Volume 618 Week 62 - Thursday 29 July 2004 
Volume 618 Week 62 - Thursday 29 July 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:14459] 
Thursday 29 July 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and making progress on the Building Bill and the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House indicate whether we are likely to have further periods of urgency during this 3-week sitting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I can set the member’s mind at rest—no. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 4 August following a parliamentary luncheon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Local Government—Reform 
1. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received any reports on proposals for future reforms of local government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 In my capacity as Minister of Local Government yes I have seen reports that the leadership of the National Party is seriously considering proposals to abolish regional councils. Dr Brash has said that this is an issue that needed looking at. National’s environment spokesperson Dr Nick Smith has gone further being reported as implying that regional councils will be abolished. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The allegations made by Mr Chris Carter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table—so there will be clarity about National’s position on local government—the speech delivered by the leader of the National Party yesterday at the lLocal gGovernment conference. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought perfectly properly. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This raises the interesting question of what remedies the Opposition has when a Minister stands and makes such outrageous claims as those just made by Mr Carter. Although you might like to say they are debatable points and we have to put up with it the fact is that if we want to ask a question we have to verify the material that is relevant to the question. In this case I understand that the Minister wanted to give an answer but he must also look to the Standing Orders which are effectively when giving an answer a mirror of those required of the questioner. Surely the Minister should have to verify the comments he is making. They were not of a generally political nature. They were explicit comments relating to what he called “National Party policy”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to the member that if the member wishes to deny the Minister’s assertion his word will be accepted. That can be done on a point—[ 
Interruption 
] That is the last time. I tell the member not to interject while I am speaking. The member will control himself. It can be done on a point of order. It does not need a personal statement. It can be done on a point of order. That is the Standing Order and those are the rules of this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make claim that the assertion by the Minister of Local Government is totally untrue and I challenge him to provide any verification that I have ever said the words he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s word about his own statement must be accepted. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a report from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that explores fully Dr Smith’s comments on this area regarding regional councils. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is not but I point out that the member’s word will be accepted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 131/3 which states: “The Government can answer only for its own intentions and has no responsibility for the Opposition.” Can you please guide us on why that was permitted in response to that question in the context of that Speaker’s ruling? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the question asked whether he had he received any reports and he said he had. 
David Parker 
: What are the essential roles of regional councils? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Regional councils have key responsibilities for catchment management civil defence regional transport planning and pest control. Only those who care little for the environment would want to see them abolished. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What reforms will the Minister be making to the Local Government Act 2002—proudly claimed by him at the lLocal gGovernment conference yesterday to be the “Carter Act”—in respect of the specific provisions requiring consultation with Maori after the speech yesterday by Trevor Mallard Coordinating Minister Race Relations in which he said: “We are all indigenous now.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Just as National identified Maori as having a special role in the Resource Management Act when it passed that legislation in 1991 the Local Government Act requires local authorities to have processes in place to consult Maori and consider ways to foster Maori capacity to participate in council decision-making processes. I think that is very appropriate. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister support the proposal contained in my draft member’s bill which would close the loophole in the Local Government Act that enables local authorities to appoint ward committees to take the place of elected community boards? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I believe that the member’s proposal does have merit. I am getting my officials to look at it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister take responsibility for the 10.4 percent increase in rates during the first full year of the Local Government Act—the highest in 10 years and four times the consumer price index increase for the same period—or does he think this huge increase in rates simply has to be accepted by the families and businesses that foot the bill for his politically correct legislation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Local councils are responsible for setting the rates not central government. It is their responsibility. I do not accept responsibility because it is not mine to accept. 
Creative New Zealand—Venice Biennale 2005 
2.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Did she receive an assurance at a meeting in February or the two meetings since February from Creative New Zealand that the selection criteria for the artist to represent New Zealand at the Venice Biennale 2005 had been followed correctly; if not why did she not seek that assurance? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 The meeting in February was well before the selection was made and there was no reason to question the process at that time. At the third meeting on 2 July I did raise with Creative New Zealand concerns about the ability of the artist selected to be an effective ambassador for New Zealand. I was advised that the three people involved in the et al proposal met Creative New Zealand’s criteria. I have subsequently sought and been given assurances that the artist will engage extensively with international arts professionals at the event conduct selected interviews with international arts media and provide considered responses in writing to questions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In light of that answer has the Minister had a response to her criticism of Creative New Zealand made on 14 July that funding this artist who refused to be identified was “arrogant and elitist” in her words; if not can she tell the House exactly what she does as Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: In relation to the  
Dominion Post  
report of that date the reporter asked me whether I thought funding this artist was elitist and arrogant. I said that was a charge that Creative New Zealand would have to answer and that I thought—given that the Venice Biennale is considered the arts Olympics—we would be a bit astonished if elite and sometimes arrogant sportspeople were not selected for the Olympics. I do think this is a matter for Creative New Zealand to answer and I believe that it has answered it very satisfactorily. If the House would give me leave to speak for about an hour and a half I will tell members what I do as Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been already denied. 
Dianne Yates 
: Does the Government support opportunities for New Zealand to be represented at major international events? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes indeed. The Venice Biennale which is often described as the Olympic Games of the visual arts is an example of a major international event at which New Zealand will be represented. Leading arts experts selected et al to represent New Zealand at this international event. The Government does not interfere with selections of this sort any more than it would interfere with Olympic selections—we do not want to take New Zealand down the path of Soviet Russia. The Government recognises that participation in international events results in better international understanding of what New Zealand has to offer and may result in increased tourism exports and employment in New Zealand. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: When the Minister was advised at the end of June or early July by Creative New Zealand that “a shifting group of artistic entities” called et al would be the representative artist at the Venice Biennale did she then ask Creative New Zealand to account for its decision in any detail; if not why did she wait to do so until there was a public outcry? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No I was in ongoing discussions with Creative New Zealand which is after all an independent Crown entity under the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act of 1994. A shifting entity of artists is a bit like the leadership of the National Party—we do not question it. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share the view that it is only reasonable and proper that anybody who receives a significant amount of Government funding should be at least identified so that the public know who is receiving their money? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Everyone is accountable for any Government money. Creative New Zealand is proposing to spend $500000 a large proportion of which will be for rent of the venue for the 6 months of this show in Venice. It will pay for events that will publicise the show. The artist will get a very small amount. There are three people involved: the curator Greg Burke who is from the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery; a senior curator from Te Papa; and the artist. I am very satisfied that Creative New Zealand has in place good accountability processes for this public money. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister expect that junked computer hardware and scrawled messages will promote New Zealand art at Venice when she has already said that a port-a-loo that brays like a donkey will not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The components of any art exhibition are up to the artist. This Government does not dictate what artists should think what they should say or what materials they should use. This artist has been chosen by an eminent group of New Zealand fine arts specialists as the most appropriate artist to represent New Zealand at this important international event. I am very satisfied that whatever the components I would rather that the artists chose materials that were appropriate to the installation art piece rather than my trying to dictate to them. I just think the question is silly. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would it not be better rather than our spending half a million dollars on an as yet uncreated piece of avant-garde art to be experienced by a small number of overseas aficionados to spend that money on enabling New Zealanders in rural and provincial areas to have greater access to first-hand experience of New Zealand art collections through enhancement of provincial facilities? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government is spending $7.5 million a year on building and supporting regional art and museum installations. We are the first Government in New Zealand history to have done that and I am very proud of it. I am very satisfied that we also need to take New Zealand art internationally just as we take New Zealand film New Zealand wine and other New Zealand products. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does she think as the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage that spending $500000 of taxpayers’ money on a braying port-a-loo or junked computer hardware or whatever it turns out to be is the best spending of our money on international art; if not when will she make up her mind and take some responsibility for her portfolio? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I take very seriously my responsibility for my portfolio but my responsibility is not to dictate to New Zealanders what they should think draw paint or create. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What is worse: a taxpayer-funded artist who will not front up to the public assumes a number of names but did create the work; or a taxpayer-funded artist who does front up to the public takes the credit but did not paint the painting itself? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think the worst thing is astonishingly stupid populist-seeking by a member of Parliament in a failing party who appears to be pursuing a vendetta against her ex-husband. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was a personal reference made there. I want the member to stand withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to say I found the answer very difficult to hear. I am glad my attention was called to it because there was far too much noise during it. 
Police—Resources 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he confident that the police are sufficiently resourced? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Generally yes. The Labour-Progressive Government has increased the police budget to $1.06 billion—up a massive $45 million over last year’s budget. That compares with the time when the questioner was a whip in the New Zealand First - National Government. In the 1997-98 year the police budget was only $784 million—a slmashing of $3 million from the previous year. 
Ron Mark 
: How does the Minister reconcile his answer with the report in the 
 Southland Times 
 expressing Senior Constable Mike Colligan’s concerns that morale at the Alexandra station was “at an all-time low” because of staff cuts and expressing his concerns that front-line officers were having to work solo shifts? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am happy to tell the member that the staff at Alexandra are not overworked. They make fewer than three arrests a week and of course if people have to work in rural areas occasionally on single shifts they are like people in urban areas at times. I think that that staff member should write to the commissioner if he is not happy or to an employment agency if he is really unhappy. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister detail to this House whether the police have received any additional resourcing since the announcement of this year’s Budget? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes: the equivalent of 18 more sworn positions in the communications centres 12 new positions for the commencement of professional driving campaigns following the pursuits review and another nine positions in the prosecution field—and the latter is probably because we are resolving more crime than was ever resolved before. 
Brian Connell 
: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the information he has available to him when answering questions is up-to-date and accurate in light of the internal memo entitled “Southcom’s performance for the week ending 13 June 2004 again overall is not good.” which contradicts the advice he gave to the House on 23 June that police are being dispatched within 2 minutes to priority 1 events? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell the member that when one picks 3 days out of 365 then one may occasionally get that sort of result but the performance of the Southern Communications Centre has lifted by 18 percent since March. That is a really good performance. I think that member should stop picking on the centre and the staff who work there. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question about what steps he has taken to ensure the information he has is accurate. He did not attempt to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought he addressed the question. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to police resourcing what lessons does the Minister believe there are for the New Zealand Police in comments by the British Home Office published in the  
Guardian 
 that it has saved 180000 police hours each year by reclassifying cannabis allowing the police to “concentrate on class A drugs” which cause the most harm to society? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have not seen that report but I tell the member that the police are getting tough on all drugs whether it is marijuana—which is illegal—or any other drug. Our police do a good job and do not worry too much about what is going on in overseas areas because they are doing better here in New Zealand than the police do anywhere else. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why has $4.2 million in funding been cut from specific crime prevention activities undertaken by police that target violence burglary and vehicle offences and why has a further $2 million been cut from police prosecutions of criminal cases; is that now what passes for Labour’s policy of beefing up police resources? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not think that person heard when I said we are spending more than $1 billion. There are fewer burglaries than ever before; they have gone down from 96000 to 60000. That is probably one of the reasons why the resource being spent is down in that area. 
Ron Mark 
: Does it not concern the Minister that with violent crime on the rise and an increase in the number of attacks on the police there should be only two patrol cars on duty on a Saturday night in a city with a population of 65000 people and that one of those patrol cars shouldshould have only one officer on board; is that the type of industrial relations that a good employer would be engaged in? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell that member that crime is down 13.8 percent from when it peaked in 1996. The police are on top of crime and that member should be honest and say that crime is falling in New Zealand. The crime rate is down. Everyone knows that and the police statistics state it but that member wants to mislead the public of New Zealand. Why he continues to do that I do not know. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now answer the question he was asked. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The reason for those numbers is that that is the resource the police feel is necessary to police the area. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table a printout from the  
Guardian 
 website showing 180000 hours of police officer time was saved— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email that was sent to the Minister by a concerned citizen outlining the shortage in staffing in a city that has 60000-plus people 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Wood Processing—Resource Management Act 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he been advised of reports from the New Zealand Forest Industries Council and the Forest Owners Association concerned about the lack of investment in wood processing in New Zealand due to problems with the Resource Management Act 1991 notably that Australia has 21 mills under development while New Zealand has none; if so what advice has the Ministry of Economic Development provided on reforming the Resource Management Act 1991? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am not yet responsible for Australian economic development. [ 
Interruption 
] The invitation is in the mail. The private sector in New Zealand is not required by law in this country to tell the Government of its investment plans. However I am aware of not just one wood industry development but 17 which Investment New Zealand and I know about from public announcements alone. These are planned to come on stream between 2004 and 2009 amounting to a total of $523.5 million of capital investment in the wood processing industry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked: “what advice has the Ministry of Economic Development provided on reforming the Resource Management Act 1991?”. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer and there was no reference to that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that was the second question the member asked. There were two questions— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s quite in order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is my final warning. I am very generous today and the member knows it. The Minister might care to comment on the second part of the question if he wishes to do so. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have been advised of the reports and that rather than no wood processing investment development in New Zealand in the next few years there are at least 17 that are on the public record. The member could have found this out just as I did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm what Mr David Benson-Pope told an open session at the Local Government New Zealand conference on Tuesday in reference to a session on the Resource Management Act that that very morning at a Cabinet committee there had been: “a major fight” but not to worry because he and Marian Hobbs had rolled Mr Anderton? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If it is a surprise to anyone in the Opposition this Government has robust debate around the Cabinet table. This leads to very effective and constructive decision-making of a very high quality. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Would the Minister agree that the lack of—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Woolerton. I have just given the last warning. My patience has gone. Mr Woolerton alone has the floor. I ask him to please start again. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Would the Minister agree that the lack of start-ups in forestry milling up until now has more to do with the previous National administration than the Resource Management Act? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The member could well say that. I could not possibly comment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm reports in this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
that he opposed draft changes to section 6 of the Act proposed by the environment Ministers because they were “too loose” to quote from the  
Dominion Post 
 but that he lost the debate; if so what were the specific changes to section 6 that he was seeking? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I cannot confirm the report because it is absolutely untrue. I do not intend to litigate the debates around the Cabinet table on major issues like the Resource Management Act before they are announced. This Government is going to deal with Resource Management Act reform which the previous Government never did in 9 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In noting the Minister’s statement that it is not proper for Ministers to comment on Cabinet committee deliberations I ask why it was quite proper for his colleague Mr Benson-Pope to tell an open session of the Local Government New Zealand conference that Mr Anderton had been rolled; and if that is not correct would the Minister like to make the record clear? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the question relates to the Hon Jim Anderton and his portfolio he can answer it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Every Minister in this Government has the right to speak frankly in front of all of his or her colleagues and we all do. Sometimes we win; sometimes we do not. I have no view whatsoever that anything that happened at that meeting would indicate that views that I have expressed have been rolled in any way shape or form. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is not the key business concern in developments like that the certainty of the rules and would not a good solution to many Resource Management Act problems be to provide high and certain national environmental standards rather than dismembering the Act and creating further uncertainty through case law? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that both national policy statements and national environmental standards would be good additions to the procedures of the Resource Management Act and Cabinet is considering both measures along with a number of others. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does he recall his speech in 2001 when he said that every raw log shipped overseas was an economic failure; and noting the 21-nil record noted by both the Forest Industries Council and the Forest Owners Association will he accept that he has failed awfully and resign? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Obviously I know the forestry and wood-processing industry a lot better than the member does. The truth is that on the public record over $500 million of investment will come to fruition over the next 5 years and that is known to everyone who wants to seek out the public record. This Government has a very proud record of working positively with the forestry industry. No Government in recent history has done more with and for the forestry industry in terms of infrastructure training and skill and assistance with investment in marketing than this Government has. Anyone in the forestry industry whom the member would like to talk to in any kind of open way in front of people who know the truth would admit to that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the statements from the Forest Industries Council and the Forest Owners Association that are damning of the Government— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek leave to table the list of publicly announced investment details for the wood processing industry over the next 5 years. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Darfur—Humanitarian Crisis 
5.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What steps has New Zealand taken in response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Given the scale of the crisis in which at least 30000 people have already died and 1.2 million have been made refugees the Government has today decided to grant a further $1 million in humanitarian assistance to bring to a total of $4 million the funds given to international and non-governmental organisations working to prevent further catastrophic loss of human life. In addition and in respect of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s request New Zealand has also urged the Sudanese Government directly and in conjunction with Australia to comply with the terms of agreement reached between that Government and the United Nations. New Zealand is also pushing for a strong resolution from the Security Council on Sudan and will consider a request if made to make a modest contribution towards peacekeeping forces in that area. 
Tim Barnett 
: How is the Government providing the aid in a way that ensures it actually gets to those in need of it and is not misappropriated by a corrupt Government or bureaucracy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The $4 million has been paid directly to international organisations and humanitarian agencies that have a strong track record. For example $2 million was shared between the World Food Programme and the United Nations commission for refugees. A further $1 million has gone to the New Zealand Red Cross and to Médecins Sans Frontières. The latest $1 million will be channelled through New Zealand non-governmental organisations that have counterparts providing emergency assistance actually on the ground in Darfur. 
Food Safety—Contaminated Cornflour 
6.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: When if ever will the New Zealand Food Safety Authority release both the names of the 30 or so products affected by lead contamination and the test results which satisfied the Government that products which were not recalled “pose no safety concerns”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Food Safety): 
 The member is incorrect in the assumption that 30 products were contaminated with lead from this consignment. Approximately 30 products were assessed. The test results are that four were found to be above acceptable levels and these products were named and recalled. The rest were below and pose no safety concerns. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I will repeat my question: will the Minister release the names of all those products that were tested and also the test results themselves; if not how can consumers be satisfied that the products that are not being recalled pose no safety concerns? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have every confidence in the testing regime applied. The analogy would be us releasing the names of every single person tested at the roadside for possible drink-driving offences. It would be simply unrealistic if those products were at a standard far below that which we consider to be of any significant danger. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What food does the Minister consider safer—food from the USA that may contain some GM particles but has been proven to be safe or food like cornflour from China where no amount of guarantees obtained will ensure that the food is free from GM lead or anything else? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We need to have systems in place that test the safety of food from wherever it comes. For the record I inform the House that the Food Safety Authority has traced the source of the lead contamination. The information points to contamination from the ship used to transport the corn from China as being the most likely cause. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Surely consumers have a right to know what is in their food and especially what contaminated ingredients are in it and therefore why does the Minister not instruct the Food Safety Authority to release the names and test results of all the products it has tested? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Food Safety Authority will name and release the details of all products that are judged to be unsafe for New Zealand consumption. But the many hundreds and thousands of food products that it tests on a regular basis do not need to be named in the public arena because they are judged to be safe for consumption in New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s answer to a previous question about the contamination likely to have occurred on a foreign ship does he share my view that that strengthens the case for the development of a New Zealand shipping industry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is outside the Minister’s portfolio. However the Minister could make a brief comment if he wishes. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am sure we could trust New Zealand ships perhaps a little better but we have to rely on the international transportation of products both in and out of this country. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware of media reports that some parents of children who consumed large amounts of the potentially contaminated corn are having their children tested for lead poisoning and is the Food Safety Authority’s constant downplaying of the risks an adequate response to the entirely justifiable concerns of these parents? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are many reports on food safety around the world. I am aware of some of those reports and as I stated yesterday I hope that parents are offering their children a balanced diet. I am also aware of a UK food standards agency report citing organic baby foods as carrying higher dioxin levels than conventional products. There are many claims around food safety in the world. We have to be very balanced and careful in our assessment of them all. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the Minister’s response to the pregnant woman who consumed contaminated cornflour and has no idea of how much lead her foetus has been exposed to and who has emailed me stating: “I am angry upset and terrified that this may have harmed my unborn child.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I encourage that member to be sensible in her comments and not to alarm unnecessarily any New Zealanders be they pregnant or otherwise. The facts are that it is unlikely that unborn children are at risk because the levels of cornflour used by adults are relatively small. I am sure that that mother if she is sensible will have a balanced diet to look after the concerns of her unborn child. It is virtually impossible for that child to be affected. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the  
Waikato Times  
relating to question No. 1 today and the credibility of my statement regarding the National Party’s position on the question of regional councils. This article states: “Asked for his thoughts on the future of regional councils Dr Brash said that this was an issue which needed looking at.” That is the  
Waikato Times  
of 23 July. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a serious point of order in relation to the tabling of documents and claims that were made by the Minister of Local Government. He said in answer to the very first question of the day that I had said that National would abolish regional councils. When challenged he said he would table a document from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that would show that. I now have the document he tabled. It says no such thing and I wish to know from you Mr Speaker what way it is possible for members to hold Ministers to account for misleading the House in that way. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I would request that Dr Smith read out the very last paragraph of the article. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to read out the paragraph— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to give the member leave. He does not need to seek leave; I am letting him do it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The paragraph states: “In answer to a questioner who pointed out that district councils said they were constrained by regional councils’ environment plans Smith said he ‘will be talking to the caucus about whether we need that many tiers of Government’ ” and then the article states: “—implying regional councils might be abolished.” That is very different from the claim that was made by Mr Carter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me just say—[ 
Interruption 
] That of course is why I should not be brought into the debate. This is a debatable matter and can be— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But it was a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to say to the member that he keeps on talking while I am on my feet. He cannot do that. I should have had him out a long time ago— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know—I am just so soft and reasonable today. 
Hon Member 
: You are soft on crime. There is not long to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am soft on crime I know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to take this matter too much further except that when you were questioned about it before particularly about the matter of Mr Carter saying that Dr Smith had said something when clearly he had not you said that the best way to deal with it was by point of order and indeed allowed Dr Smith to explore that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It now goes a little bit further. What we have here is a Minister who has come to question time made a claim that is completely untrue and now has had that claim proved untrue in the House through this long and protracted process. I wonder whether it might be appropriate for you to instruct Government Ministers in future simply to stick to the truth when they are giving answers in this House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I would like to read again what Mr Carter actually said: “… Dr Nick Smith has gone further being reported as implying that regional councils might be abolished.” 
XXX Carter actually said “will be abolished” 
That is exactly what Dr Smith just read and this is the answer that was actually given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to have anything further on this matter. I myself will have a look at the issue and listen to the tape and if I find that somebody has misled the House I will be making the appropriate comments to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know whether it is because it is Thursday afternoon or it is raining or it is windy but there are some very very funny comments being made in the House today that are out of order. 
Transpower New Zealand Ltd—Electricity Supply 
7.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Is he confident Transpower New Zealand Limited will be able to carry out required future upgrades of the national grid and ensure continued security of electricity supply; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Energy 
: Yes. The ridiculous situation left by the previous Government which meant that Transpower could not get paid for new investments is now being fixed with the establishment of the Electricity Commission. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does he share Transpower’s concerns that the protection that the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Bill gives to customary rights orders could prevent it from installing new lines and cables; and what reports has he asked for from officials or from Transpower to ensure that this is not the case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am pleased to say that today Transpower has clarified its comments yesterday and said that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill does not create a threat to New Zealand’s electricity supply. I might go slightly further as I know just a small amount about this piece of legislation and point out that it is most unlikely that customary usage rights will exist where there is already a pylon in place. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: If he is confident that existing legislative frameworks do not impede major developments and investment in the transmission grid then why has his Government embarked on a major review of the Resource Management Act specific to impediments to infrastructural development and with particular reference to the national grid? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The review being undertaken of the Resource Management Act is not with particular reference to the national grid at all. It is covering a range of issues the great majority of which would have very little to do with the national grid. But certainly the points made by Transpower no doubt will be listened to carefully by the select committee and indeed points made by industry in general are being listened to carefully by the Government as are points being made by environmental groups as well. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What steps are the Minister and the Electricity Commission taking to ensure that proposals to expand transmission capacity are properly assessed against the kinds of efficiency gains achieved by Orion networks such as load shifting distributor generation built closer to demand and efficiency gains which do not require digging up any land? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: All those issues will be taken into account by the Electricity Commission as part of the review of the transmission system and no doubt will be taken into account by shareholding Ministers should Transpower be consulting with shareholding Ministers in the event of proposing a major upgrade to the system. It is also true of course that in the long term an upgrade to the system will actually improve the efficiency of the electricity system and waste less electricity. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: In the light of his original answer that today Transpower had changed its position from yesterday is he able to confirm to the House that this was done after Transpower was contacted by either the Minister or someone in the Minister’s office; if so why did the Government deem it necessary to contact Transpower this morning? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I not able to confirm that on the base information. I do understand however that the chief executive of Transpower was not aware that that submission was being made. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is it his practice or the practice of his office to ring Transpower or other State-owned enterprises and threaten them if they get a bad story in the newspaper as a result of a submission to the select committee so that they then clarify and change their position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I assume the question is being addressed to the Minister of Energy but the Minister of Energy is aware that all State-owned enterprises are expected tgo engage in a no-surprises policy in terms of public statements and that was indeed the policy engaged in by the previous Government. 
Maori Language—Promotion in Homes 
8.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Ka pewhea te Kawanatanga i tautoko i te reo Maori i roto i nga kainga? How has the Government promoted the use of Maori language in homes? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Maori Affairs 
: I tukuna e tenei Kawanatanga he tautoko hei whakatairanga i te korerotanga o te reo Maori i nga kainga o te motu ara ko nga mahi paho ko nga mahi hoki penei i te Wiki o te Reo Maori. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
This Government has provided support through broadcasting programmes and through projects such as this Maori Language Week to promote the speaking of the language in homes throughout the country 
.] 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: He aha i noho ai ko te tautoko i te korerotanga o te reo Maori he kaupapa nui hei whai mo te Kawanatanga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Why has supporting spoken Maori become a major focus for the Government 
?] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Na te tautoko a tenei Kawanatanga mo Te Wiki o te Reo Maori kua noho tenei te tino kaupapa nui o te tau.I te timatanga o tenei tau ka whakaterehia te pouaka whakaata Maori. E toru rau rima tekau mano ki te matakitaki mai o nga iwi katoa whanui o Aotearoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
By supporting Maori Language Week this Government has made the language a key priority of the year. Maori Television was launched at the beginning of 
this year. A mainstream audience of 350 000 New Zealanders have been viewing it 
. ] 
Pita Paraone 
: Awhea te Kawanatanga e tautoko i te reo Maori mai i te tahi wiki ia tau ki te rima tekau ma rua wiki ia tau?  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps it is my pronunciation but the translation of my question should be: when will the Government give support to the Maori language not just for 1 week each year but for 52 weeks a year? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. The member can of course always translate for himself. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Kei te tautoko te Kawanatanga ki te korero i te reo Maori i nga tau katoa i nga tau katoa.Tenei wiki he wiki whakanui whakarongo mai i te motu mo tenei wiki anake engari harakau te Kawanatanga e tohu ana ko tenei wiki anake engari harakau te Kawanatanga e tohu ana ko tenei wiki anake engari ki te tautoko i nga tau haere mai katoa. A na tera kua tohungia tatau katoa he iwi Maori tangata whenua tatau katoa ara indigenous New Zealanders. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Government is supporting Maori being spoken every year. This week is simply a week for those listening in to celebrate it but the Government is not saying that it is for this week alone. Total support is there for years to come. And by that time we will all be calling ourselves Maori 
people of the land indigenous New Zealanders 
.] 
Metiria Turei 
: Ka pewhea te Kawanatanga i tautoko i te reo Maori i roto i te Whare Paremata a mo nga mema Paremata? 
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
How does the Government propose to support Maori language in the House of Representatives and for members of Parliament? 
] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Ko te tumanako a te Kawanatanga kia akotia nga mema katoa o te Whare Paremata ki te korero i te reo Maori ara pena e harakau e mohio ana nga mema o te Kakariki ki te korero Maori aku nei patai ki a ratau aku nei tohu ki a ratau me haere ratau ki te kohanga reo.  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Government expects all members of Parliament to learn to speak Maori and if members of the Green Party are unable to do so I would advise them to go to kohanga reo. 
]  
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister does not have any jurisdiction or responsibility over the Green Party and I consider that statement to be out of bounds in response to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Ko nga reo irirangi me te pouaka whakaata e whakapaho atu o tatau nei reo kei waenganui i o tatau nei whanau ki ou whakaaro kei te haere tonu tenei ahuatanga kei waenganui i o tatau nei whanau? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
In respect of radio and television broadcasting of our language among our families does the Minister think that this is going to carry on for our families? 
] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Na te mea nga kainga katoa puta noa i te motu matakitaki mai ana i te pouaka whakaata e whakarongo ana nga taringa ki te reo irirangi a kei te tautoko atu enei kaupapa kia whakarongo mai ai te iwi whanui puta noa i te motu nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki te reo a me te tumanako hoki kia haere ratou ki te whai nga ahuatanga mo te reo Maori. 
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Because homes throughout the country are watching television and listening to radio these programmes will provide the support that the listening public up and down the land will need in regard to the language with the expectation as well that they will continue to work at it 
.]  
Maori Language—Promotion in Homes 
8.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the Minister of Maori Affairs: Ka pewhea te Kaawanatanga i tautoko i te reo Maaori i roto i ngaa kainga? How has the Government promoted the use of Maaori language in homes? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs: I tukuna e tenei Kawanatanga he tautoko hei whakatairanga 
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Nanaia Mahuta 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Pita Paraone 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps it is my pronunciation but the translation of my question should be: when will the Government give support to the Maori language not just 1 week each year but 52 weeks per year? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. The member can of course always translate for himself. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Metiria Turei 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
:  
 [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister does not have any jurisdiction or responsibility over the Green Party and I consider that statement to be out of bounds in response to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: 
[An interpretation was given in English to the House.] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: 
[An interpretation was given in English to the House.] 
Elderly—Health Needs 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does she have any concerns regarding the current health needs of the elderly; if so what does she intend to do to address those concerns? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 When we took office in 1999 our Government certainly had concerns about the health needs of older people after a decade of neglect by the previous National Government. Since then we have made progress in many areas including making all older people over 65 who are enrolled in primary health organisations eligible for lower patient fees and $3 prescription charges and providing new funding for orthopaedic surgery in order to double the number of major hip and knee replacements funded by the public health system over the next 4 years. We have also increased the funding for the residential care of older people three times since 2001 by a total of $52 million. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Why is the Minister ignoring those at the coalface of elderly health needs who say that the decision to shift aged-care funding responsibility to the district health boards is unwise and negligent because the district health boards lack understanding and have too many layers of bureaucracy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would reply to anyone who made that sort of comment that it is totally out of sync with the majority of submissions on the Health of Older People Strategy which confirmed that the previous fragmentation of the health and disability services for older people was damaging to their health and that the best way to ensure the integration of those services was through a coordinated care package that is best lead by one single funder. 
Dave Hereora 
: What else is the Government doing to address the health concerns of older people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Most older people given a genuine choice prefer to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. That is why the Government has set up a number of Ageing in Place projects including the Community First model being trialled by Presbyterian Support in Dunedin and Waikato. Feedback is very positive about those community-based services which are especially tailored to the needs of older people and greatly enhance their quality of life. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Will the Minister describe precisely how the deficit-riddled district health boards will cope with funding the care of the elderly now that the Government has foisted the added burden of the Holidays Act upon them or will she deny responsibility? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In October last year the funding for health of older people services including that for residential care was devolved from the Ministry of Health to the district health boards. The residential care contracts are currently under review including pricing for services. District Health Boards New Zealand has agreed to review those contracts on a national basis to make things easier for providers and to help ensure greater nationwide consistency. While the contracts are under review it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the amount of funding that will be applied. The Ministry of Health is however investigating the impact of the Holidays Act on aged-care facilities. Information has also been received from the district health boards and the ministry will report back to Ministers with that information soon. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister how precisely district health boards would cope now that the Holidays Act has been foisted on them in terms of their spending and the Minister completely ignored replying to that specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was one question of the two that were asked. If the Minister wants to perhaps she could comment on that aspect of the Holidays Act. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can repeat what I said in answer to the previous supplementary question which is that the Ministry of Health is investigating the impact of the Holidays Act on aged-care facilities. Information has also been received from district health boards and the ministry will report back to Ministers with those findings soon. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that the significant underfunding of the aged-care sector is jeopardising the safety and quality of the services provided to the extent that the chief executive of the Wellington City Mission has commented that he has had to defer essential maintenance and equipment purchases in order to keep nursing staff? If so will she commit to assisting the district health boards to achieve agreement before the year ends on a pricing model that actually reflects the costs involved and more important will she commit to funding that model; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may comment on any two. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I was not surprised to read the most recent statement from the Wellington City Mission. It is consistent with statements that I have read at this time in the review-of-contract cycle in many previous years. It has not been my understanding from the many residential providers that I deal with that they have decided to reduce the quality of care. In fact it is my view that the overwhelming majority of providers are interested in enhancing the quality of their care. In terms of the specific funding issues as I indicated in answer to a previous supplementary question those are the responsibility of the district health boards. The contracts are currently under review and it would not be appropriate for me to make a comment at this time. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister concerned that more cases like those in the South Canterbury District Health Board will occur whereby the outsourcing of elderly services will cost extra money result in lower care standards and run contrary to Ministry of Health and ministerial guidelines? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would be concerned if any contracts did not comply with the certification or licensing standards that are required as part of the contracts in all outsourcing work. If the member considers that that is occurring I would be very pleased to receive information on that. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister admit that the Government’s commitment to senior citizens is somewhat hollow when her response to the Health Committee’s recommendation to urgently review contract pricing was to only partially increase it to levels that the ministry itself admitted to be inadequate and when despite the expectation that there would be another catch-up from June this year none has been forthcoming; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I reject the assertion that the member started her question with. I repeat that the review of contracts is currently being undertaken by District Health Boards New Zealand and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this time. 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—Solicitors' Fidelity Guarantee Fund 
10.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with clause 336 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill that dispenses two-thirds of the remaining assets of the Solicitors’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund to the New Zealand Law Society once the fund is wound up; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes because it is the strong wish of the profession to decide itself at an appropriate time how any remaining funds sourced from its own members should be applied. It is not for the Government to determine how funds that do not belong to it should be disposed of. The New Zealand Law Society is the profession’s elected representative body and its position on this clause was recently supported unanimously by its 30-member council. There may be some individual practitioners who disagree. I note that the select committee received only four submissions on this point. 
Murray Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that in a recent survey of lawyer principals 88 percent said that they did not want the fund to be handed to the Law Society; and in the face of that result will he continue to tell those 88 percent of lawyers that he believes the Law Society’s self-serving assertions of overwhelming consent for the move ahead of the written survey responses? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member can attack the New Zealand Law Society all he likes but that body is a properly elected democratic body that has decided that the way to dispose of funds provided by its own members is as set out in that clause of the bill. If lawyers as a group were largely overwhelmingly or even in significant minority opposed to that one might have imagined that they would have taken a little bit of time to turn up to the select committee to say that and one might have imagined that the Law Society would not gethave got a unanimous decision from its 30-member council that that is the way to properly dispose of those funds. 
Richard Worth 
: Why when the current range of banking products has meant that lending by lawyers is rare and when most other occupations that had fidelity funds—like chartered accountants motor vehicle dealers after 2003 and stockbrokers—have abolished those funds or had them abolished for them does the Minister apparently still consider that a fund is necessary despite the clear wish of the New Zealand Law Society to scrap it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because this Government believes strongly that particularly in areas of the law whereby people should have good cause to have confidence in the honesty of those representing them there should be some collective security for those clients in the event that particular lawyers rip them off—and regrettably they do that to the tune on average of $1.5 million per year. This Government unashamedly stands for the consumer against that sort of theft by lawyers. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: When will the fund be wound up and how much is expected to be in the fund at that time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand Law Society expects to retain the fund for some years to cover the expected tail of residual claims against it. Unfortunately it is impossible to predict accurately what those claims may be but based on the average claim levels over the last 10 years the Law Society does not expect the residual fund to be very significant at all when it is finally wound up. 
Murray Smith 
: If the Minister is not prepared to listen to 88 percent of the lawyer principals who said they did not want the fund handed to the Law Society what percentage of lawyers opposed to the distribution of the Law Society’s $6 million would it take for the Minister to agree to insert in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill a requirement for a referendum among lawyers on this issue or does the Minister have a completely closed mind on the issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two points. Firstly when we negotiate with lawyers we negotiate with their properly and democratically elected representatives. They are elected regularly and there has never been any suggestion to me from the member or anyone else that that body does not fairly and properly represent its members. Secondly in relation to the $6 million fund the member is talking about that is the percentage of the fund that might be used for “representative purposes” if there were no claims on the fund over the next 5 6 7 years. Clearly there will be claims on that fund and the amount of money being talked about is likely to be quite small. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am probably raising it at the wrong time but the Minister answered a question and said that lawyers rip the public off to the tune of $1.9 million a year and he seemed to be referring to an official document. Can I ask the Minister to table that document? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did not quote from an official document did he? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. I did not use the figure “1.9”; I said “1.5” which is the estimate from the president of the Law Society of how much has been claimed from the fidelity fund over the last few years. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister recognise that the New Zealand Law Society as trustee of the fund and as the self-advancing proposed beneficiary of $6 million from the fund is in a clear conflict of interest in this matter; and at the very least an independent survey of lawyers on the matter should be an absolute prerequisite? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: For a start the survey the member is talking about is about principals of law firms only—if I understood it right. That is not talking about lawyers generally. In terms of conflict of interest the Ministry of Justice sought a legal opinion on this matter right at the beginning and the member will know of that legal opinion because it was provided to the select committee. That legal opinion came to the conclusion that the most practical course is to provide that any surplus should become the beneficial property of the New Zealand Law Society—as was the course adopted on the abolition of the New Zealand Society of Accountants fidelity fund which nobody in this House opposed at the time. 
Murray Smith 
: I seek leave to table a document “Solicitors’ fidelity fund results of opinion survey” dated 27 July 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article from the  
Timaru Herald 
 from 29 May 2004 titled “Warning over health services for the elderly”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have done that when the question was being asked but I will accept that the House can give her leave if members wish. Does anyone object? Right there is objection. 
Polytechnics—Funding Breaches 
11.  
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Can he confirm that any polytechnic found to have breached the intent of classification 5.1 funding either by way of payments to enrol students or by not ensuring that students engaged in learning will be required to return the money; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
:  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Any breach of funding guidelines whether by a large polytechnic or a small community provider is treated seriously and addressed appropriately. I expect any provider to cooperate fully with the Tertiary Education Commission on that. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was that a “Yes” or “No”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot demand that. The Minister addressed the question. I heard him. The member will please ask her supplementary question. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: Can the Minister explain how it was that Christchurch Polytechnic was able to receive $15.3 million for distributing CD-ROMs which may or may not have even seen the inside of an enrolee’s computer—if that enrolee even had a computer—or the Eastern Institute of Technology receive $18 million for broadcasting a radio programme to which enrolees may or may not have even listened when he knows that if it had been a Maori whanaunga it would have been audited re-audited and audited again with payments withheld as happened with Carich New Zealand which at least delivered what it was supposed to; or is this just another example of “It’s so marvellous to be white.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister may comment on two. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two questions: one begins “Can the Minister explain”; the other begins “or is this”. The other parts are adverbial or adjectival clauses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. I will accept the member’s word. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Commenting on the Carich issue I point out that the Tertiary Education Commission worked cooperatively with Carich over many months to try to resolve the issues. For instance it agreed with Carich to spread its debt repayments over a longer time than for other providers and it agreed to Carich’s request to submit a most unusual third single data return. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day Carich went bust. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had two questions there. The Minister answered one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was the second one? 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: It asked how it was possible that the Christchurch Polytechnic and the Eastern Institute of Technology could get away with the spending of $33 million and no auditing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister addressed the question but if he wants to make a further comment he can. No he does not wish to. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why has the Minister decided to cap community education and subject it to more scrutiny? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is implementing a strategic approach to investment in tertiary education. We have other priorities for enrolment growth such as ensuring skills are met. Community education continues to have an important role but on a smaller scale. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it true that tertiary institutions whose 5.1 levels have remained the same over the last few years will have to cut back by 15 percent each year for the next few years; if so how can he possibly say that those institutions that have not caused the 5.1 blowout are not being penalised? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to explain it which is actually quite difficult. The formula uses a baseline of the average of a tertiary education institution’s validly enrolled classification 5.1 equivalent full-time students for 2002-03 and its forecast classification 5.1 equivalent full-time students for 2004. On those allocations the 2004-06 period is then calculated as the 2004 forecast equivalent full-time students plus 119 percent of the baseline. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister assure whanau hapu and iwi that community education courses run by Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi that have led to degrees in postgraduate participation will not be affected by the funding cuts caused by the action of irresponsible mainstream polytechs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The very large growth in 5.1 course numbers is not confined at all simply to polytechnics. It has been a very broad experience across the board—clearly well in excess of what the Government anticipated and there are doubts raised around the quality of courses in a wide range of institutions. The Government does not propose to distinguish on the basis of treating Maori providers better than general providers in that respect. 
Prisons—Consultation 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he believe that public money used for prison consultation should be used prudently and accounted for scrupulously? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: If the Minister were to view an invoice for $4965 for corporate box hire fees which prison consultation providers used to entertain personnel from his department in April 2003 would he commit to a full investigation of that doubtful arrangement; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware that some staff of the department were engaged in a corporate box. Mind you there are many people who get taxpayers’ money and engage in corporate boxes—including probably that member as a member of Parliament. 
Georgina Beyer 
: I would be interested to know whether the Minister has received any reports on the results of consultation around the new Spring Hill prison. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. I have seen a number of reports around consultation. In those reports I note that Paul Hutchison the local member has opposed the prison and current and former National members have urged people to cite wahi tapu issues in order to oppose it. That is interesting given that Don Brash wants to build up to 10 new prisons under his new parole policy even though a large number of National MPs have consistently opposed the building of the prison at Spring Hill. There is a word for that. It starts with “h” and I am not allowed to use it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide advised me earlier that his question is a little longer than usual. I am allowing it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does it concern the Minister that Dennis Parsons of Indepth Forensic Ltd found that the Department of Corrections contract was “financially generous to the Lands Trust in the value accorded to the services rendered; that Corrections made duplicate payments of over $40000; and that no time-sheets were kept until the 30th of June 2002 but that the completed time-sheets after that date appear to have been of little real use other than to record the number of hours worked for payroll purposes” or is he sticking to his answer given to Parliament yesterday that Mr Parsons’ report states no such thing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly I did not say that it did not state any such thing. I think the member accused the Parsons report of talking about the Department of Corrections being a whitewash which I am certain it did not say. But I will say that the department in its own report stated that some of the payments had been excessive that the department had been quite explicit about trying to make sure that double-dipping did not occur that it was quite frank about some of the concerns that had been expressed and that it has taken steps to ensure that does not happen again. I am certain that they will not happen in the future. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Who was the person responsible in his department who allowed corrections personnel to take part in the corporate box party paid for by prison consultancy providers and does he intend taking disciplinary action? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member knows the nature of disciplinary action has nothing to do with the Minister. Secondly as I said there were people involved in that but as I have said a number of people do such things. What is more concerning is a member who claps his leader when he says he will get tough on crime and build more prisons and opposes a prison when it is to be built in his own electorate. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table an invoice from the Spring Hill prison consultation providers for corporate box entertainment amounting to $4965. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I seek leave to table a number of media reports that show that National Party members cited wahi tapu in order to prevent a prison from being built at Spring Hill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Members 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Sittings 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Did he initially claim that leave was not required for the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to sit after 6 pm last evening; if so why? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the tight time constraint to hear submissions is he as chairman advising submitters that it is their prerogative as to how they spend the 10 minutes allocated to them and can we therefore assume that select committee members’ opportunity to question submitters is a secondary consideration? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the chairman of the committee assure the House that submitters will get adequate time to get their points across and that the 10 members of the committee will also have adequate time to tease out the points that they wish with those submitters? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my address to Local Government New Zealand earlier in the week which shows that the statement attributed to me by Dr Smith is a fabrication. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the notes I specifically took on Mr David Benson-Pope’s opening comments on the Resource Management Act when he spoke at the Local Government New Zealand conference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those notes. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do we take it that those who have denied Dr Smith leave in this case are saying that the veracity of his notes is not as good as those of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials who sit in— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 28 July. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 This bill is an example of just how absolutely hopeless this Government is and I will tell members why. This bill will do nothing to alter or improve the service delivered by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in this country. Let me tell the House why that is. 
I mentioned last night but I want to reiterate that this bill will not do anything to help victims. All that it does is make it easier for those who are the perpetrators. Under this bill the victims are shut out. Unless significant changes are made by the select committee—and the National Party under the leadership of Katherine Rich on this bill will be making sure there are—I give notice as has been given earlier that National will end up opposing the bill because it does nothing. 
We have already seen that the problem with this bill is that it does nothing to address the multiplicity of times that a young offender can take part in Family Court conferencing. Do members know that in this nation there is one person who has been to a Family Court conference 16 times? How many chances do people expect to get before they are actually pulled up and made to address their issues? There are two people who have had 15 shots and there are 100 who have had eight to 14 shots. It is just not good enough and we expect the Government to do something about it. But what is it going to do? Under this bill it is not going to do anything at all. 
The thing that also worries us is that we have these offenders who continue to offend who do not worry about their victims—do not worry about the elderly do not worry about the people who have to suffer as a consequence of their offending—and under this bill they will get automatic name suppression. Why should they get automatic name suppression under this sort of legislation? The public should know who the young people are who are causing problems. It really really concerns me that this Government knows there is a problem out there but is not doing anything about it. 
That brings me to the issue that I really want to address. I want to bring to the attention of the House some statistics that relate specifically to Northland. It is the matter of unanswered cases. This House will be interested to know that in the northern region there are 862 recorded cases that have not been answered at all. That is a disgrace. The problem with this Government is that it is just not paying attention to resourcing this department so that it can get on with its job. There have been 862 cases of people ringing up and saying: “Hey we have a problem here with a young person. These are the circumstances. This is what is happening.” and what happens? Zilch. Their calls are not even answered. People leave a message on an answerphone saying they are worried about a case but what does this Government do about it? It does absolutely nothing. It is a disgrace. There are 862 such cases just in Northland. Those people need to have their issues addressed. That is the trouble with this Government. It is big on talk but when it comes to resourcing something that needs to be resourced it does nothing. It can spend $500000 on sending a braying dunny to Italy but when it comes to something that is absolutely important which might mean the difference between a young person having an opportunity or not it does absolutely nothing. 
Then it turns round and says that it is the fault of the officials and of the people who work in the department. Actually it is not. The fact is that the department is under-resourced its staff is underskilled and it has people who are asked to do a job that is beyond their ability. They can answer phones but it is beyond their ability to address the issues that are brought to their attention. What does the Government do? It brings in some silly bill that includes a whole lot of stuff that will do nothing. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) will achieve zilch. 
I tell Government members this Parliament and this country that the National Party will look to make significant changes to this legislation. The National Party knows that if this bill goes through as it is now it will end up doing absolutely nothing. I know that my colleague Peter Brown would agree with me. He wants legislation to be effective in this House. We all want legislation to be effective. But this sort of legislation will not get the support of the National Party and I suspect that a number of parties in this House will not support it in its third reading if it is not changed significantly. 
I say again that the issue of victims’ rights is not addressed in this bill. I say again that the issue of a young person who repeatedly offends has not been addressed in this legislation although it should be. That young person should have one or two opportunities then “slammo” he or she should be put away shot out dealt with put out of the system so that he or she will not cause any more problems to anybody but will this Government do anything about it? Not on your nelly! We have even got to the stage where it is saying: “Don’t worry young fella. Keep offending. We’ll suppress your name so that no one knows who you are.” The offenders can leave a note when they climb in the back window so that the victims might know who they are but this Government does not want the general public to know. It is giving them automatic name suppression. 
I ask again what the Government is doing in this legislation to address the matter of unanswered cases. This year in Northland 862 people have rung up and said they have an issue and they are worried about it. They have said that this young person and that young person need to be looked at as they may well be future criminals. What has happened? Absolutely nothing? 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re just repeating yourself. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member is right; I am repeating myself for the very reason that it is so important and it is so difficult to get a message through to this Government at all that I have to keep saying it again and again. Unless this legislation has significant improvements we will oppose it later on during its process through this House. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 We have just been treated to a great audition to be a front-bencher from John Carter who was telling us all about the National Party and its approach to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4). But he made one mistake. He told us that the National Party’s approach would be led by Katherine Rich—who of course has been silent on this bill up until now. But the idea of Katherine Rich leading anything is a bit of joke. We want to know what her view on time limits is when it comes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) because I understand that the National Party is having a huge debate on issues about limiting time. It will be very interesting to hear what Katherine Rich has to say about that. 
This bill builds on the work of the Ministerial Task Force on Youth Offending which found that overall our youth justice legislation was sound but of course improvement is always needed. With the better information-gathering and operational practices that this bill proposes we will be able to make more of a difference for young people in this sector. I support the bill having its first reading and am interested to hear from Mrs Rich her view on time limits. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall just take a brief call. I was really interested to hear the previous National Party speaker on the bill particularly when he said the National Party was looking to make significant changes to the bill whenever it was in a position to do so. Well we know that will not be for a very very long time. 
But I understand that the National Party will also make significant changes to its spokesperson on this area. In fact the National Party spokesperson on child youth and family issues has not even taken a call on this particular bill. Great changes are afoot and I think Mr Carter’s sentence was quite Freudian in its intent. 
This bill will assist young people; it will assist them to stop committing crimes and it will stop them from reoffending. National’s glib approach to this bill shows that its policies for young offenders will never work. That kind of speech might go down well in some of the Northland bars and speakeasies but it does not work here in Parliament where every word is recorded. That would be a good speech from the podium during an election campaign but certainly does not stand up to scrutiny in this place. 
This bill is a good bill and I am very pleased to support it. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) be referred toconsidered by the Social Services Committee for consideration 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 that the committee be required to present its final report on the bill by 15 November 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the Housewhile the House is sitting except during questions for oral answerbut not during question time during anthe evening onf a day on which there has been a sitting of the HouseHouse sitting day and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the Houseof a House sitting week despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a growing concern with this referral motion—of the Government consistently bypassing Standing Order 194. The Standing Orders are very clear to protect members’ interests. We are getting this experience in many committees. The only opportunity members have is to raise the issue and put forward an amendment during the debate. It is too late at this stage. But sitting past 6 p.m. and sitting on Fridays is actually a breach of the Standing Orders and it is sneaked through by Ministers doing it in the referral motion at this stage. It is a gross intrusion into members’ rights and a breach of the Standing Orders and I believe it needs to be looked at. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I understand the concern that he has but there is nothing that I can actually do about it—and the Minister did indicate this course at the commencement of the debate. 
A party vote 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent. 
Motion agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time 
. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) amends the Fisheries Act. It has been divided from the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) where it was previously Part 3 of that bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004 and corrects a general problem with current quota allocation mechanisms identified during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system. 
The management of scampi has attracted a great deal of attention and controversy over the last decade. Introducing scampi into the quota management system by legislation will remove the uncertainty surrounding the future management of that fishery. The allocation measures contained in the bill also ensure that no incentives to race for catch history are created. A key recommendation of the Primary Production Committee’s report on its inquiry was that scampi be introduced into the quota management system as of 1 October 2004 using catch history as the basis for quota allocation. To ensure the status meets and gives effect to the select committee’s recommendations the bill also defines all matters consequential to a declaration for introducing stocks into the quota management system allocates provisional catch history to scampi fishers provides capacity for fishers to appeal against provisional catch history allocations at the catch history review committee and makes other consequential changes as necessary. 
I thank members of the Primary Production Committee for their work on this bill. During the submission process submitters were divided on the passage of the bill. Support for passage of the bill was based on the belief that any delay would be bad for the resource and would make management and marketing of the fishery less successful. Opposition to passage of the bill was for two reasons: firstly submitters felt that it would impede effective negotiations with the ministry on appropriate compensation for or redress of the grievances identified by the committee in its inquiry report; and secondly submitters felt that passing legislation before the public release of the State Services Commission’s report into scampi management would be inappropriate unconstitutional and unfair. The State Services Commission report of course was released during the select committee process. After consideration the committee decided against delaying the passage of the bill. 
The committee has acknowledged the Government’s decision to accept its recommendations with regard to the compensation of named scampi fishers in its report and does not intend to establish a precedent for other fisheries by recommending changes to the allocation model in the scampi fishery. The allocation of provisional catch history to scampi fishers incorporates the committee’s specific recommendations relating to catch history records. However the opportunity for fishers to appeal provisional catch history allocations at the catch history review committee is retained. 
The committee has proposed an amendment to Schedule 2 of the bill in order to provide for the allocation of provisional catch history to one of the stakeholders in the fishery. That amendment could not be incorporated into the bill before the bill was introduced. However the Government supports the select committee’s recommendation. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As the Minister said this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) legislates scampi into the quota management system on 1 October this year. I have to say that that was never soon enough. Certainly scampi has to come into the quota management system as soon as possible. With fishers not having quota allocated currently there is a race for catch out in our scampi fishing grounds. Through the system that operates at the moment fishers are encouraged to catch as much scampi as soon as possible. Subsequently juvenile fish are being brought up out of the water unnecessarily. When scampi goes to the quota management system scampi fishers will have all season to make their catch. They will not be under pressure to make their catch before anyone else. They will target older scampi and fishing grounds that can sustain that intensive fishing. 
National supports scampi coming into the quota management system. We are very concerned though that there have been boundary changes to traditional scampi fishing zones off the coast of the South Island. In fact National will not support this bill in its third reading unless during the Committee stage the Government either moves amendments to change back the boundaries of quota management areas 3 and 4 off the coast of the South Island or gives us reasons why those particular boundaries have been changed. We believe that the Government has shifted the goalposts affecting the fair allocation of scampi quota in that lucrative fishing area and that is of concern to us. The original boundaries which have been in place for well over a decade will change overnight through this legislation so we want to hear from the Minister during the Committee stage—which we look forward to probably next week—why that is the case and how it benefits the fisheries or we want to see amendments that will change back those fishing zones. 
However I do reiterate that National sees the need to introduce scampi into the quota management system as soon as possible. Interestingly the Primary Production Committee was pushed quite heavily by both the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to see this bill come into the House. We were quite astounded that it did not come in during the urgency motion of 3 weeks’ ago soon after that pressure was applied and after the committee reported back to this House. That was of concern to us. Given the pressure we were under I would have to say that not introducing the bill in that urgency motion raised eyebrows across the industry and also across this House. 
Members will be well aware of the work of the Primary Production Committee particularly of our inquiry into the scampi fishery. On behalf of the National Party I am bound to say we acknowledge that those fishing companies accused of unlawful behaviour such as Simunovich Fisheries Ltd had no such allegations proved against them at the select committee. No evidence was brought before us at the select committee that convinced me of supposedly flagrant illegal behaviour on their part. 
In addition the State Services Commission inquiry which ran roughly parallel to our own inquiry came back with similar findings. What was interesting though was that our comments—our quite harsh comments—on the Ministry of Fisheries for being inconsistent unfair and unprofessional were reflected in the State Services Commission’s findings but the commission was much more scathing of the Ministry of Fisheries. It called the ministry inconsistent ad hoc unprofessional—and on it went. I have to say— and I am sure the member Ian Ewen-Street will comment on this as well— that the select committee was quite disappointed in the media statement of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries made soon after the State Services Commission inquiry when he said that his ministry had nothing to answer for and that it was completely professional at all times. We thought it would have been better if the ministry had acknowledged its deficiencies and promised an improvement. 
There were also outstanding issues from the Primary Production Committee report. Firstly all but one named fisher have not had an accepted settlement in that report. Members will recall that the select committee named seven fishers: Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and Mr H G Cave; United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and the Sealord Group. Those were the seven named fishers in the inquiry who we believed were justifiably aggrieved. Only one of them has accepted a settlement; six more need to receive one. That is the first outstanding issue. 
The second outstanding issue was that the select committee recommended minimum payments. The National Party did not support that. We did not believe we could pick what the minimum ought to be but Labour Party members and New Zealand First decided to allocate $400000 to most fishers as a minimum payment and $900000 to Mr Trevor Goodship. Interestingly since that went to Cabinet those minimum payments became maximum payments by a statement through the Minister. We see that as unfair and not along the lines of the select committee report. 
Thirdly in terms of outstanding issues the Sealord Group was a named fisher that the Government and New Zealand First did not see as being worthy of a settlement. Labour Party members felt that the Sealord Group did not deserve a settlement because it was too big a company and because that amount of money was just a drop in the ocean—in other words justice did not matter. New Zealand First members did not want to support a settlement to the Sealord Group because it was half owned by an Asian—that is by a Japanese company. I believe that that is an appalling position to take on both fronts: firstly a race-based objection from New Zealand First that the company is half Japanese; and secondly an objection from the Labour Party simply because the company is too big. However these are not our prime concerns and they will not stop us voting for scampi to go into the quota management system. 
Our prime concern about this bill is the shifting of the goalposts once again in the scampi fishery. The original boundaries which have been in place for over a decade will change overnight. Quota management area 3 an accessible area off the Canterbury Bight and the East Coast of the South Island and quota management area 4 which includes the Chatham rise will change in area. I cannot understand that. Quota management areas can be changed only by an Act of Parliament; they are integral to the quota management system. 
Even the report of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research stated there was no justifiable reason why one would change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. The institute’s report stated there were “no important differences” between the two main scampi areas. It stated that where there were “indications of differences” it might be appropriate to shift the boundaries but that if that were done it would be “to some extent arbitrary”. The institute believed that if the boundaries were shifted the shift would be somewhere to the west that the shift might be appropriate but that there was “insufficient data” to assess whether scampi would benefit from the shift. 
Given the report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research tThe National Party’s concern is that quota management area boundaries should not be changed adt hoc. We need a reason for those changes of boundaries. We would like to see from the Minister during the Committee stage amendments to change the boundaries back to what they have been for over a decade or to hear a justifiable reason given to us why they should remain where they are with the changes in place. 
I reiterate that National supports scampi going into the quota management system on 1 October of this year but cannot and will not support the bill in its third reading if the Ministry of Fisheries has not changed the boundaries of the scampi fishing zones back to where they traditionally were or given us a reason why they should remain as changed. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Parliament is the last resort for people who have suffered injustice in our community. This bill means that Parliament has failed those people. It has looked at the injustice it has acknowledged the injustice and then it has cynically perpetuated the injustice. This is mean-spirited legislation that is wrong. It should be abhorrent to all reasonable people. 
The story of scampi is a litany of arrogance and incompetence. I will start by quoting from an affidavit by Mr Vaughan Wilkinson in a 1993 court case involving Petromont Holdings Ltd. He said in clause 12: “In or about 1987 Simunovich formed the view that there was sufficient numbers of scampi within New Zealand fisheries waters to sustain commercial fishing.” In clause 13 he said: “This view was founded on extensive research I had undertaken.” Well Vaughan Wilkinson was still working for the ministry in 1987. He left in February 1988 to become a senior manager with Simunovich Fisheries. It is interesting to note that the information he passed on to Simunovich was not passed on to other fishers. Simunovich knew that at some stage scampi would be brought into the quota management system and that the allocation would be based on catch history. At the same time and specifically on 9 December 1991 other fisher people were explicitly told by the ministry that catch history would not be used for future allocation of quota. 
In 1993 Petromont was successful in judicially reviewing the ministry’s management of the scampi fishery. The courts described the ministry’s process of allocating temporary catch history as unfair unreasonable and unlawful. I will jump ahead for a moment to the Court of Appeal hearing in 2001 when Justice Thomas said: “Following the Petromont decision instead of reconsidering the legality and fairness of its prior decision the ministry ‘remade’ exactly the same allocations.” 
In 1997 when smaller fishers judicially reviewed the ministry because they were going to take those temporary allocations into permanent quota rights the ministry introduced new regulations to pre-empt the court case. The ministry came to the Regulations Review Committee and in front of that committee it undertook to start again with a clean slate for scampi allocation if the court found that its actions had been illegal. The court subsequently did find that but on the basis of that assurance the Regulations Review Committee upheld the regulations. 
I move further on. In 2000 the High Court upheld the small fishers’ complaint and I say again that the court found the ministry’s regulations to be unfair unreasonable and unlawful. The High Court did not have the jurisdiction to make a judgment on the regulations so it went to the Court of Appeal which also found that the regulations were unfair unreasonable and unlawful and struck them down. 
There seems to be a myth abroad in the ministry and amongst some of my colleagues that the judgment from the Court of Appeal was a minority one. That is not the case. It was in fact unanimous. I quote from clause 100 of the court’s decision: “All members of the court are in agreement that the appeals should succeed”—in other words the appeals against the ministry. At that point one would have thought the ministry would accept that what it was trying to do was unlawful and unreasonable and that it would change its policy—but it did not. It continued to do the same thing. Basically it was thumbing its nose at the courts and at the Regulations Review Committee. The ministry also reneged on its undertaking to the Regulations Review Committee to start with a clean slate. 
Then we come to the two inquiries that other members have discussed. First of all I mention the select committee inquiry which really in my opinion failed to identify the solution to the wrongs that had been done in terms of reallocation of quota—because clearly the allocation mechanism was deeply flawed. The State Services Commission inquiry found that there was an unprofessional relationship between Simunovich Fisheries and the ministry and found that favouritism had been exhibited. I would urge members to look at the  
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 
 and at the definition of corruption. The definition of corruption in that dictionary states that favouritism is corruption. I will leave members to draw their own conclusions. 
The two inquiries have been described as my colleague Phil Heatley said as the most scathing criticisms ever directed at a Government department in New Zealand. So we—certainly I—were utterly amazed to find that the chief executive officer had put out a press release claiming that the reports had completely vindicated his ministry. They had not. They had done anything but that. I would have thought that any press release the chief executive officer put out would have signalled his gallant falling on his sword. 
Even worse than that after the release of the two inquiry reports and while the Primary Production Committee was still considering the bill was the Ministry of Fisheries’ announcement that it was going to change the boundaries of the quota management areas. We asked the ministry to give us a breakdown of how that would impact on the actual quotas. Ministry officials arrived the following week with a chart and the chart had blank cells in it. That was the ministry telling the Primary Production Committee what the changes were going to be—with blank cells! When we said that that was not good enough they came back an hour later with the cells filled in. In that chart they said that Simunovich Fisheries would get an additional 129 tonnes which was greatly in excess of the total allocation for any other fisher. When we complained and said that that was still not good enough they went away and an hour later came back with a third sheet of paper. This time the increase for Simunovich was only 64 tonnes which was still greater than the total allocation for any other fisher—except Sanford Ltd. That is outrageous. Constitutionally it is unbelievable. 
I believe that the favourable treatment shown to Simunovich and the unfavourable treatment shown to other fishers in the scampi fishery should not be perpetuated by putting that allocation model into the quota management system based on the 1992 catch history years. Simunovich has already had more than a decade of preferential fishing as a result of the ministry’s incompetence—or dare we say “worse than incompetence”—and that injustice should not be made permanent. I have no real objection to scampi going into the quota management system but not on the basis of the injustices that have been shown up by two inquiries the High Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal. I say that the ministry has been grossly incompetent and that the people at the top of the ministry should be resigning. If they are not prepared to resign they should be made to resign. 
In addition and to compound that unfairness which the Government is now putting into perpetuity the Government is allocating this quota by legislation and in so doing it is taking away the usual rights of appeal that fishers have—that is an appeal to the Catch History Review Committee and the usual right of review by the judiciary. The Government has chosen to put its own shonky decision-making beyond the reach of the courts by forcing this allocation through by legislation. This bill is very bad legislation and the Greens will definitely not be supporting it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This whole scampi issue and the subsequent two inquiries are possibly the most damning indictments on a Government ministry on Government officials and on a Minister that this country has ever seen. Indeed successive Ministers have presided over continuing abuse unfairness and arrogance from this Ministry of Fisheries. One could almost say that this Government ministry in its entirety should be towed outside our exclusive economic zone and dumped. That is probably the best solution for it. 
The cost to this country in round figures has been $10 million—that is $10 million of taxpayers’ money. For the record I want to quote from the commentary on the bill so that it is in  
Hansard 
 forever. I shall quote what Helen Cull QC has had to say about this ministry: “The findings of the report”—that is the select committee’s report—“mirror those of our inquiry. In particular the report is severely critical of the former Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for its unfair and inconsistent policies and procedures and for inappropriate unprofessional relationships that compromised the impartiality and integrity of its management of the scampi fishery. The report however found there are no grounds for further investigation of potential criminality on the part of either officials or fishers.” 
It continues: “The report also recommended to the Ministry of Fisheries that: ‘if the legislation policy and process for the allocation of scampi quota finally adopted allows administrative discretion then to the extent such discretion allows those exercising it consider when coming to an over-all view of the relevant public interest the exercise of the discretion be informed by the findings of this Inquiry.’ ” Those words especially that first paragraph amplify the thoughts of all members of the Primary Production Committee who sat for a year listening to the “incompetence” of that ministry. That is the only word that can be fairly attributed to it. 
I stand here in a rather difficult position in that although there can be no question that the fishing community in this country has been treated abominably by this ministry on the other side of the coin there has been allocation. Both committees of inquiry in fact found that there was no corruption so I suspect that to redistribute now would cause more problems and more grievances. Therefore the real question for me I guess and for the ACT party—indeed for members of the House—is whether we vote to progress the passage of and pass this legislation or vote to stop this scampi fishery going into the quota management system. 
I have to go back to what I would call first principles—that is to consider the fishery itself and its sustainability. There is no doubt at all that the quota management system is far and away the best method of ensuring the sustainability and sensible management of that fishery. It is with some real regret I have recommended and my party has accepted that we vote for the passage of this scampi fishery into the quota management system. But I say yet again that it is only on that principle—that it is in the best interests of the fishery itself. 
I think my comments in my opening remarks make clear enough what I actually think of this Government ministry and the oversight given to it by Ministers. It seems to me that the most important thing that Mr Benson-Pope can do during his stewardship of this ministry is to clean up the mess immediately. He should be charged with nothing else by the Prime Minister than to sort this whole ministry out so that the public can have some confidence in its future. I know there will be a huge number of fishers terribly disappointed possibly in the ACT party and possibly in others for their accepting that this bill will progress—although it is up to members of this House to determine whether it will. 
I refer again to United Fisheries which was one of the first companies to enter the scampi fishery. In fact that company was wrongfully denied access to the scampi fishery during the 1988-89 1989-90 and 1990-91 seasons. It was denied access by the Dunedin office which had a policy of not issuing scampi permits through the late 1980s. How can it be possible that a ministry could have a policy that surely reflected its views yet the Dunedin office could makde a unilateral decision that was at variance with the national policy statement and with the requirements of the Minister and that department? 
Perhaps one of the worst aspects of this whole business is that we had a Government ministry ignoring High Court directives. That is outrageous for a High Court in relation to redress. Mr Ewen-Street is quite right to say that Parliament is possibly the last venue for redress. But when we have a situation where business people fishers go to the High Court believing there has been unfairness proving their case before a High Court judge and receiving a verdict—as United Fisheries did—that states they have been unfairly treated to any reasonable person it seems to me that is a directive to a Minister with any sort of integrity to say “My ministry will accept that directive of the High Court and ensure that this situation is put right.” 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: And the Court of Appeal. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: And the Court of Appeal. But on far too many occasions and in far too many examples the ministry decided that it knew best and knew more than the High Court. It decided to ignore that advice because—well goodness knows why. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why are you voting for it? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I tell the member I am voting for it because scampi ultimately has to go into the quota management system and I am voting for it because there is nothing to stop continuing litigation against this Government ministry whether it is inside the quota management system or outside it. I would certainly encourage those who have justifiable claims to continue them because they have the sympathy of the entire Primary Productions Committee. 
As I said earlier this is an exceedingly difficult decision to have to make but on reflection I see that I have little option but to follow through with the bill’s passage and vote for its second reading—albeit with the greatest amount of regret. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I rise to support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and also to add to the comments of members in respect of the scampi inquiry. I will start with that and say to the Green member Ian Ewen-Street that he is right: under our system this is the last place to try to correct injustices for our people. I pay tribute to every member of the select committee. It is by its nature almost a non-partisan committee and that was nowhere more exemplified than in this inquiry because every member despite differences in politics realised that this was a grave issue to deal with and that people’s livelihoods were at stake both large and small. 
By the end of the process we unanimously came to the conclusion that some gross unfairness had taken place. We have to remember that this was perpetrated some 10 years ago and has hung around since then. But I would say to Mr Ewen-Street that in talking about injustice one must remember that under our parliamentary and select committee system we must deal with the evidence put before the select committee. We were unanimous as a select committee that allegations of illegality and corruption whether they were laid at the feet of a number of fisheries players or the ministry were not proved on the evidence. We do not operate a kangaroo court system in this democracy. We must make judgments as a committee based on the evidence despite I must say in qualification the gut feeling that many of us had on varying occasions about certain issues. Members who sat for those 59 or 100 hours that we did considering evidence and listening to submissions will know what I mean by that. But as a committee we identified unfairness and attempted in the best possible way we believe to correct that unfairness. 
The only issue that the select committee parted company on and I acknowledge Mr Heatley’s contribution was whether or not to name dollar figures. Even that issue was dealt with in the spirit of the committee. There was a difference in opinion as to whether that should happen. 
Phil Heatley 
: It was a line-ball call. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It was a line-ball call the member says. The majority of the committee supported putting in some minimums I suppose in essence to ensure that the ministry played a fair game with those people who were to be compensated. After all the committee’s job was not to allocate dollars; the committee’s job was to make recommendations. 
For the record the Government and the committee and we all agreed on this inquiry have attempted to clean up a large amount of incompetence that occurred 10 years ago. Without getting into the politics of who was in Government and who was not because I do not think it is appropriate it is on the record that there was gross mismanagement and I would argue incompetence in terms of how the scampi fishery and the allocation processes were managed and gross unfairness resulted from that. I have to say that those same officials were to put it as delicately as I can less than helpful from time to time in coming before our select committee. Some would say that from time to time they were obstructive but I will leave it at that. 
I conclude on the point that I believe we have through this bill placing scampi into the quota management system tried to move this issue forward and bring it to a resolution but also tried ultimately to protect that fishery. But I say to the major players and protagonists—Simunovich Fisheries in particular which will through catch effort gain the vast majority of that scampi fishery—that I think the days of litigation are over. I am a little outraged that further litigation in various quarters is proposed by various parties because I think enough is enough. I suspect that though I do not speak for them other members of the select committee on different sides of the House may tend to agree at least in part with what I am saying. I say to Simunovich and other major players to get on with it. The issue is coming to a conclusion. The records to the best possible extent have been put straight. I call on those parties to get on with it get out of the court get back in the boat get their feet wet get a bit of salt going and go and catch some fish. 
I say to those people who came before us—in particular to Mr Goodship and others who were compensated here—that I think we would all agree there were some pretty heart-wrenching stories and some huge impacts both emotionally and economically on a number of players. I pay tribute to those fishers who kept fighting right through that 10-year period to try to get that unfairness corrected. 
In summation I support the bill. In summation as a still relatively new member of the House I congratulate and commend each and every member of the select committee because I think we showed as a committee how people would like Parliament to work more often. I think it would be a delight for people to come and sit around the table at the Primary Production Committee and see the good humour see the non-partisan nature that members engage in and see exactly how this inquiry rolled out. 
In my short time here but having talked to other senior members there must be something about that committee that committee room the air-conditioning or something because generally that committee—[ 
Interruption 
]. Maybe the Green member contributes in a smoky sort of way. There is something about that committee whereby members fire their shots and have their political points of view but at the end of the day the intent of that committee is to get decent legislation and get decent outcomes back into this House. I acknowledge every member for that. I think we did the best possible job we could. We have been criticised—whichever way we go on this inquiry we will be criticised. 
I finish by just repeating this: I call on those in the fisheries industry to get out of the courtroom and get back on the boat and let us keep developing the industry. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) I can do no better than follow on from the comments made by my colleague from the Labour Party who paid tribute to the work that goes on in select committees. I personally have had a wonderful experience in another committee that deals with fish—we are hearing submissions on the Maaori fisheries settlement legislation—where the cooperation around the table has been really outstanding. We wish more of the public could see the good work going on in this place. 
I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee—indeed no one in United Future has a seat on that committee. It was with some trepidation that I had to start getting involved with the billwe are debating this afternoon having watched from afar the issues surrounding scampi being dealt with through the inquiries and the courts and all the accusations and allegations that were going on. I have only recently had to become familiar with the policy and the industry issues surrounding the bill. I am still amazed at the depth of complexity and controversy that surrounds it. I certainly have sympathy for those on the select committee who have sat through it for many hours trying to make the best out of what has become a real dog’s breakfast. Trying to address issues of the past when things have not been dealt with properly is indeed complex but our job in this House is to try to seek the most just situations we can. I think the people in New Zealand who elect us do not expect us ever to come up with perfect solutions all the time but really to try honestly to find the very best and most just situation we can that is fair to all New Zealanders. 
The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is the culmination of more than 10 years of controversy litigation and politicking not to mention of two inquiries by the select committee and the State Services Commission. It is set against a backdrop of poor practice by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry of Fisheries officials who unfairly favoured some fishing interests over others to such an extent that allegations of corruption have even been levelled. Unfortunately although we now know that there was no corruption per se the allegations of unfairness have been proven but nevertheless appear set to carry through into the scampi quota allocations due to be made in October this year. 
United Future supports the introduction of scampi into the quota and we understand the urgency around this legislation so that it can be done this year. Again although the quota management system is not perfect it is our best tool for sustainable management of our wonderful fishery resource. 
I commented on the fact that there has been proven unfairness in this process. I will read a couple of comments from first of all the State Services Commission inquiry which stated: “We have concluded that the former MAF/Fish acted unreasonably in administering the grant of permits for scampi fishing and for vessel approval during that period. We have also reached the conclusion that MAF-Fish did not have adequate appropriate or consistent administrative systems and processes for the granting of such permits.” That is established as a fact. 
The select committee’s inquiry also made the comment that we found there were significant failings by the ministry in its administration of the permitting system for scampi up to 1 October 1990. The difficulty is what this House does with those issues and how we deal with those who have been unfairly treated as a result. With such a long drawn-out process having already been undertaken this bill represents what is probably the best hope for a lasting settlement—flawed though it may be. 
The scampi fishery is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and given its capital-intensive nature fishing interests need certainty and stability before they can commit the resources needed to get the maximum economic benefits from the fishery resource. United Future favours certainty for business and for the creation of the conditions necessary for enabling maximum economic growth in such a lucrative industry. We also recognise an impracticable situation where we see one and believe that the reparations process currently being undergone should mitigate the worst of the injustices that have resulted from injudicious actions by Government officials last decade. This bill therefore represents an imperfect yet practical and common-sense solution to this ongoing issue. 
For that reason United Future supports the second reading of the bill but we still have questions about the shifting of the boundary within scampi quota areas 3 and 4 and we will be continuing to look into those questions before the bill returns to the House next week for its Committee stage. 
I thank those who have been assisting my own personal inquiries into these issues knowing that many of the issues have been gone over again and again through the select committee. But I am grateful we have been given the opportunity to ask our own questions and to try to find answers that will enable us to continue our support and support that will continue to give the best result for the people involved in this issue. We look forward to some robust debate during the Committee stage. We are committed though to seeing scampi introduced into the quota management system and therefore for this bill to pass through the House next week. 
But there are still unanswered questions and every answer I get seems to beg me to ask another question. So I am grateful for the patience that some are extending as we continue this process—from officials both within the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister’s office and also from others who have shed light on matters for me which I have found very very helpful. We hope that we will see a really united support for this bill as it approaches its third reading after the Committee stage next week and I do believe in the integrity of all the committee members who have sought to do their very best through this process. 
I am encouraged that all those I am dealing with at this particular point are doing so from a motive to achieve the best for those they have listened to over these months—through submissions and from personal meetings where they have pointed out their concerns with the legislation as it currently stands. Again I reiterate that United Future is grateful to those who have worked hard on the select committee and who have been involved in these inquiries to try to put this issue to rest. We are grateful to the Minister and to his office for the assistance being given us right now as we engage in this process and are able to come to give our support to the bill. We will look forward to further discussions next week and to the debate during the Committee stage but we commend the bill to the House today. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise with some apprehension having not been on the Primary Production Committee but having listened to a huge amount of debate on this issue now over a long period of time in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). National supports the scampi fishery going into the quota management system by 1 October this year and there are a range of reasons why that is so which previous members have spoken about. 
During this debate I have been reminded of some comments made by none other than Albert Einstein himself. He said that some of the things we do count are not worth counting and some of the things we can count do not count. I think that that is absolutely so in the debate that has gone on around this legislation. We have here a situation where a very good select committee—of which I have been a member myself in the past—has grappled with difficult issues of incompetence and bad management. I could stand here as an Opposition member take a few shots at the Government and talk of bad Ministers poor Government and all the rest of it but the reality is that the incompetence that has gone on in this ministry for so long covers a number of different Governments. So it would not be a fair shot if I were to do that. 
The fact is that this has been a vexed difficult issue where there has been a huge amount of unfairness but at the end of the day this is the ultimate court of the land in terms of judging what is fair and what is not fair. We can talk about the detail of the law and clearly there have been some huge discussions about that—about how the historical catch has been achieved how the quota system has been established and how different fisheries have entered the quota management system—but at the end of the day someone has to make an arbitrary decision about what is fair and what is not fair. There has been a huge amount of unfairness in the history of this process. 
I thank those members of the select committee who have done an excellent job—many members have said so. I know they can because I have been in that select committee when other difficult issues have been debated and I congratulate the committee on coming back with a recommendation. I say to the Minister though that now the select committee has done that work in a non-political non-partisan way he should take notice of what the committee has said. He should certainly take notice of the history that has brought the select committee to the position it is at because what I fear and what we are seeing is a Minister and a ministry that once again through an arrogant approach are deciding that they might change various lines in the sand—or in the scampi fishery as it were—and create more unfairness. 
 My colleague Phil Heatley has given me a map that shows that area 3 of the quota management system off the South Island is likely to be changed—an arbitrary decision to change the line. We do not know what that means. We do not know whether there will be a number of undetermined applications affected. We do not know whether the science backing that up is robust. We do not know whether it should be changed back. The Minister needs to explain that to us. If he cannot and if his ministry cannot give a reasonable explanation then National cannot support it. It is that simple. The ball is in the Government’s court on that matter. 
The work that the select committee did also uncovered in my view a range of areas that could be described as being very close to the letter of the law but there was nothing in the inquiry suggesting that any laws had been broken. As I said when I started at the end of the day those decisions are always on-balance decisions. There is always a fine line between what is legal and what is not legal and there is always a fine line between what is fair and what is not fair. I think it has been overwhelmingly established over a long period of time that a certain amount of what went on certainly could never be described by any fair-minded person as fair. 
Having said that the reality is that we will be watching this bill through the process with great interest. Certainly there will be some debate on various clauses during the Committee stage and we will listen to that with great interest. We will be waiting for the Minister and his ministry which have demonstrated no competence in this matter thus far to come back and tell us what it is they are trying to achieve through their arbitrary change of lines. If we are not satisfied with that we will not support the bill going any further. That is about all that needs to be said by me.  
J MACKEY 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 As deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee I start by thanking all the members of the committee and the people who travelled—quite often long distances—to come before the committee to make submissions. I thank those players for their work in trying to make this bill into good legislation. I believe we have achieved that. 
I have listened to the speeches today and I note that a number of parties are expressing concern over the change in the boundaries. Certainly I imagine we all responded to the consequences of that change. However I commend the National Party members for saying that they will be seeking further advice as to the reasons for it and that they are prepared to listen to that advice and judge the change accordingly. My understanding of the change in boundaries is that the scampi beds lie over the border of the fishing-ground. If we believe in the quota management system—and certainly the Primary Production Committee is the first committee to urge the Ministry of Fisheries to get people on boats in order to ensure that people are taking the correct amount of fish from the correct place—I would say that the fishery is impossible to manage if the fishing bed is divided in half by the boundary between the two regions. So I certainly hope that members opposite follow up on the rationale for the change. Knowing the consequences of it—and certainly none of the committee members are ecstatically happy with the consequences—I would say that that needs to be taken into consideration in balance with the ability of the ministry actually to police that fishery and to ensure the sustainability of the scampi beds. 
Dealing with scampi has been a long and wonderful experience. I never believed when I came here 12 years ago that I would leave here something of an authority on the behaviour and life-cycle of and the fishing methods for scampi—even if I have never tasted them. It has been an extraordinary experience. Once again I thank the other members of the committee for the sensible and intelligent way that the issue was approached. I am delighted to speak today as scampi goes into the quota management system. Long may that put to bed all the problems the industry has suffered in the past. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street. 
Hon Member 
: He’s had a call! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry the same member cannot have two calls unless of course the member seeks leave. It is then up to the House whether it is granted. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a second call on this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee with an instruction that the committee presents its final report to the House on or before 8 November 2004. 
New Zealand citizenship and passport legislation has been reviewed to ensure that there are no preventable risks to national security. This bill amends the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992. The bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Part 1 amends the Citizenship Act. It provides for the acquisition and loss of New Zealand citizenship. Under this Act migrants can acquire a grant of citizenship after settling permanently in New Zealand and meeting specific requirements. The grant enables migrants committed to New Zealand to receive the benefits of citizenship including a New Zealand passport. Approximately 20000 people receive New Zealand citizenship each year. 
One of the standard requirements for a grant is that the applicant must have been ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the 3 years before application. That is short by international standards and can include time spent here on temporary permits such as work or student permits. It is also inconsistent with New Zealand’s immigration policy which distinguishes residents from temporary permit holders. To rectify it the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 years to 5 years. From 1 January 2005 applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5 years before application including 8 months in each year. Accommodating some absences from New Zealand during the residence period acknowledges the frequency of international travel while restrictions on absences ensure that a person has to live in New Zealand throughout the residence period to receive citizenship. In addition time spent in the country on temporary permits will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes and any requirements imposed under the Immigration Act on an applicant’s residence must be met at the time of application for citizenship. That will ensure consistency with New Zealand’s immigration policy. 
Another standard requirement for the granting of citizenship is that the applicant be of good character. This bill amends the Act to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions cannot receive a grant and that those with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a period of time following conviction. 
The bill also removes distinctions on the basis of age and marital status inconsistent with the Human Rights Act. Currently spouses and ex-spouses of New Zealand citizens who apply for the grant have to be ordinarily resident in New Zealand for only 2 years prior to application and do not have to intend to continue to live here. After the bill comes into force grant applicants who have married New Zealand citizens will have to meet the same requirements as other applicants. 
The Citizenship Act lists offences relating to citizenship including making a false statement on a grant application. However these offences do not cover all the aspects of citizenship fraud. The bill creates new offences of unlawfully issuing a citizenship document and unlawfully altering citizenship records. These offences will carry a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment and/or a $50000 fine. 
This bill makes no changes to the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act of 1982. However the bill does address the situation unique to Tokelau which the Citizenship Act defines as a part of New Zealand. A person born in Tokelau is a New Zealand citizen. However as a result of limited medical facilities on Tokelau approximately five to 10 women a year travel to Samoa to give birth for reasons of medical safety. These children are born outside New Zealand and therefore do not acquire the citizenship status they would have acquired if they had been born in Tokelau. To meet New Zealand’s obligations to these people the bill amends the citizenship by birth provisions so that these people are New Zealand citizens at birth. 
Part 2 amends the Passports Act which provides for the issue renewal and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. The Department of Internal Affairs issues 320000 to 340000 documents each year. There are approximately 2.5 million valid New Zealand passports. In general these are valid for 10 years from the date of issue or 5 years if the holder is under 16. International experience shows that the 10-year period is too long because of sophisticated counterfeiting techniques. To reduce the likelihood of forgery the bill reduces the maximum validity of new passports from 10 years to 5. Passports that have already been issued will continue to be valid for the period for which they were issued. 
Currently the Passports Act provides for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information to the New Zealand Customs Service and the Australian immigration authorities for border security and the processing of passengers. However New Zealand travel document information cannot be disclosed for the border security system known as Advanced Passenger Processing. Advanced Passenger Processing identifies unauthorised passengers before they depart for New Zealand by enabling airlines to check the validity of travel document details against an up-to-date electronic record of passport visa and alert information held by the New Zealand Immigration Service. To allow the disclosure of information for Advanced Passenger Processing the bill amends the Passports Act to allow disclosure of New Zealand travel document information to an appropriate agency to aid border security facilitate passenger processing and verify travel document holders’ identity. 
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 requires States to prevent the movement of terrorists by having controls on the issue of travel documents. The bill provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document in cases where national security is threatened. That provision contains a number of procedural safeguards. For example the decline period is restricted to 12 months and the person denied the travel document may appeal the Minister’s decision to the High Court. The 12-month decline period may be renewed only by the High Court. The court must be satisfied that the grounds for refusal to issue the travel document still apply. The bill also provides for a court when sentencing a person for a terrorism-related offence to make an order forbidding the issue of a passport for a specified period not exceeding 15 years. 
Another facet of the bill concerns refugee travel documents. The Passports Office issues 30 refugee travel documents a month as part of New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations convention. To formalise that practice the bill amends the Passports Act to provide for the issue renewal and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. 
This bill rectifies the problems with the grant of New Zealand citizenship and improves border security. I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill to restrict citizenship by birth to children of New Zealand citizens and residents. Currently with few exceptions people born in New Zealand are New Zealand citizens. Some people may come to New Zealand on temporary permits solely to give birth so that their New Zealand - born children are citizens. Under current law those children are entitled to access publicly funded services such as health care and education. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and ongoing link to New Zealand. 
I hope many people will make submissions to the committee for further debate particularly regarding the provision that the standard period of residence in New Zealand be increased from 3 to 5 years. I am sure there will be a wide range of arguments on that. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Internal Affairs will not be disappointed. He will be floodedflooded with submissions on those changes. 
National will support the bill going to a select committee because we want to ensure that our passports which entitle New Zealand passport holders to travel to approximately 50 countries in the world without having to apply for a visa will be protected. During the select committeecommittee process we will make it clear that a reduction in the duration of the validity of our passports from 10 to 5 years should be accompanied by a reduction in application fees and by efficient turn-round. We will be seeking an assurance that the power this bill bestows on the Minister of Internal Affairs to withhold issuing travel documents in the name of national security is subject to a robust process and accurate information to ensure that that power is not abused. We support the increase in the penalty—including imprisonment terms—for individuals who forge documents or falsify claims in order to obtain New Zealand passports. National will support the Government’s potential move to introduce a provision to restrict New Zealand citizenship being obtained automatically by children born in our country to foreigners but once again we want that provision to be subject to scrutiny during the select committee process. We wonder whether the Minister has done his homework; if he had his Supplementary Order Paper would have been tabled for scrutiny by now. 
However National will be seeking amendments during the select committee to the part of the bill relating to the change of criteria for obtaining New Zealand citizenship. It is a long bow that the Labour Government is drawing in using national security as a reason to sneak in the requirement for the qualifying period to obtain citizenship to be extended from 3 to 5 years. We have not heard any good reasons for that change and can only speculate that Labour is reacting to the concern that individuals may be leaving New Zealand as soon as they have obtained our citizenship. The minority Labour Government’s answer is to subject all newcomers to wait for another 2 years. 
I have news for this minority Labour Government: since it took office in the last 4 years every week we have had a net loss of 496 people leaving New Zealand permanently especially our young people who are leaving for better opportunities overseas. They are sick and tired of the high personal tax regime here. They are frustrated by the racial divisive policies of Labour the growing crime rate and the political correctness that this minority Labour Government has inflicted on our country. Labour’s naive and arrogant response is to legislate commitment and command loyalty instead of pursuing policies that would attract our people to stay here and our people living overseas to return. 
On the 9th of this month Australia announced changes to reduce the qualifying period to become an Australian citizen from 2 years to 1 year for those individuals who can demonstrate that their work or business overseas is of benefit to Australia. According to Australia the changes reflect a modern world where people of skill and qualifications are in demand and commitment to a country cannot be solely measured by the time one spends in the country. Among the proposed changes individuals would have to spend at least 240 days a year in each of the 5 years in the country to qualify. Would we doubt the contributions made by Peter Jackson Karen Walker Kevin Roberts and shortly Dr John Hood even though they spend the greater part of the year overseas? Should individuals be required physically to live in a country where they are not gainfully employed simply to satisfy that requirement? Do we prefer to pay benefits to people who cannot secure jobs here but are here in order to satisfy the time requirement? 
I believe that it is time New Zealand revamped our citizenship requirements. For far too long I have heard complaints of new migrants not fitting into New Zealand but what are the criteria to measure “fitting in”? How have we communicated New Zealand values to our newcomers? I have just learnt today that according to the Hon Trevor Mallard to be an indigenous New Zealander means to have come from Wainuiomata. Is that a criterion? Australia spells out its Government’s commitment to citizens in writing. In return new citizens of Australia have to pledge to accept Australia’s values of respecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When will we implement a process of equipping our newcomers to become New Zealanders? They will have a better chance of becoming one of us if they understand the expectations and know how to acquire those tools. To make a child stay at school is quite different from whether the child has learnt anything. 
I and my hard-working and competent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp have fronted up to nine public meetings with new Asian migrant communities throughout the country with some more to go. They are outraged at the retrospective nature of this change. The effective date of the change is 1 January 2005 which means that someone who has been in the country for 2 years and 11 months by the end of this year will have to wait for another 2 years and 1 month to qualify to be a citizen. That is despite the fact that when those people first applied to migrate to New Zealand they understood that the qualifying period was 3 years. National wants to see amendments made to the legislation so that it will not affect individuals who are already here and hold permanent residence permits or long-term business visas. 
Under the proposed changes the time that temporary permit holders have spent in New Zealand would not be included in the 5-year qualifying period. So international students who come to New Zealand to pursue their study will probably spend up to 5 years here to get their first degree then will spend another year here on a work permit then will convert to permanent residence which means that they would not be eligible to apply to become New Zealand citizens for up to 11 years. We want the select committee to consider whether some proportion of the time spent in New Zealand on a student permit should be counted and what the reasons are for excluding from the new 5-year qualifying period time spent here by people who hold work visas or long-term business visas. Currently a spouse’s qualifying period also receives special treatment. Once again under the new proposal that will be removed. We want to hear evidence of current abuse of that special treatment. 
The changes to citizenship requirements have not been well-considered. Where is the transitional period? What happens to individuals who submit their applications prior to 1 January 2005 and are turned down for various reasons? Would they be required to apply under the new law? This bill is another missed opportunity for effective changes to be made. We could make useful changes to make our citizenship more meaningful and valuable but instead Labour’s knee-jerk changes are causing more uncertainty and frustration. National will support this legislation going to the select committee primarily because of the national security measure but we seek a lot of amendments with regard to the changes to citizenship. I want to share a statement on my website; someone wrote in and said that the retrospective changes are like an airline advertising a discounted airfare and in mid-air the pilot telling the passengers: “Tough luck! The fare has to go up and unless you pay up now you’ll have to get off the plane.” That is exactly what the Labour Party Government is doing to newcomers who are suddenly being told they will no longer qualify for citizenship at the end of their original 3-year qualifying period. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 In contributing to the debate on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill I want to say that this move is a very responsible step by this Government to look at the issue of increasing security around New Zealand passports and tightening citizenship criteria and vetting processes. I think that most that members and the public of New Zealand can appreciate the impact of September 11. We have also had recent incidents of espionage and applications to gain through fraudulent means New Zealand passports. That raises some real concerns in this country and I think that this bill is timely with regard to those security issues. 
Our passport is one of the most secure and highly respected passports in the world and it also includes visa-free arrangements with 53 countries. That has the effect of making our passport highly sought after by fraudsters and other criminals. To counter this the bill contains a number of key changes to ensure New Zealanders continue to have a highly secure world-class passport. But in saying that I want to say that there are elements in the bill—and some members have already identified them—that will encourage submissions and worthwhile discussions during the select committee process in relation to the changes. 
The Minister has identified the right to citizenship being increased from 3 years’ New Zealand residency to 5 years which I believe will attract a lot of submissions and perhaps some concerns amongst the people in the community. But I am pleased to reassure the Samoan community that the provisions of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act—given the historical reasons for this Parliament passing that Act back in 1982 as a form of compensation for the removal of New Zealand citizenship from the Samoan people who were born between I think 1924 and 1948—is not changed in any way by this legislation. So I am sure that the Samoan community throughout New Zealand will be very pleased to hear that given recent months of petition in relation to that issue. 
I want to address the concern relating to the loss of right to citizenship for a child if one of his or her parents is illegally in New Zealand. The question that arises there which I am sure members will consider at the select committee is the question of stateless children. Will there be children who will end up belonging to no State as a result of that move? I guess some of us may have a little concern with regard to that not only in relation to fixing up the problem of a woman coming to New Zealand to give birth so that her babies can have New Zealand citizenship but also in relation to the possibility of the babies produced by 20000 overstayers and what their status will be. 
I want to congratulate my friend and colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs on drafting this bill. It is a very good bill given the security issues not only for New Zealand but also for the Pacific region that must be consideredgiven the events of September 11 2001. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are two rights—I think one would call them rights—or entitlements that New Zealanders want need and expect. They are the right of freedom and the right of security. A few years back all New Zealanders virtually got those two entitlements without too much problem at all but nowadays we live in a volatile world and things have changed. On top of that we have become very PC or more and more so and we are gradually losing the right to what I would call basic free speech. New Zealanders want to be able to go where they want to go when they want to go to see what they want to see and to do what they want to do with little restriction. But those things now are having to be tightened up. 
For freedom New Zealanders went to war. For freedom men and women paid the price with their lives. For security we pay taxation; we pay our taxes so we can have a secure nation. This bill goes quite some way in my opinion to making us a more secure nation. 
This is a brilliant country an absolutely brilliant country. It saddens me that some New Zealanders born and bred here do not recognise that. Perhaps I recognise it more because I came here some years ago and fell in love with the place. Thankfully some of the people fell in love with me and they said: “Stay here Pete; stay here.” And I stayed here. 
But nowadays things have changed. Nowadays we have to be very careful who we let in when we let them in and for how long we let them in. 
Jill Pettis 
: Not too many whingeing poms! 
PETER BROWN 
: A few years ago—and that member will be interested in this—at the time of the last election New Zealand First members stood up and said exactly what I am saying now: we must be careful about immigration and immigrants. For our troubles our members and particularly our New Zealand First leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters were called homophobic xenophobic and any sort of phobic anybody could lay their tongue to. I had to confess that when people called me xenophobic I said I could not play any musical instrument whatsoever! But gradually these Government members—and I commend them for it—have listened to New Zealand First. 
Pansy Wong 
: Ha ha they have! 
PETER BROWN 
: Pansy Wong recognises that. I will remind the honourable Minister over there that at the time of the last election anybody could come to this country as long as they had 28 points. They could get 28 points by having a lot of money and they could then just arrive. Then the points level was raised and following that the Government after listening to New Zealand First said it wanted to tighten up on the English language test and that was a good common-sense move. 
 Then the Government said—and not that long ago—that people had to have a job before they came here. Again that echoed New Zealand First policy. Then the Government started to say: “We want to look at the people here who have a criminal history. We want to curtail those guys.” I think they are looking at people who commit crimes after being here a relatively short time and looking at tossing them out. I think they are looking at that. Again that is New Zealand First policy. 
Further and as though that is not enough—I can see Government members sitting there feeling a little bit uncomfortable that they have taken our policies—the Government has said it will impose health checks on people coming here. It has said that it will not just be satisfied as the previous Government was in 1999 with the ticking of a little box as people sat on an aircraft on their way here. The Government has said it will impose health checks. It is yet to do it but it has taken our point on that very very seriously. 
We will say one other thing to Government members and I am sure they will listen carefully. We believe that people who come to this country must have an incentive—an encouragement to integrate into our society or to assimilate so to speak. We in New Zealand First abide by a simple saying in that context: when in Rome do as the Romans do. We say: “Don’t come here to impose your standards your qualities and your attitudes on this country.” That does not mean that individuals who come here cannot have some feeling and respect for where they have come from but they have to be able to fit in and assimilate. 
David Parker 
: They need to change to rugby—not cricket. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member over there has to take some note that the British—Britain is where I come from—brought rugby soccer netball and cricket. Does he acknowledge that? I thank the member for acknowledging that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: But we don’t like warm beer. 
PETER BROWN 
: Ha ha! All I can say before I get too carried away with my own glory is that New Zealanders can do most of those things far better than the people who invented them—and that pleases me no end. 
This country has three major attributes. First it is a beautiful country physically. It is an absolutely gorgeous country physically. Second it is filled to a very large degree with hard-working decent flexible friendly people. They are regarded very very highly when they go overseas and we should be proud of New Zealanders and their achievements in this country. The third and final attribute this country has—but not final from my point of view—is that we do not have too many people. Four million people or just over is enough and that number should grow naturally. We do not have to fill this country with whoever wants to come here—any johnny-come-lately who feels uncomfortable here there or anywhere. We can afford to be selective and we must value the space this country has. If people want the rat race they should go to London Tokyo or wherever they want but we should value the society we have here. 
This bill goes quite some way to putting on some controls. I would like to say that New Zealand First is totally happy with the bill but on our reading of it we can find some concerns. One concern is that we are not yet convinced that the life of a passport should be reduced from 10 years to 5 years. We know that the Minister has a reputation for revenue gathering by his attitude to the police collecting money from drivers—quite unfairly in many cases—and we think this could well be another smart little trick the Minister has come up with to get a few more dollars for the Government. 
We also have concerns that this bill does not stop pregnant people from coming to New Zealand from here there and everywhere from having a baby here—who automatically becomes a New Zealander—and then from moving on to another country. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: There’s going to be a Supplementary Order Paper on that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Based on the New Zealand First member’s bill in the ballot? I am very pleased to hear it. Yet again the Government is listening to New Zealand First. I thank the Minister very much for that advice. 
New Zealand has a high standard and it has to maintain that high standard if for no other reason than that people who become New Zealand citizens get automatic entry into Australia. As much as we want to battle with the Australians on the rugby field and the cricket field I think there is mutual respect for keeping both our countries safe and secure for the respective peoples in our nations. Therefore we have to have a secure control system over people who come here and become New Zealand citizens. 
I think this Government has really listened to New Zealand First and I commend it. We will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I am delivering this speech on behalf of the Green Party spokesperson on human rights Keith Locke. He prepared this speech but he is unable to be here. 
The Green Party will not be supporting this bill even though it does contain some good and useful measures. The bill continues a trend in other legislation that deals with so-called national security or anti-terrorism matters—a trend that is to take away the prosecution and punishment of people from the judicial processes and put that prosecution and punishment into the hands of Government officials—in this case the Minister of Internal Affairs. 
Under this bill the Minister can refuse to issue a passport to a New Zealand citizen and can even take away an existing passport on the grounds of “national security”. We see that as very dangerous. The Government will try to assure us that it is all fine and dandy and that that power will be used only against those planning serious offences such as terrorism the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand etc. But surely a New Zealander doing something seriously unlawful should come before a court and should not be dealt with outside the court by a Minister who has the power to take away his or her passport. When I have asked about that I have been told: “Well the State might not have enough evidence to get a conviction in a court.” That is exactly the problem we are seeing around the world and at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay where politicians and their appointees give themselves the right to judge and punish people outside a judicial process. That is something we should not tolerate here. 
Another argument given to us is that: some “national security” accusations cannot go before a court because the information we have is classified and the overseas jurisdiction we obtained it from will not allow disclosure in any court. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not able to hear myself think. I ask for a little bit of order in the House. Could we deduct that time from my speech? I think it was about a minute when I was trying to get that point across. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Therein lies a serious problem. We are even more aware today that the intelligence services we get most information from—the American British and Australian—make significant mistakes because sometimes they are serving political agendas: either their own or those of the Governments they serve. 
There is a dangerous provision in this bill that allows so-called classified information against a New Zealander whose passport has been taken away on national security grounds to be withheld from him or her in subsequent appeal proceedings before the High Court. Having a passport is a fundamental right of New Zealand citizenship and should not be mucked around with in that way. Sure the person affected has a right to appeal to the High Court but that would be a long involved and costly process during which the person’s overseas travel plans would be suspended. There is no justification for giving the Minister the power to take away our passports instead of charginge us in a criminal court if we do something criminal or conspire to do something criminal. 
There is an additional problem in that the definition of who is a terrorist in the Terrorism Suppression Act is somewhat loose and could be applied to New Zealanders who support liberation movements overseas. The liberation movements led by Nelson Mandela and the East Timor leadership would have qualified as terrorist organisations in that those involved launched major destructive action against the State and even took part in armed actions. The African National Congress put bombs in Government facilities. 
If we remember back to the 1970s and early 1980s the Muldoon Government of the time regarded anti-apartheid leaders like Tom Newmnhaman and Trevor Richards as traitors particularly when they went to conferences overseas and attacked Muldoon’s collaboration with the apartheid regime. Newnhamman’s and Richards’ international travel could well have been curtailed if the then Minister of Internal Affairs had had the power to take their passports away as this bill gives the current Minister the power to do. Let us not say we are just being fanciful here;: we have seen supposedly democratic Governments do that. In the 1950s the US Government took away passports from its critics including respected persons such as Paul Robeson on the grounds that he was a communist sympathiser and a threat to America. We are not suggesting that George Hawkins the current Minister would start taking away the passports of Kiwi dissidents but legislation must be written with future less-tolerant Governments in mind. 
Several provisions in the bill seem to be driven not from any proven New Zealand need but from a desire to do what bigger Anglo-Saxon countries do. Those other countries are driven to impose excessive restrictions on people as part of their so-called war on terrorism. There is no demonstrated need to extend the qualifying period for citizenship from 3 to 5 years. To add insult to injury the provision has been made retrospective which is something legislation should embody only in exceptional circumstances. In this case any changes to the qualifying periods should apply only to people arriving after the passage of the legislation at least. 
Changes to the qualifying period most detrimentally affect New Zealanders with foreign-born spouses—and the spouses themselves whose qualifying period will go from 2 to 5 years. There was and still is a strong argument for spouses to be given preference in terms of a qualifying period. A New Zealander can be severely handicapped when he or she travels abroad often to countries where a New Zealander has visa-free entry if his or her spouse comes from a country—usually a poorer country—whose citizens have difficulty getting a visitor visa. A 2-year qualifying period helps to overcome this problem and should not be departed from. 
There is no good reason either for a legal requirement that new citizens take an oath or affirmation of allegiance at a public ceremony. The practice is desirable and most new citizens are happy to go through such a ceremony but why does it need to be written into law? Kiwis do not mind publicly demonstrating their patriotism—and we do it well at rugby tests—but we do not like to be told we have to do it. The legislation of public citizenship ceremonies has an American showy “hand on heart; salute the flag” whiff about it. We all know where the super-patriotism or false patriotism of the Americans has got them—that is into all sorts of unnecessary wars. 
The bill also makes it unnecessarily tough to grant citizenship to a resident who has a minor conviction. Someone committing even the most minor offence in the last 3 years is excluded from citizenship unless there is a special exemption from the Minister. We believe that the law should be more flexible on that. 
There are some security arguments for reducing the currency of New Zealand passports from 10 years to 5 years but that is going to be a hassle for many New Zealanders particularly those who happen to be overseas when their passport expires. However I do not think we should fool ourselves that that is much protection in itself. Good police work like that which led to the apprehension of two Mossad agents is the way to protect our passports. 
Finally we wish to discuss a provision that is not yet in the bill because the Minister has indicated he may add it later via a Supplementary Order Paper on the bill. It is a provision to take away the automatic citizenship granted to people born here if they are born of people who are not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. This automatic right of citizenship is a longstanding right which applies in some other countries as well. It guarantees that babies born here of visitors or migrants never end up as stateless and that they are provided for properly while in New Zealand as our Government is committed to provide under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should take away that right only if we have good reason and none has been provided yet. Some women were coming here we are told to exploit free maternity services but that avenue has been blocked off. One or two other women have visited here to give birth with them paying the cost in order to give their babies New Zealand citizenship but that does not amount to a problem that would cause us to change our law. In some ways we should be flattered that people think so highly of us that they will move here for that purpose. 
There are too many unnecessary provisions in this bill and too many that are offensive to our civil liberties for the Greens to support it. I am sure that many people have as I have watched the film that is beginning to screen nationwide tonight: Michael Moore’s new film  
Fahrenheit 9/11 
. We hear a lot in that film about the Patriot Act and the erosion of liberties within the American nation under the Bush administration. We should not be complacent. Some of the provisions in this and other legislation that has slipped through this House in recent years have eroded our individual civil rights and increased the surveillance of the State. That is something to which the Green Party is totally opposed. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of the ACT party. ACT New Zealand will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee but would like to voice various concerns we have. I will not spend a lot of time on many of those as they have been already articulated by the National Party member and by Mr Brown of New Zealand First. 
Mr Brown spoke of the rights of freedom and the rights of security that New Zealanders should have and do enjoy. We certainly agree with those points.. New Zealanders should have the rights of freedom and the right to be able to travel. But the role of the Government is also to provide safety and security for its citizens. The first part of the explanatory note of this bill states: “The recent increase in international terrorism and people smuggling has necessitated a review of New Zealand’s citizenship and passport legislation to ensure there are no preventable risks to national security.” This is the case and I do not think anybody would disagree. The question is how we go about ensuring that these preventable risks do not occur. 
I think it is also important to remember that until quite recently the Prime Minister was given to repeating on many occasions that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment. Some might well question why this bill is necessary if that is indeed still her opinion. I think though that recent events have moved us on from there and that everyone in the House agrees that some revision of our law is necessary. As I said I will not go over all of the reservations we have. Those will be addressed by the select committee and we will be participating fully there. 
I will briefly touch on a few issues that we are particularly concerned about. The first is an issue that has been raised by other members of the House and it is one that I spoke out about quite recently—that is the issue of women coming to New Zealand to have their babies firstly because they want their children to be born in New Zealand and therefore be entitled to New Zealand citizenship and to a lesser extent because care is free to pregnant women and babies in this country. Certainly we do not endorse this practice as something we would like to see happen routinely and we do know that it does happen. We will look with interest at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which he has touched on very briefly to see what that contains. Obviously we cannot say one way or the other whether we will be supporting that until we see it. 
There is also an issue of overstayers having children so that they can stay in the country and that is not a practice we endorse. Another thing that seems to be apparent in much of the legislation recently introduced into the House is increased ministerial power. That is becoming evident in many bills. We will be looking very closely at any provisions in this bill that will see ministerial power increased and at what effect it might have in a practical sense. We certainly believe in the power of the law. Law must be enforceable and routinely enforced and not taken away from people by the Minister making decisions off his own bat.. So we will be looking to see where we think the Minister might be increasing his power both unwisely and inappropriately. 
I come now to the second part of the bill which deals with the passport provisions and I will voice ACT New Zealand’s concerns about this particular part. The Minister has said that the Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders can travel freely with a secure passport. Of course this is something that everybody wishes to see. He goes on to say that to ensure this the bill would reduce the validity of the New Zealand passport from 10 years to 5 years. We can see no good reason for this to happen and there are many reasons for our concern. Firstly we too are concerned—as I think the New Zealand First member mentioned—that this Minister has been very good at revenue collecting in his various portfolios. We would be very loath to see a stealth tax brought in under the guise of national security. That would be a very retrograde step. 
We believe in the national security provisions put forward in this bill but we do worry that bringing down the time limit of a passport is just another way of gathering revenue. We see no evidence of a regulatory impact statement and no cost-benefit analysis that would support doing this. We worry that this might perhaps be a knee-jerk reaction. As I say we can think of no good reason why bringing the life of a passport from 10 years down to 5 years would actually change anything at all. Fraudsters are very clever people and no matter what the system is they are very good at finding ways around it. We would be very loath to see the 99.9 percent of law-abiding New Zealanders in this sense punished in order to try to stop those who have very cleverly managed to gain passports fraudulently. Bringing the life of a passport down to 5 years will see absolutely no change in this practice at all. Certainly we do not want to see it increasing but reducing the life of a passport will not deal with the problem. The international standard for a passport is 10 years. This Government seems keen to make us world leaders in many areas—I will not go into that—but there is no reason why we should be a world leader in this respect and bring the life of passports down to 5 years. 
ACT New Zealand does support this bill but with grave reservations in many areas. We look forward to the bill being examined in close detail at the select committee. I go back to the intention of the bill once again. We agree with the reasons for the bill but we need to look very carefully at how we go about ensuring that there are no preventable risks to national security. We certainly do not want to see law-abiding New Zealanders—and that accounts for just about every single one of us—disadvantaged in any way as a result of this legislation. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee and we await a further decision about our support or otherwise at that time. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to contribute to the debate on this bill. It is refreshing for once to support a Government bill that I think generally speaking does everything it sets out to do. In a sense the bill is all about personal responsibility and accountability with regard to the integrity of the passports and citizenship of New Zealanders. I just wish that some of this thinking would spill over into the economic sphere of life and to some of the policies that this Government would then have there as well. 
I think the idea of increasing the time period when an applicant can be considered for citizenship from 3 years to 5 years is a very good point in so far as citizenship of New Zealand is a matter of great privilege. Having that extension of time allows us to ascertain the value of somebody who wishes to partake of New Zealand citizenship. There are all too many cases of individuals coming over here who sometimes want to become New Zealand citizens just to have a backdoor way of getting into Australia. That is a privilege that New Zealanders rightfully have and want to maintain for themselves. In terms of assessing whether applicants are of good character I would like to see a strengthening of the provisions regarding applicants with serious criminal convictions or who have had 5-plus years’ imprisonment and so on who generally will not be granted citizenship. There is no legitimate reason I can think of for inviting criminals from overseas who want to partake in the citizenship rights of this country. Obviously it would have to be considered on a case by case basis depending on the laws of other lands. However I think such provisions would provide a very good screening process and during the select committee process I would like to see them extended and tightened up a little bit further. 
Some people have made the comment that they do not see any need to have a law requiring applicants to take an oath at a public ceremony. If people cannot be bothered to get out of their homes get off their butts and say that they want to become citizens of this country then quite frankly why should we be bothered to give them that privilege. It is a privilege to be a New Zealand citizen. Countless people around the world testify to the fact that they want to come here. They want to live here. To have somebody stay here for a little bit of time hand over a bit of money and then just whoops-a-daisy become a citizen of this country is pathetic. We ought to instil a sense of pride and I think taking an oath is the least people can be expected to do to gain citizenship of this country. 
New offences for unlawfully issuing or removing a citizenship document have been created with a maximum of 10 years in jail or a $50000 fine and the maximum penalties for existing citizenship offences are increased. That all goes to the integrity of citizenship. It has been mentioned that there is no reason for the validity of passports to be reduced from 10 years down to 5 years. I had the same idea myself until the time when I had a look at how passports are made and saw just how quickly they can be forged by people overseas. We need to keep up with technology. The bad guys are catching up very quickly and a 5-year window of opportunity would shut some of that down. 
We do not want visitors coming here abusing the generosity of our taxpayers and having babies at our expense—babies who are then provided with citizenship as a bonus. That loophole has been closed and this bill will extend that. We want to have a look at counterfeit passports to ensure that they are not easier to make. We want to take a look at who we are inviting into this country particularly with the threat of terrorists and perhaps of Israeli agents as well. We want to maintain the integrity of our passports. 
Finally I want to say that the contribution of the disembodied Green member Keith Locke who would advance the most libertarian social agenda while also holding the most socialist economic views strikes me as being rather absurd. He presumably wants public anarchy funded by socialist tyranny but that is another issue. On behalf of United Future I say that we wholeheartedly support this initiative of the Government. We look forward to seeing the bill at the select committee possibly with a few amendments to make it more rigorous. This is fine legislation in the making. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. The leader of the Progressive party Jim Anderton will be supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee and although we differ in our vote on this debate and although there is debate amongst the growing membership of the Progressive party we agree on our progressive policy to support active measures to welcome migrants to minimise social and political division and to assist with settlement and integration. We agree that New Zealand must protect all from bigotry and racism. 
Politicians love to say that legislation they favour is sending a message. This bill sends two clear messages. The citizenship provisions say to every migrant: “We don’t trust you so 2 more years will be added to your probationary period for citizenship.” and the passport provisions say to all New Zealanders: “We can deprive you of the right to travel even though you have committed no crime.” The use of a passport will no longer be a democratic right if clause 27 is passed. If the Security Intelligence Service or the police believe that a personone is a threat to New Zealand’s international or economic well-being then by administrative action through the Minister of Internal Affairs that person’sone’s passport or travel document will be withdrawn. I call it “the “Ahmed Zaoui clause.”. I am sure that many New Zealanders who are appalled at the lack of natural justice through the misuse of classified information on the grounds of national security to deny Ahmed Zaoui fair treatment will give it the same name. 
Under the bill the individual will have to prove to the court that the Minister has not acted with due cause and as thousands of New Zealanders who will be supporting Ahmed Zaoui this Sunday 1 August know it is nearly impossible to disprove classified information. The test in clause 27 is not that the matter must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nor is it on the balance of probabilities. The Security Intelligence Service or the police do not even have to have accurate information. All they have to do is produce credible information that reasonably supports the allegation. The bill does not help us build together; it divides us. The bill places unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles in the path of those who made New Zealand their home by choice. 
There has not been any consultation with the public. Perhaps some favoured groups have been in the know but with such an anti-democratic set of measures perhaps that is to be expected if not desired. Why did the Minister for Ethnic Affairs who is well paid not consult with ethnic communities? The same goes for the Minister of Immigration for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs and for any other Minister who has responsibility. The same question can be asked in terms of other legislation but in this particular legislation which withdraws rights and sets up hurdles there was an added responsibility. The opinion of responsible groups should also have been sought with the introduction of a new power—that is the withdrawal of a passport or travel document on the say-so of the Security Intelligence Service. We have a real stake in the fair treatment of migrants everywhere because New Zealanders are also emigrants in large numbers. 
Politicians of all kinds front up at ethnic gatherings to extol the virtues of migrant communities. They praise in gushing tones the colourful and exotic costumes the wonderful and tasty foods the sacrifice and the academic cultural and sporting achievements. No praise is too fawning particularly at election times when votes are keenly sought. But on the other side of town those same politicians and parties will pledge that they will tighten immigration rules and that migrants who commit serious crimes will be deported—which has always been the case for non-citizens except in exceptional circumstances—and that they will not allow us to be a soft touch for refugees or illegal migrants. They are happy to amalgamate immigrants and refugees as a single term of insult. Dr Allen Bartley of Massey University himself a migrant from the United States got it right when he said: “When in the 1990s Winston Peters talked about foreigners inflating housing prices and driving up interest rates I knew on an intuitive level that he was not referring to me.” Peter Brown was right: other parties have listened to New Zealand First and have capitulated on these issues. These other parties are happy to claim they are the migrants’ friends when they want the votes delivered yet they are responsible for the bureaucratic and inhumane regulations that I am afraid are governing immigration policy and law and the treatment of refugees. Now the Labour Party wants to add a further oppressive layer. The unjustifiable changes to citizenship in granting the Minister power to seize passports are being smuggled in under the guise of fighting terrorism and people-smugglers. But a close examination of this bill shows that it has nothing to do with any of those particular aims. In fact people-smuggling as the former Minister of Immigration said in this House has declined internationally and that has also been the statement inside the United Nations. 
The first point I want to turn to is that of 5 years of residence instead of 3 years of residence for citizenship. To be granted the right of residence in New Zealand applicants undergo a rigorous thorough and lengthy check. It is also expensive. They must prove to be of good character have medical fitness and fit the particular category under which they have applied. It is not easy it is not quick and it is not a soft touch. Many years can pass before the green light of permanent residence is given. Much is sacrificed to start a new life. Immigration forms proclaim New Zealand the right choice. They promise much but on arrival it is not easy for every migrant. Our under-resourced resettlement programmes provide limited assistance. Many migrants face qualification recognition difficulties and now we are saying: “We don’t trust you.” What will be found out further about a resident after 5 years—which will become 6 years while awaiting the decision on the application—that was not available by 3 years? Does membership of al-Qaeda surface only in the fourth year of a person’s residency? 
The Progressive Party’s policy is to give adequate resources to assist generally with settlement for migrants. That is what we want to put into immigration policy not these types of repressive measures. No other permit will be counted as part of the 5-year period. I have a friend who entered New Zealand to undertake a masters degree. He was on a student permit and attained his degree after 2 years. His department thought highly of him and granted him a tutorship. Later he studied for a doctorate. He contributed scientific papers that were highly commended. He fell in love with a New Zealander his children were born here and he became a partner in a local firm in his profession. Four years later he and his family made the decision that they were not going to live in dad’s home country. Two years later he applied for citizenship. His time in New Zealand was taken into favourable account and he was granted citizenship 6 months later. Now the family can all travel to Australia for a holiday without dad having to queue for a visa and having the humiliating experience of being rejected because he is not from a favoured OECD country. Now he can stand for his children’s board of trustees at their school he can join the army if he wants to and he can stand for Parliament under the Progressive banner—which I believe he is going to do. 
Under clause 4 of this bill none of his time prior to residence would count. Why? He might be a terrorist. Why? He might be involved in people-smuggling. I do not think so! “Until death do us part” is what I refer to as the marriage clause. Under present policy marriage to a New Zealand citizen may shorten the 3-year waiting period for citizenship but no longer under this bill—also inin clause 8. Spouses under current policy still have to undergo all the character police and medical checks of other applicants. They have to prove that their marriages are genuine and early grants are discretionary. But I always thought there was enormous support in Parliament for the special nature of marriage. At least I gathered that from all the hot air during the parliamentary debate on the Civil Union Bill. 
I always thought that sponsorship by a New Zealand citizen to whom one was married and with whom one had New Zealand – born children was a pretty special sort of guarantee that one was likely to be a good New Zealander. Why on earth do we want to take away that discretionary right? Why on earth does Labour want to introduce that punitive step? It means inequality of status for travel jobs and all the rights of citizenship within one family. Removal of citizenship for children born in New Zealand is I think an appalling step. 
The fact that children born in New Zealand—no matter what the status of their parents—automatically have the right to New Zealand citizenship has been in place for as long as I can remember. Certainly when I was in the Labour Party there was vigorous opposition to efforts to try to get rid of that when the National Party tried to do it. There have been sensible public policy reasons for this provision. It gives security of status to the children and they are not excluded from the benefits of health care and education that are automatically afforded to all other children in New Zealand. It means they are not without education or health care no matter what the situation of their parents. The stated target anyway is parents who come with the intention of their child becoming a citizen. But those parents are not by virtue of having a child who is a New Zealand citizen entitled to residence. Perhaps it is a key anti-terrorist measure. Once the child is an adult he or she will come back and practisce terrorism. That example of smart forward thinking has escaped me. 
The issue of the Security Intelligence Service’s ability to take a passport away is also a dangerous and new step. Never before in New Zealand has the Security Intelligence Service been granted a power that is the norm in countries where the intelligence services are laws unto themselves. Those individuals whose passports or travel documents are withdrawn by the Minister of Internal Affairs on the advice of the Security Intelligence Service or the police must prove to the High Court that the Minister has not acted with due cause. As Ahmed Zaoui has found trying to disprove classified information is the labour of Sisyphus. It introduces a dangerous anti-democratic practice into New Zealand. Citizens will be punished not for what is proven against them by the State in open court with the protection of being innocent until proven guilty and with all the rights of natural justice. 
The category of classified security information will now also extend to information held by the police. No wonder the responsible Ministers did not consult on the proposal. In one move we are attacking the rule of law and throwing aside the provisions in article 13 of the United Nations declaration on human rights and section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on the guarantee of the right to leave and return to one’s own country. It is time to draw a line against measures that deliver collective punishments against all migrants and measures that misuse the concern about terrorism in order to introduce a power to the Security Intelligence Service and the police that strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and the right to natural justice. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always good to follow an optimist. When the member said that ProgressiveAlliance membership is increasing—a 100 percent increase from two to four—it is really good especially when it is going to have some candidates. This is an important bill. We have some reservations about it and I will canvass these as we go through but we will be supporting it to the select committee. 
People can be very proud and privileged to be citizens of New Zealand. I am certainly one. Our family came from Germany originally back on 9 May 1851 and I am proud to be a Kiwi and to have the rights of a New Zealander. So it is important that we look at what is best for the country and how we can add value to it. But we do have some concerns. First I want to highlight the proposed changes. That has already been done but I think it is important that we put on the record what these are. We will then be able to debate them during the bill’s progress especially during the Committee stage when after the bill has been examined by the select committee we will have an opportunity to debate it on a part by part basis. The qualifying period to become a citizen will increase from 3 to 5 years. That is a major concern in that many people living here fail to qualify if they have been overseas within that 3-year period. 
I have a letter here from a constituent which has gone to the Minister’s office and it is appropriate that I read it out. I have the writer’s permission. The writer is Dutch and this is what he says: “I have been in New Zealand since 1973. I have a Dutch passport with a permanent re-entry permit without any travel restrictions. At the end of last year I started New Zealand citizenship proceedings and had an interview with a member of Internal Affairs. The applications with the submission were sent to the Minister. During the interview I was told that the Minister would not approve my application on the grounds of being out of the country for more than 1 year during the past 3 years.”—that is what the law says. “Every year we spend the winter months in tropical parts of Australia—Queensland in particular—from June through to the end of October. We have family over there and we do extensive travel. My wife is 71 and I am 73 years of age.” 
So here is an example of someone who goes overseas for a period at that age to see family. Yet he has lived in New Zealand continuously since 1973. The point is that because he has not been here for that 3-year period as he had gone to see family he is not eligible for citizenship. That is what the law says. So one of the proposed changes that the Minister is advocating is that this provision go out tofor 5 years. It will be 5 years before a person will be able to apply for citizenship. Yet these people have been here for 31 years since 1973. 
There is another case—and this certainly will be interesting when we have the Committee stage—of a person who lives in my town. This person has been here for many years. The person is very experienced and very professional doing work for Goodman Fielder over in Fiji. This person was out of the country for 3 months that is all. In that period the person did not have the required 3 continuous years to be able to go for citizenship. This person a well-known citizen has actually missed out on citizenship. This person has come back to New Zealand and lives in Matamata where I come from. Such persons will of course be further disadvantaged by this provision now going out to 5 years. 
If we were then to look at another part of this bill which we think is going to be quite onerous it is that passports will need to be renewed every 5 years instead of 10 years. WNow we do not have any difficulty with making sure that those passports are up-to-date and importantly that the scrutiny that goes into passport applications right at the beginning is very very thorough. That is fine. But if we are going to reduce that to a 5-year period so that people have to go through the process again to get a renewal of a passport the costs associated with that are going to be horrendous. 
I have here the figures for application fees for passports. To get a standard service it is $71; to get an urgent service it is $146; and for a call-out service it is $401. So the costs associated with getting a passport are horrendous. If we then look at what children under 16 years of age must pay a standard service is $36. For an urgent service it is $111 and for a special call-out it is $366. 
 So huge costs are associated with getting a passport in the first place then to reduce the time for which a passport is valid from 10 years down to 5 years will put immense pressure on those people who can ill afford it. It is just an extra compliance cost. 
I have here the estimates for 2004-05 and a record of some of the questions that were asked. One question asks: “What was the breakdown of the user charges from the department?”. The fees from births deaths and marriages were bringing in just over $8.5 million; passport fees were bringing in $21 million; and citizenship fees were bringing in $10 million. The Minister said that there are about 2.5 million active passports at the moment. When I look at these figures huge amounts of money are coming in to the Department of Internal Affairs. Some years ago on the Regulations Review Committee we had an issue whereby the department wanted to increase passport fees and at that time it was looking at cross-subsidisation. As members will know there cannot be cross-subsidisation when there are fees and duties; there can only be cost recovery. So we are concerned about that issue. 
If we look at what will happen in border protection and border security we are quite comfortable with that. The House has just been considering the Border Security Bill and we saw that the increased costs to people who are importing and exporting will be about $20 million. It was an argument about private good versus public good and during that time a great debate went on as to who should pay whether the costs were relevant and more important in relation to this bill whether reducing the length of time of a passport from 10 years to 5 years would make better citizens out of New Zealanders. 
National is concerned about the lack of provision in the bill for another issue and I quote here from a question in a Department of Internal Affairs paper: “I have heard reports that babies of non – New Zealand citizen foreign mothers born in New Zealand will no longer get citizenship. Is that correct?”. The answer was: “No the bill contains no reference to citizenship-by-birth issues.” National is very concerned about that provision. 
 It is just a cheap way for people to come to New Zealand have their children and then opt out. Those children then become New Zealand citizens because they were born here and National is very opposed to that. It is citizenship by stealth. If this bill is a security measure if it is to help improve the security of New Zealanders and New Zealand it is a back-door attempt. That is the reason why we are opposed specifically to the clause that provides that if someone has a child born here and the person is not a New Zealand citizen that child will get New Zealand citizenship. 
We will debate that issue at some length during the select committee. We want a clause introduced into the bill to prevent that from happening and prevent the right of people becoming New Zealand citizens just because they happen to be born here to foreigners. I give notice that this is a major concern of National and in the select committee we will make sure that that voice is heard and also during the debate. If the clause is not included in the bill we will move an amendment to make sure that that happens. 
Although we have voiced concerns about a number of issues and we want to see them debated further I do know that the Department of Internal Affairs and the passport people have done a good job in identifying some of the issues we saw happening in Thailand. However we will be supporting the bill to the select committee. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Whip—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave for the votes cast by the Progressive Party in party votes on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill to include numbers cast for the Ayes and for the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b). 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents Bill) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 7; Progressive 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be considered byreferred tothe Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
and reported back for consideration and that the committee report back on or before 8 November 2004. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 65.59 p.m.