing to do with me. That is for the House to judge. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are correct and I assume that you may be my question is this: what is the date that Mr Horomia has given in this House? If he has not given that date when it was specifically asked for—and he did not say that he would refuse to answer the question—then surely he has not complied with the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He has and I judged— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the date then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. The Minister has complied with the Standing Orders. He gave a date and he then gave an answer to another question. That of course is open to debate. 
Rodney Hide 
: On what date did the Minister of Maori Affairs learn that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 supplied to this House on 19 February concerning the number and value of contracts let by Te Mangai Paho to Maori Sportscasting International was incorrect? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have the total summary here corrected completely I hope on 9 June. I am prepared to table this in what I was to lead with which has the information in it. I repeat again I have the summary after that member thanked the people for the rigour and the job well done in getting that summary together through the review. I have got it here. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a simple one—that is on what date? Not once did the Minister indicate the date on which he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully. The Minister said “9 June.” 
Rodney Hide 
: No he didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said “9 June.” I heard that date. 
Rodney Hide 
: If he said that he is dead. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said “9 June.” I heard him give a date. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The 9 June date relates to the date of the documentation that he was seeking to table. It is not the critical date that is being sought here. The date that is being sought is the date that the Minister learnt that his information was incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understood the Minister to say quite clearly that that was the date. That was what I understood him to say. If he did not then perhaps he could indicate to the House whether what I understood was correct. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said and I have this document here that I am prepared to table. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is this House to take from you and the Minister of Maori Affairs that he first learnt that the reply to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect on 9 June 2003—yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Minister as to how he answers the question. I cannot put the answer into his mouth. I heard an answer. I heard a date given. I assumed that was it. I then asked the Minister whether he was correct. He gave an answer.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the date is 9 June then how come it post-dates the explanation from Leith Comer the head of his department alerting him to the fact that he was incorrectly answering parliamentary questions? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is when it was confirmed on a whole lot of other issues too—not just that question specifically. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Do I understand the Minister to now be telling the House that it is his belief that when Mr Comer his chief executive took responsibility for incorrect answers being given on behalf of the department to the Minister—which the Minister then gave to the House—Mr Comer was not telling the truth; if that is the case what steps is he taking against Mr Comer as a result of his giving an untruthful explanation at that time? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Mr Comer did not have all the information at the time that he made that statement. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister of Maori Affairs now confirm to this House that he first learnt that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 supplied to this House on 19 February this year was incorrect on 9 June 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister repeat that please. I had not finished calling him. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He confirms that. 
Family Law—Confidence in Associate Minister 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister of Justice with delegated responsibility for family law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister support her Minister’s changes to family law in clause 17 of the Care of Children Bill which creates female fathers by declaring that a woman who is a parent in a same-sex relationship will be known as the “father of the child”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice is that it does not have the effect that the member suggests. It is an issue of drafting succinctness. The member and his colleagues should take it up with the select committee if they have a better wording. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does she think it furthers United Future’s commitment to strengthen families to declare a lesbian mother’s partner a child’s father and will it be the Families Commission’s— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question may be of interest but I respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister does not have any responsibility for what United Future’s position on this bill might be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. Perhaps Dr Newman could rephrase the question slightly so that it brings it within the Standing Orders. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Did the Government have regard for United Future’s commitment to strengthen families when declaring a lesbian mother’s partner a child’s father and will it be the job of the Families Commission to determine disputes over when a woman is defined as a dad and when a man is defined as a mum? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that it is widely recognised in this House that families come in many forms. I am advised that the aim of this bill is to give the same-sex partner of a birth mother who has conceived using assisted human reproduction technology the same legal parental status as an opposite sex partner who is not the biological parent of the child. This is a matter of drafting detail and if members wish to pursue that in the select committee they are free to do so.  
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm that United Future has advised the Minister responsible that there are significant areas of difference between us within this bill and that discussions are continuing on these matters as they have been for some months? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was very clearly an interjection from the Leader of the Opposition while this question was being asked. I suggest that there is only one appropriate remedial action given the warnings you have given. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That particular member is very close to leaving. However I have not asked him to leave. I am just saying that he must not interject when I am on my feet. I heard an interjection. I did not see who it was. Did the Leader of the Opposition interject? 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want him to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you struggle in this House with maintaining order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is about consistency. Three times you have been interrupted while you are on your feet and you have given a warning. Mr Ken Shirley deputy leader of ACT interjected once on someone making a point of order—and we accept that was wrong—and he was thrown out without warning. I just say that that is a signal that it is all right to interject on the Speaker of the House when he is on his feet but not on some member. I do not think that is appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not and I made a ruling there and I stand by my ruling. 
Ron Mark 
: I take this opportunity to apologise. I thought my “Nah nah-nee nah” comment as a result of that was to myself. It was not actually meant as an interjection or to be too loud. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should keep his comments to himself by not opening his mouth. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I repeat the question I asked the Prime Minister which was: will she confirm that discussions between her Minister and United Future are continuing on certain aspects of this bill as they have been for some little while now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm that and I am sure that in respect of drafting changes can be made at the select committee stage if that is the will of the committee. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s answer that the clause does not have the effect that I said it has—of creating female fathers—what alternative meaning could one give to a clause that states that where a woman is a parent in a same-sex relationship she will be known as “father of the child” which are words taken directly from the legislation; and why does the Prime Minister not for once stand up for a policy that she has approved even if she is embarrassed about it now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is amazing how trivial the things are that some people will get their knickers in a knot about. It is simply amazing. I can advise the House that the advice I have received is that the wording is a drafting technique that saves repeating about 32 words every time the matter is referred to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer in respect of that clause that she agrees with same-sex parents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea what the intent or effect of the question is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear what the question is and I will state it again—because that was not an answer. Given the clause that Mr English has read out and her answer is she prepared to tell the House and the country this: does she agree with the concept of same-sex parents? Yes or no? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was that a point of order or was it meant to be another supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it was not another supplementary question. It was a point of order and I was about it rule it out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled out my question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On what grounds? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On the grounds that an answer—please be seated. I ruled out the second one as an attempt at a question. There was a question asked by the member and the Prime Minister addressed it in an answer. She certainly addressed that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She said she did not know what the question was about. I believe that my question is as plain as daylight and as clear as anything. It is a principal issue of division in this House on this legislation and she must surely understand what I am talking about. Does she or does she not agree with the concept— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the member to make his question a bit clearer than he did. I heard the question and I heard the answer given. It addressed the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only one member can stand and have a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now both members will sit down. When two members ask for a point of order and I have not heard one from one of the persons that person usually gets precedence. The two members can sort it out. I will hear one of them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The difficulty I have is that I do not have eyes in the back of my head although some think I have. In today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 members will see what is being talked about—the concept of same-sex parents where the new mother is the father according to that legislation. I asked the Prime Minister whether she agrees with that yes or no. She refuses to answer me. She refuses to give an answer because she says that she does not understand the question. Somehow the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and everybody else can understand the question and the issue. I am saying that she can and she is deliberately avoiding it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no need for me to say it. It is just unfortunate. The Prime Minister gave an answer. I adjudged that it addressed the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you clarify for me in particular and the House in general that what we now have is a new standard when answering questions. Am I now to see— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no new standard at all. I am following precedents and rulings given over many many years. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Speaker you have not let me finish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well hurry up then please. 
Ron Mark 
: Is that right? Well I will talk as fast as I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order must be terse. 
Ron Mark 
: My question is this: will we now have a barrage of answers from Ministers to every question where they say “I don’t understand the question.” and are you going to accept that as an answer? I do not think so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No neither do I and I will not be. 
Ron Mark 
: Well she just did that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that I will not be. On all occasions I judge each issue by the supplementary question concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 has a very brief summation of the issue that is the subject of my question. It states in the fourth paragraph: “And a same-sex partner’s position will be regarded as being the same as that of an opposite-sex partner.” That is as clear as daylight. I asked the Prime Minister whether she accepted and agreed with that yes or no and she would not answer it. Frankly this is the second time today that we have seen a display where there has been an attempt to defuse an attack or a direct line of questioning and in this case the Prime Minster now pleads ignorance of the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this would have been easily answered some little time ago if we had been clearer on the first point of order I raised. Mr Peters got to his feet on a point of order and appeared to ask another supplementary question. The point is that it is not for the Prime Minister to answer a question raised in a point of order. The point of order had to be ruled on. If the member wanted to ask another supplementary question he could. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not interpret answers for MPs. Members do not get a second chance on a point of order. When the member raised the point of order he asked a question that was different from the original one that he asked. I could hear the actual question being asked. It was expanded on at some length. It was not the question that was originally asked. I invite the member to check  
Hansard 
. I will certainly show it to him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article of Wednesday 11 June—today—the fourth paragraph which refers to these words: “And a same-sex partner’s position will be regarded as being the same as that of an opposite-sex partner.”; does she agree with that position in respect of the legislation and does she accept that that is right? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes in respect of the guardianship of a child which is what the bill is about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 4. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
] 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member on his feet but now we do have a matter of consistency. During an earlier point of order Mr Ken Shirley made an interjection. You have already ruled on interjections. You had called Mr Peters to ask his question. The Minister of Education made an interjection and should be asked to leave the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had not started the question. I am asking him to start it now. 
Prisoners—Deportation 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Are those who break the law and are imprisoned whilst on temporary visas automatically required to leave the country after their sentence; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. A temporary permit would have to be revoked or would have to expire before the individual could be removed. In all cases covered by section 7 of the Immigration Act such permits would be automatically revoked. However the revocation would trigger an appeal right to the Removal Review Authority. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not prepared to give us an assurance that criminals such as Ding Yan Zhao an unlicensed Chinese student who took the life of an innocent 4-year-old girl while driving recklessly Jun Ying a Hamilton student facing two murder charges and also kidnapping and burglary charges Da Wan a Chinese student sentenced to 8 years’ jail for kidnapping a fellow student and demanding a $1.25 million ransom from his parents in China plus the Japanese Columbus Academy students who are being charged with kidnap assault and murder are to be deported at the end of their sentence and if not why not—or can anybody do what he or she likes in this darned country? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As was the case when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister the temporary permit has to be revoked or expire first. Of course in the case of a serious criminal offence section 7 of the Immigration Act would apply. Those permits would be revoked or they would expire during the term and people would be removed at the end of their sentence. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the provision in the Immigration Act that allows the right of appeal when a person on a temporary permit has offended in New Zealand while on that temporary permit? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am quite concerned about the fact that that is the law that I inherited which is why I am reviewing the right of appeal for temporary-permit holders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: After 4 years in the job how many people have been deported—because the law is unsatisfactory—how many have been convicted of serious offences and upon completing their sentences have been deported from this country; how many has she caused to be deported? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not have the number of deportation orders that I have signed since I have been Minister but I will certainly provide that information to the member. I should point out that in 1996-97 there were 329 total permit revocations and 456 in 1997-98. We have revoked more permits in the 10 months to date than were revoked in the 2 years that that member was involved in a Government. 
Early Childhood Education—Participation 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps has the Government taken in the last week to improve participation in early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Post-Budget announcements have meant that a further $1.6 million has been made available through the discretionary grant scheme which means that 463 extra places for children will be provided in quality learning environments. This Government is committed to increasing participation in early childhood education particularly by Maori and Pacific Island children. 
Jill Pettis 
: Are there separate funding pools for different types of services? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. Separate funding pools were set up in 1996 with the express purpose of increasing the participation of Maori and Pacific Island children in early childhood education services. The fact that money goes to those services has been criticised as racist by the member for Nelson which is an astounding claim given the fact that he as Minister in charge of a Budget put money into them. 
Metiria Turei 
: Rather than taking such a piecemeal approach to improving participation will the Minister undertake a comprehensive review of the funding formula based on real costs as envisaged by the Early Childhood Strategic Planning working-group? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Setting aside the gross inaccuracy of the first part of the question yes. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Cardiac Deaths 
6.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will a formal inquiry be held into Capital and Coast District Health Board systems following the deaths of 43-year-old John Russell and 63-year-old Charles Ernest Phillips who were admitted to Wellington Hospital for cardiac surgery and were subsequently sent home twice because of a shortage of intensive-care beds; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 A decision to carry out an inquiry into an unexpected death is usually made by the coroner. This is the same inquiry mechanism that was available in 1998-99 when seven people died waiting for publicly funded cardiac procedures at Capital Coast Health under a National Government. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does she agree that these two men would be alive today if when their operations were cancelled for the second time they were immediately transferred to a private hospital for their operations; and how many more deaths for ideological reasons can the people of Wellington expect due to Capital and Coast District Health Board’s aversion to any private involvement in health care? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The last part of the question was answered by Capital and Coast District Health Board itself when it said it had no aversion to sending patients to the private sector and that comes from this Government’s protocols to the public sector that we have no problems with it using the private sector for public good. That has been made obvious on many occasions although the member does not wish to hear that.  
In relation to the first part of her question it is always unfortunate when somebody dies but the member may not be aware that one of the people who died died because the intensive-care bed was taken by a patient who was returned from Wakefield the private hospital and therefore bumped the public patient out of the use of that facility. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain what progress has been made in increasing cardiac services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to tell the House that considerable progress has been made in increasing the number of cardiac procedures under this Government. We said we would improve it and we certainly have. In 1996-97 there were 3090 cardiac procedures; in this last financial year there were 4975. That is a 61 percent increase in cardiac procedures up to this Government. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will she be instigating a formal inquiry in response to the recent audit by Dr Chris Ellis which found that only 20 percent of the 24000 heart patients admitted to New Zealand hospitals each year with heart disease had undergone basic lifesaving investigative techniques such as heart scans exercise techniques or blood vessel X-rays which may have saved their lives and that there is in fact huge variation in cardiac facilities between New Zealand hospitals; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not be undertaking an inquiry. The results of that study came from the work of Dr Chris Ellis and others. They were surprised at that result. They are not asking for an inquiry. They are asking to look at the result of their research to see how it could be improved. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does she think that the offer by Wellington Hospital’s general manager John Coughlan of an overnight stay in hospital and stress counselling as an answer to these two deaths is insulting when what patients need is surgery not sympathy; and how many more patients will have to suffer ideological deaths before she will actually act like the Minister of Health and inquire into these systems? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The offer from Capital and Coast District Health Board is to ensure that any stress that is on the patient by being sent out of the hospital because it had to postpone an operation is helped through this process. No it will not fix the problem. It does require more operations and I am pleased to say that Capital Coast Health was doing 404 operations under a National Government and Capital and Coast District Health Board is doing 996 under a Labour Government. I just point out to the member that we have a heading here: “Dying for more cardiac surgery”. What date was that? It was 1993 under a National Government and the number of people who were dying was considerably higher than the number who die today. Thank goodness this Government has done something about it. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister undertake that Wakefield Hospital did not lose its contract for heart surgery in June 2001 because of Government ideology; and does she think that those deaths are worth the $1000 extra per life she says in answer to parliamentary questions that it would cost to use the available theatres and surgeons at that private hospital? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can assure the member that the change in the contract from Wakefield Hospital back to Capital and Coast District Health Board’s Wellington Hospital was not as a result of this Minister or this Government. 
Care of Children Bill—Participants 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is she satisfied that the Care of Children Bill safeguards the interests of those who want to play a part in a child’s life? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes but the primary and overriding focus of the Care of Children Bill is that care arrangements for children must be in the best interests and welfare of those children. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the proposed bill enables a biological father to be shut out of a relationship with his child because a guardian may be appointed without his knowledge if he is unaware of his paternity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes that can happen and it can happen under the existing law. This law provides access for paternity orders in the Family Court which will make them much easier to obtain.  
Tim Barnett 
: How has the bill addressed concerns expressed by fathers who have faced difficulties establishing guardianship? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The bill improves the provision of automatic guardianship for biological fathers and when they are not covered by the automatic rules they will be able to apply to the Family Court and be appointed guardians unless it is contrary to the best interests of their children. So the presumption is in favour of guardianship for fathers.  
Richard Worth 
: What safeguards has the Associate Minister put in the Care of Children Bill that will ensure that parents who seek parenting orders in respect of their children will not be edged out by the four other groups that can make competing applications? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They are not competing applications because with respect all decisions in these areas have to take into account the best interests and welfare of each individual child. I believe that the intention of the legislation is to take into account those who might otherwise not be able to have ongoing contact with a child—for example when a parent has died and the grandparents want to maintain ongoing contact with a child. It is right and proper that the best interests of the child are taken into account when decisions are made. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister not think that everyone’s interests would be best safeguarded by recognising basic biological facts; if not how does it help people’s interests to have this House and the law declaring that contrary to biology a woman can be a child’s dad or does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that this is a trivial issue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Clause 17(2) of the bill is a drafting technique. The bill does not provide for a woman to be the father of a child as has been—[ 
Interruption 
] It might be helpful if I make it clear. The statement in clause 17(2) is a drafting technique that means we do not have to repeat 35 separate words every time the expression “father of a child” appears in the bill. It is a minor technical drafting matter and I am sure that the select committee will look at it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to read clause 17(2) so the House can be clear.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I am now going to be enforcing very strictly the rule that questions are to be heard in silence. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that this bill will be truly effective only if the Family Court is adequately resourced so that all cases are heard in a timely manner; if so what steps is she taking to ensure that the Family Court can meet the demands of this new legislation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When the Budget was announced in respect of the Family Court there was a contingency with regard to the implementation of this legislation. There is also work happening on the part of the Law Commission in respect of the status of courts and that will require additional resourcing as well. I am happy to give the member the undertaking she seeks.  
Judy Turner 
: How can the bill protect the interests of biological parents when it does not compel the disclosure of the identity of both parents; given that situation will the Minister support mandatory disclosure with suppression orders when appropriate? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The difficulty that we are confronted with I guess in the real world today is that not everybody is aware who the father of the child is—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is quite unacceptable yahoo-ish behaviour. I want to say to members that as far as I am concerned I want to hear the Minister’s answers. She is entitled to give an answer too and she is then entitled to be questioned on the answer. That is why we have supplementary questions.  
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister recognise the discrepancy when guardianship is not subject to a minimum time period in terms of a relationship with the custodial parent yet the Property (Relationships) Act defines a significant relationship as of at least 3 years; or does she think that the division of furniture is a more important decision than the welfare of a child? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I understand the point that the member is making and I am aware this is a concern that has been raised within United Future. There has to be some consideration given to what this bill can and cannot achieve. It cannot change people’s behaviour. What I hope comes out of this legislation is that parents will understand that the best interests of their children are served by setting aside their own interests and putting the kids first. 
Offenders—Public Safety 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his reported comments “Public safety is one of the key issues people expect from the Corrections Department and from me”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice)  
on behalf of the Minister of Corrections 
: 
 Yes. That is why this Government has dramatically increased the length of sentences for the worst and highest-risk offenders and why this Government has introduced and passed legislation requiring the Parole Board to give paramount consideration in its decision making to public safety. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Government consider those convicted of manslaughter raping a girl aged under 16 aggravated robbery threatening to kill and assaulting a child with a firearm all of whom qualified for home detention not a threat to public safety? What does this Government consider to be a threat therefore to public safety? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two forms of home detention. At the back end serious offenders will do their last 3 months before release in home detention. At the front end in order to be eligible for home detention the requirement under law is that the sentence imposed on the offender is 2 years or less. Therefore a judge has already made a decision that that individual is not likely to constitute a high risk. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What has the Government done to improve the management of offenders in the community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government has done many things in that field but let me highlight just one of them. In the Budget the then Acting Minister of Corrections announced that there would be a 22 percent increase in the number of probation officers which is critical so that they can properly fulfil their role. Just as important she announced an 80 percent increase in the level of training so that those people responsible for supervision have the skills to do so. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister consider the privacy interests of paroled paedophiles outweighs the rights of parents who want to protect their children safely; if not why does his department supply these perverts with false identities and secrete them into communities innocent of any knowledge of them and then block police from showing photographs of them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Where the police consider that an individual released from prison constitutes a risk to the community they will do as they did in Palmerston North and advise relevant persons of the presence of that individual in the community. As a broader principle however if the member or any other member of the House is interested in minimising the risk of reoffending the last thing he or she should do is to hound that person away from a safe environment away from a support group make him transient and drive him underground—whereas every expert who has commented on this matter in recent weeks has said that that is the very way to maximise the risk of reoffending and make things worse for potential victims. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of today’s revelation that the victims of a paedophile who has been out of prison for 2 years were not informed of his release will the recent announcement to apply extended periods of supervision to those convicted before the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act be complemented by an effort to contact victims to ask whether they wish to be included on the notification register; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I presume that the case the member refers to is that on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 today. If the member reads that article he will see that this person was convicted 10 years ago. At that time there was no legal requirement on any Government agency to ensure that the family was registered on the victim notification system. This man was released at two-thirds of his sentence because the old law tolerated for too long said that he had to be. Today the laws have changed in both of those areas. The man if he was a risk would have done his full prison sentence; secondly there is now a legal obligation on the police to notify people eligible for the victim notification register and the inspector of police commenting on this said that unfortunately the system of informing victims of their rights in those days was not as consistent as it should have been but that has now changed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would the Minister expect this House to believe him when a former probation officer Glen Goodman is quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 19 May—he helped set up the home detention in the Nelson region and worked for the service for 16 years—as saying that he was disgusted at how the Government was deceiving the public and further that its credibility as a system was being undermined by short-sighted goals based around savings? Who should we believe: this Minister or someone who knows Mr Goodman? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That individual who served most of his time under the previous Government—including the one that that member was Deputy Prime Minister in—may be making his judgment on the past. It is certainly not a judgment that is relevant to today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Are we still carrying on with supplementary questions? ACT has finished its questions for today. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said earlier—and I have considered the matter and I want to raise it as a point of order—that you had the ability to grant an extra question when you felt that a Minister was trifling with the House in his replies. We have had a situation whereby the Minister of Maori Affairs has walked into this House knowing full well that the date on which he learnt that his answers were incorrect was 9 June. It took three questions from the ACT party and probably six or seven questions in total from Opposition parties to get that date from the Minister through a succession of questions. What that did was burn up the allocation of parties on this side for question time that you oversee. Now the ACT party has burnt up three questions simply to get a date. I ask you Mr Speaker to consider granting the ACT party an extra two questions—or at least one—to compensate for having to burn them up in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member can seek leave and I presume he is doing that— 
Rodney Hide 
: No I am not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—well I am not granting it. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the availability of treatment programmes a primary consideration in deciding where to incarcerate convicted sex offenders; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If it is deemed that a sex offender in prison would benefit from a course such as Kia Marama or Te Piriti then that offender will be transferred to a prison that can make those services available. Those are the most intensive courses. Other courses that would help prevent a person from reoffending are available but people who need the assistance most would be referred to one of those two prisons in Christchurch and Auckland for such treatment. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave for another supplementary question on the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Franks seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why has the Government waited as long as this to introduce legislation to strengthen supervision of convicted paedophiles not covered by the sentencing and parole reform legislation when following the disaster surrounding Barry Allan Ryder’s reoffending on parole last year authorities knew that a paedophile with a similar history would also be eligible for release this year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The work that needs to be done to ensure that a period of extended supervision is effective and fair is not done overnight. I have had my officials working on that for the best part of 18 months. We are now at the point where that is close to decision making by Cabinet; it will be introduced and it will be introduced approximately 2 years after it was introduced in the United Kingdom which has been one of the front-runners in this area. 
Maori Affairs Minister—Responsibility 
9.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he take full responsibility for answers to parliamentary questions and Official Information Act 1982 responses signed by him; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes but like all Ministers in all Governments I am reliant on the accuracy of the information provided to me to answer parliamentary questions and on the appropriateness of material provided for Official Information Act releases. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In the light of the  
Dominion Post  
article headed “Te Puni Kokiri boss apologises” of 31 May of this year which quotes his chief executive as saying of the Minister: “He has asked for an explanation and I have been in front of him and accepted the fact that some of the information that we have given him was not correct.”; does he still stand by his answer to a supplementary question today that he was first told the answers were incorrect a week later? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In part yes. Can I put it into chronological order so that we can tidy this up. On 18 February I lodged an answer to question 253. On 10 April I received an apology from Mr Comer for an incorrect answer to parliamentary questions regarding Maori Sportscasting. It was about the wananga attendees. Members should note that 253 was not part of that apology. It was not known that 253 was incorrect. The corrected question was pq2261. 
Mark Peck 
: What actions has the Minister taken to improve the quality of information he receives in answers to parliamentary questions? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have discussed that directly with the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri and I intend to ensure that the servicing of the Minister’s office is strengthened. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister recall responding to a question from myself yesterday regarding a capacity-assessment grant for a South Island minibus tour for a group of kuia and kaumatua with the statement: “I am unaware of that.” and can he reconcile that statement with the fact that the detailed files in relation to that trip were released under cover of a letter signed “P T Horomia Minister of Maori Affairs”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am made aware of it now and I apologise for that. 
Earthquakes—Building Safety 
10.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any advice on the John Scarry open letter which raised concerns about structural design construction issues and building performance in the event of an earthquake? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes. I have now received interim reports from the Building Industry Authority and the Institution of Professional Engineers in respect of their analyses of the concerns raised and I am able to report that neither body has identified any specific building that may pose a significant or immediate risk in the event of an earthquake. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister been advised as to whether the Building Industry Authority intends to take any further action in the light of that report; if so what advice has she received? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As a result of the technical report commissioned from independent consultants the Building Industry Authority will coordinate and where necessary fund ongoing research and investigations on earthquake design and best practice and will be providing advice to territorial authorities and the industry. This is in line with the Government’s decision that the regulator will operate in a proactive manner when matters of concern are raised. 
I seek leave to table both the Building Industry Authority report and the Institution of Professional Engineers letter to me. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Police—Ticket Quotas 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his statement that “Police do not have a quota of tickets they’re supposed to give out every hour. There is no such quota.”; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes because it is true. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How then does he explain the Dunedin traffic unit commander saying that his officers are expected to issue an average of seven tickets each in a 10-hour shift the road policing inspector’s confirmation that he saw quotas as a staff performance monitor and published confirmation that the Tasman police district started ticket quotas from February this year; who should we believe: him or the front-line police officers who are operating the quota? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member should take notice of what the commissioner told the select committee on 28 May. He said: “We are about reducing road trauma not raising revenue. We are about productivity not quotas. We are about saving lives rather than currying favour.” The road toll is going down and I think that the commissioner is doing an excellent job. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister inform the House what the current state of the road toll is? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am advised that as at 8 a.m. on Monday 9 June the rolling 12-month road toll was at 414 compared with 426 for the previous 12-month period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On reflection that question was too wide of the original one. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Minister stand by his statement that there is no quota of tickets the police are supposed to give out when Dunedin’s traffic unit manager says that his officers are expected to issue an average of seven tickets each in a 10-hour shift when the road policing inspector confirms that he has quotas that are a performance indicator and when there is published confirmation that the Tasman police district started ticket quotas from February? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because the commissioner has told me that that is their policy—that there is no quota whatsoever. I take the word of the Commissioner of Police rather than the word of the people the member has mentioned in his question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Are we to disbelieve the reports of the Dunedin traffic unit manager that his officers are expected to issue an average of seven tickets each in a 10-hour shift; disbelieve National Headquarters’ road policing inspector’s confirmation that quotas are a staff performance monitor; and disbelieve the published reports that the Tasman police district started ticket quotas from February? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member should believe the commissioner. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does he stand by his statement that there are no quotas on tickets to be given out every hour in the light of the fact that every police officer but the commissioner is on the record saying that there are quotas? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have not changed my mind since I answered the primary question. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that confirms that road deaths have gone down over the period the Minister talks about but shows that there has been an increase in excess of 1400 injuries on the road despite the quota ticketing system. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that one of the greater factors contributing to the reduction of road deaths has been improved accident and emergency services an improved Fire Service an improved St John Ambulance service and vehicle safety improvements. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a number of papers: one headed “South’s quota seven tickets a day” another headed “Government lifts traffic ticket quota” and a third report stating that the highway police pay is linked to ticket quota. These are news reports. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There appears to be objection. 
Pharmac—Dispensing 
12.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she stand by her statement of 7 May 2003 with regard to Pharmac’s proposal to move to 3-monthly dispensing that “The decision as to whether a medication is dispensed for 3 months 4 days or 1 month can be made by the doctor.”; if so will a doctor’s decision affect how much patients must pay for their medicine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. A doctor can determine the period of supply for which a medicine is to be prescribed and dispensed. Under Pharmac’s proposed changes to the close control rules the number of medicines that can be dispensed more frequently would be restricted. I have been advised that there have been a lot of submissions regarding this aspect of the proposal and Pharmac is currently considering this feedback before any decisions are made. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not true that under the present Pharmac proposal patients will lose their subsidy and have to pay much more for their drugs if their doctor decides for clinical reasons that a drug on the 3-monthly Pharmac schedule—such as warfarin sodium which is not on close control but could be dangerous to supply on 3-month lots—should be dispensed on a 1-monthly basis by their doctor? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is correct if the close control protocols that Pharmac put in its proposal were followed through because the close control was on anti-psychotics antidepressants antibiotics and class B controlled drugs. That particular part of Pharmac’s proposal as I said has received many submissions which are now being examined by Pharmac before any final decision is made. 
Janet Mackey 
: How many submissions has Pharmac received on its proposal to make changes to the monthly dispensing of commonly used medicines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have been advised that Pharmac has received 2500 submissions and it is currently analysing them. As I said there was a lot of comment on the proposed changes to close control rules and this feedback focused on whether the proposals were too restrictive and whether a more flexible system needs to be considered. That is now being considered by Pharmac. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Minister stand by the answer of the Acting Minister of Health on 22 May who agreed with the Pharmac statement that the change from 1-monthly to 3-monthly dispensing has the full support of all district health boards; if so how does she reconcile that with the minutes of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board meeting of 20 May that carried the motion: “That the board make a submission to Pharmac noting their considerable misgivings about the stat dispensing as proposed including that there has been inadequate information and time for meaningful advice to be given; that the board prefers to develop local solutions; and that there is potential for waste and safety issues to arise.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do stand by my associate’s answer. I have the press release here from Graham Edmonds in which he states that all district health boards accept the proposal. However that did not stop boards themselves from making submissions to Pharmac. In fact their submissions were welcomed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen the confidential strategy document that Pharmac sent to chief executive officers and chairs of district health boards which shows quite clearly that the recently completely 4-week consultation was a sham as Pharmac had made up its mind to switch to 3-monthly dispensing before it had even begun to consult; and does she agree that this document calls into question the credibility and legality of the consultation process; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen the document and no Pharmac has not made a decision on stat dispensing. It went out to consultation. It increased the consultation period—it has now changed. It received 2500 submissions. It will now examine those submissions and make its decision in the light of those submissions. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What is the cost of the communication strategy that Pharmac has developed for the volume initiative with a communications company; how much has that cost us? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have that figure with me. I am not aware of that figure. I will certainly be happy to provide that figure when I get it. I imagine that it would be a figure that is comparable to the figure when Pharmac changed from stat dispensing to monthly dispensing. However I will ask what it is because I do not know what it is. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What will her Government do if Pharmac proceeds with its proposal and as the Pharmacy Guild predicts hundreds of small rural and suburban pharmacies around New Zealand close as a result? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has given an undertaking to pharmacists and the community that it will listen to the consultation and to the submissions and I expect that it will do that. However the decision to move to stat dispensing is a change to the pharmaceutical schedule which is in the domain of Pharmac. The decision to change from stat dispensing to monthly dispensing was made by the four regional health authorities and Pharmac in 1996 not the Minister of Health. I expect that this time Pharmac will make this decision itself taking account of those issues. In terms of closure of pharmacies the Government would obviously have to consider how we would provide pharmacy services if they did close. 
Mike Ward 
: Is the Minister concerned that Pharmac’s 3-monthly dispensing proposal will lead to rest homes becoming targets for criminals in search of large quantities of prescription drugs held on behalf of residents; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If that was the case I would be concerned. But I would also be concerned if rest homes do not hold all their pharmaceuticals under a very secure environment. If the member is telling me that he knows that they are not then I would like to know where that is happening. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the health and disability legislation she is entitled to issue any instructions to Pharmac; and why therefore is she leaving a decision that will have a huge impact on the entire pharmacy sector—and indeed on the whole primary health sector—simply to Pharmac; and why is she given its impact on the sector not intervening but trying to avoid responsibility for this far-reaching decision? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am certainly not avoiding a decision if I thought it was one that I ought to make. However I do look at the precedent set when it changed from 3-monthly dispensing under a National Government to monthly dispensing. It was decided then that it was appropriate for Pharmac to make the decision. I have looked at the idea and the concept. I also take account of the many many letters that I have received—and that Roger Sowry Bill English and Jenny Shipley received—from members of the public around the need to have their prescriptions filled every month when they are perfectly able to pick them up 3 monthly. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a document from the draft minutes from the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board opposing the stat dispensing. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the press release from Graham Edmonds who is managing this issue on behalf of district health boards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the confidential document outlining the Pharmac strategy confidential to chief executive officers chairs and Pharmac. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debates 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The question that the country is currently addressing is when Bill English will make up his mind not on whether to stay or to go but just on something. The country wants to know when we will have a leader of the Opposition who believes in something. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that Gerry Brownlee is yawning because he knows that it will be for ever. He cannot hold his breath until that happens. He knows that at some point the National Party caucus will say: “Look Mr English you’re just embarrassing.”  
I want to quote Max Bradford someone who I think is one of the brighter former members of the National Party. The Tories dumped him because he was too bright for them. He had leadership ambitions and he was too bright so he was stuck down the list. What did he say? He said that the National Party had an appalling lack of backbone in the leadership. Who disagrees with that? Not one National Party member is prepared to disagree with Max Bradford. We even have Roger Sowry in the House and he will not disagree with Max Bradford.  
What happened in relation to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan showed a National Party with an appalling lack of backbone in its leadership. Why can we not have a National Party that was like the great party of the past? I was in the House with Muldoon. I disagreed with him as he was often wrong. However no one accused Muldoon of not having backbone. I am just old enough to remember Keith Holyoake in the House. No one from within his own party accused Keith Holyoake of not having backbone and got away with it. It is the end of any party to have a leadership that is seen by the rank and file of that party as being about to go. That is what the polling shows. The polling shows that National supporters do not want to keep him but they are not quite sure who they want to replace him. There is a bit of doubt around that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Isn’t it Winston Peters? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Actually it is Mr Peters. They really want him but I am told that at 3 o’clock in the morning Bill English went on his knees and said: “Winston will you be my deputy?”. What did Winston say? I think he said something similar to what Bill said to Monica but we cannot say that. He was absolutely rejected by Winston Peters at 3 o’clock in the morning which was when he made his play. But we know that a growing number of people in the National Party are prepared to say that they would go into a coalition before the election—“And Winston you can have the job!” He can have the job because they all know he is brighter and has more staying power and more class than the National Party leader. National members know that the only way they can ever be part of a Government again in the next 20 years is to get Winston Peters to lead them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where was Trevor when they made mothers fathers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well here we have Bronwyn’s mate chipping away again. Here he goes. Nick Smith has nothing to say. He has racist things to say in the newspaper in Nelson. He calls policies that he put money into racist but when it comes to Parliament and he has a chance to correct it to ask questions and to defend himself he has nothing to say. He is a lion in the electorate and a lamb in Parliament. I am told he is one of four people who still support Bill English.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to ask a simple question of the Government and the Minister of Health. It is a question that is puzzling pharmacists around New Zealand—namely what exactly is the Government’s strategy for the pharmacy sector in New Zealand? Does the Government have a hidden agenda to decimate and ultimately do away with community-based rural and suburban pharmacies in New Zealand? Will we find that a legacy of this Government is that the local community pharmacy has become a thing of the past just as local post offices and banks have become under a previous Labour Government? That is certainly how it is looking.  
I can assure the Minister that pharmacists around the country are angry and confused at what they perceive to be a sustained attack on their sector and indeed on their professionalism under this Government. First there was the attempt to deregulate pharmacies so that multinational chains and supermarkets could take over community pharmacies. The Green Party was instrumental in defeating that proposal but we are still concerned at the loose wording in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and we are suspicious of the Minister’s intentions with regard to pharmacy ownership. Then there was the 18-month delay in signing the pharmacy contract which caused huge distress and anxiety in the sector. But then just as pharmacists were celebrating that they had finally negotiated a new contract came the news that Pharmac is now proposing to switch to bulk dispensing—a proposal that was developed in secret without any consultation with the pharmacy sector despite the fact that it will wipe an estimated $70 million off the sector reduce pharmacy income by about a third and inevitably result in closures of small community-based pharmacies all around New Zealand. The Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand estimates that more than 200 pharmacies will be closed if the proposal is implemented and that 1500 pharmacy staff will be laid off. Small neighbourhood chemists who rely on dispensing for the bulk of their income will be the hardest hit. They could lose about two-thirds of their business under the proposal. I want to know what the Government will do if the guild is correct and hundreds of small rural and suburban pharmacies close around New Zealand. Thus far the Minister has refused to answer that question.  
I will not spend much time on the merits of the proposal except to say that in our view it is short-sighted and hugely flawed. It will result in great wastage of medicine reduced compliance significant increases in inappropriate and incorrect dispensing overdoses misuse of medicines and inevitably increased hospitalisation. The proposal stipulates that cheap medicines under $17 will be dispensed 3-monthly not for health and safety or clinical reasons but simply for financial reasons—to save money. In our view the way in which medicines should be dispensed is a decision to be made by doctors in conjunction with patients and pharmacists based on clinical and safety not financial reasons. The Minister claims that consumers will benefit from this proposal. What she has not told the public is that many people will find that their drugs will cost a lot more under the proposal because if general practitioners believe that a drug on the 3-monthly list should be prescribed 1-monthly to protect their patients’ safety then both the patients and the pharmacists will lose their subsidy on those medicines and the price of those drugs will skyrocket. How I wonder will that increase consumer choice?  
The Green Party objects not only to the proposal but to the devious—indeed secretive and manipulative—way it has been developed the phoney nature of the consultation process Pharmac has engaged in and the fact that Pharmac is clearly determined to push ahead with the proposal regardless of the outcome of consultation even if it means significant closures of pharmacies all around New Zealand. The Green Party has obtained leaked confidential papers that reveal that Pharmac has already made up its mind and is determined to proceed no matter what. It has developed a series of public relations and legal strategies to counter oppositions to its strategy and an implementation plan for the switch to 3-monthly dispensing. The interesting thing is that those detailed strategies were drawn up before Pharmac had even announced the proposal let alone begun to consult on it.  
The Green Party wants to know why the Minister is not stepping into what has become a major dispute and why she is not looking at the wider implications for the entire sector. She has explicit powers to do so and can give any directive she wants to Pharmac and she is ultimately responsible for its operations. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am sure the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealandcould not put that better itself. I want to make a single point on the matter and it is that I have had constituents who have raised with me for a number of years the fact that they have had to go back to the pharmacy three times instead of once to pick up a prescription for medication they have to take for the rest of their lives. So the argument is not all one way and I wish people would listen to the other side of the story as well. The patient would be a good person to listen to in this regard.  
The Opposition really is in disarray. I cannot understand the response of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the Care of Children Bill. In his press statement he states that clause 17(2) effectively declares that the legal definition of a father is to be changed to include women. He states: “I find this kind of social engineering objectionable and so will many people who believe our laws should reflect common sense.” That is just nonsense. I would have expected quite a bit more of the Leader of the Opposition. It just shows how desperate he is becoming to get a headline. The bill says no such thing. The amendments in respect of the policy issue are to be found in the legislation amending the Status of Children Act which provides that in the case of a child born of an assisted human reproduction procedure undertaken with the partner’s consent the same-sex partner of a women has the status of parent as does the opposite sex partner under the current law. So all that it is doing— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s true. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It states that such a person is a parent under the amendment to the Status of Children Act. The member should read the bill. He has already been made an idiot of in his own newspaper tonight. In the  
Nelson Evening Mail 
 tonight he is reported as attacking the bill while hailing what he jokingly called—because he knows he is making it up—a new miracle of biotechnology. That is not what clause 17(2) does. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Read the bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will read it out because that is what the member has asked me to do to avoid doubt: “a reference in this section (or elsewhere in the Act) to ‘father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 that de facto partner is a parent of the child”. The policy matter is dealt with in the Status of Children Act. All this is is a drafting technique so that all the words that follow “father of a child” do not have to be repeated every single time the word “father” is used. That means that where there is a reference to the father of the child in the bill we do not need to write out these words: “or the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 that de facto partner is a parent of the child (see section 14(2) of that Act).” That is 35-41 words if we include the words in brackets. It is to ensure that the policy decision contained within the amendment to the Status of Children Act is effective in terms of the Care of Children Bill. If the select committee does not like the way the technique is used then by all means it can explore whether there is an easier way of writing it. It just means that we do not have write out 41 words every time— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So a woman can be a father? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is not appointing a father and I wish the member would stop interjecting on an ongoing basis in respect of this matter. He is adding nothing to the debate. If Opposition members had anything of any substance to say about the bill then they would raise the policy sections not the section that is prefaced by the words “To avoid doubt”. It is quite clear from the use of the words “To avoid doubt” that it simply enables the intent of the policy to be clear throughout the bill. In respect of the policy I think Ian Hassall put it very well on the front page of the  
Nelson Evening Mail 
: “If you are a child you don’t care what sex your parents are.”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member knows that he is interjecting from a seat closer to the member. He should not be doing that. I have ignored it for most of the time because I did not want to interrupt the debate. The member will now keep quiet for the rest of the speech. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: “You only care about whether they love you or not” and “No amount of chest thumping is going to make any difference when what matters is that children are looked after properly.” 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 That goes to the core of the issues of our society and that Minister has just said it does not matter whether one is a father or a mother. I will quote social research finding after social research finding that states that children need fathers—and not female fathers. Children need male fathers. I challenge any Government member on that point.  
I want to debate the issues that I have been putting in the public arena about the rights of parents because the Family Court and this Government have absolutely no respect for the rights and responsibilities of natural parents. I am being threatened with regard to my own career and my opportunity to speak freely about issues because I have said a family in my district has not been able to see its children for over 3½ years. The parents have not been able to see their kids. There has been no report from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services regarding the looking after of that family’s other children. I say that that is wrong and I will go on saying that it is wrong even if they want to throw me in jail and throw me out of this House because a right of responsible parents is to be able to look after their children. I believe that passionately and I will go on saying so.  
I want to know why responsible parents have to fight before the Family Court to have custody of their own children. That is wrong. I want to know why a natural mother and father have together been denied the custody of their own children for over 3½ years. I want to know why this Government is giving legal aid to people so they can fight against parents being able to see and have access to their own children. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr David Benson-Pope may not think that matters. People on the Opposition side of the House say that those issues do matter. I want to know why it is possible under the law and in practice for the Family Court in secret without any notification to the natural parents to grant custody of their children to somebody else.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have you written to me? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The family wrote to five Ministers—five Ministers—in January last year. Five Ministers were written to and they have ignored that family.  
I want to know this: why has it taken 3½ years for a family to get a hearing over the custody of its own children? 
David Benson-Pope 
: It went to the wrong MP for a start. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually the family went to the Maori member for southern Maori 18 months ago and he did nothing. That Maori family came to me out of desperation. I will fight for it and I will fight for it hard because those parents have a right to the custody of their own children regardless of whatever political correctness we may get from the Family Court and from Government members.  
I want to know why we are paying a sole parents benefit to someone to care for a child when the mother and father are fit and able to do so. That is wrong and I challenge any member of the Government to get to their feet and defend that sort of thing. I want to restate my call for an inquiry. I think that any New Zealander would say that that is wrong and needs to be inquired into.  
We now have this Care of Children Bill from the Minister and it only further erodes the rights that parents have. This bill is about putting the State into every damn family in New Zealand. It is about socialism going to the extreme of having the State and the Family Court which cannot even deal with basic issues like letting parents look after their own children now deal with all manner of things. I want to respond very specifically to that. How can clause 17(2) mean anything other than that a woman can be a father when it states this: “To avoid doubt … in this Act) … ‘the father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child … ”? That states that a woman can be a father yet that is a nonsense. It puts it in law that a woman can be a father. I ask the Minister this: why is there not a reverse provision that a man can be a mother? We on the Opposition side of the House say that that would be a nonsense but at least it would be logically consistent with the provision in clause 17(2) of the bill.  
I say that this Government’s attack on the basic family unit and its failure to defend the rights of families is a tragedy. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have just one thing to say to that member—and he should listen to the interjection of Lianne Dalziel the Minister. If Nick Smith is such a great constituency member of Parliament why did he not get off his chuff and write to the Minister about the issues of which he speaks? Why has he not lodged a letter with the Minister about those issues? It is because Nick Smith is not up to it. He can come into this House scream from the top of his voice bang his chest and his desk and make a great dramatic statement but I say to him that as a constituency member in this House I know that the first thing a member does if a constituent has a problem is to get off his or her rear end and write to the responsible Minister. Nick Smith has not even done that. That is all I have to say to him.  
This is the grandstander Nick Smith who will be remembered for a career— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting his speech but he has raised a very specific point and he will be going on to other issues. So I seek leave of the House to table five letters: to the Attorney-General to the Minister who is responsible for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to the Minister of Maori Affairs to the Prime Minister and to the Principal Family Court Judge specifically on that case. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Point of order— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can I clarify that those letters will be tabled with all identifying names removed? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I need to know very carefully whether those letters are from the member or from the family. I need to know that in order to consider the tabling request. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The letters are from my constituent’s family. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The letters are from the family. Leave is sought to table them. Is there any objection? There is. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not quite know what the point of that was. I asked that member why he did not write on behalf of the family. He has mana in the community. He is a leader in the community as the local member of Parliament. Why did he not put pen to paper? That member talked about his career. His career in this House is in jeopardy because he has broken one of the highest tenets of our constitution— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No he has not! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It has been alleged that he has I should have said. I withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We will not sit here quietly and allow that member to make that sort of allegation against one of our fellow members on the Opposition side of the House. Nick Smith has not broken any law and will not have done so until a court may decide he has. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right—the member has withdrawn and apologised. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is fair; I concede that to Mr Brownlee. “Alleged” is what I should have said and I accept that. But I will say this: Nick Smith’s career will be remembered for things like the Department of Conservation “magic carpet”—the scandal that never was—and similar huge issues of moment. When it comes to issues that really matter to his constituents he does not have the tenacity to get off his chuff and write a letter. 
 I turn to the National Party and its leadership. In the last couple of months we have seen U-turns and flip-flops. Last night a member of the National Party said to me that its leadership was sewn up and Bill English would be there until the next election. I think that member is right. I will not name him but he is right because we know what happened. We know that Dr Brash was on the way; we know that there was a thread of cotton between him and the leadership. It was going to be Brash and Power. The problem is that the boys got to Dr Brash and it became Brash and Brownlee—members know; a sort of B B King of Brash and Brownlee. Then the caucus realised that that was not a winner and now its members are talking to Winston Peters. We know that. I think that Mr Peters is a bit smarter than that. He has been there and done that and he knows that the National Party is on the back foot.  
I have an interesting quote here from Mr English from a speech he gave at the Maori sports awards in Ngaruawahia on 3 November when he said National was the Opposition and it could say anything. Is that not a true statement? Is that not true? National has no policy and no leadership and it says anything. Let us take the Budget debate. Mr English accused—I said at the time that I never thought I would hear a Tory leader accuse a Labour Government of being too tight fiscally—Dr Cullen of being too tight while Dr Brash said he thought Dr Cullen had basically done the right thing and we should not be spending any more money. What a contradiction that was! National can say anything.  
Then in relation to Tranz Rail 70 percent of the population believe we have done the right thing. National sold it we have bought back the track and when challenged by the Minister of Transport as to whether National would will sell it off again if it gets into Government Mr Sowry—the Al Bundy of Otaki; a decisive member of Parliament—said National would wait and see. He was really saying that he knows that if he and the National Party came out with National’s true asset-sales policy now which is to sell them all off—to sell Air New Zealand sell Tranz Rail knock off the Accident Compensation Corporation and knock off the hospitals—National’s 21 percent in the polls would then become 2.1 percent. That is what National is saying; that is what those members know. However they do not have the intestinal fortitude to spell out National’s policy.  
Meanwhile the ship of State under this Labour Government rolls on and continues on a very steady course. We have 4.4 percent growth. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right; nowhere to go. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There goes the blunderbuss from the National Party. That member should stick to woodwork; he knows that he will not make it. If I were Mr Brownlee I would get out the plane and the router. I would sharpen the blades and get out the overalls and dust them off because that is where he is going. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to speak about the very serious matter of the letter that Dr Nick Smith has received from the Solicitor-General threatening him with a prosecution— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A good letter too. At least the Solicitor-General writes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it that that is not coming off my time. I said at the start that I wanted to make a serious contribution. The member who then interrupted for some time is interrupting from a seat that is not his normal seat. The Standing Orders are very clear. I should not be punished or penalised by way of the time I have available to me for that. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So the clock will be reset? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes carry on. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Dr Smith received a letter from the Solicitor-General couched in very threatening terms suggesting that he had committed a contempt of court and that he had also breached the Guardianship Act. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to be heard in silence. A member has the right to be heard in silence. I am calling on that right now. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It ill behoves any member to walk into this Chamber indicate that they have a matter of some seriousness that they want to lay before the House then require it to be heard in silence. That is my first submission. My second submission is that this is general-debate day. The general debate is quite a vociferous debate. That member has interjected on no less than six occasions in this particular general debate on a number of other speakers. To have the temerity to ask the Speaker to grant a right of silence to a speech which is normally arcane and insane at the best of times is just beyond the pale. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that it is not unusual for a member to ask for silence. Indeed one of the worst speakers in this House as everyone knows is the Prime Minister who regularly has to ask for the Chair to protect her in those circumstances. This is members’ day it is a member’s time and I have an absolute right under the Standing Orders to ask to be heard in silence. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member does have a right to ask for that. There have been a lot of interjections from both sides. However I now ask that the member continue with his speech. He has asked to be heard in silence. He can exercise that right. I ask Mr Brownlee to continue—and he will be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker—for the third time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I was ruling on a point of order. The member was quite incorrect to stand while I was ruling on the point of order. Now I will hear the member’s point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker my point of order was raised before you gave a ruling and it is simply this. You entertained a submission from Mr Tamihere on this matter when it is not a requirement whatsoever. Mr Brownlee sought leave from you to have his speech heard in silence. That is a matter for you and you alone to decide and to take into account a very junior member’s views on the matter—views that are of no great comment or relevance whatsoever—is seriously wrong. That is my point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the course of the previous debate the Hon Lianne Dalziel criticised and said that the matter was not drawn to her attention as did Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel dated 24 March 2003 to my constituent stating that she was not prepared to do anything as a Government Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How long do I have left? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has 4½ minutes left. [ 
Interruption 
] I have indicated to Mr Brownlee that he will be heard in silence. I now call for order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I had begun to say Dr Smith received a very threatening letter from the Solicitor-General indicating that the Solicitor-General was considering prosecuting him for contempt of court and for a breach of the Guardianship Act. Dr Smith’s colleagues in the National Party strongly refute and deny both those allegations. Dr Smith was faced with an interesting situation whereby constituents in his electorate went to his office and asked for his assistance. Those constituents had been to their own member of Parliament—the southern Maori member—and had had no satisfaction from that person. Over a period of time those constituents had written some five letters to Government and State officials asking for assistance and had had no satisfaction. Those constituents had been in touch with the Associate Minister of Justice and were simply told that nothing could be done for them. Those constituents had had their child taken away from them by the court for no apparent good reason.  
So Dr Smith decided to take up the cause of that family. He began a crusade in the proper way to get attention given to their circumstances and to try to get some sort of inquiry into how those honest hardworking parents who are doing a good job of bringing up their other three children can have one of their children taken off them by the Family Court without their knowledge. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable step for a professional politician to take in his advocacy for his constituents. Any suggestion that Dr Smith breached the provisions of the Guardianship Act are a nonsense. Dr Smith did not release the names of the people involved. Dr Smith did not release details of proceedings. Dr Smith did not make any allegations about any party involved in this circumstance. Indeed after Dr Smith had spoken in an interview about some constituents of his and after he had put out a press release outlining the appalling facts in this case in a very general way the Principal Family Court Judge Judge Mahoney phoned Dr Smith’s office and asked for the name of the family in order that he might investigate the circumstances of that case.  
I suggest to the House and to the Solicitor-General that if Dr Smith had breached the requirements of the Guardianship Act or in fact had acted in some contempt of the court then Judge Mahoney would have been under no doubt as to who he was talking about and what the case was about. In fact he had to make that phone call to find out about that very circumstance. Then he went one step further and got involved in a radio interview where anybody can see he most certainly was talking about the proceedings before the court and the specific family that had been named in the television programme. At the heart of all this is the threat that that letter poses to all MPs who decide to go out and take on a difficult case for their constituents. The right of free speech in this country is precious and the right of privilege to speak freely in this House is precious and it concerns me that in the 7 years I have been here the courts appear to be slowly encroaching upon both those rights with some stealth. This whole circumstance is very unfortunate. We certainly do not want to see a situation developing where Parliament through its Privileges Committee is at direct loggerheads with the judiciary but with the way we are going that looks like the way it will spin out. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Unlike the front-row prop for the National Party I will not be asking to be heard in silence. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is probably the whole front row but even a normal prop in any front row would be able to handle interjections. It was quite intriguing when Mr Brownlee talked about the right of freedom of speech in this House. He said that this House was the harbinger of that right yet not 35 minutes ago the Opposition absolutely denied the Minister of Maori Affairs the right under the Standing Orders to make a speech in this House in regard to a number of matters. Very very selective amnesia is practised on the other side. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is important that the parliamentary record is correct. The National Party did not deny leave for the Minister to speak. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is correct. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: One of the major differences that I want to talk about today in the debate is the real difference between us and them. We are proud to embrace the wonderful diversity of New Zealand and the New Zealand cultures and we actually reflect those on this side of the House unlike the bankrupt bunch over there. At a time when Opposition parties are pushing a silly line of rhetoric on one standard of citizenship—which is really about trying to return to some dreamt-up 1950s utopia out of somewhere like Dipton or Tauranga—we are busy working to build a vibrant and exciting New Zealand that embraces growing ethnic diversity. No doubt there are some challenges with growing ethnic diversity but with those challenges come new opportunities. New Zealand is coming of age as a vibrant multi-ethnic society and we are excited about that on this side of the House. It is a shame that scaremongering and innuendo are left to the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] The old rocker from Tauranga interjects. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Go and tell the tangata whenua that. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member always interjects when we talk about ethnic diversity and the like. One cannot say he is like Mick Jagger; he is probably a bit more like Tom Jones—he can at least half-fill a theatre. When the nannies throw their moth-eaten bloomers on to the stage to him he still revels in it—he loves it. He continues to think that it is great. There are a number of things that serve as a clear litmus test between us and them. We understand nationhood. We understand what the Opposition fails to understand which is that unilateral intervention in Iraq is a no. We refuse to make foreign policy on the basis of chasing greenbacks. We will not sell our sovereignty and we are led by leadership that clearly demonstrates that day in and day out. We will not sell Kiwi sovereignty—it is beyond any price. We are well respected in the foreign policy debates in that regard. We will not become the 51st state and that is the end of the story.  
In terms of managing the economy there used to be another litmus test. The question was asked can Labour manage the economy better than any other Government? The answer is in and the answer is yes we can. Spending and revenue have declined by one percentage point of gross domestic product. Government debt has collapsed. We have increased levels of national superannuation affordable rents and the availability of State housing to low-income tenants and we have improved access to tertiary education and health. We have restored capacity in the provision of a range of social services and on and on. We have raised more money and we have spent more money.  
Here is another litmus test which is about first-nation economies and infrastructural support. After 10 years of them what happened? Under those Tories—ably supported by the member for Tauranga—energy roads rail and the planes went down the gurgler as did any ability to run a first-nation economy. They all want to prattle on about America and the free standard of the free market. George Bush has voted US$1.5 billion to support Amtrak. What have we done? We have had to intervene in Tranz Rail because of Ruth Richardson Jim Bolger and Wayne Mapp—the failed doctor from Auckland University. He prattles on about it—Wayne Mapp the witch doctor.  
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He won it in a raffle. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes he won it in a raffle. He sits in this House and has no idea and we have to intervene in a number of areas. So the captains of industry who drove Tranz Rail into the ground and who underwrote the ACT party and the National Party could not run an economy—they know how to rape and pillage it but they do not know how to run it. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government tabled its Care of Children Bill. It was a long awaited response to concerns that New Zealand has faced over family law. In particular this House has heard of the need to introduce shared parenting into our legislation and to open up the Family Court—both of those issues were addressed in members’ bills that I brought into Parliament and both were voted against by the Labour Government—and this bill fails to do either. It is an absolute disgrace. The changes it has made to the Family Court are simply Clayton’s changes.  
New Zealanders deserve open justice and a free press. They are fundamental to the democratic process yet the New Zealand Family Court operates like a Star Chamber. It puts gagging orders on all the people involved. Victims are not allowed to talk about their experience. The media cannot report on the cases—they all fear criminal convictions or being thrown in jail. We even have a member of this House right now who was threatened by those same things simply because he wanted to talk about a family who was a victim of the Family Court. I say that that is an absolute disgrace. There is a long established principle that justice is not done unless it is seen to be done. New Zealand needs an open Family Court. We need proper media and public scrutiny of what goes on in that court while protecting the identity of individuals just like in Australia. In Australia there would not be the debacle of a case that is in and out of the courts. I refer to a matrimonial property dispute that started 7 years ago in the Family Court. It has been to the High Court and the Court of Appeal a number of times then back to the Family Court. There have been 53 hearings altogether over that case which has been going on for 7 years. The personal cost to the family involved is over $1 million and the cost to the taxpayer will be several million dollars. If that case had been open to proper scrutiny I believe that it certainly would have been sorted out many many years ago. 
 There is also the case of the custodial parent who lost his children to the mother who wanted to go and live in a caravan in Ireland taking the three young children away from their dad away from the grandparents away from everyone they knew to go to the other side of the world. That was an absolutely amazing judgment. Again this is a family that is torn apart. They cannot speak about it openly and I say it is a disgrace. Another case is of the father who had an ex parte protection order slapped on him for his new baby. He did not get to see that child until the child was almost a year old and when he finally had his day in court he found that the allegation was false. It was thrown out and meanwhile that dad had lost all those important years with his child.  
If countries have an open court they find that the number of false allegations falls through the floor. The number of cases of litigation peels away because people look and see what is ahead of them and they sort it out by mediation. There are no drawbacks to having a proper open court in New Zealand no drawbacks at all as long as the identities of individuals are protected and that is what should happen in this country. It would be a fairer system to all involved. Judges lawyers and caseworkers would all be subjected to proper scrutiny and held to account. There would be less litigation less cost to the taxpayer and better outcomes for children. It is an absolute disgrace that with this bill the Care of Children Bill—which could actually have done those things—the Labour Government has failed. All the bill says to me is that Labour does not care about children Labour does not care about families and Labour does not care about proper justice in New Zealand. This Government is a disgrace.  
Open justice and free speech are the right of every New Zealander. We need proper scrutiny of our courts. The only court in New Zealand that is not subjected to proper scrutiny is the court that deals with families and children. It is the Family Court that operates like a Star Chamber—no other. The victims of that court do not have an opportunity to have their say. I say it is a disgrace and the Labour members sitting there had the opportunity to change it. They had the opportunity to do something worthwhile for justice in New Zealand. This Government has absolutely failed. So I add my voice to the voices of the Opposition who say that change must be made in the future. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 If it walks like a flip-flop if it talks like a flip-flop if it sounds like a flip-flop then it is a flip-flop. That flip-flopping sound is not the sound of Gerry Brownlee hitting the ground begging for mercy and to be heard in silence; it is the sound of Bill English inventing yet another policy change. Let us go over some of the recent ones. Social policy: Bill English wants to get rid of National’s hard uncaring image built up over 9 long years in Government. Then what does he do? He puts Don Brash in as a social policy spokesperson. He wants to make domestic purposes benefit time limits compulsory and he wants to send people back to work under threat of losing the dole. That is why nobody believes National. It does not know whether it has a heart or whether it needs a heart transplant.  
Flip-flop number two is Nick Smith on education signage. Nick Smith says that separate signage is racist but he does not realise that the word “children” means the same in English as the word “tamariki” in Maori. He did not remember that the regulations under which they were promulgated were regulations he brought in when he was Minister of Education. Nick Smith has had to be covered up for today by Gerry Brownlee in what must surely be one of the most embarrassing interventions in a general debate in this term of Parliament. Gerry “Petal” Brownlee the front row prop was begging to be heard in silence because he could not get a word in edgewise. He was begging for mercy for Nick Smith. The member is obviously having a bad day. Clearly the stress of imminent litigation is weighing heavy on his extra broad shoulders. Why did an experienced former Minister when faced with a routine constituency case not write earlier to the responsible Minister directly? Why did he come to the House today and lose his cool? What is going on? And why did he allegedly go too far anyway in divulging information about the case? Why is the National Party seeking to litigate the matter against the Solicitor-General under cover of parliamentary privilege in the general debate and at the same time claiming the right of silence? That is appalling and an abuse of the Standing Orders. National cannot have it both ways. If it is potentially sub judice it should be kept in the legal area.  
Speaking of flip-flops National’s economic policy takes the cake. This Government has proved its farsightedness once again. Two weeks ago we said we were keeping some money in the putea kitty to cover contingencies. Last week we said that Tranz Rail needed to have a capital injection and we have done it and I have not heard a single word from a single constituent saying that that was the wrong call. New Zealanders want the trains to run on time and they have no respect for an Opposition that failed to put in place the proper safeguards for a botched privatisation yet has the gall to criticise us for fixing it. In the general debate Dr Cullen again showed himself to be a fine finance minister but it is not just about being respectful in the way he deals with business. It is also having the strength to call a line when it needs to be called and I refer to the outrageous Fairfax-INL potential masthead deal where that takeover was going to generate $700 million in profit according to press reports of which some $400 million was going to be through tax advantages on the masthead transaction. And the Minister of Finance quite rightly said “Not on my watch.” That is $400 million or so—if the press reports are to be believed—that we could spend on shortening waiting lists on putting police on the streets and on making sure our kids have a decent education not on feathering the nest of a parent corporation that may not know the difference between a proper business proposition and a tax avoidance matter. Our Minister of Finance is both fair and strong. He does a Budget that makes clear that this is a business-friendly Government but he also draws the line when it needs to be drawn against unfair and inappropriate business practice. We should contrast that with the National approach to economic policy. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It certainly has to be that this country is a land of opportunity when Mr Tamihere and Mr Cunliffe can be Ministers. They told me he was good! Did members hear that speech? He was all over the place. He does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha and he forgets that when New Zealand Rail was sold on 20 July 1993 his party supported it because in those days they were right-wingers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That gentleman doesn’t work here any more. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member has had his speech. I know it was a waste of time but he had his 5 minutes. We have just had official confirmation from the Department of Statistics that we in New Zealand will become the latest colony of Asia. For some bizarre reason that no sensible person understands this Government has started people-importing on a scale not seen since the Irish fled the potato famine in Ireland.  
Today I want to talk about one of the many less desirable imports encouraged by this Government—and there are thousands of them. I want to talk about a man called Edmund Poh or should I say one of Lianne Dalziel’s overstayers who goes by this name. There are about 20000 overstayers and she claims to be on top of this job. This man should have been deported years ago but under this Minister’s open-door amnesty policy this so-called entrepreneur was allowed to set up companies in New Zealand and go into the business of farming dogs for food first in Waiuku then in Albany. That is just what New Zealand needs—dog farms for food! He even advertised in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 17 August last year asking for farm workers who could speak Mandarin and Cantonese and the company director of course is a sole director called Edmund Poh—if that is his real name.  
 He comes from a country where dogs are very popular—as a delicacy on the dinner table after they have been killed in the most cruel vile inhumane and bestial circumstances. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh those people can laugh. John Tamihere said that he did not believe in selling out our sovereignty. But all Maori in this country know that shortly they will be overrun by people who are imported because Maori come second where Maori members are concerned—and where John Tamihere is concerned. He is a real lion back on the marae but down here it is: “Yes Helen yes Helen. Three bags full!” That is him.  
People in the area I have referred to have spoken about the screams and cries of pain of dogs in the night. Others have told of a large number of dogs that have suddenly disappeared and of the stench of death that hung over that property. It is doubtful that the authorities without action being taken will ever really know what happened there but we have been told that the dogs were tortured prior to being killed because that enhances the taste of the meat. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s this about? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What is it about? It is a foreign practice alien to this country which Cunliffe and people like that in their obsequious politically correct way will never confront and never face up to. [ 
Interruption 
] It does not I tell Mr Cunliffe belong in New Zealand. We have laws here. That man has a variety of devices and firearms and he has been apprehended by the authorities on a charge of cruelty to animals. [ 
Interruption 
] Over there like an ill-bred dog barking at everything that comes to the front gate is Mr Cunliffe. Mind you he could not be a pedigree. He does not look like a pedigree to me. He looks like a thorough crossbreed—a little bit of the wrong thing everywhere and no hair salon and dye can fix it up.  
A number of Asians have invested in that project. Their money has gone straight down the drain at Waiuku. I say that this man should have been given his marching orders but he was given a temporary visa. Thanks to the naive Minister of Immigration Dalziel he was not put on the next plane. He is there in Auckland contaminating the lifestyle of New Zealanders. We say that he should be sent back to where he came from taking his dog farming for food and other despicable practices like torture elsewhere. That is a form of social contamination and pollution and we have repeatedly warned this Government that we cannot throw open the doors to thousands of people from alien cultures without creating social and cultural dislocation and serious problems. We think that people like Poh know that New Zealand is a soft touch. He knows that he can get on in this country and do what he likes. In other countries he would have had his marching orders. When Mr Tamihere talks about sovereignty I ask him to think about that.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the start of the next member’s speech but I do so in his interests. Prior to your taking the Chair a member who was sitting in the Chamber Dr Smith was chastised by the Speaker for interjecting from a seat that was not his and he was silenced. Through the entire course of the Rt Hon Winston Peter’s speech that rather inane member Mr Cunliffe ran a non-stop inane barrage of chatter that did not even make sense. But more important it was interjecting. In the interests of the remaining speakers who have yet to have their time could I ask that that sort of nonsense be curtailed? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to give that member an assurance that we will not be interjecting on United Future members because they are quality MPs with good things to say. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. That is not a point of order.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ron Mark is quite right but I did not let the interjecting worry me for this reason: nobody in the whole country takes any notice of what Mr Cunliffe says.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need to hear any more on the matter. I realise there were many interjections. I thought I had quietened them down but in fact I rather thought that the person speaking was being driven on by them. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to debate the very serious issue of the ability of parliamentary members to act on behalf of constituents. The Hon Nick Smith has been the focus of attention during the last few days because of his comments over a Family Court matter. He has been threatened with prosecution because he spoke up on behalf of processes prejudicial to constituents. My argument is certainly not directed against the Family Court; nor is it directed against this Government. Rather my point in this debate is to question the ability of members of Parliament to be able to advocate adequately on behalf of constituents. If members of Parliament cannot fight for the rights of constituents who can?  
I have a case in mind. On 22 March 2003 Matthew Exeter showed up at the door of his neighbour’s house and after threatening to kill himself was let in by those concerned neighbours. During the course of the next hour he threw a kitchen knife at a 5-year-old—narrowly missing him—threatened the homeowner with a knife was violent and abusive and admitted he had snuck into their home on previous occasions. That was the first crime. The police showed up the next day after the emergency operator criticised the residents for not staying by the phone while they were trying to protect their young child. That was the second crime. But it is the final insult that I wish to speak to tonight. The victims were told to present themselves at a family conference and were given only 1 working day’s notice. They were not given a choice. They were told that if they did not show up the offender Matthew Exeter could be let out that very day. They were entitled to go to the conference without having to be in the same room as the offender and the support people. They were told against the advice I had obtained for them that they had to be in the same room. They were told that support people could not speak for them. Again that was false.  
During the course of the conference the victims felt unsafe—and with good reason. The legal guardians of Matthew Exeter the grandparents were in absolute denial about their grandson’s offences—originally 13 of them but whittled down to eight including two for attempted murder and six for assault with a weapon. The grandfather Kevin Exeter principal of Parkview School in Parklands lunged at one of the victims and had to be physically restrained by the police twice. The grandmother Lesley Exeter who not only founded Tough Love but was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal in the New Year’s Honours List 1999 was abusive belligerent and intimidating. At the conclusion of this conference—a conference where the victims were intimidated physically threatened and abused—the following suggestions were given: reparation was to be paid for damages but not for the damages to the car because apparently they were consequential; 60 hours—a miserable number—of community service were to be served; a curfew—unenforceable—between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. was to be reviewed after a month; Matthew Exeter was to reside with the obviously dysfunctional grandparents; and a recommendation was given by the social worker that as Matthew Exeter had already spent 2 months at Kingslea he would get no more time there.  
This begs the larger question: why did Matthew Exeter get dealt with as a youth when if he had actually killed somebody he would have been treated as an adult? Does that mean we reward incompetence? Are we saying that if 16-year-olds bungle attempts to murder we deal with them as children but if they succeed then they are adults? This is a person faced with charges of threatening to kill assault with a weapon and wilful damage who will in all likelihood be returned to his dysfunctional grandparents—Lesley Exeter who even went on  
Holmes 
 show as the result of her service to the community with the Tough Love organisation and who was a recipient of a Queen’s honour and Kevin Exeter a school principal who abused and had to be restrained by the police twice—but that is OK because he was young and incompetent in the commission of his intended stated crime of killing the victims and then himself. The victims were so scared that they could not come to the courthouse yesterday morning to face the proceedings and they will be selling up and going off to live in another city.  
I ask members to tell me who the victim is in this case. If I could not invoke it under parliamentary privilege no one in Parliament would be any the wiser. MPs must be free to represent their constituents’ interests without resorting to parliamentary privilege and it is for this reason that I will not be commenting further on this particular case outside the House. The issue of victims’ rights must take precedence over the issues of secrecy and privacy which clearly protect the guilty. Victims must come first and that is the point.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member but he seemed to be speaking about a Family Court conference. I would like you to consider whether hearings at a Family Court conference are privileged and confidential. Normally it would be a breach of privilege to comment on something that has taken place in that way in front of a court especially with names being mentioned. Perhaps you could look at the  
Hansard  
and give some consideration to whether we are now entitled to make speeches about what happens at a Family Court conference— 
Marc Alexander 
: It wasn’t the Family Court. 
DAIL JONES 
: It was a victims-type conference or whatever the member’s exact wording was. I am just a little concerned about that.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a valid concern. I will have it checked out but it seemed all right to me. It was not a Family Court conference.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Yes that is right I am a geriatrician. I am a doctor and I want to talk about coronary artery bypass grafting. I want to talk about that because patients who need coronary artery bypass grafting are probably our most fragile patients—the patients most at risk of death when things go wrong. That is why it ends up in the media. If we mess up the system for patients needing coronary artery bypass grafting then we have deaths on our hands. Patients die from heart disease every day of the week.  
But I want to talk about the Capital and Coast District Health Board. Today the Minister said Labour had no ideological objection to public-private partnerships. I would like Annette King to tell us of just one new public-private partnership that has begun with her district health boards since this Government took office. Just tell me one! There is no answer from across the House. Can anybody here can think of one? No there is dead silence. All that has happened is that contracts have been cancelled—just as Wakefield Hospital’s contract with Wellington Hospital was cancelled.  
A system was set up last year in which $1.7 million of cardiac funding was kept by Capital and Coast—not spent on cardiac surgery spent on other things and patients died. That was just dismissed. Capital and Coast said in its annual plan that it was an achievement to have bought all surgery in-house. The Minister quotes figures that say that the number of surgical procedures has increased. Of course they have increased because she does not take into account the ones that were transferred from Wakefield Hospital. She does not ever count the ones that were done at Wakefield Hospital. The numbers for coronary artery bypass grafting have stayed very similar. What has happened next is that Capital and Coast has not been able to keep up with its cardiac waiting list so as to deliver within 6 months. It changed the intensive care bed policy and booked all electives into intensive care. If a hospital does that acute patients will always bump elective patients. The hospital should know that and have a contingency plan for it.  
John Russell was not cancelled once but twice. I heard Lianne Dalziel say that we should listen to the patients. Well we cannot listen to that patient because he has died but his fiancée has had plenty to say on the matter. She is appalled at the status and level of care. It shows a decline in our public hospital system. It shows the non-responsiveness of a public hospital system. Do members know that John Russell was told to go home by the patient next to him? He woke up and could not find a nurse. The patient next to him said: “You have got to go home now.” Nobody came to check him out. He went home the second time rather than being transferred to a private hospital for his surgery.  
The reason I go on about private hospitals is that acute surgery does not impact on elective surgery at private hospitals because they do not do a lot of acute surgery. A patient can book surgery and be certain that the surgery will go ahead. The Minister has said that Labour does not have a problem with public-private partnerships but she appoints the board chairman and members of the board and that board has problems with private care. Because of that it cancelled Wakefield Hospital’s contract and therefore someone like John Russell was twice cancelled for coronary artery bypass grafting—a man of 42 and father of two—rather than being moved to a private hospital where he could have had his surgery and been alive today.  
The other thing that has happened is that the points system has gone up. At Christchurch Dunedin and also at Capital and Coast the points one needs for surgery have increased. That is not acceptable. The Minister of Health does nothing about that. She will not have an inquiry. She is the invisible Minister of Health. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Prostitution Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 14 May. 
Parts 1 to 3 and Schedule  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Currently workers in the sex industry are suffering by being coerced bullied beaten and raped. They dare not speak out because if they do they are criminals. I ask those members who are hiding their heads in the sand: if prostitutes want to leave the industry what choices do they have when they have a criminal record? They have no choice whatsoever—they are trapped within the industry.  
Those who advocate that the client should be the criminal are quite wrong. That will only drive this industry further underground and it is underground already. That will increase the power of the corrupt involved in the industry. That will prevent workers having access to health and safety standards and to rights of employment that every worker should enjoy. I support this bill because it is about justice safety and dignity. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I will begin my speech on the Prostitution Reform Bill today by telling the Committee that 2 or 3 weeks ago I had a grave crisis of conscience over this bill and was seriously considering changing my support for it. I was persuaded somewhat by a meeting I had with a Dr Melissa Farley who is reputed to have provided research on the matter of prostitution. She apparently interviewed about 46 prostitutes particularly in Auckland and Wellington. While I disagreed with her at the time I took time afterwards to consider what she and I had debated. I also went for a walk down memory lane to visit the old haunts so to speak to remind myself why I was supporting this bill. When I reflected upon some of the violence and unpleasantness that occurs in this industry I began to ask myself if I was doing the right thing in supporting this bill and very nearly changed to not supporting it. But today I have gone back to my original feelings about the bill because I have been reliably informed about the research of Dr Melissa Farley and now question its credibility. As members might have done I have received not only the preliminary report she produced but also the questionnaire answered by those prostitutes.  
I was visited by a lady by the name of Colleen Winn who was briefly employed by Dr Melissa Farley while she was in New Zealand doing this research. Her employment ceased very quickly because she suddenly discovered that she had a number of concerns that she could not possibly continue working with. I would like to enlighten the Committee about that because I know some members have been using Dr Farley’s research in their speeches against this bill. I would like to read extracts from a letter Ms Winn has written to me subsequent to a meeting I had with her last week in my constituency office. I quote: “I believe Melissa did state that Maori women were entering prostitution as young as 9 years old. Part of my position as researcher on this study was to help to collate data as I viewed all the questionnaires. I did not see these figures in the study at all. However there were two women who stated that their first sexual experience was at age 9.” Question 13 of the questionnaire reads: “How old were you when you had your first sexual experience of any kind?” I refer members to page 3 of the research I have here where it states: “An adolescent told us that if she were out of prostitution she would just like to be at home. She had been in prostitution since age of 9. A Maori girl New Zealand street prostitution 2003.” Clearly the answer to question 13 was put across as though it were the answer to question 1. Question 1 in the questionnaire asks: “What age were you when you first started prostitution?”  
I will carry on with extracts from that letter: “On the second day of my employment with Melissa Farley I discovered that her research project had not been seen or passed by any ethics committee in New Zealand. It was at this point that I withdrew my services as researcher and terminated my employment agreement. I have read and am aware of the ethics of psychologists working in New Zealand. I know these were not adhered to.” That is of concern in relation to this research. It is interesting to note that after Colleen Winn had raised concerns that the questionnaire had not been passed by an ethics committee in New Zealand she told me orally that on occasions some of the prostitutes were in receipt of about $20 for answering the questionnaire. That seems a little unethical to me but the explanation was that prostitutes charge for their time.  
I continue to quote from the letter: “I am aware that Melissa gave a TV interview with the  
Breakfast 
 show and quoted a statistic as being 86 percent in New Zealand.” From what I can gather she was referring to the second paragraph on page 2 of Dr Farley’s preliminary report: “We found significant race/ethnic differences in age of entry into prostitution: 68 percent of Maori respondents entered prostitution at the age of 17 or younger.” I make that point because television is nationwide and viewed by many people and an incorrect impression might have been given—there is a difference between 86 percent and 68 percent.  
Finally it is the opinion of Ms Winn that this study “was not ethical and the impact has done harm to those women and men who took part in it. It is for that reason that I am writing to the psychologists board of registration in California to lay a formal complaint regarding Melissa. I also believe that Melissa has committed an act of intentional misrepresentation of fact.” That last point was the reason Ms Winn contacted me. She also offers to talk to anybody else who wishes to clarify further some of the matters she has raised but she just has not had the opportunity to contact members of Parliament. She also told me that Ms Farley’s research was funded by the Maxim Institute. I would have thought that such an august group might have been a little more considered in employing someone. At least it should have passed questionnaires through the New Zealand ethics committee to make sure that the research adhered to all of that.  
In reflecting back on my experiences I asked myself what would be achieved if nothing happened with this bill and the status quo remained. That would simply not be good enough so my support for the bill will continue. Issues have been raised that there would be an explosion of gang and criminal involvement etc. if the law were liberalised but I do not think that will be the case. When something is opened up and is more public with—for want of a better term—more State control the last thing the criminals will want is to be engaged in that area because it is fraught with all sorts of problems. They prefer to work underground—that way they can keep out of the sight of the laws in this country as much as possible so I believe that there are some issues around that. I will stop there for now but I may want to speak later. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 In all humility do we as citizens really want this bill to be passed? Do we want our generations yet to come to be born into a world of degradation? Do we want our children and our grandchildren to have available as they would under this bill a recommendation that there is a job down the road as a prostitute and that if it does not work out the Accident Compensation Corporation and Work and Income New Zealand will be available to provide further assistance if needed? Where will this bill take New Zealand citizens? Where will it place families on the agenda of New Zealand’s social structure? I have great regard for those who have stood to be counted as being against this bill and I challenge those who support this bill to go back to their electorates and talk to the families who reside there. They will find that the great majority of them will speak out against it.  
This bill is an abomination against society and it is against the sound social fabric of families. It will never alleviate the problems that we do have but it will escalate them into a situation that will go beyond our control. New Zealand First strongly proposes that this Parliament vote against the Prostitution Reform Bill so that families will continue to be strong—so that they will contribute to our communities positively and uphold standards of integrity and decency. I also notify this Committee that New Zealand First opposes any suggestion of making any amendments to cushion what will still be disastrous.  
How in the world can anyone say that this bill is flying the banner of human dignity? Does it enhance the protocols of decency? Does this bill encourage proper and good health practices? Is there any moral integrity in this bill? For those who have a concern for the future of our people and nation I strongly recommend that we vote against it. It is an abomination to all humanity. I am astounded when I hear people express concern for their families and say how much they mean to them then go into reverse to support proposed legislation that will contribute hugely to a failure of promoting good family values. 
 I am appalled that we as a society will in some instances support such legislation even with suggested alternatives when in the case of this bill evidence already exists that very young girls are out on the streets trying to make a dollar to satisfy the demands of gangs throughout the nation and especially now that we have in our communities and schools the enormous problems that methamphetamine is creating. Our world has enough trash in it without us engineering more through legislation that will bring our nation to its knees.  
In conclusion I leave the Committee with this thought: it all begins with our own personal virtue. Reformation of the world begins with reformation of self. We cannot hope to influence others in the direction of moral virtues unless we live lives of virtue. The example of our virtuous living will carry a greater influence than will all the preaching postulating and theorising that we might indulge in. We cannot expect to lift others unless we are standing on higher ground. Finally I give a quotation from Professor Hirini Moko Meads which I will translate: “He toi whakairo he mana tangata.”: where there is artistic excellence there is human dignity. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I have used my right to speak as sponsor of this bill quite sparingly but I thought now might be a good chance to draw together some of the threads of the Committee stage to date. So far in this stage we have debated the bill for about 6 hours and passed its title. Many of us earnestly hope we will be dealing with the amendments before today’s sitting finishes. I know the record of these debates is important for the future and there are issues around the bill particularly those touched on by the amendments today that some members are still exploring.  
To try to focus my comments I took what some may regard as a brave step of sitting down with the  
Hansard  
of our last Committee stage debate which took place 4 weeks ago today. I analysed the speeches in opposition to the bill and identified the main lines of argument. The immediate thing that struck me was that the nature of this debate has changed. Some new issues have arisen; some others have subsided. I have prepared some new briefing notes that focus on those matters and they have been circulated today to members.  
This bill is a product of years of discussion. Some here may regard it as a work of the devil or even worse. But I do hope that all can respect it as a desperately serious attempt to address some real evils. I also hope that members can respect that its authors from Maurice Williamson to Katherine O’Regan from the National Council of Women of New Zealand to Business and Professional Women were and are utterly convinced that the decriminalisation model was and is the proper way to go. I also note that no one has questioned the fact that this nation’s major women’s human rights and public health groups support this proposed new law for prostitution. Some members have questioned whether Parliament has spent sufficient time on this legislation. Oddly enough the same members seem also to bemoan the fact that we are facing so many amendments during this Committee stage. Well no force on earth will stop members of Parliament from producing amendments on a complex matter such as prostitution. Indeed what we are going through now is a process enthusiastically supported by the New Zealand public. We have approached a progressive internally consistent proposal for law change in a cross-party way.  
This bill was largely prepared by two National members of Parliament and sponsored by myself a Labour MP. The Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the bill was chaired by two MPs one National and one ACT. Some members claim there was “nothing broke” in the way our prostitution law currently works so why fix it? That is one of the most sterile of arguments. Firstly it is so lacking in ambition for this nation. I want us to have high-quality law in every area not some awkward fudge because Parliament is too afraid to bite the bullet and deal with the hard issues. Secondly that argument passively leaves an acceptable level of discretion in the hands of our police. It is simply unacceptable for our approach to prostitution to be based on law with inherent gender bias that can be activated by police who decide that some street workers are easy pickings on a quiet night. That was what happened in Auckland on two nights this year. The police made a series of arrests on the streets of Auckland. They were damaging their relationship with members of a community whose cooperation is vital to effective policing in the inner city and who are vulnerable to violent attack by the nature of their work—a danger increased because our laws tell them to live in the shadows. I tell those Maori and Samoan members of Parliament who intend to oppose this bill to explain their vote to Maori and Samoan prostitutes who are demanding law change and who are much more likely to be arrested than their Pakeha counterparts.  
The 2003 year has also seen at least three police raids of reportedly unregistered escort agencies. The charge will be brothel keeping. The evidence will include condoms found on the scene yet the Inland Revenue Department is happy to accept those workers as taxpayers and even operate a special unit to cater for them and public health helps to provide those condoms. If that is not State hypocrisy I do not know what is. I am sorry that the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland and Wayne Mapp currently before this Committee sustain all that nonsense. Other members claim that we have done insufficient research on the topic. The select committee met on and off for 2 years on this matter. Its members travelled the country received 222 submissions covering every conceivable viewpoint and heard 66 submissions. We were advised by four State agencies including those of police and health. Our desire to travel to see how the laws were operating in Australia came up against the rules governing select committees so we personally paid to go in order that we as a Committee could do the best job possible.  
Some say that this bill normalises prostitution but they carefully avoid saying what they really mean by that. Does the Human Rights Act normalise discrimination? Does consumer law normalise shonky trade practices? Well my bill certainly decriminalises—that means specific law targeted on clear criminalities and exposure to all of the general laws. The result is that an activity that is currently regulated by police-driven systems will instead be regulated by the range of State agencies that most small businesses have to contend with; plus there will be distinct laws on such varied issues as safer sex practices signage and age limit. Is that normalising? This bill specifically makes no moral judgment about prostitution any more than other laws on consensual adult activity seek to pass judgment. Some have argued that this bill was amended at the select committee in ways that effectively increased the level of acceptance of prostitution. That is simply not true. Amendments agreed to relate to penalties which were increased to the establishment of a review committee and to some very specific scenarios brought to the attention of the committee particularly banning Work and Income from referring people to sex work.  
The arrogance of some lines of argument we have had relating to this bill are a little staggering. Some claim that this bill will not offer any help to sex workers. By implication they claim they know more about what it is like to be a sex worker than do members of the Prostitutes Collective. If this bill passes in its present form sex workers will benefit in the following ways: their work environments will improve in accordance with an occupational safety and health code which could not be produced under the current law; they will be less constrained in forming collectives or similar worker-run businesses—currently such businesses run as escort agencies and are outside the law; they will be able to be employed under employment contracts which is impossible under current law; they will be able to withdraw from an implied contract with a client without fear of a sanction from the operator of the prostitution business; operators who use coercive behaviour against their sex workers will face higher penalties than they do now; 
if they are street workers they will be able to use the services of a safe house as a location for sexual activity with their client rather than in a street or the back of a car—such a house would now breach a number of current laws; if they are street workers they will no longer be in danger of arrest for soliciting offences and thus will not have a prostitution related conviction—such a conviction makes obtaining a mortgage or travel to Australia or the USA virtually impossible; and they will also be served by a more comprehensive range of agencies that are designed to help them to exit from prostitution.  
The honourable member who spoke before me spoke of a world of degradation and of prostitution as treated in this bill as an abomination against society. I have just identified a list of positive interventions to help people who are suffering in our society and to create balance in law. It is about higher ground not about the comments made by that previous member. We have 21 amendments to decide on at the end of this Committee stage. Some enhance the bill some cause minor damage to it and some in my view would cripple the legislation and I reserve my right as sponsor of the bill to take more calls as we focus on those issues. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this bill in its entirety. We have just listened to the Minister speak to all the ideals that he wants to happen through this bill. I want to pitch my korero at the Maori MPs across the House. I want to pitch my korero in relation to the disgraceful despicable and demeaning law this bill will provide for Maoridom. I thank the kaumatua the Hon Dover Samuels and Nanaia Mahuta. I am sure their constituents will also thank them for the stand they have taken against this bill. I thank them for the positive vote that they have given. 
I want to touch on one or two things. In relation to drug abuse I say to members in the Chamber today that the methamphetamine problem of the moment will be the gangs’ outlet for the supply of this particular drug. I tell the Maori MPs that I have here a copy of the  
Assignment 
 programme shown on television last week that portrayed 13 and 14-year-old Maori women prostitutes. The programme said that 8 and 9-year-old Maori girls are currently on the street prostituting themselves. I want to explain to members why that is. In west Auckland women are using the drug P and to finance their drug habit they are crossing to south Auckland to prostitute themselves to get the money to go back to west Auckland and purchase drugs. I say to Maori MPs that they should look at that  
Assignment  
programme if they have not already.  
My first question to Maori MPs is whether they are happy to go into the next election with this conscience issue over their heads. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Absolutely! 
EDWIN PERRY 
: We will soon see. This afternoon I have heard that Maoridom is happy with this bill. I do not know what street those members have been going down or whom they have been speaking to but quite frankly the Maori constituents I speak to disagree with this bill. Last Friday I spoke on Ngati Porou radio in respect of this bill. The feedback from the listeners was overwhelmingly that the Maori MPs on the Government side of the House should cross the floor and vote against this bill. The heart of Maoridom is saying that but no those members will vote for this bill to pass through the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s a conscience vote. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I know it is a conscience vote. At the end of the day they will vote for it and if they do then the responsibility is on their heads for the next election. At the next election we will go out and tell the whanau who voted for this particular bill.  
In a letter I received from Chris Olsen who has her master’s degree with honours in public policy is a trustee for the Oasis Youth and Community Trust facility in Wainuiomata and who knows a bit about this subject she wrote: “We know of a young person who is involved in prostitution to clear a debt and the effects on the life of this person. To maintain such a horrible life this person started to use drugs and alcohol to try and blot out the miserable life that she was leading as a prostitute.” So if those MPs think that this is the right bill to vote for then I ask them to think again. Postitution will become the centre of influence for criminal activity. 
I also mention the trafficking of women. There will be an increase in the importation of Asian women into the country to service the prostitution industry. Of recent times there has been several reports of clothing workers from Asian countries being entrapped in New Zealand and made virtual slaves in the prostitution industry. 
It was reported in an Australian newspaper on 2 March 2000 that the New South Wales police commissioner when commenting on 40 shootings in 3 months in Sydney suburbs stated that there was a struggle between rival groups for control of the drug and prostitution trade. I say to the members present today that gangs are shooting at each other already. It will become a matter of a patch boundary for gangs. They will be involved in securing their patches in the areas for prostitution. We have heard in previous korero on this particular bill that gangs will not be able to buy into this practice. I am telling members that they will be able to do so. They will put a clean-skinned person up they will front this business with money and they will get their hands on and control of this industry.  
New Zealand First has been informed that in 1992 a UK criminologist stated that all prostitutes suffered deep physiological damage as a result of this occupation. I can just see our young Maori women being led down this track into deprivation and the breakdown of the family unit. Quite frankly this is a deplorable bill that is being offered to our young people. All I heard from the Minister this afternoon was about young Maoris and that is the track I am taking. Sandra Coney probably New Zealand’s foremost advocate for women and the current executive director of the Women’s Health Action Trust is totally opposed to this bill. If that is not enough information for Maori MPs across the House what more do we have to put in? 
New Zealand First is a political party that strongly supports the family and family values. We see the family as the core of our society. Normalising prostitution attacks the very foundation of our society and of our families. In closing I say that New Zealand First will endeavour to make prostitution an election issue. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (NZ National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to deal with only two basic headings in my presentation tonight because this subject goes all over the paddock when people are speaking. The two things I want to cover are under the headings of “That’s what’s going on under the current law” and “Is that what we really want for people?”. 
Firstly I have heard some impassioned speeches from the Hon Dover Samuels and just now from Edwin Perry telling us about 13-year-old girls in Papatoetoe and what is going on. I sit listening and think that something is going wrong in this regard. They oppose this bill but they are telling us about all the dreadful things that are going on now before the bill is passed. It is not this bill that is doing it. Thirteen-year-old girls are prostituting themselves under the current law. I would have thought that members would want to change that. 
Stephen Franks 
: This won’t do that! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The member says that this bill will not do it but it will free up law and order officers to start to deal with those issues that are wrong. We think that being under-age is wrong coercion is wrong and drugs are wrong. We think all of those other things that I hear being mentioned that this legislation will supposedly allow. Well it is not. It simply is not. When I hear about the use of methamphetamine and prostitution in south Auckland I know it is going on right now. I heard the Hon Dover Samuels say that he went to Greenwoods Corner or wherever it was and saw for himself what was going on. Again I say to members that that is happening now under the law as it now stands. I am staggered that every member of Parliament—as those members speak—does not want to change what is going on now. I do not want 13-year-old girls coerced. I do not want the problem of gangs drugs and all those other practices. 
I most certainly do not want that but I do not believe that the State should play a role in a willing seller - willing buyer situation between consenting adults—where there is no coercion no force by drugs or whatever else—and make somebody a criminal because of it. I stress that prostitution has to be done in proper circumstances. We cannot have it occurring in the general public arena in front of schools and so on even if it did involve consenting adults. All of us do not want that. 
I have seen example after example of what is happening. In fact the worse example I saw happening when I was a Minister was when I was negotiating with the Prostitutes Collective to provide condoms for the safe-sex message and the police used those condoms—condoms that we as a Government had provided—as evidence of prostitution. Another example which just left me cold was in Christchurch and involved a couple of policemen posing as TV3 cameramen. They went into a massage parlour and upstairs into the little booths took off their clothes lay naked next to a young lady and when she then offered to do something they said: “You’re busted!” Where was the crime there? Do the police not have a helluva lot more issues they should be putting their time into? Yes if one of those ladies had been under age and yes if one of them were being forced by some drug baron to do it or whatever then I would agree with every member here. 
I hope that everyone will look at the amendments to ask how we can get a sensible outcome so that we can start to clear the kids from the industry and focus on getting out on the streets where people are vulnerable and being hurt. I do not want sex workers working on the streets under any circumstances but one of the crazy things about the current law is that a person caught and convicted of soliciting is then banned from working in a massage parlour—which is probably the safest place for that person to be. I do not understand that. I would have thought that we would want to get those people away to a safe place where one knows what is going on and where as long as the situation is between consenting adults everyone has some protections and rights. That is what we want. 
But I go back to my heading. All these speeches have been about what is going on now. They have been impassioned speeches; they have been quite brilliant speeches. Those speeches would have a helluva lot of merit if they were being given in say 2 years’ time and said: “That’s what Tim Barnett’s bill has caused.” But not one of them was. Every one of the speeches is about “That’s what’s going on now. That’s what you will see in Papatoetoe tonight. That’s what you will see in west Auckland tonight.”—and this bill has not yet been passed. So I ask everyone to think about doing something. 
I move to the second heading “Is that what you really want?”. We get these dreadful questions being asked of us like: “Would you want your daughter to be a prostitute?”. Of course we would not. God knows I would not want my daughter to grow up to be a politician either. I hope she never does. If she does I will still love her and forgive her and I will hope that one day she sees some sense. What I am saying is that we would not want that. I would prefer that prostitution did not exist and I hope that one day everyone is financially viable enough never to have to consider it and so on. But the reality is that there has always been prostitution in the world and there always will be even when the punishments are very severe. In some Islamic countries the punishment is being stoned to death. It still happens.  
So the idea that we will fix the problem of prostitution by making it illegal is simply nonsense. It is like the Americans in the 1920s saying: “Booze is so bad but I’ll tell you what we will do. We’ll make it illegal and that will fix the alcohol issue.” I do not think there is a single person in this House including even some of the wowsers around here who think that going to prohibition would be the right way to fix an alcohol problem. 
I want a sensible piece of legislation. Again I go back to the willing seller - willing buyer situation. If members of this House want I am very happy for them to put up whatever amendments they think will safeguard people against under-age prostitution and coercion. I know that Lianne Dalziel has some good stuff about the immigration issue. We have just heard that all the Thai workers will be flocking in here to work. Well immigration laws can be fixed to deal with that situation. Phil Goff has some stuff about local authorities having some say about the location of premises. I will support that. I am a big fan to support anything that gets all of those bits tidied. But in the end it comes down to this: do we want to make a criminal out of a person who does this or do we want to try to put in some support and help? 
I hear some of the religious people in this Chamber—and I am not one of them—go on about being Christian. I think the least Christian thing one could do is to persecute and punish somebody who is involved in prostitution. If anything if we really believed those members’ view that prostitution is so bad evil degrading and dehumanising then we should be feeling some sympathy and support for prostitutes rather than wanting to punish them prosecute them make them into criminals and so on. 
I want all members in this House to start focusing their speeches on two things: first of all what will these changes bring about and what do they want. I do not want them to keep going on about what is there now and how evil it is. What is there now is evil and that is the exact reason for passing this bill—to change the situation. As my final parting shot I have to say to the Catholic Action Group—which has again threatened me today with burning in hell for ever for eternity—that it will be a helluva lot warmer in that climate than it is out there right now because it is damn cold. I will give them the figures— 
Rodney Hide 
: There are better people down there. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There are better people down there too—yes. All I can say is that I have done the numbers—I have a physics background. At an average of 5000 degrees Celsius—that is an estimate of what the temperature of the furnaces are; I do not know—with my body mass of 82 kilograms I would last 3.2 seconds and that is hardly eternity in my view. Their view is just nonsense. We should not even deign to listen to the sort of rubbish about the moral sin and burning in hell. 
This House has an obligation to pass sensible legislation that protects those adults who are consenting to prostitution in private and not causing trouble and then to begin the clean-up of the under-age problem the coercion the drugs the stolen property the gangs and whatever else. I hear again that if prostitution is made legal the gangs will all move into it. Prostitution in the early 1900s in the United States was totally illegal and the Mafia ran the lot. So if members think that making it illegal gets the gangs out I point out that the evidence shows the exact opposite. When it was totally illegal the Mafia and John Dillinger and all the boys ran prostitution and the numbers rackets right through Chicago and right through New York. All I can say is that that argument holds no water whatsoever. 
I ask members when they speak to try to focus please on things that will fix the current problems because they are serious ones. Let us get ourselves into an environment where we can move on where sex workers can be safe and in a safe environment and hopefully where we become financially viable as a nation to the point that people do not have to do such things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I indicate to members that we have had a very full rigorous and passionate debate and that is the way it should be in this place. But interjections have not always been in keeping with the standard of behaviour that has occurred so far in this debate. So I ask members to take that into account please. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First of all in response to the previous speaker who has appealed to us about the fact that if we make prostitution illegal it will not change things I refer him to an article from the  
Dominion Post  
that talks about the death of a poor sex worker in Sydney Australia where of course it has been decriminalised since 1995. When that poor woman choked to death on her vomit it ended 15 torturous years in Australia first as a child sex slave then as a heroin-addicted prostitute.  
The article stated: “Puongtong died malnourished weighing only 31 kilograms but her lonely death in a Sydney detention centre in 2001 sparked neither newspaper headlines nor outrage from politicians.” It is true that we have a situation that exists right now and is not satisfactory for us as a country but it is not true to say that by decriminalising that activity it is going to get any better. It has not anywhere in the world. All the international evidence points to the fact that it has in fact got worse not only with the situation regarding local prostitutes but also in the incidence of international trafficking in women and children and slavery has increased in every nation that has liberalised its prostitution laws.  
I want to make some comments about one of the first speakers tonight Georgina Beyer who viciously attacked Melissa Farley’s research. I am rather disappointed because I had understood and had heard from the member’s own mouth that her opposition—which had switched in the last few weeks towards this bill—was based not on Melissa’s research but on the fact she had been back to look at where she had been involved in prostitution herself in her life some years ago and her conclusion had been that this legislation did nothing to prevent women from entering prostitution nor did it do anything to help women exit the industry and that is why she was considering opposing it. Melissa Farley’s research had nothing to do with that. In fact no one in this House would know better what a hellhole prostitution is than Georgina Beyer herself. The idea that this bill was supposed to prevent women from entering it is a nonsense and that is why we oppose it. It is not going to deliver for the people involved in prostitution what they hope it will.  
In fact regardless of Melissa’s research I have conducted several public debates around the country since this bill has been of public interest and prostitutes from both sides of the camp have stood up during those debates. Some are hoping that this bill is going to solve all their problems and others some of whom had years of experience disagreed. In fact one who had 20 years' experience was at the most recent debate where Sue Bradford was present and she said she has been in massage parlours all over the country. She has been a prostitute all around the world and she completely scorned the idea that this bill was going to make life better for prostitutes. If we cannot take it from the mouth of that prostitute who has some credibility then I do not know who we are going to be listening to. Melissa Farley came here on a very short trip—10 days. She did her very best to interview prostitutes from morning till night to try to get some indication of what is really happening in New Zealand and I think it is deplorable that people are attacking minute details of that research as a way of trying to shift the emphasis upon the horrible lifestyle that prostitutes have in this country.  
I am also concerned about the status quo. I do not believe that the status quo in this country is good enough. I have racked my brains over the last months to try to see what we could actually do that would be common sense in order to address some of the concerns that are raised by this bill. I put forward an amendment that I thought might have offered some assistance. I am sympathetic to the fact that these poor women can be tricked by policemen in a massage parlour and prosecuted for soliciting when the massage parlour owner—who is operating as a brothel keeper and is living off the earnings of prostitution which is an offence under the Crimes Act—is allowed to get away scot-free. I think that that is an injustice and I would like to have addressed it. I think it is also a shame that women who are soliciting on the street are prosecuted but the police do not go round the corner and find the illegal brothel and do something about that. But as I have tried to find a way forward I have come to the conclusion that almost anything we try to do with this bill to try to make life better for a prostitute ends up having a very negative consequence. So I shall be withdrawing my amendment as from tonight. I have had to admit that it will not achieve what I hoped it would achieve. If we take away the Summary Offences Act— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has used up his speeches. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have not. I have had only one speech in this section of the debate. I spoke during the debate on the title but I have not spoken during this section. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: According to the notes we have here the member has had his four calls on this part. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have not Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will check that. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I shall come back to you after the dinner break. I did not get a call last time we debated this in the entire evening that we debated it and prior to that it was the vote— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I come back to the member shortly on that please? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tim Barnett is naive if he believes that the decriminalisation of prostitution will not see an increase in the number of people entering the industry. Decriminalising prostitution and putting it on the same footing as other occupations and businesses is simply legitimising the entire industry and it is sending the wrong message out to the young and the vulnerable who will see prostitution as a genuine career choice. That would be a tragedy.  
Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and well-being of prostitutes and the public as a whole to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and to protect them from exploitation. That sounds well and good but the decriminalisation of prostitution in the manner that this bill attempts also legitimises the peripheral businesses along with it; in other words drugs trafficking and pimping—everything that goes with it. The question must be asked: is this bill’s ultimate intention to legitimise those peripheral businesses and to decriminalise the trafficking and exploitation of young women and drugs because both of those also have serious health problems associated with them? Prostitution is the hiring of humans to act like sexualised puppets. Prostitution always includes the dehumanisation objectification and fetishisation of women and children. Decriminalisation makes prostitution no safer or less humiliating for those in it. It simply puts the State in the role of pimp collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is what this Government is good at and this bill adds pimping to the Government’s credentials. In other words they will be living off the earnings of prostitutes.  
Let us have a look at some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. Dianne Yates makes an attempt at criminalising the client. That is commendable—it is part of a bill that New Zealand First has in the ballot—but that particular Supplementary Order Paper is nothing more than a band-aid because it will not work under this bill. The bill has clauses that will completely negate her Supplementary Order Paper. Let us look at Lianne Dalziel’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister of Immigration would have us believe that she will control the immigration aspect of this bill and make it illegal for immigrants and student immigrants to work as prostitutes. This Minister has already demonstrated that she is unable to control or even correctly identify student immigrants. How on earth does this Minister think that she will control prostitution under this bill? How will the Minister prevent students from entering prostitution to pay for their fees? Maybe she will wait until New Zealand First points it out to her then again she will ignore the warnings until prostitution is so rife that she can no longer ignore the issue. Then she will claim she was on to it all along. Wayne Mapp has an amendment also. Wayne Mapp was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and he tells me that his amendment is designed to bring the bill back into line with the select committee’s views and recommendations. If that is correct then it begs the question: why was the select committee’s review not included and why has this bill deviated so much from those views that it has attracted so many amendments?  
Since the introduction of this bill in September 2000 my New Zealand First colleague Peter Brown has carried out an enormous amount of work. He has spoken to many interest groups and individuals some of whom have been for this bill and some against. Peter Brown has spoken to them all. As a result of that work I am pleased and proud to be able to sponsor a member’s bill called the Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitute Care) Bill. The bill is in the ballot and is waiting to be drawn. That bill is based on the Swedish law model which was introduced in 1999. Much of the work and research in that bill has been undertaken by Peter Brown. Under the provisions in my bill the client will be prosecuted. My bill counteracts the harmful effects of prostitution by making it a criminal offence to be a client in an act of prostitution. Accompanying the prohibition with associated measures directed at restricting advertising among other things it provides support mechanisms that will help prostitutes to get out of the industry. The bill will make sure that prostitutes have all the support they need when they want to leave the industry and to encourage them to leave. New Zealand First’s bill which is in the ballot intends to change the whole face of prostitution.  
I conclude by saying that I oppose the Prostitution Reform Bill. I oppose the amendments that go with it because they are trying to water down the whole effect of the bill and detract from the real issue which is that legitimising prostitution only legitimises the industries that build up around prostitution and that is the wrong thing to do. This bill goes about it the wrong way. We propose to put up our bill to replace it. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. First I acknowledge the mistake I made in that I have had three calls as the Clerk has pointed out. I understand that in the beginning when the House agreed that this bill would be debated in parts rather than part by part the debate was to be wide-ranging with as many calls as a member wished to take. Since then the goal posts have moved a bit and members are limited to four calls. There is a lot that has to be said. I am not wasting the Committee’s time. I am making constructive comments and I wish to make some comments about two more of the amendments that are before the Committee. Therefore I seek leave of the Committee to be able to have some additional calls this evening. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave for an additional call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it for one call or four? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is it for one call? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I think I need two if I may to complete what I need to say. We have plenty of time in this Committee for such an important piece of legislaiton. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I seek leave for one extra call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has now sought leave for one extra call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I do hope that we do not draw out this debate for too long because I think that it would be great if we could vote tonight. Having said that I should not be taking a call but I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that is on the Table from the Green Party—from myself with Sue Kedgley behind me. We had two separate amendments earlier in the Committee stage and as we are about to vote I hope on the amendments I am seeking support for the revised amendment that the Green Party is putting forward. The amendment deals with the question of the advertising of commercial sexual services should the bill be passed. We were concerned as Mr Copeland from United Future has been about the fact that nothing in the bill looked at the whole question of what would happen in terms of advertising if the bill went through. Our revised amendment calls for there to be no advertising of commercial sexual services on television radio or in public movie theatres. We do accept advertising in newspapers and magazines but only in the classified advertisements sections. That is pretty close to the status quo and it also allows magazines with R18-type audiences such as  
Express  
and other magazines to continue to run their R18-type advertisements.  
Mr Copeland and others seem to believe that there should be no advertising at all. We think that that is totally unrealistic and would lead to some regrettable outcomes such as an increase in street soliciting and pimping and also would be in the interests of big-business owners who could afford large-scale street signage. I do not think that any of that is really what any of us wants. If one is to run a service one has to be able to advertise it. That is why we have put forward this amendment with an overall desire to strengthen the bill from whatever point of view members are coming from. We think it is in everyone’s interests to have a sensible approach to advertising so that we do not have the kind of undesirable consequences of either increased street soliciting and pimping or of seeing advertisements on prime-time television for brothels. We do not want our children and probably even ourselves to have to watch that. For those of us who do support decriminalisation it is important that we make the bill as sensible as possible.  
Beyond that I would like to thank some members tonight like Georgina Beyer for exposing the myths that Dr Melissa Farley has been putting forward around the country on behalf of the Maxim Institute and others who have been opposing the bill. I thank Tim Barnett for his work on drawing the arguments together. I thank Maurice Williamson for trying to bring us back to the reality that the very evils so many members who oppose this bill are talking about are things that are happening now and that what those of us who support the bill are trying to do is to fight those evils and to bring in better public health and a much safer environment for sex workers. We want to see an empowering environment that is not in the control of gangs or big business but is much more in the hands of sex workers themselves.  
I note that some people here have talked about Sandra Coney and her arguments from a feminist perspective. Once again it is very ironic that a feminist like Miss Coney is an abolitionist. I cannot understand how someone who has spent her life defending the rights of women can turn round and say that we should be opposing a bill that will stop the criminalising and arresting of women on the streets of Auckland many of whom are Maori women I might add. As to the sense in that what good does it do to any woman or man to be dragged through the police cells through the courts and have his or her whole life changed and damaged by a conviction? I just cannot understand feminist arguments that support the continued criminalisation of those workers.  
In conclusion I make a last-minute plea to members from all sides of the House to consider supporting the bill. I make a particular plea to members of the ACT party some of whom support the bill and some of whom do not. Again I cannot understand why any member of the ACT party would oppose this bill given their avowed commitment on many other fronts to getting the State out of people’s lives and in this particular case getting the State out of the lives of consenting adults over the age of 18. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 In reporting back on this bill the Justice and Electoral Committee stated that the bill was not intended to equate with the promotion of prostitution as an acceptable career option but instead to enable sex workers to have access to the same protections that are afforded to other workers and to make it easier for them to exit the industry. Tonight Maurice Williamson has stated that he wishes that prostitution did not exist. It appears that a number of speakers have indicated that their view is that prostitution is a negative factor in our society but they somehow see that this bill will insist on reducing the incidence of prostitution rather than increasing it.  
Firstly I say I have a huge amount of sympathy for women who find themselves trapped in this industry who want to exit it and who find that there are reasons that they cannot whether those reasons are psychological in terms of being scared to approach people for assistance or are that the women are being victimised in some other way. But this legislation will not make it easier for people to exit the industry. This legislation commercialises the industry and if this bill passes it is inevitable that prostitution will increase and will be in one’s face. In terms of our society this legislation will change it for the worse. Basically this legislation will commercialise the industry and open it up to market forces. We need only to compare this industry with other industries and to look at the effect of market forces on other products that are sold in those industries to see exactly the sort of thing that will happen.  
I will start by quoting from the  
Dominion Post 
 of Wednesday April 9 from an article entitled “Madam opens hanky-panky sex school”. It reads: “The former madam of a Dutch escort agency has opened a Hanky-Panky School for Prostitutes to teach the world’s oldest profession how to make more money. Elene Vis whose autobiography  
Escort Queen with Turbopower 
 made her a Dutch tabloid darling opened the school last week in a luxury Amsterdam canal house to offer prostitutes ‘exclusive sales training’ to boost their business. ‘You could call it sales techniques. You have to sell yourself and it doesn’t matter if you sell your body or you sell vacuum cleaners. The principle is exactly the same’ Vis 43 says. Vis once dubbed ‘the five-star madam’ ran a firm providing expensive escorts to wealthy clients for 20 years. She says the men and women prostitutes who worked for her agency could make about EUR$6000 (NZ$12000) a month for 40 hours’ work.”  
Now if that is a lessening of the industry I fail to see just how people can rationalise that. That is the sort of thing we will see coming into New Zealand as market forces start to dictate what happens and as groups see prostitution as a way of making significant amounts of money. In the  
Dominion Post 
 on 2 May there was an article entitled “Madam excites the Stock Exchange” which stated: “Australian investors plunged into the world’s oldest profession yesterday when a Melbourne company became the globe’s first listed brothel. Shares of the bordello’s enterprise which hired Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss to spice up its listing and touts itself as a recession-proof five-star hotel doubled on their first day of trading. About 1.4 million shares of the company—called The Daily Planet—sold. ‘Obviously the price is going to go up. It’s sex … and everyone knows sex is a smart investment’ Fleiss said just before the shares started trading.” Any suggestion that commercialising the sex industry by freeing it up and allowing free market forces to operate will reduce the incidence of prostitution is really out of this world. 
Peter Brown 
: Absolute rubbish. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I totally agree; it is complete rubbish. What will we see? What will our society be like? Maurice Williamson has challenged people to stand up here in the Committee and talk about what our society will be like. Let us talk about advertising. Sue Bradford talked about how we will restrict advertising. If the amendments are passed—and we are yet to see that happen—we will have no newspaper advertising except for advertisements in the classified columns. There is to be no advertising on television or radio. OK. So if a person who is selling sex services wants to increase the profitability of doing so that person will look at other ways of advertising. What about letterbox drops of brochures? What about supermarket charge-out slips? What about some of the discount voucher books that go out? There is no way that we will stop every form of advertising that it is possible to use. 
Larry Baldock 
: Women in windows. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Exactly. As my friend says there will be women in windows. It will be legal to put signage on buildings. Again there are amendments to try to restrict where that signage will be but we will find that brothels are quite entitled to put up neon signs particularly in commercial areas to advertise the products and services that they provide and that will be in people’s faces. I do not want to have to walk down commercial streets and find the situation again of women being in shop windows as they are in Amsterdam.  
What about street soliciting? There is no doubt from the statistics and the information that we have that street soliciting will increase particularly among women who find that it is difficult to get into brothels—whether for health reasons or for whatever other reason. Once a regime is put in that tries to restrict people in brothels those who cannot get into brothels will find other ways to sell their services. We will find that that will be in our faces. As we go down Willis Street Lambton Quay Queen Street or wherever else we go we will find more prostitutes there because prostitution will be legal and they will be entitled to be there.  
Market forces will increase prostitution. There will be more prostitutes. Brothels will outbid each other to get business. What happens when agencies try to outbid each other? They have to compete and they have to provide a new product. Brothels will have to provide for more bizarre sexual activity and to push the boundaries of legality. We will get into sadism bestiality and necrophilia. That might sound strange and far-fetched but I can guarantee members that as market forces play out and as brothels compete with each other to get more and more business they will push the limits as far as they can go.  
In terms of illicit material we already know that the underage use of pornography is a real problem and that will be pushed. People will try to provide younger and younger prostitutes knowing that while they may get caught for doing that they may also get away with it. There is no requirement for the production of proof of age. We have taken out of the bill the requirement that age has to be proved and that is just an open-door invitation for underage prostitution.  
There will be trafficking in women. As the number of brothels increases and as they have to get new women and provide new activity they will inevitably bring women in from overseas who will either willingly or unwillingly become engaged in the industry. That is already happening. There are already vulnerable Asian women and children and Lianne Dalziel’s bill simply tries to put a patch on a small element of that. There are plenty of other ways that that sort of thing will happen. If students are to be told that they cannot become prostitutes there will be other ways of bringing people in under other schemes.  
The warning signs are there in the multitude of amendments before this Committee that we have a bill that people do not consider satisfactory. It has gaping holes in it and people are trying to bring Supplementary Order Papers in as a patchwork in order to try to patch some of the leaks in this bill. But that patchwork will not survive. One can put as many patches as one likes on this bill but those who want to push the market forces and to make money from prostitution—and there will certainly be people like those mentioned in the newspaper articles I have quoted who will want to do that—will find ways round that in order to earn money. We are opening a Pandora’s box here and no amount of amendments will succeed in closing it. We are getting ourselves into serious trouble under the false pretence that we are helping those women by changing the law. We are not helping them but are simply making it easier for people to exploit them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I know that Larry Baldock’s next call will be his last and I am keen to hear him. I note we have only 2 minutes until the tea break and I do not believe it is fair for a member to have to split a 5-minute call. I seek leave for the House to adjourn 1 minute before 6 o’clock. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In my final speech on this bill I want to address the issue of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff. I know a lot of members are hinging their final support for the vote on his particular Supplementary Order Paper. He is the Minister who said that it would be unconscionable for us to pass this bill unless there were controls to prohibit gangs and the criminal element from becoming involved in prostitution. Of course that is occurring already. The Massage Parlours Act was supposed to provide licensing zoning and so on yet the gangs have already found ways to get round that legislation. The Minister believes that his Supplementary Order Paper would somehow be adhered to by every citizen in the country particularly by those involved in illegal activities. He believes it would solve the problem but I contend that it would not. There is no guarantee that his Supplementary Order Paper will keep the criminal element out of prostitution and resolve the issues that are faced in New Zealand. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is interesting to note first of all that Supplementary Order Paper 83 actually has more clauses in it than the bill because the Minister is trying to use every finger to plug the gaps so that the bill does not leak out its oozy sewage stuff upon society. By that I do not mean the people who are trapped in prostitution. I mean the evil institutions behind prostitution that exploit women young men and children.  
Mr Goff is confident that his Supplementary Order Paper can resolve all the criticisms we have raised but the penalty in that Supplementary Order Paper for operating a brothel without a licence is a measly $10000. That $10000 is the only piece of weaponry the police may have when trying to clamp down on the operators of illegal brothels. I suggest tonight that $10000 is just pocket money for those who profit from the prostitution industry and that it will not be a deterrent of any kind. I ask the Minister to explain why he has not placed more teeth in that Supplementary Order Paper to really discourage people from engaging in illegal activities. Why does the Proceeds of Crime Act not apply to those people who would operate illegal brothels? If we can take away the assets of those who profit from the selling of drugs why can we not take away the assets of those who would profit from the selling of women’s bodies illegally? But no that Supplementary Order Paper is not really designed to seriously deal with the problem. It is just a vain attempt. It is like a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and it will not have the effect that Mr Goff hopes it will have.  
Many people are concerned about local bodies having to deal with the zoning and licensing of brothels and I have here a document—which I will seek to table later—from the Tauranga District Council in which it has expressed its concern that there is nothing in this bill or in Supplementary Order Paper 83 that would help it to stop brothels from operating in residential areas. When the council wrote its district plan running a brothel was not a legal activity so the district plan does not address that problem. Therefore a home-operated brothel with four employees could operate as of right under the Tauranga District Council’s district plan. It would not need to seek a resource consent under the Resource Management Act or anything like that which is what Supplementary Order Paper 83 tries to do. We are desperately trying to work on the Resource Management Act to get it to work better and we are fiddling with it in this legislation in order to try to make provision for brothel keepers to operate while other legitimate businesses that are of benefit to society have difficulty in obtaining their consents through the Resource Management Act process.  
So I urge members not to be deluded into thinking that by supporting Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper they are sanitising the real evil that will be unleashed as a result of passing this bill.  
We have also heard about the amendments that Lianne Dalziel has promoted to deal with the problem of the trafficking of women into this country particularly under the guise of student visas. Like other speakers before me I share the concern that nothing serious is being done about that. All that we will do is to send a girl home if she is caught working in a brothel while she is here as a student but we will not deal with the pimp who is profiting from her exploitation. The pimp will simply see that girl sent home and then his mates in Thailand the Philippines Korea or even as far away as Russia—we have Russian women coming here already—will just send him another girl whom he can profit from and exploit and then when she is all used up and perhaps caught by the police she will be sent home again. We know what will happen if this bill is passed. The police will say thank you very much because that is one less thing they will have to work on.  
I seek leave of the House to table just a few documents. I seek leave to table a letter here that makes it very clear that the Maxim Institute had nothing to do with financing Melissa Farley’s trip to New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have another document here from the Tauranga District Council that expresses its concerns and difficulties with regard to Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper and the complications it will create for the council. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I have one final document to table. It is a point-by-point rebuttal by Melissa Farley of the criticisms of her research while she was here in New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. The first document is the  
Preliminary Report: New Zealand Prostitution 
 published by Dr Melissa Farley and the second is the  
Prostitution Questionnaire New Zealand 
 also by Dr Melissa Farley. The third document is a letter of 10 June from Colleen Winn raising concerns about the research. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the Catholic Women’s League contradicting the report in the  
Dominion Post  
of 24 May that quoted Tim Barnett as saying the league had declared its allegiance to this bill and making it very clear that the league does not support the bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Thus far this has been an interesting debate. A number of points have been raised and I would like to comment on a few of them. First of all opposing this bill does not mean that one is satisfied with the status quo. I want to make that quite clear. New Zealand First has debated the issue at length and we are not happy with the status quo but we believe decriminalising prostitution as this bill does will make the current situation far worse.  
I note there have been a number of amendments. There have been amendments in the name of Phil Goff Lianne Dalziel Stephen Franks Dianne Yates Gordon Copeland Sue Bradford Sue Kedgley Wayne Mapp and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. Oh no maybe Wayne Mapp might be Uncle Tom Cobbleigh; I am not sure about that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
PETER BROWN 
: Where is the member’s sense of humour? This bill is being amended so much by so many that never in the course of human history has a bill been amended to such a degree. Let me suggest to members that all those amendments will water the bill down to some degree. Not all of them will get through but any that do will water the bill down to such a degree that some people who are genuinely concerned about the impact of prostitution on society might vote for it. So I urge the people who think they will vote for those amendments to make the bill better to think very very carefully. I think the amendments will water the bill down and will not change it a great deal at all.  
If this bill goes through and we decriminalise prostitution that will be a gift to pimps—an absolute gift. The pimps will be sitting there now rubbing their hands and thinking about how they can profit from the selling of largely women’s bodies—and largely young women’s bodies. It will also be a gift to those people who are interested in trafficking in women—an absolute gift. It will open the door for people to move young women from one area in this country to another and indeed if they can import women it will open the door to importing them and putting them into the prostitution industry.  
Decriminalisation of prostitution will not control the industry in the way Tim Barnett indicated earlier that he thought it would. That is an absolute fallacy. Decriminalisation will open the door and allow the industry to expand. The industry will become a front for drug use and drug pushing and for child prostitution. Why do I know all this? How do I know all this? It is because everywhere in the world where this industry has been liberalised that has happened. In every single place in the world where the industry has been liberalised those sorts of things have occurred and I challenge any member to find any country in the world and tell me I am not speaking the truth about that. I do not believe even Tim Barnett will tell me I am not speaking the truth.  
I must say the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill was very disappointing. I was going to use stronger words and call it a farce but I will not go as far as that. But it was very disappointing and I say to members that the select committee did not address the issue in a meaningful way. It was the most politicised select committee I have been on in my time at Parliament. People voted by numbers whenever they wanted to do so. They did not listen to the arguments or accept other people’s input. They just said they were there to push the bill through so they would push it through. [ 
Interruption 
] Sue Bradford queries me. New Zealand First brought up the question of advertising but she pooh-poohed it. Now she has an amendment sitting on the Table. We have read it and I think we will vote against it.  
Stephen Franks 
: It might have helped if you had turned up at the relevant times. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Franks when you were chairing the meeting at the end if we are to become critical you were not even prepared to listen to any counterarguments. You wanted to push this bill through— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must address the Chair and must not refer to the absence of members. That is a long-standing convention in the Parliament. 
PETER BROWN 
: I make the comment that the select committee—whether I was there or not—did not handle this bill anywhere nearly as well as most select committees operate in this Parliament.  
If we push this bill through tonight we will open this “industry” so widely in this country that we will have the Daily Planet sex hotel here within a relatively short time. Now maybe that is a good thing. I think the member over there applauds that but if it is a good thing let us be honest enough in the Chamber to say that that is what we are passing this legislation for. But we have been told the bill will contain prostitution and will make it nice and rosy for everybody involved. It will not. We will open this country for comfort-hostessing. Does any member know what comfort-hostessing is? It occurs when business people fly into the country and request the services of young women in particular. 
Jill Pettis 
: For God’s sake they can get that at home you fool. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is totally out of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Let’s not be common. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think it might be too late for that but let us not mind that. This is a serious issue.  
Apart from Tim Barnett and Georgina Beyer I have probably had more dealings with prostitutes than other members in terms of talking to them. I have talked to prostitutes first hand over a number of years in my stevedoring and shipping days. I say—and I have said this before—that I have not yet resorted to using the services of prostitutes but I have had friendly conversations with them. Many of them live sad lives and I say this bill will not improve life for them. I suggest to members in all sincerity that if they doubt my word on that they should check on what is happening in the countries where prostitution has been liberalised. Members will find Sweden is moving along the reverse course of that provided for in this bill. Dianne Yates wants to bring in the Swedish model. She is putting forward a tiny little amendment that she thinks will reverse the provisions of this bill. That is an absolute farce; it will not reverse the effect of the bill. I challenge anybody who is bringing in amendments to say whether if they do not get their amendments through they will vote for the bill. I bet they will vote for it. Certainly the amendments in support of this bill are just a front to push the bill through and to make it look as though prostitution is nice and cosy.  
We should adopt my colleague Brent Catchpole’s bill which is based on the Swedish model. The member over there on the Government benches shakes his head but let me tell members that Sweden has adopted that model with huge success. France Finland Norway and Denmark are looking at it but New Zealand is going in the other way. We should look at the New South Wales model—not the Australian model for there are states in Australia that do not believe in the liberalisation of prostitution. But New South Wales does believe in that and is probably the capital of Australia in terms of prostitution. The industry has expanded there and now there is a hotel complex the Daily Planet coming on stream. I say to the member that I believe he wants to expand the industry and that this bill is a front to sell that in a disguised way.  
I listened to Maurice Williamson and I think Tim Barnett gave him the credit for this bill. Maurice Williamson said that this legislation is a good thing for the industry and the people working in it. Before we believe Maurice Williamson we should look at his track record when he was formerly the Minister of Transport. If we examine his track record and if he is “Mr Success” then let me tell members— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: There’s a bit of a difference. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is observant; there is a bit of a difference. When Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport he had the total say there. He wants to have the say in this bill so what the dickens will happen? I can tell members that when Maurice Williamson speaks and says we should do something I would recommend going in the other way.  
This is a sad bill for society. I believe that New Zealand First would welcome the establishment of a royal commission to look into prostitution if the Government was so inclined. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Too kind. 
PETER BROWN 
: Dr Cullen challenges that. If it is good enough for the Government to spend $5 million on examining seeds and the like then it is good enough for it to spend an equivalent amount of money on looking at the lives of young women and of whomever else is enticed into prostitution. We would look at that seriously but we will not support this bill.  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In line with discussions that took place at the Business Committee I seek leave at the conclusion of the debate on Parts 1 to 3 and the schedule for voting to be on the basis of the amendments as arranged and ordered on the paper that has been circulated to members copies of which are on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of that. I do not understand what leave is being sought to do. Could we please have some explanation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will ask the member to explain it. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 In order to try to expedite the voting in some sensible order the Clerk’s Office has prepared a listing that has been emailed to all members today and is available here on the Table. It orders the various amendments in a rational logical order and apart from the withdrawal of amendments Nos 5 and 10 from Larry Baldock it still stands as I understand it as an accurate listing. Once we move to vote it is merely trying to sort us out for when we get to vote. Once we actually move to vote I seek agreement that we take the votes in this order.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that this is a leave request but I would ask whether it is possible for this Committee to consider first a variation or whether it is necessary to reject that and have it re-put. If I may explain it appears to me from canvassing people who are seeking guidance on the voting here that the prospect of running through that list will be extremely confusing and that it was a mistake when we first decided that all the voting would be collected at the end. I would certainly like to see an opportunity for at least the movers of each motion to address for 5 minutes between each vote the purpose of their motions. I have been present for almost the entire part of this debate and I have heard almost nothing addressed on the wording of these motions. There has been almost no discussion whatsoever of the technical effect of these amendments. Nearly every speech has been in effect a title speech and some of these motions would be quite incompatible with others. There is every prospect that this bill might end up being quite unworkable for want of the extra few minutes that would be involved in giving say one or two speeches between each vote.  
I realise that that is by way of a change to what was intended and to what the whips had agreed to but it seems to me in talking to people whom I regard as careful and diligent MPs that they are very very confused indeed about the interrelationship of the various amendments in this bill.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest to the member that he could seek leave to have that done because these amendments have actually been on the Table for some considerable time and members would have had ample opportunity to read them. So the member is free to seek leave if he wishes for his course of action to be followed.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do so seek leave if I may. Perhaps I can seek the leave after Mr Barnett’s seeking of leave has been considered because I would like it to be worded in a way that did not open it up to a completely open-ended debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought by the honourable member Tim Barnett. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the original terms on which we decided to amalgamate all the votes into one process to the extent that each amendment be preceded if the mover so wishes by an opportunity to explain the effect of the amendment and in so doing to relate it to the other amendments that would be inconsistent with it. I do that because I believe that it would assist the members who will come to the Chamber to vote and who will not have been listening properly to the debate to vote in an intelligent way and may assist the Committee to make sure that it does not end up with an Act it has to revisit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The members have already given leave for the motion on the way in which the voting should be done as put by the honourable Tim Barnett. The honourable member Stephen Franks is seeking a variation to that as he has explained. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe it is appropriate for the Chair to give a brief explanation in these circumstances not for members to explain their own amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What I will do when I go through the amendments is explain them clearly and concisely. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland ) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 59 
Ardern (P) 
Dyson  
Key (P) 
Shirley 
Barnett 
English (P) 
King 
Simich 
Benson-Pope 
Ewen-Street 
Locke (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mapp 
Smith N 
Bradford 
Goff  
O’Connor 
Sowry  
Brash (P)  
Hartley  
Okeroa 
Tanczos  
Brownlee (P)  
Hawkins 
Peck 
Te Heuheu 
Carter D (P)  
Heatley 
Pettis 
Tisch (P) 
Chadwick  
Hereora 
Power (P) 
Turei (P) 
Coddington  
Hide  
Rich 
Ward (P) 
Collins  
Hodgson 
Ririnui 
Williamson (P) 
Connell (P)  
Horomia 
Robertson 
Wong (P) 
Cullen 
Hughes 
Roy 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe  
Hunt  
Ryall 
Teller: 
Donald  
Hutchison 
Scott 
Carter J  
Noes 33 
Adams  
Dunne (P) 
Mahuta  
Prebble (P) 
Alexander (P)  
Duynhoven  
Mark (P)  
Stewart  
Awatere Huata  
Eckhoff (P)  
McNair (P) 
Turner  
Baldock  
Field 
Newman (P)  
Woolerton (P)  
Brown  
Franks  
Ogilvy  
Yates  
Catchpole 
Goudie  
Paraone  
Copeland  
Gudgeon  
Perry (P) 
Cosgrove 
Jones  
Peters J (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
Mackey  
Peters W (P)  
Smith M 
Motion agreed to. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee now that we are about to proceed to vote that we cease voting at 10 p.m. I seek that leave simply because I think it would be good to do that rather than to have a very late night this evening.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
The question now is that Parts 1 to 3 and the schedules stand part and we have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert a new clause 2A which provides that the Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House resolves otherwise.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 2A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 2 the following new clause: 
2A 
This Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 15 
Ardern 
Copeland 
Peck (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne (P) 
Ryall 
Turia (P) 
Baldock 
Key 
Smith M 
Teller: 
Choudhary (P) 
Mapp  
Smith N 
Hutchison 
Noes 99 
Adams  
Donnelly 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Alexander (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Roy 
Anderton (P)  
Duynhoven  
King 
Samuels (P)  
Barker (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Scott  
Barnett 
Eckhoff (P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley 
Benson-Pope 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Simich 
Beyer 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sowry 
Bradford 
Field  
Mahuta  
Stewart 
Brash (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brown  
Franks  
Mark (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee (P)  
Goff 
McNair (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gosche (P) 
Newman (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie 
O’Connor 
Tisch (P) 
Carter D (P)  
Gudgeon (P) 
Ogilvy 
Turei(P) 
Carter J 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turner 
Chadwick 
Heatley  
Parker (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hide 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Collins  
Hobbs (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe 
Hughes 
Rich 
Yates 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Ririnui 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Robertson  
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendments are in the name of Stephen Franks and are on Supplementary Order Paper 71. They amend clause 3 the purpose clause and insert a new clause 3A to do with protection of freedom of speech of association and of religious expression. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 3 and to insert new clause 3A and cross heading be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
Adams 
Duynhoven 
Ogilvy 
Smith L 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Parker (P) 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata 
Field 
Peck (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Baldock 
Franks 
Prebble (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Brash (P) 
Gallagher 
Robertson 
Turner 
Carter D (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Roy 
Coddington (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Copeland 
Mapp 
Shirley 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Newman (P) 
Simich 
Smith M 
Noes 82 
Alexander (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Ryall 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Key (P) 
Scott 
Barnett 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Field (P)  
Laban (P) 
Stewart 
Bradford 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Brown  
Goff 
Maharey (P) 
Tanczos 
Brownlee 
Gosche (P) 
Mahuta 
Tisch (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goudie 
Mallard (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Mark (P) 
Turei (P) 
Catchpole 
Hartley 
McNair (P) 
Turia (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Ward (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Heatley  
Okeroa 
Williamson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Paraone (P)  
Wilson (P) 
Collins  
Hide 
Perry (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Yates 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Power (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hutchison 
Rich 
Teller: 
Donnelly 
Jones (P) 
Ririnui 
Pettis 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment in the name of Dianne Yates is set out on Supplementary Order paper 56 and is in two parts. We are considering only the first part that omits clause 5 clarifying the status of a contract. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of Dianne Yates to omit clause 5 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
Awatere Huata 
Duynhoven 
Samuels (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock  
Gallagher  
Simich  
Turner 
Carter D 
Laban (P) 
Smith L 
Choudhary (P) 
Mapp  
Smith M 
Copeland 
Peck (P) 
Smith N 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Yates 
Noes 94 
Adams (P) 
Donnelly 
Jones (P) 
Rich 
Alexander  
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robson (P) 
Ardern (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Scott 
Barnett 
Fairbrother (P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley 
Benson-Pope 
Field 
Mackey (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Stewart  
Bradford 
Franks 
Mahuta  
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff 
Mallard (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown  
Gosche (P) 
Mark (P)  
Tanczos 
Brownlee 
Goudie 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P)  
Burton (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Newman (P)  
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
O’Connor (P) 
Turei (P) 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
Ogilvy  
Turia (P) 
Chadwick 
Heatley (P) 
Okeroa 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Paraone (P)  
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hide 
Parker (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Collins  
Hobbs (P) 
Perry (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Woolerton (P)  
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Pillay (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Power (P) 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Hutchison 
Prebble (P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Marc Alexander has been ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Larry Baldock to omit clause 5 has been withdrawn. 
We now move to the amendment in the name of Sue Bradford on Supplementary Order Paper 90 to insert a new clause 6BA concerning restrictions on advertising of commercial sexual services. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Sue Bradford to insert new clause 6BA and heading above be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
Awatere Huata 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Smith L 
Barker (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Smith N 
Barnett 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Laban (P) 
Sowry 
Benson-Pope 
Gallagher 
Locke (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Beyer 
Goff 
Maharey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gosche (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Hartley (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Mapp 
Te Heuheu 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide 
Parker 
Turei (P) 
Collins 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Turia (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Ward (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui 
Williamson (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Ryall 
Wilson (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Shirley 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Hutchison 
Simich 
Pettis 
Noes 51 
Adams  
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Robson (P) 
Alexander 
Duynhoven  
McNair (P) 
Roy 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson (P) 
Newman (P) 
Samuels (P)  
Baldock 
Eckhoff (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Scott (P) 
Brown  
Field 
Ogilvy 
Smith M 
Brownlee (P)  
Franks  
Paraone (P)  
Stewart 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie 
Peck (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Catchpole 
Gudgeon (P) 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Coddington (P) 
Jones (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Connell (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Worth (P) 
Copeland 
Key (P) 
Power (P) 
Yates 
Cosgrove (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta  
Robertson 
Carter J 
Amendment agreed to. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As Mr Copeland’s amendment actually envisages a greater restriction on advertising it is not the same as the amendment that has just been passed. It expands the prohibition even further. Surely it cannot be out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No we have agreed to restrictions. It is then inconsistent to prohibit it. Therefore I am now moving to an amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I can see what you are saying but it seems just as logical to argue the counterfactual—that is to say an amendment that further moves in the direction of restriction is in fact consistent with the amendment that has just been passed but extends it even further. I cannot see that you can say that it is in conflict with it or that it goes towards prohibition. It does not go towards an absolute prohibition. It simply moves further in the direction of restriction. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I am the sole judge of relevance and I have ruled it out of order. I now go to Dr Wayne Mapp’s typescript amendment to the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 which is quite complicated. It inserts reference in clause 6D to Dr Mapp’s proposed new clause 6CB and reinstates the provisions of clause 6D(2). 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave of the Committee for my Supplementary Order Paper to be put to the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is free to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. I now come back to the amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are obviously in for a long evening and I point out that I am in a position where I have been genuinely mistaken. I supported the previous amendment thinking that I could go on to support the amendment you have ruled out of order. I think it is very very important that when you put a particular amendment you clearly spell out prior to the voting what the consequential effect will be on voting for that amendment. So the consequential effect of voting for say Supplementary Order Paper 90 would be that Supplementary Order Paper 82 is then out of order. I can assure the Committee—and I state this clearly and publicly—that I would not have supported Supplementary Order Paper 90 if I had been aware of that. I realise what has happened has happened but it would be helpful just to assist us if the Chair would seek the appropriate advice and advise members in that way accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. I will certainly take note of that. We now come back to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp. His transcript amendments seek to amend the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 to insert reference in clause 6D to Dr Mapp’s proposed new clause 6CB and reinstate the provisions of clause 6D(2). This replaces Dr Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper 68 amendment to clause 6D. However if the Hon Phil Goff’s new clause 6D is not agreed to then Dr Mapp’s original amendment to clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 will stand. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It seems that what you have just said there is almost exactly what we just talked about in relation to Mr Copeland’s amendment. You have just said that if Mr Goff’s amendment does not pass then it reverts back. This is exactly what we were just talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No this is quite a different thing altogether.  
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to the amendment to clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to insert in new clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91 after the words “section 6C” the words “or section 6CB”; and 
to insert in new clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91 after subclause (1) the following subclause: 
(1A) Sections 6C and 6CB do not limit any other powers that a territorial authority has under any other enactment. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 26 
Adams 
Coddington (P) 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Alexander 
Copeland 
Roy 
Turner 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Scott (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Franks 
Shirley 
Wong (P) 
Baldock 
Heatley (P) 
Smith L 
Brash (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith M 
Teller: 
Carter C (P) 
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Mapp 
Noes 85 
Anderton (P)  
Duynhoven  
King 
Samuels (P)  
Barker (P)r 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Stewart 
Bradford 
Field (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brown  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee (P)  
Gallagher 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goff 
Mark (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Carter J 
Goudie 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Catchpole 
Gudgeon (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turei (P) 
Chadwick 
Hartley 
Parker (P) 
Turia (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Collins 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Power (P) 
Yates 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Rich 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Ririnui 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robson (P) 
Pettis 
Amendments to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 providing for local authorities to make by-laws relating to signage and location of brothels etc. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to omit clauses 6C and 6D and heading above and substitute new clauses 6C to 6E be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Anderton (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Robson 
Barker (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Simich (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Smith L 
Beyer 
Field (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sowry (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Gallagher 
Mackey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goff 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche 
Mahuta (P) 
Tanczos 
Chadwick 
Hartley 
Mallard (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Turei (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Parker 
Turia (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hide 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Wilson (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson 
Pettis 
Noes 50 
Adams 
Dunne (P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Alexander 
Duynhoven  
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Ogilvy 
Stewart 
Awatere Huata 
English (P) 
Paraone (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock 
Franks 
Perry (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Brown 
Goudie 
Peters J (P) 
Turner 
Brownlee (P)  
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Catchpole 
Jones (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Worth (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy 
Yates 
Collins 
Mahuta 
Ryall (P) 
Copeland 
Mapp 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mark (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Carter J 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Larry Baldock to remove the decriminalisation of brothel-keeping and put in place certain other measures has been withdrawn by the proposer. 
We come now to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp on Supplementary Order Paper 68 giving territorial authorities power to make by-laws to restrict soliciting and putting in place offence provisions and the necessary police powers. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clauses 6CA to 6CC and 6DA to 6DC and new cross headings be agreed to. 
A personal vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 16 
Ardern (P)  
Carter J 
Key (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Choudhary (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Baldock  
Copeland 
Scott (P) 
Brash (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Smith L 
Teller: 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Wong (P) 
Mapp 
Noes 94 
Adams 
Duynhoven 
King 
Shirley (P) 
Alexander 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Simich 
Anderton (P) 
English (P) 
Locke (P) 
Smith M 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Smith N 
Barnett 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sowry 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P)  
Mahuta (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Gallagher  
Mark (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown  
Goff (P) 
McNair (P) 
Tanczos 
Brownlee (P)  
Gosche 
O’Connor (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Burton (P) 
Goudie 
Ogilvy  
Tisch (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Paraone (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Catchpole 
Hartley 
Parker 
Turei 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Peck (P) 
Turia (P) 
Clark 
Hereora 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Coddington (P) 
Hide (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Ward (P) 
Collins 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Williamson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Power (P)  
Woolerton (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Rich 
Worth (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P)  
Ririnui 
Yates 
Donnelly (P)  
Jones (P) 
Robertson  
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Roy 
Pettis 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to an amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff on Supplementary Order Paper 91 placing additional requirements on territorial authorities when considering an application for resource consent for a land use relating to prostitution. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to insert new clause 6F and cross heading be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Awatere Huata 
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Simich 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith L 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sowry 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Mackey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gosche 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tanczos 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora 
Parker  
Turei 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Pettis 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Rich 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson 
Barnett 
Noes 53 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
Mapp 
Smith M 
Alexander 
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Smith N 
Anderton (P)  
Duynhoven 
Newman (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock 
English (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Tisch (P) 
Brown  
Field 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Brownlee (P) 
Franks 
Peters J (P) 
Wong (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie 
Peters W (P)  
Woolerton (P) 
Catchpole  
Gudgeon (P) 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Heatley (P)  
Prebble (P) 
Yates 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Robson 
Connell (P) 
Jones (P) 
Roy 
Copeland 
Key (P) 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove 
Mahuta (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Carter J 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel on Supplementary Order Paper 69 which amends the Immigration Act to ensure immigration permits are not granted to persons on the basis that they have provided or intend to provide sexual services. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to insert new clause 8B and cross heading be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Awatere Huata 
Dyson (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith N 
Barker 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Sowry 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos  
Burton (P) 
Gosche 
Mapp 
Te Heuheu 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Parker  
Turei 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora  
Peck (P) 
Turia (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide (P) 
Pettis (P) 
Ward (P) 
Copeland 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Wong (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Simich 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Smith L 
Barnett 
Noes 48 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
Mark  
Shirley (P) 
Alexander 
Duynhoven 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Ogilvy 
Tisch (P) 
Baldock 
Field (P)  
Paraone (P)  
Turner 
Brown  
Franks 
Perry (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Peters J (P) 
Worth (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Yates 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P) 
Power (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Collins  
Jones (P) 
Robson (P) 
Connell (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Roy 
Teller: 
Cosgrove (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Scott (P) 
Carter J 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendments are in the name of Stephen Franks on Supplementary Order Paper 71 and they deal with the under-age prostitution age limit. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 9 and 9C and to insert new clause 9MA be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Brash (P) 
Connell (P) 
Newman (P) 
Simich  
Carter D (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Smith L 
Carter J 
English (P) 
Roy 
Sowry 
Choudhary (P) 
Goudie (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Teller: 
Coddington 
Key (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Franks 
Noes 94 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
King 
Robson (P) 
Alexander 
Duncan (P) 
Laban (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Anderton (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Locke (P) 
Scott (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Duynhoven 
Mackey (P) 
Smith M 
Awatere Huata 
Dyson (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Baldock 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Barker (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Swain (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P) 
Mapp 
Tamihere (P) 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mark 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford 
Goff (P) 
McNair (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Brown (P) 
Gosche 
O’Connor (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Ogilvy 
Tizard (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Okeroa 
Turei (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Paraone (P) 
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
Parker (P)  
Turner 
Chadwick 
Hereora 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Perry (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Collins (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wong (P) 
Copeland 
Horomia (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hughes 
Pillay (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Power (P) 
Yates 
Cunliffe (P) 
Jones (P) 
Rich 
Dalziel (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robertson 
Pettis 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the amendment in the name of Dianne Yates on Supplementary Order Paper 56 providing for it to be unlawful to be a client of prostitution. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of Dianne Yates to insert new clause 9CA and cross heading be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Adams 
Copeland 
Ogilvy 
Tamihere (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne (P) 
Peck (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock (P) 
Duynhoven 
Samuels (P) 
Turner 
Carter J 
Gallagher 
Smith M 
Teller: 
Choudhary (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith N 
Yates 
Noes 96 
Alexander 
Dyson (P) 
Key (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
King 
Scott (P) 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Simich  
Barnett (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Smith L 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P)  
Mahuta (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Bradford 
Franks 
Mapp 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mark (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown (P)  
Gosche  
McNair (P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Newman (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P)  
Parker (P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick 
Hide (P) 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hughes 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Robertson 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Roy 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to an amendment in the name of Marc Alexander providing for it to be unlawful to be a client or provider in an act of prostitution. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to insert new clause 9D be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 9C the following cross heading and clause: 
Prohibition on persons being client or provider of sexual services 
9D 
Being client or provider in act of prostitution 
Every person who is a client or a provider in an act of prostitution by any person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to— 
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months; or 
(b)a fine not exceeding $5000. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 12 
Adams 
Copeland 
Smith M 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne 
Smith N 
Carter J 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Teller: 
Choudhary 
Samuels 
Alexander 
Noes 103 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robson (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy 
Baldock (P) 
English (P) 
King 
Scott (P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street (P) 
Laban (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother (P) 
Locke (P) 
Simich (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P)  
Mackey (P) 
Smith L 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sowry 
Bradford 
Franks 
Mahuta (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Brash (P) 
Gallagher 
Mallard (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brown (P)  
Goff (P) 
Mapp 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Gosche  
Mark 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goudie 
McNair (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Newman (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hartley 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
Okeroa 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick 
Heatley (P)  
Paraone (P)  
Turia (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Parker 
Turner 
Coddington (P) 
Hide (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Donnelly (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Yates 
Duncan (P) 
Jones (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to amendments in the name of the Hon Phil Goff on Supplementary Order Paper 91 defining operators of the business of prostitution and providing for them. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Hon Phil Goff to insert new Part 2A the amendments to clauses 2 and 4 to insert new clause 4AA and amendments to clauses 6 9J 9K 9L 9N 9S and 10 and to insert new clause 10A be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Barker (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hughes 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Duncan (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Smith L 
Benson-Pope 
Dyson (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Bradford 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Swain (P) 
Brash (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Laban (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gallagher 
Locke (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Goff (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gosche 
Mallard (P) 
Turei (P) 
Chadwick 
Hartley 
O’Connor (P) 
Turia (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Okeroa 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Parker 
Williamson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hide (P) 
Peck (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Teller: 
Dalziel (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Pettis 
Noes 55 
Adams 
Dunne (P) 
Mapp 
Ryall 
Alexander 
Duynhoven 
Mark 
Scott (P) 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
McNair (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata 
Field (P) 
Ogilvy 
Stewart (P) 
Baldock  
Franks 
Paraone (P)  
Te Heuheu 
Brown (P)  
Goudie 
Perry (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley (P)  
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Catchpole 
Hutchison 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Jones (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Worth (P) 
Connell (P) 
Key (P) 
Robertson 
Yates 
Copeland 
Mackey (P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Roy 
Smith M 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: As a result of those amendments being agreed to the amendment that we will come to later in the name of Gordon Copeland will be out of order. 
We now come to an amendment in the name of Stephen Franks on Supplementary Order Paper 71 omitting Part 3 which provided for a review of operation of the Act for regulations and for repeal of provisions relating to the Crimes Act the Massage Parlours Act and the Summary Offences Act. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks to omit Part 3 be agreed to.  
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Adams 
Copeland 
Ogilvy 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Carter J 
Eckhoff 
Roy 
Choudhary (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Teller: 
Coddington (P) 
Newman (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Franks 
Noes 93 
Alexander 
Dyson (P) 
King 
Smith L 
Anderton (P)  
English (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith M 
Ardern (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Barker (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Barnett 
Field (P)  
Mahuta (P) 
Swain (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Beyer 
Goff (P) 
Mapp 
Tanczos  
Bradford 
Gosche (P) 
Mark  
Te Heuheu 
Brown (P)  
Goudie 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Burton  
Gudgeon (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P) 
Parker  
Turner 
Chadwick 
Hereora 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide (P) 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Connell (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Rich (P) 
Worth (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Robertson 
Yates 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Robson (P) 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ryall 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven 
Key (P) 
Simich  
Pettis 
Abstentions 1 
Baldock 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 3 and the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Barker  
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Smith L 
Benson-Pope 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Key (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Sutton (P) 
Bradford 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gosche (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
McCully (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Okeroa 
Turei (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora 
Parker  
Turia (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Roy 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Pettis 
Noes 57 
Adams 
Dunne (P) 
Mapp 
Samuels (P) 
Alexander 
Duynhoven 
Mark  
Scott (P) 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata 
Field (P) 
O’Connor 
Stewart (P) 
Baldock 
Franks 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Brown (P) 
Gallagher 
Paraone (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P)  
Peters W (P) 
Worth (P) 
Collins (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Power (P) 
Yates 
Connell (P) 
Jones  
Prebble (P) 
Copeland 
Laban (P) 
Robertson 
Cosgrove (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Ryall 
Carter J 
Abstentions 1 
Wong (P) 
Parts 1 to 3 and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The House adjourned at 10.41 p.m.