Volume 620 Week 69 - Wednesday 6 October 2004 
Volume 620 Week 69 - Wednesday 6 October 2004 
[Volume:620;Page:15865] 
Wednesday 6 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion. In doing so I gift to you Mr Speaker this visitors book and move that you record in it those very rare and infrequent occasions upon which the leader of the National Party attends the House perhaps starting today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suggest the member might well be going out to listen to the vice-presidential debate on CNN. 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members have raised this issue before but I believe it is worthy of taking some of the time of the House. It relates to the difficulty the Opposition parties are having in getting answers from Ministers to parliamentary questions. 
In particular ACT has been trying for some months with dozens of parliamentary questions to the Minister of Health Annette King to find out about what simply used to be the health waiting list. The health waiting list has been divided into three different queues. ACT and the National Party have been asking questions about that and we have received answers from the Minister of Health referring us to the Ministry of Health’s website. That is OK—we are computer literate—but when we have gone to the Ministry of Health’s website we have not found the answers to our questions at all. We have continued from last year through to this year to ask questions about the numbers in the new category called GP Care—those people who have been taken off the list and sent back to their doctor. The Minister could not answer those questions because she was away or she was sick. Finally we got an answer that said the information was publicly available from the department. 
Well we tried to get it from the department. We went to the Ministry of Health’s website and we could not find it. We went off to the Parliamentary Library—Annette King is nodding her head because I think she knows about this problem—and staff members there looked on the website. They could not find it either so they approached the department. The department said that no that information is not publicly available and is not on the website —Annette King is agreeing with me on this— 
Hon Annette King 
: No I’m not. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: She is not! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I would— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is this: the Parliamentary Library following Annette King’s answers to us in Parliament went to the Ministry of Health which gave back the most extraordinary answer. It said that yes it had the information but that it needed the Minister’s permission to release it. That was at the end of months of trying. 
It is not just a case of my writing to you Mr Speaker or to the Minister of Health; it is a systemic problem that we have with this Government when we ask simple questions. First the Government takes a long time to answer; second when it gives the answer it is not an answer; third when we follow up on an answer that tells us to go to a particular web page we find that the information is not there; and fourth the Government tells us that the information is publicly available but finally the department responds and says that no it is not publicly available. This is a trashing of Parliament and a trashing of accountability. I will be writing to you Mr Speaker about this but I want you to appreciate how frustrating it is for our Parliament and how much it brings it into disgrace if simple answers cannot be given to simple questions. Instead we get nothing but the run-around. I know that every party in this Parliament outside the Government feels the same way. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member raises a matter that can and should be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. If he has a specific complaint he should write to the Minister concerned or to you Mr Speaker in terms of the process of written questions through the House. This is simply not the right place or time to bring this up. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would contend that this is the proper place to bring this issue up in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 149/4(1). To add to Mr Hide’s concerns can I say that I know that three senior members of the National Party have raised in recent weeks issues around answers to written questions. Answers include such examples as: “The department does not hold this information in the form requested.” “Data matching would provide only a snapshot.” “Information is available from annual reports.” and “Collating information would require a significant resource and management of data which I am unwilling to make.” To support Mr Hide I say that the question is really that those are not isolated one-off examples. What avenues beyond a letter to you on specific examples are available to parties on this side of the House to deal with this wider trend? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whenever I have been approached by any member in writing I have taken the matter up immediately. I think members who have done so will recognise that. Mr Hide says that he will write to me. I will wait for his letter. What the library was told by a department is not a matter for me. I point out that there are over 20000 written questions per year. I can remember that when I first came to the House there were about 500 or 600—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Not while I am on my feet! Neither interjection was appropriate. Since the score was one all I will ignore them. It is inevitable that not all questions will be satisfactorily answered but I say to members that if they write to me I guarantee to look at the matter immediately because I believe that answers should be given where appropriate in the proper form. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who raised the most recent point of order quoted Speaker’s ruling 149/4(1). I draw his attention to 149/4(2) which states that “the member should discuss the matter initially with the Minister to try to correct the answer” and so on. Again that does not appear to have been done. So this is not the time or place to raise this matter; this matter should be raised with the appropriate Minister. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker in addition to your writing or talking to a Minister about this problem has it ever occurred to you as Speaker that it would be appropriate to advise the Prime Minister of the problems that we are confronting here? Because frankly if a Minister cannot do his or her job that Minister should be fired. One of the regulating mechanisms that operates in any decent democracy is that if a Minister is seen to be found wanting and if that Minister is found wanting in this House then usually that Minister goes—excepting in our Parliament in 2004 they stay here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say to the member is that when I feel the need to approach the leader of the Government on an issue of course I will do so because it may be appropriate to do so. It is not always the case but I use my judgment in this matter. But I can assure members that whenever anyone has written to me or come to see me I have endeavoured to act on it immediately. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to confirm one of your own rulings which you might find easy to do. Speaker’s ruling 148/2 states: “Anyone giving inaccurate information in a written reply should clear up the error as soon as he or she realises it has occurred.” I say to you that if the situation is that—and I am sure it is as that is how it has been given by my leader—an answer has been given by the Minister of Health saying that information is publicly available but in fact the Ministry of Health says that yes the information does exist but it is not publicly available then the answer was an error. That would be a matter that can be cleared up only by the Minister of Health rising in this House and apologising for having given such an answer. It is my understanding that a series of answers to written questions have been given by Ministers saying that information is readily available in annual reports. Many of those annual reports have not even been presented. Those answers are an error and those Ministers should all rise and apologise under your own ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I confirm my previous ruling. I read it just then and it was one of those occasions when I thought I had made quite a good ruling—and certainly it was very appropriate to the situation. It is for a Minister to judge whether he or she got the answer wrong and then to take the appropriate steps. I am not the quizmaster; I am merely the referee. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to respond very briefly to the Hon Mark Burton’s point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order or a response? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point of order is this. I agree with the Hon Mark Burton that in the normal course of events one would write straight to the Minister. But the difficulty that we have is that we have had a whole systemic series of answers that are half-answers. It is a pattern that exists. It is not one particular question that has not been answered; it is a pattern. One gets an answer that says to go to the web page and one spends time looking at that; that is the pattern we are having and it is a pattern of sort of duplicity and evasiveness in these answers that I am drawing to your attention—not a particular question. You know yourself Mr Speaker that whenever I have had problems with particular questions I have gone to the Minister and I have dealt with that in that way. What I am telling you now is that this is something quite different: it is systemic 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member that I have been here 38 years as he knows. I myself lodged many hundreds of questions as an Opposition MP. I doubt whether I was ever entirely satisfied with the answer. I will however judge any issue that is brought to me as Speaker. 
Questions to Ministers 
Cannabis—Legal Status 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Can he confirm that it is the Government’s policy not to change the legal status of cannabis; if so is he confident that other policies implemented by his ministerial colleagues are consistent with this commitment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government has no plans to change the current legal status of cannabis. Ministers act in accordance with this commitment. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that teaching children how to use drugs safely is in direct conflict with the law for which the Minister has responsibility; if so why has he condoned the distribution of a Ministry of Youth Development drug education handbook to schools this month given that it takes this kind of harm minimisation approach? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That booklet is not at all about teaching children how to use drugs safely. The thrust of the drug education programme is to stop children and young people from using drugs. But it is a bit like alcohol. We say that young people should not use alcohol but we say particularly strongly that they should not use alcohol and drive a car. The same approach should be taken with cannabis—that is one should not use cannabis but most particularly one should not use cannabis and drive a car. That is a sensible approach to take in this education programme. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How does the National Drug Policy seek to deal with the problem of drug abuse? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Drug Policy adopts a three-pronged approach. The first is to try to control the supply of drugs by law enforcement; the second is to reduce the demand for drugs which is done through drug education; and the third is to apply treatment for those suffering harm from drug and alcohol abuse. 
Richard Worth 
: In the light of the spiralling use of methamphetamine and other drugs why is the Government chopping the number of residential or inpatient treatment beds for drug addiction so that there are now about 110 fewer; and would it not be responsible to increase the number of beds rather than axe them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: My colleague the Associate Minister of Health did just that as Mr Worth might be aware. He has opened a new residential drug treatment facility for the central region. 
Craig McNair 
: Can the Minister indicate what steps if any he is taking to persuade other parties with whom his Government has a cooperation arrangement that legalising cannabis freeing up access to drugs for young people and generally softening up current drug laws is undesirable? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is not my role to write drug or any other policy for any other party in this House but my advice to anyone is that we want to see less use of illicit drugs and less abuse of alcohol and all parties should take that approach. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister support the development of a consistent and integrated framework for regulating all drugs—one that is based on expert evidence of the best way to reduce harm to society and individuals from drug use; and does he think we might be able to see such a common-sense approach implemented after the next election? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member is asking me to endorse his recently announced drug policy I will decline to do that. I believe that all drug and alcohol policy should be evidence based. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation whereby one arm of the Government is attempting to uphold the prohibition on drug use but another promotes educational programmes that do not have drug avoidance as their primary goal and in fact seek to avoid promoting abstinence in case it—and I quote from page 7 of the drug education handbook—“stigmatises experimentation with drugs as deviant behaviour”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is in fact consistency in the approach of all Government departments and all Ministers in this matter and the advice we take on drug education is to follow international best-practice. That drug handbook does just that for schools. It tells schools the most effective way of communicating to students in a way that will get an improvement by way of drug reduction and hopefully drug elimination. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Government received any other letters or reports on the question of abstinence; if so from whom? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is an invitation on a different matter and I decline to answer. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister finally read the Ministry of Youth Development drug education handbook given that he stated in the House on 19 May that he had not at that point and has he expressed any concerns to the Minister of Youth Affairs or the Associate Minister of Health that their Green-Party approach to drug education is inconsistent with the law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To the best of my knowledge the drug education handbook for schools on the best practice for eliminating and reducing drug use is not the policy that has been announced by the Greens though there may be some parallels. If the member looks at the work that has been done for example by Roger Sowry as an Associate Minister of Health under National he will see that Mr Sowry talked a lot about harm minimisation. World Heath Organization guidelines have been followed by successive Governments in this country. We look at following best-practice— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Oh spare us! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can table it if the member likes. Would he like me to? 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Is the Minister aware of research undertaken by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute in Australia showing that the prohibition of cannabis does work in limiting the amount consumed by heavy users and does he agree that this evidence justifies retaining the current legal status of cannabis in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not looked at the particular document the member has mentioned. He might like to pass it to me. But I am aware that a number of states in Australia are trying different methods of dealing with the drug problem. I think we should take an evidence-based approach and see which is the most effective. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister seen new research released this week that shows that one in ten 18 to 29-year-olds used P in the last year that the drug is now very easy to obtain has an established link with violent offending and leads to serious psychological harm; if so does he agree that the only message our young people should hear on this drug is: “Do not use it.”—a message in line with the law but seemingly not with the Government’s drug education policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That claim most certainly is not correct. This Government put I think $53.6 million into the Budget this year predominantly aimed at reducing the supply of P. We have before this House at the moment the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) which again cracks down and takes a tough approach. We have consistently increased police resources and Institute of Environmental Science and Research resources to try to stop the scourge that methamphetamine represents for this country. I do not think the Government can be faulted on that issue. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister think that an approach of demonising cannabis and opposing even moderate law reform combined with unquestioning support for the alcohol industry even to the extent of implacably opposing any restrictions on alcohol advertising—a position followed by at least one party in this House—is a common-sense approach to the problem of drug abuse? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Phil Goff can comment in relation to his portfolio but not other people’s policies. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is very important that drug education is factually correct and that it does not exaggerate otherwise it is counterproductive. The efforts that we are making are to ensure that young people get evidence both about alcohol abuse—that is the most abused drug in New Zealand—and marijuana use because from respective studies we know that marijuana has very harmful effects on those who are mentally ill those who are quite young and those who use it frequently. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports on which parties in this Parliament support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the Minister cannot answer that question unless it is linked with his portfolio. Perhaps the member could rephrase the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I could say it this way; and I thought I did. Has the Minister received any reports of which parties support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander and which parties are out there supporting the rope-heads? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not think it is appropriate to use derogatory terms about any member in this House. I do not intend to comment on that. Although I cannot speak for other parties and the House is aware of that I can say that the Labour Party takes a very strong approach to the elimination and reduction of drug abuse and alcohol abuse. We are consistent across the board on that. As that member knows alcohol abuse can be very harmful as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to let the Minister get away with that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. I ask the Minister to withdraw that last comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He should wash his mouth out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am ruling now no one else. The last comment the Minister made I thought could be taken in two ways and I want him to withdraw any suggestion that there was a personal reflection on any member of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If requested I withdraw but I can assure you there was no personal reflection in that answer. Every member in this House knows that alcohol abuse can be harmful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now stand and withdraw and say nothing else. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your initial comment you asked me whether I intended any derogatory comment in my answer and as you asked me that question I answered it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I was probably wrong in asking it. 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think in the spirit of the occasion you should ask Mr Winston Peters to withdraw if his comment was intended to be derogatory. His question was clearly framed in such a manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member was referring to any member of this House in a derogatory manner I ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope-heads which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly OK. If it is not in this Parliament then that is it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister willing to confirm that the real reason why the Labour Government is not proposing a decriminalisation of marijuana is that under his Government the police have stopped arresting people for mere possession and if he is not willing to make such a statement to the House is it a fact that if he did confirm there has been a de facto decriminalisation of marijuana which is something we all know then that would expose United Future’s claim—that it is supporting the Labour Government to stop the decriminalisation of marijuana—as a complete sham? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The reason why this party in Government is opposing the decriminalisation of marijuana is severalfold. Firstly we have had health reports that show that marijuana can be dangerous in particular circumstances. That is well documented. Secondly we have entered into an electoral commitment not to decriminalise marijuana. Thirdly in relation to whether the police make arrests for possession that is an operational matter. As that member told the House just a couple of weeks ago Ministers cannot have anything to do with operational matters relating to the police. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table an example of a consistent integrated and evidence-based framework for the regulation of all drugs. 
Document not tabled. 
Aoraki Polytechnic—Funding 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Was he advised earlier this year that “An issue arose this year at Aoraki Polytechnic in relation to the validation of student enrolments the majority of which pertained to 5.1.” and was this issue related to Government funding for Aoraki Polytechnic’s “joint education programmes” where it offers courses through existing community groups? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the issue was a general one about the collection of administrative information. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister endorse Aoraki Polytechnic’s practice of boosting enrolments by using community groups like the South Canterbury ADHD Support Group the Alzheimer’s Society Ashburton District and the Timaru Breastfeeding Interest Group as a way to boost enrolments and will he investigate whether mothers and carers who attend those groups are being enrolled in Aoraki Polytechnic as students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would be concerned about any misuse of funds as I always am. However I would only investigate any particular complaint if it was made by somebody else other than the member because I can never trust anything he says. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Have other issues been raised about courses at Aoraki Polytechnic? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. I saw a claim yesterday that: “People who attended a business lunch in Timaru earlier this year were told that they could stay and hear Mr Mark Tamaki speak if they filled out a form enrolling them at this course at Aoraki Polytechnic.” However it turns out that the lunch was organised by the Aoraki Development Trust and that both the polytechnic and the trust agree that the polytechnic had nothing to do with the event. The polytechnic’s chief executive is now seeking a retraction from Mr English. I have to agree with the Aoraki Development Trust general manager who said: “I would suggest Mr English should do his research because at the end of the day it is his credibility that is now in question.” Mr English should apologise. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Associate Minister stand by his associate ministerial colleague’s comment at a recent New Zealand Association of Private Education Providers function to the effect that if we want to find real rorts in the tertiary system we need to look no further than the polytechnic sector or does he believe that John Tamihere does not know what he is talking about? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Obviously I was not at the speech but I have found John Tamihere to be an insightful person. I would need to check that out with him though to know exactly what he said. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the programme for the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths conference to be held in New Plymouth this year which lists Aoraki Polytechnic as the platinum sponsor has he seen the list of community groups that provide their courses as including the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths national conference and will he investigate whether people who enrol to attend that conference are in fact enrolling at Aoraki Polytechnic as occurred last year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before I will investigate any concern that is raised about the irregular use of public funding. However I will always have to separately verify any claims from that member because he systematically gets it wrong. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: Can the Minister confirm that Aoraki Polytechnic is proactive in its liaison and working with community and commercial groups in the South Canterbury area that it serves and that it has the full confidence of that community? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member of course is a representative of that community and is expressing his confidence by asking that question. But I can confirm that Aoraki Polytechnic does have clear evidence that its community supports it fully. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Are his comments that Mr Tamihere was both insightful and expert in these matters— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: I just said “insightful”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —well insightful in these matters—because when John Tamihere was running the Waipareira Trust the application in respect of trainees did not match the application for grants; hence the huge discrepancy at the end of the year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Unfortunately of course I am not responsible for what happened with regard to members before they entered Parliament. I am not responsible for what the member himself did before he entered Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister is on top of this issue why has he been unable to answer 20 parliamentary questions that I have submitted since March asking for a list of Aoraki Polytechnic’s community education courses enrolments and public funding payments for the 2003 year which finished 9 months ago and why cannot a $45 million Tertiary Education Commission produce that information for one polytech? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member’s questions will always be answered but as he knows because he asked this particular question the issue of validation of course enrolments across the entire polytechnic was at question. It has taken an effort to go back over those enrolments which have now been validated. 
Benefit Reforms—Domestic Purposes and Widows Benefits 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on outcomes from the 2002 domestic purposes and widows benefit reforms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Since enhanced case management and the annual development of employment plans were introduced in 2002 we have seen the following: more domestic purposes beneficiaries and widows beneficiaries are exiting the benefit each month; domestic purposes beneficiaries and widows beneficiaries who do exit are less likely to return; more domestic purposes women-alone and widows beneficiaries are engaged in part-time work; the proportion of domestic purposes benefit recipients leaving the benefit because they have secured work has increased; and the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit and widows benefit has declined despite New Zealand having higher numbers of women of childbearing age. All of these findings say that these reforms have been valuable. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other reports has he received on the 2002 domestic purposes widows and benefit reforms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have heard claims that the changes would increase the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit to 120000. I heard claims that thousands more would go on to the benefit each year. I heard claims that fewer would leave the benefit. I heard claims that fewer would get a job. Every one of those claims came from National and ACT members of Parliament and they have been proven utterly wrong. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister read the recent reports on the outcomes of the Wisconsin welfare reforms which show that only 25 percent of participants are in a genuine job and that there is not the slightest improvement in poverty rates over the last 10 years; if so can he give that information to the National and ACT parties which continue to promote aspects of the Wisconsin programme despite it being outdated and ineffective? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have read that research and yes I can make it available to members of the ACT and National parties. However they might like simply to purchase a copy of this week’s  
Listener 
 where they will see that these programmes are working whereas the Wisconsin ones do not. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: I seek leave to table the programme for the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths national conference 2004 which shows Aoraki Polytechnic as a platinum sponsor. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the list of joint education programmes provided by Aoraki Polytechnic including the breastfeeding interest group and Alzheimer’s New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a submission from the Tertiary Education Commission to the Minister pointing out enrolment irregularities at Aoraki Polytechnic which are still unresolved. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table 20 written parliamentary questions asking for information from 2003 about these courses which have not yet been provided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those questions. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from  
Fast News 
: “Tech boss fuming over allegations by Mr English” and demanding an apology. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Surgery—Transfers to General Practitioners 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Following her answer to written question No. 12986 (2004) in relation to elective surgery how many people in the booking system were transferred to the category of GP Care in the year ended June 2004? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 As I advised the member in my written answer to question No. 12986 (2004) the information can be obtained publicly through the national booking reporting system administered by the New Zealand Health Information Service. According to the New Zealand Health Information Service 5103 patients were referred to their general practitioners in the year ended June 2004. 
Heather Roy 
: Given that there were 62581 persons on all residual lists in June 1999 given that the Minister has already admitted that there were well over 56000 patients in the Booked / Given Certainty and Active Review categories alone in June 2004 and given that she has now admitted that another 5103 exited to the final category GP Care when will she admit that the equivalent waiting lists have gone up under her stewardship—yes or no Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The member cannot add up. Even if one were to add all those figures together the total comes to something like 61000. She has the latest figure—June 1999—for how many were on the waiting list but she chose to use something else. I gave her December figures; she chose to use June figures which show something like 72000. When one adds them up one finds there are still fewer. However in the past we did not count those patients who went back to their general practitioners. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Did the waiting lists of the 1990s—which sat at 72318 in December 1999 when we became the Government—include people who were returned to their general practitioners; if so was this information publicly available? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it did not include those people and the public had no idea whatsoever as to how many people were sent back to their general practitioners. This information has been collected since 2001 only under this Government and we are determined to make the true figures available. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she stand by her statement: “The buck stops with me.”; if so what responsibility does she take for the 346 patients under the Counties Manukau District Health Board who were removed from the waiting list for orthopaedic surgery and returned to their general practitioners in the 2003-04 financial year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The buck certainly stops with me; $10 billion worth of bucks have stopped with this Minister. Since I have been Minister $10 billion has gone into the health sector up from $6 billion under a National Government. I tell that member that it is this Government that has undertaken to double the number of hip and knee replacement operations in New Zealand. Under a National Government we were doing 1.2 operations per 1000 head of population. We will soon be doing 2.4—$70 million worth of expenditure. That is what we have done about it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the 1999-2000 publicly funded operations figure is 160000 and the 2002-03 figure is 157000 which is down 1.2 percent why should we believe any of the flimflam we have just heard from the Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am happy to table in the House the latest figures for operations in New Zealand which show an increase over 2002-03. I will table those when the question finishes. 
Heather Roy 
: How does the Minister reconcile her answers to my written questions the first of which told me that the information is publicly available when it clearly is not and the second of which in response to a question about what statistics are kept stated that there is no national data collection; when will she stop evading my questions and tell New Zealanders the real story about waiting lists? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This Government tells the real story about waiting lists every day of the week. I cannot be held responsible for a member who not only cannot read figures but also constantly makes mistakes. The information is publicly available but I cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the member asks a question she cannot shout out the whole time the answer is being given. The member should at least allow the Minister to answer; the member can then come in at that point. I do not want to stop interjections altogether but the member was not being reasonable. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The next point I would like to make is that this Minister and the Ministry of Health are not responsible for being the ACT research unit when the information is publicly available. ACT members want the Ministry of Health—they want to use the bureaucracy—to hunt out information they can get publicly. I say to them that they should use Peter McCardle because he is there to do that. He picks up two salaries—one from the district health board and one from ACT. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Government was hoping that there would be an intelligent supplementary question on this issue. I indicate to the House that if Dr Hutchison wanted leave to ask a supplementary question we would not oppose it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is being too cute for his own comfort. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the Counties Manukau District Health Board stating the numbers of people removed from the surgery waiting list. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table a copy of web pages from the New Zealand Health Information Service website which the Minister referred me to and which eventually took me back to the elective services part of the Ministry of Health website. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Primary Health Organisations—Enrolments of Over 65s 
5.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has she received any recent reports regarding enrolments in primary health organisations for the over-65-year-old age group? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The latest report on enrolment shows that over 90 percent of all New Zealanders who are over 65 years of age are enrolled in primary health organisations. In other words 441408 people over 65 are receiving additional subsidies to reduce the cost of primary health care. This is an amazing achievement in such a short time and it demonstrates that older New Zealanders have grabbed this opportunity to safeguard their health. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister clarify in what areas some of the highest enrolments of over-65-year-olds are? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As this Government said when it introduced the policy primary health organisation funding would initially target those areas with the greatest need before rolling the programme out to all New Zealanders. I am happy to report that in areas such as Counties Manukau Tairawhiti Northland and South Canterbury over 96 percent of the over-65-year-olds are enrolled in primary health organisations. 
Judith Collins 
: How many over-65-year-olds could have had cataract surgery with the $2 million being spent by her Government on advertising and singing the praises of primary health organisations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No doubt one could spend some of that money on cataracts. However I think it is just as important if not more important that people can afford to go to the doctor—something that has happened under this Government—and I wonder why so many older New Zealanders want to be enrolled in primary health organisations. The answer is that it is cheaper to go and they want to go to their doctors. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked how many cataract operations could have been financed with that $2 million propaganda exercise she engaged in. She made no attempt to answer that question. She surmised that some of it could have been spent that way. If she does not know the answer she should say so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Minister say that it is true that there could be some cataract operations. I heard the Minister say that. That was addressing that part of the question. She did not give a specific figure; that is true. But she did say that at the very start of the answer she gave. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister give details of how primary health organisations are contributing toward better health for all New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are hundreds of examples but perhaps I could use—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh Mr Peters said he would be happy to have one. Well let us go to the primary health organisation in west Auckland where there are 110 doctors for a population of 150000 and it is now carrying out all sorts of procedures. But one procedure the member might be interested in is that it is increasing its immunisation rate to a level of 97 percent—a level it has not seen before. It happened under a primary health organisation according to the primary health organisation itself. 
Health—Funding 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that health funding is being spent effectively; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 For the most part yes because health outcomes are improving. At least half of New Zealanders are now paying less for their doctors’ visits and most now pick up their prescriptions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain why the 21 district health boards now have incorporated into each of their statements of intent a commitment to acknowledging the treaty principles—all different and costing millions to the taxpayer—and what are those principles? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The principles of the treaty as required to be implemented within the health sector are outlined in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and they relate to the relationships the district health boards are required to form with the Maori community. They are based on relationships that were formed under the previous Government when it set up things called Maori provider organisations. 
Opposition Members 
: Ah! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Those members do not like this one. They were built on the relationships that were formed under the previous Government called Maori provider organisations and those relationships are about what principles they are required to implement under the Act for health. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave for the Minister to be given an extension of time so that she can outline what those principles that I asked her about are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. If the Minister wants to add to—[ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] This is the members’ own private day so they are in their own time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought leave for the Minister to be given an extension of time so that she could enunciate with clarity for the whole country and for this House what the Treaty of Waitangi principles that the 21 district health boards are following are and leave was granted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I made a mistake. Leave can be sought by a person only on his or her own behalf. One cannot seek it on behalf of anybody else. 
Darren Hughes 
: In terms of effective health funding and use of the health dollar has the Minister received the final number for operations in the last financial year and how does that compare with the year preceding that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question. I happen to have the figures here which I am happy to share with Judith Collins because she obviously does not know them. The actual figures for 2002-03 show that 267374 operations were undertaken. In 2003-04 there were 272881 operations an increase of 5501 over the previous year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain how inserting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation—something she cannot explain—and policy has created better health outcomes for Maori when health spending has increased under her by 29 percent in the last 4 years yet the number of operations has fallen by 1.2 percent in the same period; and is it not a fact that much of that extra funding is being wasted on meaningless activities the identification of which she cannot give us? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member did not listen to my original answer. I said the treaty section within the Act—and I direct him to the treaty section within the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act—relates to the relationships that district health boards are to form with Maori. It is around partnership and participation in particular. The member is also wrong in that the number of operations has not fallen. I have just given the latest figures. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why if there is clarity in what the Minister says the district health boards should be following does each different health board have a different explanation for the treaty principles; and second given that the Maori purchasing organisations do not cover anywhere south of the Waikato does the Treaty of Waitangi now not apply to the rest of the country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question. The formation of relationships with Maori differ around New Zealand. For example the member is correct that in the north around the Auckland area and down into Waikato the formation of Maori purchasing organisations under the previous Government was the way to form a relationship. In other parts of New Zealand the development of Maori development organisations became the forum and the way to form relationships. So they are different in different parts of New Zealand based on the way the iwi and local people want to have relationships with those organisations. I think they existed when the member was in Government. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister satisfied that health dollars are not being compromised by a lack of security in hospital pharmacies particularly in relation to ephedrine; if so what does she know of reports that there has been at least one recent incident of large-scale theft from such a hospital pharmacy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I know is that within hospitals staff take great care to ensure that the drugs under their control are safe. I have heard of few if any problems in terms of hospital drugs within a hospital setting. That is not to say that at some point some person who can get access would not take advantage of that. One cannot protect totally but I have confidence in the health professionals who are responsible for ensuring there is restricted access to such drugs. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the Minister just clarify that she has not heard any reports of large-scale thefts? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister addressed the question perfectly satisfactorily. [ 
Interruption 
] She did. Please do not interrupt me. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister commit to urgent action to address the funding crisis faced by after-hours clinics around the country or is she content to send those patients to already overloaded emergency departments that struggle to meet their triage times? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can give that assurance to the member. A lot of work is being done by the Ministry of Health the Independent Practitioners Association Council and the primary health organisations to ensure after-hours coverage. I suppose that one of the successes of the primary health organisations is that patients are now going to their general practitioners during working hours because it is now affordable and fewer are going for after-hours service when it is much more expensive. So that means the funding that clinics used to get by charging more to patients seen after hours is not there but urgent work is being done on that matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister had any representations from the ACT party as to the adjustment of the health spend; if so would she like to elaborate on those? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Like the Minister of Justice I think I will decline to elaborate. 
Social Entrepreneur Fund—Non-Maori Organisations and Individuals 
7.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many non-Maori organisations and individuals have come under review in connection with activities funded from the Social Entrepreneur Fund? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Data on the ethnicity of the Social Entrepreneur Fund recipients was never recorded as the programme was not targeted to focus on particular ethnic groups. 
Tariana Turia 
: Were the problems with accountability and reconciliation created by a policy that allowed senior managers and the Minister to be one side of the responsibility to ensure that it worked; and why then did the social entrepreneur scheme fail given the highly successful Community Employment Group programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My answer to the first question is no. As I said yesterday the changes in the Community Employment Group have come about because of change in the employment-unemployment environment which did lead to some struggling around programmes within that particular organisation. But it is now off I think in a very good direction—partly going to the Ministry of Social Development partly staying in the Department of Labour and partly moving to Te PuniKokiri. I imagine that the member will find as she moves around the country that there has been a lot of support for these changes. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will the reallocated Social Entrepreneur Fund still be available to communities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is yes. The funding has been transferred to the Ministry of Social Development and will be made available to both Maori and non-Maori communities. More details will be announced later this month. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister described the social entrepreneur scheme as a “ground-breaking initiative to support community champions movers and shakers and stunning examples of human innovation” did he agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that some aspects of his scheme were “loopy” and “silliness”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I noted yesterday the idea of a social entrepreneur is widely used in jurisdictions all around the world. The US President for example recently pointed to his social entrepreneur scheme. I think the first round of grants contained a lot of quite stunning examples. I have listed one which was the grant to Mr Geoff Chapple who has been creating the walking path from one end of the country to the other. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister’s statement. That was not addressed in that answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was addressed. If the member’s question has two parts the Minister can choose which part to answer. But if the Minister wants to add more he can. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am sorry; I thought that all members in the House took it for granted that we always agree with the Prime Minister. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have re-read my question and there were not two parts to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister took the opportunity to answer the question. If I was in error I apologise. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Precisely how does the Minister define a non-Maori organisation or community and can he confirm that the reason that so many Maori organisations have come under review is that under his Government’s race-based funding policy more Maori organisations receive funding in the first place? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question is completely irrelevant. As I pointed out in the beginning the Social Entrepreneur Fund recipients have not had their ethnicity recorded because ethnicity was not part of the funding model. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister stand by the statements he made at the 2001 social entrepreneur conference that the success of the social entrepreneur scheme was about promoting the concept particularly by wearing a kea lapel pin—the kea being the symbol of the social entrepreneur scheme—and does he recall saying: “I am going to wear this lapel pin as often as I can in the hope that people will say ‘What’s the story with the bird Steve?’ and I am going to tell them.”; if so what does he say now that the social entrepreneur scheme is as dead as a dodo? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I thank the member for repeating my speech. Could she repeat more of them? I quite like to hear the early ones come back again. I can tell the member that the kea badge is proudly displayed on my fridge. 
Tariana Turia 
: Why did the Social Entrepreneur Fund become driven by this Minister rather than responding to the needs in the community? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This policy was driven of course and implemented by the members of the Community Employment Group—that is how policies get implemented. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question that Tariana Turia asked would have had to go to the Clerk to be approved. The question interestingly asked: “How many non-Maori organisations”. The Minister said that was irrelevant because ethnicity is not an issue for those organisations. When I think about it I do not know whether—aside from the National Front—there are any non-Maori organisations in New Zealand. I do not think there are. The Clerk clearly must be thinking that there are non-Maori organisations to have approved such a question. I do not think the Minister agrees—[ 
Interruption 
] If people want to interrupt— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to his point of order. I have not heard what it is yet. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Clerk in this Parliament believe that aside from the National Front there is such a thing as non-Maori organisations in New Zealand—yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a question that can be asked. The facts can be enunciated. There was nothing wrong with the question as lodged. 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
8.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Does she think it is appropriate for the Minister of Finance once again to pre-empt the Governor of the Reserve Bank by stating to Dow Jones analysts in New York this week: “The bank has indicated with near certainty one more move and then one or two more after that.” when neither the Reserve Bank nor the markets in fact stated that; and does she agree with the Minister of Finance that interest rates may go up three more times this year taking floating mortgage rates to over 9 percent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not seen anything in the Minister’s comments that suggest he was pre-empting anyone. I myself do not intend to voice a view about the future of the official cash rate. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting her glowing comments that she has such confidence in her Minister of Finance can she advise the House whether he has reconsidered his support for imposing further increases in fuel prices as proposed in the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill in the light that fuel prices have risen dramatically since the bill’s inception and are now having an adverse effect on New Zealand’s economic and social well-being; if he has not reconsidered that support does she believe that is the action of a competent Minister who is on top of his job? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I am not aware that he has reconsidered his support and I can only say that the impacts cannot be too adverse when we have the lowest unemployment rate in more than 17 years and had 4.4 percent growth in the year ended June. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does she regard it as fair that even after her Minister of Finance has publicly acknowledged that he has $520 million in cash “left” he still refuses to adjust the tax brackets to take into account the effects of inflation; and when will hard-working New Zealanders receive some long-overdue tax relief? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows starting on 1 April next year there will be extensive targeted tax cuts for hard-working Kiwi families with children. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s confidence in her Minister of Finance so much so that she is happy to swan off from Parliament to the Progressive Governance Summit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is out of order. Would the member come to the question and not add that irrelevant extra to it. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is not out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is out of order. I know what can be asked and what cannot be asked. A supplementary question has to relate to the primary question and it does not need to contain any extraneous matter such as that. Please ask the supplementary question. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of her confidence in the Minister extending to her going overseas when Parliament is sitting and leaving Parliament in the control of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want the member to ask the Prime Minister a question. He can ask a supplementary question but he has not yet asked one to my satisfaction. He gets one more chance. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of her confidence in her deputy the Minister of Finance would she consider staying over in Hungary and making the de facto Prime Minister of New Zealand the actual Prime Minister of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No no more so than I would consider a holiday with Alan Gibbs in Spain such as that member just had. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think she was invited. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is about the seventh time today that the member has raised a point of order that is not one. Could I recommend a course in reading Standing Orders. 
John Key 
: Does she think it is appropriate for the Minister of Finance to go offshore and state that one of the major risks to the New Zealand economy is the interest rate management techniques of the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank; and can she confirm that she has confidence in the Governor of the Reserve Bank even if her Minister of Finance does not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My reading of the interview given with Dow Jones was that the Minister of Finance did not state that was a major risk. He said there is a danger that we will get someone who overshoots with monetary policy correction. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she have confidence in the Minister of Finance when we have a worsening balance of payments crisis when we have one-seventh of the per capita exports of say Singapore or Ireland when our per capita income now has us ranked 37th in the world and falling when we have the highest interest rates in the Western World and when we now have a huge leap in the number of sickness beneficiaries; how can she have confidence in the Minister of Finance when we have those sorts of comparative figures? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Firstly I understand that the numbers of working-age beneficiaries are down 16 percent under this Government. Secondly I understand that our growth rates continue to be at the top of the OECD. Thirdly I understand that our unemployment rate is not only the lowest in more than 17 years but the second-lowest in the OECD. Fourthly I understand that our AA+ credit rating was very recently confirmed and further I understand that the Standard and Poor’s agency said it was unlikely to change downwards any time soon because of in particular the very prudent way in which the Government’s finances are managed. 
John Key 
: Is she as perplexed as the people of New Zealand are by the regular comments from the Minister of Finance that the $7 billion operating surplus is only an accounting illusion when miraculously this week in New York he claimed to actually have to quote him a spending war chest of banked surpluses to be wheeled out in election year; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That would be a distortion of what the Minister said too. He referred to automatic fiscal stabilisers. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 in which Dr Cullen says he has $520 million of cash stashed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a Dow Jones publication in which the Minister of Finance outlines the risks to the New Zealand economy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
John Key 
: The second is the daily commentary by Deutsche Bank which clearly points out that the Minister of Finance is nothing but confused. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dioxin—Exposure 
9.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he aware of any other groups of New Zealanders suffering health effects from dioxin exposure similar to the exposure that the Health Committee recognises was experienced by Vietnam veterans; if so what action is he taking? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am not aware of any groups of New Zealanders suffering health effects from dioxin exposure similar to the exposure that the Health Committee recognises was experienced by Vietnam veterans. New Zealand research is presently under way to investigate any health effects from different types of exposure in industrial workers. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that people who lived near to the Dow factory in New Plymouth in the late 1960s and early 1970s were exposed to a similarly toxic environment to that which the Vietnam veterans were exposed to and therefore deserve the same free medical treatment and services for dioxin-related illnesses as Vietnam veterans receive; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Indications from an interim result from a study currently being conducted around Paritutu are that people may have been exposed to higher levels of dioxin emissions from the plant and that half those people have higher than usual levels of dioxin in their blood but until we have the conclusion of that study we cannot reach any definite and definitive results. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the Government doing generally about dioxins and other organochlorines? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government recently ratified the Stockholm convention which commits us to reducing and eliminating organochlorines. We have agreed to fund new research into the heath of former timber workers who were exposed to pentachlorophenol and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research is completing its study into dioxin exposure at Paritutu. Those are just some examples of this Government’s comprehensive and active approach to reducing both the exposure to and the potential health effects from dioxins and other organochlorines. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware of the ill health and the trauma that many of our soldiers and their families go through as a result of their service in Vietnam and having been subjected to Agent Orange and if he is aware of that will he start with an apology resume a special committee set up to address their plight and end with meaningful compensation; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I and this Government are very aware of the claims made over 30 years around that issue. The report released today clearly identifies and accepts that New Zealand veterans were exposed in Vietnam to pentachlorophenol and to Agent Orange. The health effects from that have yet to be fully clarified. This Government will be making every effort to respond comprehensively and in a caring way to this report as tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree with Professor Al Rowland who is carrying out a genetic study of nuclear test veterans that there is a wealth of evidence that proves genetic damage from dioxins and will he therefore support a genetic study of Vietnam veterans and residents who lived near Paritutu at the peak of exposure to see whether they or their offspring have suffered any long-term damage as a result of their exposure to dioxin? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: While not necessarily accepting the claims of that person this Government will look very carefully at all the issues raised in this report. The issue of Paritutu is separate from that of the Vietnam veterans. This Government has shown consistently since coming into power in 1999 that there are issues around organochlorines in this country and we have made every effort to work through those very carefully. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he acknowledge that sawmill workers at Whakatane who worked daily with pentachlorophenol containing dioxin suffer high rates of cancer skin diseases blood disorders depression and early deaths and that their wives have had twice the national rate of miscarriages and that their children have higher than usual rates of hearing sight and birth defects and learning problems and does he accept that that is an occupational illness? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not accept the assertions made by the member. However the Government is aware of the concerns raised over many years by those workers at Whakatane. That is why I as Minister went to Whakatane and met with them and that is why we have funded research paid for by the Occupational Safety and Health Service to examine the potential health effects of exposure to pentachlorophenol. We have directed the Bay of Plenty District Health Board to work with the former workers and like every New Zealander anyone who has health problems has access to the public health system and to the health care that he or she needs. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the Minister doing to follow up his promise to the Whakatane sawmill workers reported in April to support a free mobile clinic to help sawmill workers and their families with illnesses that could be related to dioxin exposure and can he guarantee that they will not have to wait as long as the Vietnam veterans for recognition and help given that their exposure predates even Vietnam? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We are working actively on that issue. There was some debate with those people about the effectiveness of a mobile clinic. The Ministry of Health is working as we speak to implement a mobile health clinic for those people so that they have access to health care and checks. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Government acknowledge any responsibility for the fact that those workers were required to immerse their hands frequently in pentachlorophenol to breathe the fumes and to wear contaminated clothing that was taken home and washed with the family laundry were not advised to wear protective clothing and were repeatedly told that pentachlorophenol was safe by the Government’s Forest Service which promoted the use of pentachlorophenol by the industry? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Those are the very claims in terms of situations and occupational hazards that will be investigated by the research currently being undertaken. 
Prime Minister—Motorcade 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement in respect of her speeding motorcade that she “was not aware of what speed they were doing” and does that mean she was not aware that her motorcade was breaking the speed limit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I have advised the member before Ministers are not commenting on matters currently before a police investigation. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister refusing to be interviewed by the police when she forged a painting can she confirm to this House that she is prepared to be interviewed by the police on this matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have advised the member Ministers will not be commenting on any matters currently before a police investigation. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is one of the interesting things that we have in the House where the Prime Minister is quite happy to tell the press that she was not aware of the speed at which the motorcade was travelling. She is quite happy to do that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: The point of order is that the Prime Minister was quite happy to tell the press outside this House but is not happy to confirm the statement in the House. The implication is that the statement outside the House was not correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Physical Activity—Primary School Children 
11.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to encourage primary school children to be more active? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Education regulations will be changed to make physical activity a priority for schools. As a result of this change each child will be required to participate in at least 1 hour of meaningful and high-quality physical activity a week facilitated by a physical activity education specialist or a teacher with extra training. That will be in addition to the regular health and physical education curriculum requirements. 
Helen Duncan 
: What research has the Minister seen on the importance of physical activity? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is one area where it is not appropriate to promote abstinence. Research also indicates that physical activity enhances brain function the learning process and kids’ academic performance across all curriculum areas. 
Social Entrepreneur Fund—Termination 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can he confirm his statement yesterday that the Social Entrepreneur Fund was his initiative; if so why did he decide to terminate the fund? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I did put it into the Labour manifesto. It is an idea of course that is commonly applied in many jurisdictions around the world. A decision was made to terminate the Social Entrepreneur Fund for two broad reasons. Firstly it was not consistent with the Department of Labour's new strategic direction that is focused on labour market information and regulation and secondly the Community Employment Group was clearly struggling with some aspects of the programme in the current low unemployment environment. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister stand by his 2001 speech about his now defunct social entrepreneur scheme where he boasted: “Social entrepreneurship does suggest a healthy disregard for rules for the sake of rules and a disregard for illegitimate authority” and that social entrepreneurs sometimes had a “breathtaking disregard for authority” and finally does he still stand by his statement that LosaTamati was a “truly exciting social entrepreneur”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I certainly stand by the need for some new ideas and I would love to hear one from that member. I certainly stand by the notion that we will move away from a traditional welfare State to something new and I would love to see that member come up with a single idea. Yes I do stand by many of the people who were in this programme. This programme has changed because circumstances have changed and because the organisation administering the programme was clearly struggling trying to apply that money when we had been so successful in lowering the level of unemployment. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s answers that social entrepreneur schemes are common and successful throughout the world including in countries with low unemployment rates exactly why is it that his scheme under his stewardship has failed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the concept of being a social entrepreneur will stay on in this country. Many people do it under many different guises. This particular scheme administered in this particular way was no longer relevant to the Department of Labour but is relevant as a general concept. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he stand by his statement that LosaTamati was a truly exciting social entrepreneur? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the light of recent developments no. 
Katherine Rich 
: Did he agree with the Prime Minister when she said that some aspects of the scheme were “loopy and silliness”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before the House can take it for granted that we always agree with the Prime Minister. 
Questions to Members 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Member's Submission 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Who decided that Nanaia Mahuta’s submission “received outside the parameters set by the committee” would be heard and what process was followed in making that decision? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 The committee’s independent specialist adviser made that decision. The process he followed was to select submitters who could bring additional new or fresh perspective to the committee’s deliberation and issues. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was it an independent adviser who made the decision to hear Nanaia Mahuta not the committee itself? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The committee resolved—an ACT member being present—to ask the independent adviser to assemble a list of suggested extra submitters. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Did the specialist adviser consult with the chair of the committee when selecting the extra submitters including Nanaia Mahuta; if not why not? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: As much as he consulted with Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a direct answer thank you. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was it not a fact that he and his colleagues in the Labour Party were running scared at the time of a hikoi being organised by Nanaia Mahuta and therefore decided to lean over backwards and accommodate her even though her submission was right outside the parameters as he himself said? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No. 
General Debate 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This House is meeting as the New Zealand justice system is crumbling around the head of this Government. This Government cannot deliver justice but it is happy to write cheques for the worst criminals in this country. This Government has people locked up in prison court cells and police cells who are innocent. Prisoners can lodge claims against the Government and the Government says that they should get payments from it. 
This Government has a shortage of judges and police but we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to justify payouts to the worst prisoners in New Zealand. That is a no-brainer. Why is the Government defending the payment of tens of thousands of dollars to the worst prisoners in this country? Those payments should be blocked stopped and wiped and the Prime Minister should be doing that. 
We listened in the House a few weeks ago to the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister who warned against removing the right of compensation to prisoners. We have heard Mr Goff say in this House that compensation can be justified. So why are they not making any effort to fix the crumbling justice system? 
I want to tell the House about the indictment on Labour confidence from Mr Phil Goff the Minister who wanted to decriminalise sexual behaviour of children aged between 12 and 16 and the Minister who told Cabinet that the country would accept decriminalisation of sexual activity between 12-year-olds. Let us see the concept and the indictment of incompetence under Mr Goff. 
We have a huge inmate muster crisis with 200 prisoners being kept in court and prison cells around the country. We have a prison officer recruitment crisis where the Government admits that it is several hundred short of the necessary number of prison officers in our country. We have huge delays in the court system. In Whangarei Manukau and Auckland lawyers are warning that guilty people may walk free because of delays in the justice system. 
New Zealand has a big shortage of judges. This Government says that it is all right to send our judges to Pitcairn but New Zealand Kiwi victims will have to wait to have their case dealt with. That is what this Government says. 
There is a huge shortage of police. Burglary response times all around the country are appalling. There is non-reporting of crime; people have given up. Rotorua has the worst crime rate of any city in New Zealand and the MP for Rotorua says: “Well the police commander tells me it’s all right so I’m not worried.” That is what she says. 
We have huge delays in methamphetamine testing where serious criminals are not having their case dealt with because this Government is not properly resourcing the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Now we find that it can take 2 years to get a person’s case dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority because this Government is not resourcing the justice system. 
 They are not resourcing the justice system but they are happy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in prisoner compensation. And the Government hides behind saying that it cannot do anything that is retrospective. But Mr Goff has brought in legislation for the extended supervision of child sex offenders—retrospectively. What does the Government think the seabed and foreshore legislation is? It is retrospective legislation. 
Now we hear from Mr Goff that international protocols mean that this Government has to pay compensation to criminals. He was in a Cabinet that put a reservation on that undertaking—that said only the Attorney-General should have the discretion to pay compensation to prisoners—but he was happy to stand up in the New Zealand Parliament and say that we have to do it. Where was he in that Cabinet meeting? This Government is guilty as charged of criminal incompetence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have to say that with spring in the air with the start of daylight saving and with long summer nights ahead New Zealanders are feeling pretty good about themselves and New Zealand—at least the ones who are represented by people on this side of the House are. They are feeling like that because Labour is looking at opinion polls that are just breaking out all over the country like those spring flowers. The opinion polls say that Labour is 4 to 8 percent solidly in front of the National Party. 
We are busy little bees on this side of the House because we are overseeing a booming economy. We are overseeing the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. We are overseeing regional growth. We are overseeing more New Zealanders employed than ever before in our history. We are overseeing the drop in the number of people on working-age benefits. We are overseeing the redistribution of $2.75 billion to low to modest income households. We are giving out money for Modern Apprenticeships and that is applauded by industry. Tomorrow for example we will be giving money towards the new wonderful Gateway programme. It feels like spring on this side of the House. It just gets better. It makes one proud to be a Kiwi. 
But on the other side of the House I have to say that it is all gloom. It is as if winter has not yet finished on the National side of the House. It is as though a weather bomb has just hit on the National side of the House. I say to Mr Donnelly that we do not regard him as being on the National side of the House. The sunshine is creeping across his doorstep as we speak. However the weather bomb has smacked into exactly where the National Party is sitting. We know this because nothing is happening. National members are indoors. They are beside the fire. They do not want to come out because they are failing to get their message across. 
Dr Don Brash told people in his Orewa speech and thereafter that the National Party was on its way to victory. He told them after Orewa that it was health it was education it was economics it was welfare and it was law and order. We were going to hear about all these speeches that would set the scene and the agenda and how the National Party would rise again to take over the country. That is what he said. Well he did not actually say that because that was far too exciting. He would not have done it that way at all. He would not have dared to be exciting like that and of course he has not given those speeches. We have not heard any policy on race. We have heard no policy on law and order. We have heard no policy on welfare. We have heard no policy on education. National members have even told us that they do not expect to fight the next election on the economy because it is too good. They will have to move elsewhere. 
What National Party members have decided to do is listen. They have gone all the way to Invercargill. Dr Brash was there the other night with all the Rotary groups. They said he came to listen not to speak and that is exactly what he did. He listened. Today he was back in the House for the whole of question time—an hour and a half—with many opportunities to ask questions of all the Ministers on this side of the House but he listened closely to what was going on because of course National Party members have nothing to say. 
It could be hibernation but I think there are internal arguments. Mrs Rich cannot agree with Dr Don Brash on things like welfare. We know that not only can they not agree but now they do not have any ideas. If we read the  
Listener 
 article we see Mrs Rich hanging on the phone for a whole 20 seconds while she comes up with the fact that their policy is going to be—proactive. They cannot get more active than us. Mr Goff and I are even called workaholics by people in the media. We are always working. Mrs King is so thin now after all the hard work she does that if she stands side-on we cannot see her. That is how active we are. 
Mrs Rich wants to tell the country that she will get—proactive. That is a killer of a policy. I can see that going across on the hustings as they ask: “What are you going to do?” and National Party members say: “Get proactive.” That party dumped Mrs Shipley it dumped Mr English and if we look at the way the polls are changing it is about to dump Dr Brash. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Every time I look at Australia’s economy and see how much more it has grown in real terms in the last 20 years I realise what a political failure this Government—its economic and social policies and its ideology—is. There is an affront to our democracy occurring in New Zealand and in this House. For a democracy to thrive there must be a free media and a strong and effective Opposition in Parliament. Unfortunately the leadership of the National Party is so weak and ineffectual that it does not have the capacity to oppose a failed arrogant Government of control freaks and social engineers. The so-called leadership of the National Party is in hiding I am told until next year because it is too timid to discuss policy in case it says someone should steal it. I cannot imagine anybody being dumb enough to do that but as they say the lion of Orewa has become a lamb in this Parliament when it has come to the crunch. This is the first time in history that a chicken has been seen leading a bunch of turkeys. Why will Don Brash not debate treaty policy— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that National Party members are reluctant to defend their leader but that cannot continue. The member cannot call Dr Brash a chicken in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order I want to hear. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Why will Don Brash not debate treaty policy with New Zealand First? The answer is simple. It is because he cannot. Last week I challenged him having received criticism from him. He had the effrontery to say when we released our policy in respect of Treaty of Waitangi principles: “New Zealand First needs to disengage with Labour”—that is new; I never knew we were engaged with Labour—“which is taking New Zealand in a quite different direction.” I say to Don Brash: “Precisely!”. That is why we have repeated our policy which we have now had for maybe 16 years. He said further: “If it does it might begin to look credible on this issue.” What a damn cheek! Having stolen our speech in respect of Orewa he then had the effrontery to say it was his. 
Why will he not debate economic policy? He said the other day in the  
Dominion Post— 
and I could not believe this; this is obviously a man of immense political experience—“In my view the economy will not be the major issue at the next election.” In the whole of the Western World we never ever hear particularly in the economic climate in which we live any respectable Opposition leader making that stance—yet he has. 
This is a country with a balance of payments crisis. This is a country where per capita incomes now rank 37th in the world. This is a country where we have under 8000 exports per person and Ireland has 55000. This is a country that is failing in every way. I do not care what those journalists write about the consumptive economy that is about to burst. The reality is that when we compare our economy with any other sound one it fails miserably and the leader of the National Party does not want to debate it. 
Darren Hughes 
: The great debater. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He was described by Toastmasters as “the great communicator”. The great what? Where is “the great communicator” today? He did say that he would debate only with the Prime Minister. That will be like taking candy from a baby. The Prime Minister is not great in debates. I know that because I have been through a number of campaigns and she has never won one yet. But she will win hands down if the leader of the National Party is left to the job. 
 I have a warning for National Party members: if they cannot do the job then they should get out of the way. They should stop taking up parliamentary time in question time and in debate and let the party that can take on the Government do the job. Why should Don Brash pick up the salary of the Leader of the Opposition which is much higher than mine and never be here to do the job? What is going on here? Where in the Western World would we see that in any self-respecting political party? 
Hon Member 
: Nowhere. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of course we would not. I say to National Party members that they can hide him now they can keep him out of the House now and they can keep him away from the public now but they cannot hide him in an election campaign. That is one time he cannot hide. If National members think he is bad in the House now they should wait until the election campaign starts in 2005. 
Jill Pettis 
: I can’t wait. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I cannot wait either. One thing I know is that in the last campaign Labour lost 14 points in the polls in the space of just under 5 weeks. They are as flaky as hell in their support. On this side of the House I see a party in decline and in that respect that means there is an enormous opportunity for the one Opposition party that knows what it is doing. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House find ourselves in agreement with a large part of the focus of the speech made by the member for Tauranga. I think there is an amount of fraud going on in this House. Someone is collecting the salary for the Leader of the Opposition and providing none. He turns up every now and again for an hour. He trembles at the knees on the odd occasion that he asks a question—the papers shake in his hands. He learns from that and so does everyone else. We get reports from all over the place on that. We get headlines like “Home or away Brash is losing it” and nothing could be more right than that. 
Hon Member 
: Third division NPC. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From a position where every reasonable political commentator thought Dr Brash could be in the game at the end of the year he has let it just slip-slide away. He promised five speeches but gave one and a half. Did he follow up the half? No he did not. 
We have seen headlines like “Bumbling Brash loses plot”—again that is a really good summary. That is a reason why Winston Peters should be getting the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. I was previously of the opinion that at some stage National Party members would come to their senses and go on bended knees to Mr Peters to ask him to lead them. Given the situation they are in now and the trend in the polls as far as they are concerned I have to ask if they did why Winston Peters would say yes. It will head in his direction anyway as the National Party slip-slides away. 
In a headline Dr Brash stated: “I’ll quit as leader if we lose next election”. We all know when that will happen. What I am asking is why they are delaying it so much in this particular way. Another headline read: “Do-nothing National delays peak”. Well there are a few other people suggesting a few peaks should be delayed as well. I think there has been a recommendation of abstinence from some parts of the House around which I am sure there will be further discussion. [ 
Interruption 
] Does Mr Williamson know the story? It is a great story. I will share it with the member but probably not in the House at this particular point in time. I am sure that when I share the story with Mr Williamson my secret will be safe with him and with the Labour caucus. I think the secret will get around and that member will love it. 
What does one do when one is in trouble in politics? One does not hide and that is exactly what Don Brash is doing. He runs from the House part way through question time to hide. He went to Stewart Island spent most of the day there and said nothing. He hid on Stewart Island. I spent quite a lot of time during the latest adjournment reading headlines from provincial newspapers to try to see whether he was there somewhere. There was almost nothing. I am told he went to Southland for a day. We could read that in the paper. We could not see anything else about where Dr Brash went. I made some statements about studentships and some other relatively controversial topics in an area that Dr Brash had been addressing and the media went looking for him for comment. They could not find him. One of the things one has to learn to do if one is to succeed in politics—and I say this to the two potential leaders of the National Party sitting opposite me— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Georgina and Maurice! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think Georgina is going to be sensible and not run again. I was talking to Simon Power and John Key who will be contesting— 
Darren Hughes 
: The key to power. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The power to the key or the key to the power—it is a little bit hard to tell. They will be the two who will compete for the National Party leadership after the election. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Is it not great to hear the Labour Party saying that a person should front up? Do members remember the Prime Minister Helen Clark saying: “Here I am—I’m going to be a different sort of leader. I’m going to be the sort of leader who fronts up on the tough issues and my word is my word.”? Do they remember that? Then she launched “closing the gaps”. Maori and non-Maori would be brought together and everything would be happy but the public said it did not like that. The use of the phrase was banned—verboten! That was what the Prime Minister said; it was a goner and not allowed. Here is a Prime Minister bringing Maori and Pakeha together. Tariana Turia was turfed out. She went and now she is despised and hated by the Labour Party. 
Here is a Prime Minister who said: “Oh I’m prepared to be upfront. I’m a Prime Minister who is blunt. I’m a Prime Minister who says it like it is.” She was asked: “Tell me Prime Minister did you know that you were speeding?” She said: “I didn’t know how fast we were going.” Well when some person was doing 145 kilometres per hour and the peasants were scattering out of the way through Waimate as if that person were some South American potentate passing through with sirens going—the Prime Minister said I think that she did not know how fast she was going; it could have been 150 kilometres per hour or it could have been 151 kilometres per hour—the person would sure as heck know that that was speeding. And this is a Prime Minister! 
The police are investigating whether she was speeding. How long really do we think that will take? The ministerial driver who is under the control of the Prime Minister as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has to write an incident report—and he did. It is a very serious thing when one goes through Waimate like the clappers scattering all and sundry to get the Prime Minister to a rugby game when she would rather be reading a book at home. She was asked whether he had written a report. The Prime Minister could not say. When asked in this House she did not know or could not say. She was quite happy to tell the press that she did not know how fast she was going. So when the Prime Minister—and remember that this is a Prime Minister who is upfront and to the point—was asked in the House whether she stood by that statement she answered that she was not prepared to. Here is a Prime Minister who is prepared to tell stories to the press and not confirm them in the House. 
By the way do members remember that this is a Prime Minister who forged paintings and then could not remember whether she had. She said that she was not about to be interviewed by the police—“I’m the Prime Minister of New Zealand.” Well I ask Trevor Mallard why he will not give the lesson that he has just given to Opposition members to his own Prime Minister. 
What will happen now? She will swan off to Hungary and Budapest to be with her lefty mates at the Progressive Governance Summit. She is so happy to go to that. Do members remember that the other time she went to it was 9/11? She got off the plane and learned about the twin towers attack going on. She got back on the plane flew to Italy—and they were all horrified. They said they were lefties but they had cancelled the conference. They did not even want to be seen with her because they wanted to go back and support the United States of America in its hour of need. But Helen Clark had just hopped on the plane so anxious was she to be amongst them. 
Hon Annette King 
: She came home. 
RODNEY HIDE 
:. She came home after she got to Italy and realised that no one else had come—and that they were appalled she had turned up. 
Darren Hughes throws his hands up. Why? He is like Steve Maharey. He is required by law in New Zealand to believe that everything Helen Clark says is true. That is what the law of New Zealand for the Labour caucus is—everything Helen Clark says is true. I ask Darren Hughes whether Helen Clark forged a painting. He is going all red in the face. That is quite humorous is it not? We should have the Darren Hughes barometer so that when one questions the Prime Minister’s integrity or her word we can see Labour Party members getting excited and Darren Hughes going red. That is the reddest he has ever been. I must have been the closest to the truth we have been on this issue. I say to Darren Hughes that that lesson should be for the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Helen Clark is a disgrace. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Did Rodney Hide not get excited today? He was worried about Darren Hughes’ red face. All I can say to the member is that at least Darren Hughes’ hair has not fallen out. Rodney Hide was to be the man who would be a different leader when he got control of ACT; he was to be a statesman. Well that did not last very long. Today we have seen him fluff and flounce; he has been full of verbal flatulence all day. That is Rodney Hide the new leader. That is the leader of a party that talks about “Do what I say not what I do.” ACT is a party that preaches abstinence but whose leader took ACT from the dizzy heights to 1 percent. ACT is a party that is on the way out. I say ACT should bring back Richard Prebble. 
However I have to say that at times we are too harsh on each other in the House during a Wednesday debate. Today as Minister of Health I want to share some good advice with the House from a lovely little book that I have been given. I have some advice for members out of this dear little book which is called  
The Little Book of Calm 
. I have a homily for a few people. The first one is for the National Party. It is a little bit of wisdom that states: “Select your company well.” I say to Maurice Williamson that he has selected his company well but there are many people in the National Party who are worrying about the factions that they have ended up in. So that is the first piece of wisdom for the National Party. What about the second piece? The book states: “Pause between changes.” That is a very good piece of advice. There is always a temptation to lump all one’s changes into one big masochistic event. Well that is what happened to the National Party. It put all its changes into one big event. It dumped one leader after the next leader after the next leader. I say that National Party members should take a little advice out of this book and wait a little longer before they change Don Brash. They should get themselves really down in the doldrums before they change him. 
Here is a little bit of advice from  
The Little Book of Calm 
 for Tony Ryall. It states here: “Pretend you’re human.” I think that is very good advice. The book states: “Be content with what you are.” I say to Tony Ryall that he should be content with what he is. 
But I am not just giving advice to the National Party. I have a bit of advice from this book for a couple of other parties. Here is some good advice for the Green Party: “Grow your own.” It is very calming to grow one’s own. For the ACT party I thought this was very apt: “Know when to withdraw.” It is very important when one is preaching abstinence to know when to withdraw. The time is right for the ACT party to withdraw. It is a spent force and life is over for it. Spring is in the air. The people of New Zealand are looking forward to the summer. The sun is shining and they are feeling good about themselves. Certainly older New Zealanders are feeling good about themselves. They know if they go to the doctor that they will pay less to go to that doctor today through a primary health organisation than they paid previously. As I have gone around all the bowling clubs in my electorate the RSA and so on I have found it is the older folk who are thanking the Labour Government for what it has done for them. They now can afford to go to the doctor. 
I feel very sorry for the National Party and I think that I can give it another little bit of advice from  
The Little Book of Calm 
: “Run for your life.” If I were a National Party member I would run for my life because when one looks at the headlines one sees that that party has received in about 3 short months—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes “Skinny” Robinson gave Mr Power that advice today and I hope he will take some of it. “Bumbling Brash loses plot”—how is that for a headline? “Home or away Brash is losing it”. Well he is very seldom at home if home is this House. We seldom see him around here. I do not know about losing it when he is away but we know he has lost it in here. When Don Brash is away I gather that he is too busy listening to actually tell people anything. Now everyone is asking whether he has a tongue. He sits there like a stunned mullet saying absolutely nothing. This headline is one of my favourites: “Brash attack: his boomerang did come back”. That is fantastic. It tells us what the National Party is like today. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I am not surprised to learn that the Minister of Health has in her no doubt extensive library  
The Little Book of Calm 
. No doubt she will not be able to share it with most of the members of the Labour Party because it did not look as though it had a lot of pictures of it. I suggest that she leaves it on her desk for the vein-popping Minister Phil Goff to read the next time he is having a cardiac arrest when he is answering a relatively simple question in the House about why he supports New Zealanders as young as 12 being allowed to have sex or why he thinks it is OK to pay compensation to some of the worst criminals in the country. Maybe that is why he needs a book of calm. 
What is going wrong in the Minister of Finance’s office? What is actually going on in the Minister of Finance’s office? The Minister of Finance is a man who is used to doing the work of 10 men. He is used to being the Prime Minister in disguise. He is used to being the “Minister of Fix-it”. He is used to doing 10 jobs for the Labour Party and to holding up the failing Government. What is going wrong in the Minister of Finance’s mind? The Minister of Finance is now tremendously confused about whether he is also the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He thinks he is the Governor of the Reserve Bank; he is tremendously confused about his job. A few weeks ago we saw him get up in the House and commit what can only be described as a “base rate blooper”: he announced to the country that interest rates were to go up. Oops! He did that just 24 hours before the Reserve Bank governor was meant to do it. I think the Minister of Finance is quite jealous of Dr Brash. He looked across and saw that being Governor of the Reserve Bank was a pretty good job. 
So much did the Minister of Finance enjoy the domestic strategy of putting up interest rates that he has now rolled that out into a global strategy. That is right. He went off to New York and chipped away about how interest rates are to go up two or three times or as many times as he has fingers on his hand. He was out there parroting away. What did the Minister of Finance tell people? He gave a very interesting interview chipping away like a little chihuahua up there in New York and told the Dow Jones analysts that not only will he spend like a drunken sailor given half the chance but also that he will talk like a drunken sailor as well. They must have been wondering where on earth the Minister of Finance had come from. They would have thought the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was independent. They would have flicked through the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and seen the word “independent”. 
I am surprised that Annette King’s little book is not a dictionary. She should give it to the Minister of Finance who thinks he is the Reserve Bank governor and get him to define what “independent” means. There he was in New York chipping away to the international media about how interests rates are to go up to 9 percent in New Zealand. It was very nice of him to tell mortgage-belt New Zealand that its interest rates are going up to 9 percent. He does not want to go up and down the country in New Zealand and tell people that interest rates are going up to 9 percent. He would rather tell that to people in New York because he does not think we will find that out back here in our cosy little enclave down in the South Pacific. He would rather let people know the good news there in New York. 
 I suppose that the only question I really have for the Minister of Finance is whether he has actually told Dr Bollard that. Dr Bollard came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee but he did not say that interest rates were going up three times. He did not say that floating mortgage rates were going up to 9 percent. He said that there may be one more hike. So one can imagine the shock and dismay of international investors when they found out that news. We have to ask ourselves where it leaves us when our so-called independent Governor of the Reserve Bank is bagged by the Minister of Finance who has gone offshore and said that the governor is not doing his job properly. There is a word I cannot use in this Parliament but some members on the Government side of the House were very quick to put the boot in when they were previously on the Opposition side of the House. But now we have had the Minister of Finance go to New York and bag the Governor of the Reserve Bank. That is what he has done—what a vote of no confidence that is! I hope the governor has an iron-tight contract. Alan Bollard will be sitting over there on The Terrace and absolutely trembling because his boss is in New York slating him. He is absolutely slating him! The No. 1 risk to the New Zealand economy is his interest rate management—what a shocker that is! 
Old Michael Cullen is on a bit of a roll. I do not know whether he was suffering from air sickness or a bit of turbulence or what was going on. Not only was he happy to tell the world that interest rates are going up three times but lo and behold he said not to tell anyone that because it was a secret. He said he had been running a thing called the “OBERAC”—the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes or the operating surplus—and telling everyone that there was no money but now he was going to spend it. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 There we go—that was the temporary member for Helensville. He knows absolutely that he is the temporary member and that he has another 12 months to serve. People in West Harbour Kumeu and Whenuapai do like him but they do not like the party he represents. They do not like National’s leader and that is why Mr Key will be the shortest term MP that Helensville has ever had. Having said that I wanted to talk a bit to the House today about the “p” letter in terms of Parliament of performance and of a whole range of things. 
In the last 12 days we have seen one of the most bizarre and perverse coming-outs in the political history of this country and it has been bizarre. There is a connection between ACT and the National Party and what is that connection? It is the Business Roundtable. The person who writes the policy—the bridge the link—for both the National Party and the ACT party is Roger Kerr. That link between those two parties has now been absolutely destroyed. When the Business Roundtable rocks up anywhere to make a submission and when Roger Kerr rocks up anywhere to say anything on anything to anyone what will we now think? No longer will we see integrity and no longer will he have credibility. It is quite clear that the ménage à trois between Don Brash Roger Kerr and the leader of the ACT party— 
Government Member 
: Rodney Hide. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes that is right Rodney Hide—“Mr 1 Percent”. That member used to always be known out in the private sector as “20 Percent Rodney” but in this Chamber he is “Mr 1 Percent”. So Kiwis are starting to wake up and acknowledge very quickly and very clearly that members on the Opposition side of the House are gone. The speakers who have risen on that side today have acknowledged that. Normally Mr Key’s contribution is full of passion vim and vigour and it has some spark about it. We know that those members have gone that they are gutted and that Don Brash no longer has the spark and the sparkle. 
The Opposition members are supposed to make five speeches and to lead the policy debate. They had a go at the Horis—end of story. Secondly what did they do? They had a go at the prisoners or the crims—end of story. They were half shots and no shots. We are waiting for the other three big ones and they will not say anything. Why? We will—the “p” word—pinch the policy. We are on the policy front foot. There is no need to look across the House to the Opposition side. That side is absolutely bankrupt in regard to the way that its policy advisers led out of the Business Roundtable by Roger Kerr and co. link with the old policies of the old failed era that Don Brash is so very much the symbol of. It must be terrible to rock up to the National Party caucus on a Tuesday. When those members walk in there for their cream scones and teas the difficulty is palpable. We can sense it pervading through Parliament—that “p” word is a wonderful word. 
I wanted to spend a bit of time on the ACT party because it is really important when a party is under stress and difficulty to see how it responds. How did ACT respond? Well where was Rodney Hide? He was in Spain—sunning it in Majorca or whatever they call it with his mate Alan Gibbs. He was over there saying: “Gibbs me more Gibbs me more money because it’s dried up onshore. We’re down to 1 percent. Give us another couple of million. Gibbs me more Gibbs me more.” That is what Rodney Hide does. The beauty about Rodney is that it is a bit like Pavlov’s dogs which sit there and salivate. I have seen him. As soon as anybody with a chequebook walks around this Parliament as a lobbyist one sees Rodney Hide panting—absolutely panting behind that person. I find that “p” word absolutely disgraceful as well. There is no doubt that Rodney Hide Deborah Coddington and the rest of the ACT party caucus have passion. That party which was to be the opportunity for the National Party to maybe get near the Treasury benches is imploding. What a great day it is when members on the Government side can see a party that merely comes into this House and talks about rack and ruin. It is no longer on the policy front foot and no longer has any ideas. ACT is the party of no ideas—apart from being in touch with its masculine side and by the sound of it quite a bit of it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 In my second speech in this House I accused a member of being drunk in charge of the country. That was not a revelation but it was received with outrage by most members of this House who thought that such things should not be spoken. I still get a whiff of alcohol in this Chamber at times. It is not common but it happens. I am not opposed to people having a drink but I do oppose the hypocrisy that says: “Drinking alcohol on parliamentary business is OK but I’m tough on other people’s drugs.” All drugs can cause harm. Some such as methamphetamine seriously damage most users. Some such as cannabis can cause real harm— 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech but I think that it reflects badly on the 120 members of Parliament if a member comes down here to the Chamber and make accusations that there are whiffs of alcohol in this Parliament. I personally take offence at that. I think that if the member wants to name somebody under the parliamentary privilege that he has he should go ahead. If he is talking about Winston Peters the leader of New Zealand First—which clearly he was because he was talking about the time that he was Treasurer of the country—he should say so. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I take very strong offence at the comment that Mr John Key has just made. He has used the opportunity of a point of order to make reference to the leader of the party I belong to as being the very member that Mr Tanczos was talking about when clearly there is quite a distance between those individuals. So I would ask that you ask Mr Key to withdraw that reference. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In fact that was the only specific reference that was made. It was not direct but I know the implication of it. I on behalf of the House did not take offence at what Mr Tanczos was saying. It was broad enough and goodness me enough references have been made to that member on a number of things. So members should not be so touchy. Let us get back to where we were. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: With all due respect I would ask you—and I know it is probably inappropriate for me to do so—to reconsider probably both parts of your ruling. Certainly I think there was a reflection on all members from the member from the Green Party but I do want to make the specific point that a suggestion that a particular member of this House is intoxicated is inappropriate. It should not be made and I think it should be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I have ruled on that matter and I will not take any more advice on it. I took us back to the beginning. There were two slight transgressions there and I am willing to go back to the beginning. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: All drugs can cause harm. Some such as methamphetamine seriously damage most users. Some such as cannabis can cause real problems when abused especially by young people. But the consensus among the professionals is that the major problem drug is alcohol. In order to genuinely reduce the harm caused by drugs in this country we need to focus on the seriousness of the harm itself and not just on the legal or illegal status of the drug that causes it. We must focus on the harm caused by all drugs and we need to get our priorities straight. All drugs can cause harm. 
Inconsistent legislation only causes more harm. We need legislation in this country that is consistent integrated and evidence based. I welcome the statement by the Hon Phil Goff this afternoon that the Government will be guided by the evidence on this matter. It is a pity that the United Future party will not make the same commitment as the Government has made. United Future consistently refuses to accept or look at the evidence and it still refuses to publicly debate the issue even though Mr Dunne and other members of the party have been invited to do so numerous times. We need legislation that can regulate all drugs integrate drug education and drug treatments into the framework and begin to take the politics out of the debate. 
The Greens have a proposal. It is the beginning of a discussion not the end of it. We believe we can develop a controlled drugs framework that sends a message that all drugs carry the risk of harm if abused and that allows each drug to be regulated according to the evidence on how to reduce harm from that particular drug. We have proposed a framework that would have a class A with a high level of restriction. The possession and sale of drugs in that class would be illegal except for therapeutic use and research purposes. For example methamphetamine would be in that schedule. We suggest a class B with a medium level of restriction. The sale of class B drugs would be illegal except for therapeutic purposes but R18 possession would be legal. As an example we would put codeine and cannabis in that class. In class C we would suggest a low level of restriction. The sale and possession of class C drugs would be permitted for general use with a range of restrictions such as an R18 restriction. The framework would address whether sales must be from licensed premises or could be from more general premises. It would ensure there were advertising restrictions and that there were warnings on the containers of all drugs on sale. In that class we would include alcohol tobacco benzylpiperazine and things like that. 
We believe that the use of illegal drugs or under-age use should be dealt with by giving honest information on the consequences of drug use. There should be a compulsory assessment and if there is evidence of a drug dependency then treatment should be provided. All members of this House know that despite the extra money put in by this Government the treatment services are still underfunded. They have been consistently underfunded for decades under previous Governments and it is time to put some real funding into that area. That approach was reiterated by Joe Walsh during his anti-P performance today in the Beehive when he made a plea for addiction to be seen as an illness rather than as a criminal matter and for treatment to be made available to people. The Greens believe we need legislation that will lead to fewer drugs in schools and fewer drugs problems and that will tackle drugs across the board—from alcohol to nicotine to cannabis and to other drugs. We believe we need a consistent an integrated and an evidence-based policy framework to deal with drugs in this country. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 If members tune into TV3 tonight they will see a new Kiwi comedy that is taking the country by storm. It is called  
bro’Town 
 and it is a good example of Kiwi ingenuity and comedy. But another TV programme will be hitting our screens sometime in the next 12 months. It will have fanciful cartoon characters that are equally as unbelievable and it will be called “ 
Dr Flip-Flop” 
. It will be a cartoon show that will feature an elderly main star with a PhD surrounded by a hapless band of bandits as they go around trying to convince the people in their neighbourhoods that they have ideas. It will be a disaster of a show. It will get no ratings. New Zealand On Air will not touch it. But it will make great viewing for people interested in politics and Parliament because those on “ 
Dr Flip-Flop 
” are about to be exposed on television as the kinds of characters they are. 
It is almost 1 year since the National Party list MP Don Brash a first-term member of Parliament—not that there is anything wrong with that—became the Leader of the Opposition. Since that time we could only describe the National Party as being a riderless horse in this Parliament. There is no better example than in recent times—being yesterday and today. As members know we have had a 2-week adjournment—a chance for members to fan out across the country. I noticed that the leader of New Zealand First was very busy over the adjournment. Labour and Progressive members were very busy with party caucuses and talks with constituents. They were out around the country getting a contest of ideas that they could bring back to Parliament so we can debate the things we believe in. But what has happened in the last 2 days within the re-energized and refreshed National Party? We have seen the same tired old style and strategy that it has had in the year since we have been subjected to Don Brash as the Leader of the Opposition. 
When we look at what has happened so far this year in the opinion polls we see that the National Party under Dr Brash’s strong and solid leadership has shaved off a quarter of its support. I predict that by the time Dr Brash gets to his first anniversary as leader he will be polling exactly the same as when he took over from Mr English. The National Party will have been on this extraordinary 1-year journey with its leader—a list MP and first-term member—and it will have arrived back at exactly the point it left with Mr English. That has me thinking that the Labour Party will have to do some thinking. 
I say to my colleagues that I am not convinced we will be facing Dr Brash on the hustings in the next general election campaign. I think the “possum in the headlights” approach he has been taking shows that this man is rattled. The “great debater” is nowhere to be seen and nowhere to be heard. I know we have adjusted for daylight saving time but we can still work out that Parliament starts at 2 o’clock and that members should get their questions in to the Clerk by some time in the morning— 
Jill Pettis 
: By 10.30. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: By 10.30 I am told. Members get their questions in by 10.30 and they have a chance to get up in Parliament and ask questions of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. When the general debate starts at just after 3 o’clock members have the chance take the first slot in the debate and take it to the Government—like a Leader of the Opposition is meant to do. 
I think Gerry Brownlee is getting ready to lurch up and take the job. How do I know that? Mindless speculation? Oh no! I watch Murray McCully on these matters. Murray McCully is the great ace strategist of the National Party. I know that because Simon Power says it. If Simon Power says it it must be right. Where George Bush goes Simon Power goes. Where Murray McCully goes Simon Power is not too far after him. Murray McCully has given advice to Jim Bolger to Jenny Shipley to Bill English and now to Don Brash. We know that Murray McCully has stopped paying for Don Brash’s lemon lime and bitters at the end of the day. He is now funding Gerry Brownlee’s cheeseburgers. I would be very worried. 
Don Brash was going to be the man available 24/7 to defeat the Government. But now when we ask him a question what does he say? “I am uncomfortable with the National Party policy position. I have yet to reread our 2002 manifesto and although I am not unsympathetic to the point that is made I am not sure I can announce my policy at this time.” If one is going be available 24/7 to defeat the Government that is hardly the way to do it. He said he would work with the Devil to defeat the Labour Party. At the time I thought that was a very rough analogy to draw with the ACT party but as it turns out sinning is the done thing in that party. There were going to be five speeches. Only two of them have been given. That is a 40-percent work rate which I guess is not too bad for a part-time worker. That is not too bad for Dr Brash. Forty percent is not bad. He is a bit tired after giving 40 percent of the work he promised to give. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two speeches in a year! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Two speeches out of five have been given and the other three will not be made. In 1 year he will give only two. He turned up in the tea party hat in Ratana and he gave a speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust about being tough on crime. He was going to be the big prison warden. It reminded me of  
Hogan’s Heroes 
 with Dr Brash as Colonel Klink and Gerry Brownlee as Sergeant Schultz. It was an absolute joke but it was much better than the normal Monty Burns and Homer Simpson routine they do. That party is a joke. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to congratulate the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Simon Power 
: Steady! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I do. I want to congratulate him on having the gumption to stand up and say that we need to look at the length and frequency of powhiri in our schools. What he said is justified. He did not say we should not have such ceremonies at our schools—although by the way there is a mismatch with the secular clause in the Act. He said that the length and the frequency need to be considered. 
Trevor Mallard is talking about adaptation and I have to say I have also witnessed children sitting for long periods of time—up to an hour in one case—on concrete or asphalt sometimes in the rain listening to what are in effect meaningless whakapapa. A formulaic protocol devised for a marae situation—an adult situation—is being thoughtlessly forced upon our children. So I praise Trevor Mallard for standing up and saying something about it. But where is the support of his colleagues? They know that what he is saying is true. Where are the other members of the Labour caucus? Where is the support of his ministerial colleagues for the statements he is making? Where are the Labour members who are prepared to stand up and say that some of the practices carried out in the name of meeting the demands of the Treaty of Waitangi verge on child abuse? In no other context would we tolerate this nonsense. I say we have lost the plot somewhat. Trevor Mallard said we have lost the plot somewhat and his colleagues have left him hanging out to dry. 
Where are the Labour members who are prepared to stand up and say New Zealand First is correct when it suggests that any reference to the principles of the treaty should be expunged from legislation? Labour members have come to conclude that the existence of such principles within legislation is in fact a load of nonsense. When Geoffrey Palmer first put them in there it seemed like a good idea but the reality and the practice has not been the same. At select committees now it is argued that the principles of the treaty are too vague to be included and that they create too many problems. The treaty principles can be everything to everybody and they create a form of temporary insanity within our bureaucrats. Labour Ministers know this and they do not include such clauses in legislation nowadays. Margaret Wilson knows this. Where is the reference to the principles of the treaty in the Ngati Awa legislation? It is in the explanatory note and nowhere else. 
Officials advise us that including the principles of the treaty in legislation is no longer considered to be the brightest thing to do because of the chaos it causes but what Labour MP or Minister has come out and said that New Zealand First and Winston Peters have got it right in moving to expunge that unfortunate phrase from legislation? No one. In fact they have said nothing. There has been not a sound a syllable a murmur or a mutter. They are not allowed to say anything about it. The reason nothing is being said—normally we would get a humungous attack on such a policy as was announced last week—is that Labour members know that what New Zealand First is saying is right and correct and will take this nation forward. 
What other announced treaty policy from New Zealand First has received deadly silence from Labour? It is New Zealand First’s policy that refines the process of addressing historical grievances in order to enable these to be brought to resolution in an expeditious way. If members were to ask 100 New Zealanders 99 would answer that they recognise there have been injustices and that these need to be settled and that then we can get on as a nation. However there is real frustration with the seeming endlessness of the process and the frivolous claims elicited by the nebulous principles-of-the-treaty clauses in legislation. 
The Government knows that there is an inherent conflict of interest when an activist and Maori Land Court judge acts as chairman of the tribunal. How many times must Margaret Wilson have thought: “Who will rid me of this troublesome judge?”. But she will not come out and say it. She would risk putting herself in the politically correct firing line. So she says nothing and in saying and doing nothing she endorses the very policies that New Zealand First has been putting forward. The Government knows that restructuring the mechanisms for reconciliation is critical to the expeditious resolution of grievances yet it will do nothing on its own initiative. We have to ask why the Government is so quiet on all these matters. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is saying that its relationships with foreign countries are formed with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Hello! The Government is quiet because it knows that New Zealand First is correct. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand as the final speaker in the general debate today to celebrate our Government’s achievements and success. It is a good stable Government and we have a good stable economy. It is a Government that has shown and continues to show leadership and one that tackles the hard issues. This Government is absolutely committed to improving the health and wealth of ordinary New Zealanders and it is working. We know that it is working. Compare this with the Opposition. Judith Collins and Simon Power are sitting there looking so glum and forlorn as they wallow in the demise of their party. What an Opposition members might say and they would be right. 
Don Brash is the doom and gloom merchant. He sees and we all see that National is now languishing in the polls. Its only possible coalition partner—its members are also gloomy wherever they are—is polling so low that it is not worth a mention. It is actually polling below the margin of error. What a mess. 
I missed a very big event last night. Don Brash spoke and I was very sad to have missed it. I understand that he named a few unionists in the Labour Party including “Mr Red Flag” himself—David Cunliffe the man who put the “fizz” into fiscal management—and our young “whippersnapper” Darren Hughes. It is his first job but who is he according to Mr Brash? He is the extremist from the Public Service Association. We acknowledge that they are certainly to the left of Mr Brash but there is an awful lot of room to the left of Mr Brash. We all know that Mr Brash has no time whatsoever for unions or workers. 
Let us look back at some of his memorable quotes and I would say that these are genuine quotes. Firstly he said: “Could we for example drop all benefits to the able-bodied and scrap the statutory minimum wage so that pay rates could fall to the point where the labour market fully clears …?”. Our answer to Mr Brash is that we now have unemployment at 4 percent and it was achieved by raising the minimum wage; not by dropping it. He then wants to gradually raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation. For his part he does not care who owns the schools in our country. National would repeal the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. The most appalling of all his quotes is: “Legal requirements that provide safe workplaces are a barrier to growth.” That is a genuine quote. Can you believe that? 
Simon Power 
: Stop saying “you”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Can anybody believe that? I thank Mr Power. Can anybody believe that anyone in his or her right mind would say that legal requirements that provide safe workplaces are a barrier to growth? 
National and Don Brash have now cottoned on. Every time Mr Brash opens his mouth he puts his foot in it but National members have a very very clever strategy now. They know exactly how to deal with this. They have the answer. They will say nothing they will go nowhere and they will lay low. 
I wonder whether members remember that brave new dynamic leader. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Mr Brash that is who. I know we have not seen or heard much of him over the last few months but we remember when he planned to give a major speech on each of the five main priorities: race relations education welfare dependency security and the economy. He roared in stirred up race relations and falsely claimed that Maori get more bereavement leave than anyone else. He thought that he was on to a winner so he moved on to law and order next. That was a bad move. Crime statistics are now at a 15-year low so that was a fizzer. We have not seen or heard anything more of Mr Brash since. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I speak on Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” of this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which deals particularly with the purposes the principles and the areas of procedures or treatments that can be declared to be established procedures. 
Undoubtedly we have seen a revolution of treatment in this reproductive field particularly since 1978 when the first test-tube baby was born. But what has to be realised is that there is a whole spectrum of treatments available to a modern society which may go from very simple treatments such as ovulation induction or sperm production improvement to the more complex technologies. I think it is important that it is clearly spelt out in the purposes clause that the bill is to secure the benefits of assisted reproductive procedures and established procedures for mainstream society. 
I have noted from various groups who have opposed this bill such as some individual Roman Catholics or even some Maori that they find it difficult to accept some of the modern technologies that are available. But in reality as a former practising clinician in this field I have found no group who has not wanted for one reason or another to take advantage of those assisted reproductive technologies. Undoubtedly there is the reality of a need among all groups in society that I know of to take advantage of their benefits. 
What clearly is contentious are some of the complex technologies to do with cloning hybridisation and further possibilities that might be associated with stem cells. Part 1 through the schedules makes clear provision to prohibit unacceptable assisted reproductive procedures. Undoubtedly in schedule 1 we have a list of procedures that are unacceptable to mainstream society. That list is likely to grow and through the provisions of this bill to change from time to time but it is unlikely to be changed without considerable deliberation and care. 
The other aspect of the purposes clause that I think is worth while commenting on is the establishment of a comprehensive information-keeping regime to ensure that people born from donated embryos or donated cells can find out about their genetic origins. There is no doubt that one of the major thrusts of the submissions we had is that people do indeed want to find out about their backgrounds. One of the major philosophies behind this bill is the promotion of the ethos of openness which I think is absolutely appropriate. 
It is also vital that clear records are kept to ensure that morbidity and mortality are recorded so that successful procedures can be monitored. Again there is a set of principles spelt out clearly to ensure that the health and well-being of children born as a result should be an important consideration in all decisions about procedures. At one stage of events it was to be a paramount consideration but undoubtedly the practicality is that all people involved in procedures do have a degree of risk. It is vital that risks to men women and children are all taken into account as being seriously important. I do think that the Health Committee perhaps has become a little politically correct when it not only pointed out that the needs— 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Assisted Human Reproduction Bill which was a Government bill introduced in 1998 and the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which was a member’s bill introduced in 1996 in the name of Dianne Yates basically became a hybrid with a Supplementary Order Paper which we have in the Committee tonight. The Health Committee worked very comprehensively on this bill. It is highly technical and I think we have all agreed on the outcomes. 
Unless people have actually been through the process of knowing what it is like to not be able to have a child when a family wants that and when mum and dad are desperate to have a child they do not fully understand how emotive these issues can become. To get a bill on human assisted reproductive technology that will meet the requirements of those people who are emotionally involved in the process plus protect society from those people who would want to experiment at a level that most people would not find acceptable is what has been the aim of this bill. 
The bill itself under the purposes and principles establishes that there will be no cloning no hybrid embryos and no commercial surrogacy. Now surrogacy in a non-commercial sense is going to be acceptable under this bill but not in a commercial sense. 
Stem cell research of course in other countries of the world has been highly contentious. For those members who read the 
 New Zealand Herald 
 this morning they will have seen that even in the American presidential elections it has become a huge debate where Kerry has actually blasted George Bush over health-care cuts because he wants to stop stem cell research. In this country I think we are lucky to have this bill coming before the House at this time rather than 5 or 6 years ago because technology and our understanding of what can be done and what is acceptable has moved a great deal as developments have occurred. 
When the Health Committee went to Australia 2 years ago one of the main topics being debated at that time was about human assisted reproductive technology and stem cell research. As a doctor and a geriatrician I have to support stem cell research. It can or may offer huge advances for the future. It may offer huge advances for patients who may have diseases such as Parkinson’s disease—a disease that affects a very small part of the brain the substantianigra but causes massive problems and disability and eventually the death of the patient. Anything that for the future could stem the tide or perhaps turn it round and effect a cure of a disease such as Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease I think it is our obligation that we should be able to continue that research here in New Zealand and throughout the world. The purpose of this bill is to give a robust and flexible framework to regulation and guide the performances of future assisted reproductive technology. Things change markedly in this area sometimes just by accident; someone finds a better way or observes a better way to actually have a positive outcome. 
 The other principal concern within this bill is that of the donor children—those children who are actually created as a result of a donated egg or sperm. These children do need to have access to their genetic information and I certainly support Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper which would mean that a register of donors is kept so that children can have access. 
We had a lot of debate about the age at which a child should be able to get access to the actual name of the donor and that will remain at 18 but the genetic information will be available before that time. 
Also of concern for the purposes and principles of this bill was how we allow additions perhaps to the list of prohibited actions that is contained in schedule 1. What would be prohibited and what would be considered to be acceptable progression for reproductive purposes? How do we add something to the list and how do we take it off? 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I congratulate Dianne Yates on having the gumption to bring this bill to the House and on working with the Health Committee to make sure she got a bill that I believe the vast majority of parliamentarians here will support. 
The fact is that regulations of this particular nature are not going to please everybody but at the moment the area is vastly under-regulated and there is a need for some regulation. Some parts of this bill are probably too permissive. Some parts are probably too tough. All of those sorts of things probably apply but it is at least an attempt to do something and put some stakes in the ground as to what is and is not acceptable in the area of human assisted reproductive technology. 
I am particularly pleased that we have a Supplementary Order Paper from Paul Hutchison in relation to the voluntary register to be maintained by the Registrar-General about the birth and donor details for children who are born from assisted reproductive technology. One of the reasons is—I have said it once and I will say it again—that all children deserve to know their whakapapa. It does not matter which race they are. They should know their ethnicity and where they come from. I am really pleased that we have an acknowledgment of that. 
This register will be voluntary. Many of us would like to see it expanded to become compulsory because of the children’s needs. Having said that I accept that it would be very difficult to get that to work in an area where there is so little donation available and it would possibly stop that small amount of donation. So I am happy to support that. 
Also having looked at clause 4 “Principles” I do have some reservations about the political correctness of the bill. I am very supportive of the provision in paragraph (g) which states: “the different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect.” I think that is a very sensible provision. However I do not understand why there needs to be a separate provision to say that the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be treated with respect. This implies that Maori are in some way not in fact part of society. I think that that provision is unfortunate and that it brings political correctness in the extreme into what is probably going to be pretty much a multiparty-supported bill. I find that somewhat silly and I think it could well be deleted. 
Having said that I note that the changes that have been made to the bill—and they are numerous—show the degree of thoroughness that the select committee was able to bring to its consideration of the bill. The bill has been around for a while so technology has changed in that time. I do query whether we are likely to have to look at this legislation again in the near future because of further changes to technology. Perhaps the permissiveness of the bill will make that unnecessary but I wonder. 
It is certainly funny that we live in a country where we are very very concerned about human assisted reproductive technology yet we do not really value children and parenthood as much as we should. In fact the very first and best thing we can do in society is be good parents. No matter what we do in this Parliament none of it is of any use at all if nobody is out there being a good parent. None of it is of any use to us past this generation unless we do in fact value children their parents and the people who give up so much to become parents and we very much value what happens to those children after they are born. 
I am happy to go along with the purposes of the bill. I am happy to support the bill and I will be supporting as well the amendments put forward by Paul Hutchison. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I have to state upfront that United Future will from here on be registering a split vote. As the member for United Future who is on the Health Committee I have faced some issues and some struggles. There are some conscience issues that crop up in this bill that I have a personal problem with. But I have tried to separate those issues from the need to look at the regulatory framework that is being proposed here to see regardless of whether I like which category everything has been placed in whether the system for regulating this technology is appropriate. But at that level I again have had some problems. 
I take some time now to thank Dianne Yates. I think there is probably no one else in this House who has shown such a commitment to getting a system to regulate this technology. The work she has done the trips she has taken and the research she has done have been quite phenomenal. If this bill reflected her original bill then my position at the end of this process would be quite different. None of us wants to see medical science held back from making breakthroughs that alleviate suffering but my concern is that we are straying into areas where the very nature of what it means to be human is put up for grabs and we need to be very careful in the way we allow this to advance. 
What I am saying is that the means by which we achieve good outcomes in health are as important ethically as the outcomes themselves. I have some real concerns. There was a joke in the House earlier about the fact we should not worry because the market will determine the outcomes and that is my very real fear. 
Simon Power 
: That wasn’t a joke. I was serious. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Was it not? I thank Mr Power. I want to cite a story that I have read about and told members before. In the United States a drug a growth hormone was developed by drug companies to treat dwarfism. It was given orphan drug status by the American Government because the expected uptake of the drug was quite small. What actually happened was that the uptake was phenomenal. It was way outside expectations. It had never been expected that lots of mums and dads would rush out and procure it for their short children to see whether they could up the ante and improve their height. In Western society where we are very consumer driven we have to understand that technologies like the ones we are regulating here will have a demand on them that is beyond just the demand that people with critical health problems or fertility problems will require—hence my feeling that the real need here is for caution. 
 I proposed a couple of amendments in Part 1; one is to the definition of an embryo. The current definition in the bill talks about an embryo then excludes from the definition embryonic stem cells. I feel that in a warped sort of way this definition says that one is an embryo unless it does not suit our purposes and then one is not an embryo. I believe that the reason for this wording is that we want to keep the door wide open for future stem cell legislation. 
I also want to make it clear that I am not against the use of stem cells or stem cell research. I do have some ethical problems with where we get stem cells from. Certainly I have real reservations about embryonic stem cells being used particularly when we have seen some fabulous advances and medical breakthroughs as we find the very good use we can make of adult stem cells and that would certainly be my preference. 
As we go through the bill and in particular in Part 2 there are some areas that I have a huge concern about and I want to leave some of my comments until then. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
Tena koe e te Heamana. A tenaratatou e noho tahi anai roto i te Whare i te ranei. E tuakeanatenei ki te tautoko ingawhakaaro o taku hoa o matoui roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi a Barbara Stewart. 
I stand in support of the contribution that my colleague Barbara Stewart has committed to this bill. I tender her apologies. To assure members that I did have some participation in this process I tell them that this matter came before the Health Committee during my membership of it. 
New Zealand First supports this bill and in particular the amendment proposed by Dr Hutchison. This is an emotive issue and within Part 1 the purposes and principles of this bill are very clearly defined and specified. They advise on the procedures and treatments that may be declared to be established procedures. We believe that the bill adopts a cautious but balanced approach to this area of human-assisted reproductive technology. Very clearly the bill states that one of its purposes is to prohibit unacceptable assisted reproductive procedures. It is thanks to the responsible attitudes of fertility clinics and fertility service providers to date that nothing untoward has happened in this area. 
I should say that we totally support the paragraph of the purposes clause that clarifies that the bill is intended to protect the “safety dignity and rights of all individuals but particularly those of women and children in the use of these procedures and research:”. This is a very personal issue. The health risks of children born as a result of these procedures are generally higher than those of children associated with natural conception. I think it is timely that we have a bill that will bring some regulation to this whole area of reproduction. We must be very aware that all decisions made about the use of this technology however must reflect that children born through its use become adults and decisions made today will impact on those children throughout their life. 
In talking in that regard as a Maori I am very conscious of the importance of whakapapa in terms of children born under this process. That is one of the reasons why we give strong support to the Supplementary Order Paper promoted by Dr Hutchison. It will give some clarity to one’s understanding of whom one is descended from. If that register is not available to offspring of this technology then the question of whakapapa becomes diminished in terms of Maori. 
While I am talking about Maori I mention that my colleague Judith Collins made reference in particular to clause 4(f) which states that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect:”. That was not the original wording promoted by the bill. I am glad that that particular paragraph is there instead of the original wording which referred to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But if I do have any criticism it is that I think that clause 4(g)—which states that “the different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect.”—could apply to everybody in New Zealand not only non-Maori. There is an implication that it does not refer to Maori and that Maori concerns are addressed in clause 4(f). 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank those members who have already spoken on this bill and thank them for their kind comments about it. 
I want to talk about the importance of the principles clause because as Judy Turner has already mentioned this bill to a large extent is about what it means to be human. Whatever we do in life we are interfering with life and we are progressing life. We are now talking about technologies that are not available in nature—whatever we call nature—so we do have a responsibility to ensure that whatever we do with this technology we are responsible for it. 
In relation to the principle of ensuring the health and well-being of children born from these technologies I point out that we are particularly concerned about the safety and dignity of the present and future generations. I disagree with the Supplementary Order Paper from Paul Hutchison who wants to do away with the stress on women in terms of these procedures because many people are afraid of a “rent-a-womb” situation developing and of commercialisation. That is not in this bill but they are afraid that it may occur in some future time and Judy Turner has pointed that out. I remind people that a survey in Australia pointed out that the gestational parent was very much of concern because although we are talking about test-tube babies or in vitro babies whose conception occurs in a glass dish there is still that wonderful thing called a mother which in technology is now called— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What about a father? 
DIANNE YATES 
: I am just pointing that out. The gestational parent spends 9 months bringing a child into the world and I am concerned that the research in Australia showed that there was greater emphasis on the gestational parent as well as the father who had contributed to the genetic make-up of the child. That is why the Health Committee discussed for a very long time the inclusion of the word “women” in this clause and that is why I am not very keen on Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper on this issue. 
It is a very very important principle that we have informed consent throughout reproductive processes and also that as has been pointed out by the New Zealand First speaker children are aware of their genetic origins. I point out that the register is part of the bill. Dr Hutchison’s amendment is talking about those who have donated gametes in the past. I can assure New Zealand First that the register of donors is in the substantive bill and the member’s Supplementary Order Paper refers to those who have donated in the past who may wish to volunteer information about themselves for the records. 
Anther point that Dr Hutchison has put forward is to omit the reference to the beliefs of Maori. That issue too was discussed in great length by the select committee. The committee decided to leave it in as well as the reference to different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives. I stress to the Committee that the principles in the bill were discussed at great length by the select committee and I think the member’s Supplementary Order Paper is not really acceptable in this regard. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I start by paying a tribute to the last speaker Dianne Yates for introducing this bill. I am sure that without Dianne Yates’ bill we would still not be in a position to put in place legislation around this incredibly important and highly contentious area. 
It is very sad that Dianne Yates’ original bill has been gutted to the extent that it has. I am quite sure that Dianne Yates herself feels very sad about the extent to which the bill has been gutted. If anyone wonders about the extent to which it has been gutted he or she need only look at the pages of the original bill; it would have set up an institution to oversee the whole area and it would have had licences and very clear conditions. It was very very explicit. Unfortunately all of those very excellent provisions that were in Dianne Yates’ original bill have as I said been gutted. 
Tragically we are left with a bill that has very very excellent intentions that we strongly support but regrettably sets up one of the weakest most permissive regulatory regimes for assisted human reproductive technology in the Western World. Indeed I would argue that we could question whether the purpose of the legislation is being adhered to in the remainder of the bill. The purpose provision states that the purpose of the legislation is to regulate the use of human embryos by artificial means and so on and so forth but in truth there is no regulation—astonishingly—proposed in the bill. Instead the whole bill relies on guidelines which do not have the legal force of law and which can be so vaguely worded that are very very difficult to enforce. The guidelines will be drawn up by an unelected and unaccountable ministerial advisory committee which will have the task of approving controversial technologies without any parliamentary scrutiny. That is extraordinary. Fortunately there will be some consultation but ultimately we are giving an unelected and unaccountable advisory committee unprecedented and virtually unlimited powers to determine policies about reproductive technologies in New Zealand. 
In so doing this bill is breaching the well-established parliamentary principle that matters of policy and substance should be dealt with by Parliament. It is a well-established convention that policy should not be delegated beyond Parliament to technical committees but here we are giving an unelected and unaccountable advisory committee the ability to set guidelines that in effect set policy in this most highly contentious highly controversial area. If Parliament does not have some greater say in this sort of area one wonders what its purpose is. As one submitter said Dr Frankenstein would have found that the regulatory regime proposed in this bill—or rather the lack of it—gave him ample opportunity to argue for the creation of his monster. A submitter made that observation. 
It is tragic that we have ended up with a bill without any regulation. The Greens will be putting up an amendment to give the guidelines the force of regulation. It is a mystery to me why the Government is so implacably opposed to having regulation of this important and highly contentious area. Canada has just passed some legislation that has regulations and a mechanism to enable new regulations to go through Parliament to be debated in Parliament and to be sent to its equivalent of our Health Committee. England has a licensing regime and so on and so forth. It is a mystery to me why our Government and the officials are absolutely hell-bent on having no regulation whatsoever. I have never understood what the reason for that is. A previous speaker said we might have to revisit this bill. I believe that she is correct. I believe that we will revisit it because of the lack of regulation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was slightly reassured by the previous speaker Sue Kedgley for the Greens on this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill by something that I am sure she did not intend when she described the officials as having been hell-bent against regulation. That is not what I have discerned from reading the bill. I speak for myself and for a number of my colleagues. I cannot say that I speak for the ACT party because we are divided on this bill. When I look at the bill I see that it is a sickening exhibit of sentimentality. It is a typical example of the kind of—I know that I am not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in relation to members of this House—the hypocrisy that is exhibited by the establishment when it has a dreadful social problem and instead of addressing it decides to focus on a trivial and an almost non-existent problem as a smokescreen. What we have here is a whole lot of pious cant about the dignity and rights of individuals about the protection of health safety and welfare about the importance of knowing one’s genetic origins about the importance of regulating unacceptable behaviour about dealing with nasty commerce and donated cells and about informing people of their genetic origins. 
That cant comes from a Parliament that not only tolerates but facilitates thousands of births every year of kids who will never know their fathers—kids who have natural fathers they will never know because our welfare system is determined to sponsor single-parent families without responsibility. This Parliament is running a welfare system that does not mind that kids are being born every day with foetal alcohol syndrome to entirely unsuitable women—to people who would never have children if in fact the normal social sanctions were applied when they were irresponsible. This is a Parliament that has presided over introducing a legal system that means that thousands of babies are born who will never know their father. The normal social sanctions are the sorts of regimes that apply in most societies whereby people do not bear children until they can take care of them and until they know that they are able to give them education a stable home life and grandparents—all the things that those of us who have been blessed with that kind of upbringing take for granted and that we now in all sincerity have abandoned for a good chunk of our population. By taking from families that are working and by structuring a welfare system that gives funding to children to have children we are providing for all the things in our welfare system that this legislation suddenly states are utterly unacceptable where there is assisted reproduction. 
I listened to the members who spoke so piously in favour of this bill talk about the importance of the embryo. They are scared of Frankenstein’s monster. One would think that it is unlikely that any parent involved in an assisted reproduction process will not be very anxious. It is highly unlikely that there will be a single woman or man involved in the process who will not have the utmost anxiety about the best interests of the child that is produced. These will be the most wanted children in New Zealand. These will be children who do not need any official to look after them these baby children around whom risks are taken. It may be that experimental procedures are invoked but what is the risk of those kinds of experiments where the medical profession has its hands deep in them compared with the risk to the number of children who are conceived in a drunken or drug-induced passion? Kids are being born when conception was a complete blur and the entire pregnancy has been chemically affected. What does the Government do about that? It pays for it. It says that there is no consequence as a result of doing that. There is not even a power to intervene. Yet this House in a great rush of sickly sentiment is saying we should spend time on supervising these births. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 There are groups in society who for one reason or another are not able to have children. In clause 3 among the purposes provided it is explained that the bill is: “(d) to provide a robust and flexible framework for regulating and guiding the performance of assisted reproductive procedures and the conduct of human reproductive research:”. Having said that I say that technology has moved ahead but it has to be better. It needs to be precise especially when we are dealing with life. Technology is more stringent than it was before and research gives an assurance of protection. There is also the direction and guidance in the bill to privacy and areas that are sensitive. 
There will be areas of dissatisfaction. To various ethnic groups this technology will be a no-no because of their beliefs and spiritual backgrounds. As mentioned by previous speakers genealogy or whakapapa links are important and will be a concern for Maori and Pacific Island groups. By way of explanation from a Maori perspective I tell members that historically the perpetuation of the family and blood lines was a very important event. When a child was born the placenta was kept and buried in the area where that child came from. The pito or umbilical cord symbolically tied that child to its tribe its whanau its hapu and the land it inherited. I do not know whether those concerned ever looked at that for it is where disputes could start because of that spiritual belief—the perpetuation of family and its link in this case for Maori and I think for most Pacific Island people to their land. That has always been historically important and still is today. 
My presentation on this bill will be brief but I would like to ensure that those things are taken into consideration because life to all of us in this House and to those outside its boundaries is sacred. It must be treated as such. If not this technology and all the regulations and laws that go with it can go out the window. 
First on the priority list of this House is to consider how people look at this legislation and at the sanctity that is brought into the family. Without that sanctity and respect for life and the sacredness in which most people hold life the legislation cannot be considered. However New Zealand First at this stage supports the bill but the bill has to be stringent. The protection of the child conceived and of the parents has to be taken care of. There is no doubt that when the child is born it will be treated as any other ordinary person and that it will have its parents’ love kindness respect and care. That is paramount and it must be. If parents are not prepared as the previous ACT speaker said to take care of the child where do we go to from here? 
I admire the tenacity with which Dianne Yates has presented the bill but all these things have to be taken into consideration as well as the Supplementary Order Paper of Dr Hutchison. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The importance of this bill to the House is perhaps underestimated. I do not share the view of the ACT party that the bill is to do with the welfare system. It is to do with much more complex issues than that in many ways. The reason why this is important is that under this structure as set out in Part 1 it is really the only time—and could be the only time for many years actually—that Parliament has an opportunity to discuss what it regards as the bottom lines that will apply to human-assisted reproductive technology. That is of some concern to me. 
Part 1 sets out the objectives of the bill—the robust and flexible framework. One word that does not appear anywhere in there is “accountable”. We have the mechanism of the advisory committees and ethics committees that are advisory to the Minister but I just want to reflect on a number of years spent in this Parliament trying to get at such committees. In fact members may be interested to know that it is fairly difficult for the Minister to get at such committees. 
When I was Minister of Health there was a committee of some name with a similar function—I cannot recall the name—making decisions that in my view were ground-breaking in the science that was put to them. As the Minister who appointed the advisory committee I was greatly anxious about what would happen if the committee made decisions that I believed were wrong—were against the public interest and outside the scope of what Parliament would accept. As it turned out in those cases the advisory committee made decisions that I believed were right. In my view they made the correct call consistent with the public interest. 
But there is no guarantee of that and this is the only chance that I as a member of Parliament will have to set the bottom lines that those committees have to act within—which puts an unfortunate burden on the list of banned procedures. Quite frankly I would like the list to be an awful lot longer than it is. Unless that is the case I will not get the chance to come back. 
I know that the members of an advisory committee will not have to face the same scrutiny as a ministry. I know that any ministerial interference with that process will be regarded as a breach of good faith because that is what was threatened when I sought advice about what role I might take as Minister of Health in those decisions. 
So that is where I believe there is something missing from Part 1—the clarity of the accountability mechanism. The purposes and the principles in the bill are sufficiently general that committees could be able—I am not saying they will be able—to make decisions that from a public policy point of view a future Parliament would like to challenge. There is no direct or effective way of doing that. It may require Parliament to bring in legislation at some urgency. 
Again the bill forces that process. It forces a confrontational process with Parliament because Parliament is not able to exercise the kind of ongoing accountability and public policy guidance that those committees might need. So I think that that is a concern. 
I have also been concerned on looking through the principles about the way the Health Committee has downgraded the paramountcy principle in respect of the welfare of children. This bill is not about children only. I have almost more concern now about the alleged therapeutic benefits of a lot of this research. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have to say that I agree with every utterance of the previous speaker Bill English and I wish that he had been sitting on the Health Committee. Regrettably it was his colleagues sitting on our committee along with others who were so implacably opposed to any mechanism being introduced to make that unelected and unaccountable advisory committee have some accountability to Parliament. I would like to assure the Hon Bill English that the Green Party did try very hard to introduce some mechanism that would enable Parliament to have some scrutiny over the decisions—the so-called guidelines but in fact the policy decisions—of the advisory committee. We failed because of the opposition of his party and others but we will be bringing these amendments here and he will have an opportunity to vote for them. 
We will be putting up two amendments. The first amendment gives the guidelines the force of regulation so that at least they will be regulations and will have to go to the Regulations Review Committee whereas at the moment they are just “wiffly waffly” guidelines. I do not know where guidelines go—perhaps to the Minister? They certainly do not have parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly we have an amendment that would propose our doing what the Canadian system does which is to state that the guidelines—or the regulations as we hope they will become—will have the mechanism to be able to go before Parliament and to be debated and sent to the Health Committee. If the Minister chooses to ignore the recommendations of that committee the Minister would have to give very good reason for that. 
So I think that Mr English has made some extremely good points because the fact is that Parliament basically has no role in this extraordinarily important and controversial area once we have set up this bill. All this bill does is set up a very broad umbrella. It sets up some very fine purposes and principles but then does not even give them the force of regulation. It then essentially hands the entire thing lock stock and barrel to this unelected and unaccountable committee. It does not provide for any mechanism for Parliament to debate those bottom lines as Mr English put it and to look at those or to have scrutiny over some of the ground-breaking decisions that advisory committees will no doubt be making. As Mr English has pointed out it is extremely worrying that those committees are effectively a law unto themselves. So what we are doing in this bill is giving the ability to decide on the future of the human race with respect to New Zealand to that unelected unaccountable committee that will essentially be a law unto itself. 
The member from ACT was scornful about why we should be interfering in these things. Frankly most of society agrees that in this bill we are debating a very profound aspect of what it is to be human. I presume the member from ACT would be happy to have cloning and happy to have genetic engineering of humans which is what he seemed to be implying. Well I can assure the Committee— 
Stephen Franks 
: Absolutely! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The trouble is as the member from ACT may be aware there has been a tremendous failure in efforts to clone and genetically engineer animals. There have been hundreds and hundreds of attempts and hundreds of animals are born with severe abnormalities before scientists clone successfully. Is that the sort of thing he would advocate? I think that maybe he needs to do a bit more reading about genetic engineering and cloning in order to understand the huge risks there are in this area. 
I want to point out to Mr English and others who fortunately share my concerns about the total lack of accountability in this bill that there are some amendments on the Table they can support. Hopefully Mr English might be able to persuade his colleague Dr Hutchinson and others that in fact the incredibly lax system that we have introduced does as Simon Power said leave it up to the market—the market will decide. That is basically what this bill is doing and I hope that that member over the dinner break might prevail upon some of his colleagues to support the proposal by the Green Party to introduce accountability and regulations into the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on Part 1 to explain my other amendment to clause 6. But in starting I want to disagree with my colleague Sue Kedgley on one matter. I did not find the officials a brick wall. I think that any brick wall they had to stand behind was one created by Cabinet. I actually found the officials to be extremely helpful. At times I felt like a bit of a fly in the ointment to the process but I always found them very gracious and I thank them for the way they worked with us. 
I would also like to commend the Hon Bill English for his contribution. I think he absolutely hit the nail on the head regarding my position in that this is the one and only chance that will be offered to us as elected representatives to have a say in the way the direction of this technology will go. I find that scary and the fact that the word accountability or the fact that the understanding of what it means to be accountable to this House is lost in this process worries me a huge amount. 
That is why I proposed an amendment to clause 6 so that treatments that were to be declared established procedures had final scrutiny by Parliament. Of course once something is considered an established procedure as long as the practitioners administering the procedure are qualified they no longer require any further ethics committee approval because the procedure is set in place. But before we allow a procedure to hit that final category I think it would be hugely important for this House to be re-engaged with the final recommendation. I understand that the best way for that to happen is for the Regulations Review Committee to look at what is being proposed and so that is what my amendment seeks to do. 
The huge difference between guidelines and regulations I guess is the area that worries me the most. When we read the Canadian legislation which is strongly regulatory we see that what is allowed and what will happen is extremely clear clause-by-clause. There are no grey areas: one is very clear as one reads it what is to be expected. That is the power of regulation. I understand that regulation in some areas of life can be onerous can shut down a positive move forward in some directions and can slow processes down unnecessarily. But in this particular situation regulations would give effective clarification and certainly the work of the Regulations Review Committee to check what is being proposed is an extremely fortuitous function of Parliament. 
My amendment then to clause 6 would require a check to be made by the Regulations Review Committee before Orders in Council were made on established procedures. The select committee would then report on how it found the guidelines and procedures that were being touted as established procedures and would give us a sense of what was going on. That is the proposal I have for clause 6. I will leave it at that but I really encourage members to consider supporting that check. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to further address Part 1 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I indicated the ACT party will split its vote on this. We have two members who believe that the bill is defective but still worth supporting and we have six members who believe that it is a classic example of the errors of legislating when no mischief has been identified. Usually we pass law when we find that something wrong is being done or threatened. People cannot even identify what it is they are scared of in this case. The mischief may be bad outcomes but if people wanted to look at bad outcomes and were really worried about kids being born with genetic disadvantages why are they not worried about kids who are born to smoking mothers? Why are they not doing something about kids born with lifelong disabilities as a result of alcohol consumption during the critical period after conception? 
I have just heard arguments that this is the one and only chance for Parliament to look at the issue. Parliament will look at this every year—because it is sexy because it gets headlines and because politicians looking anxious and concerned can intervene in this area with no practical consequences. What we have here is an idea that Parliament’s wisdom will exceed that of the anxious would-be parents the concerned doctors and the professionals who would like to deal with disease. 
A very good example of how pitiful a parliamentary attempt to deal with this issue is is my layman’s look at the definitions in Part 1. As I read them they do not do anything about genetic engineering even though half the speeches have been about that. It is not prohibited by this bill. The bill states that it deals with embryos and gametes at the cellular level and with fusing cells. It does not even deal with introducing specific genes or modifying specific genes as long as a hybrid is not created. Am I right? I would be very interested to know whether the member in the chair Dianne Yates can advise on this matter. I have looked at the schedules and I think this is a classic example of a pathetic group of politicians deciding to intervene in a very big public splash and not realising that the legislation does not even address the issues they are making most of their slogans about. 
It does not deal with modified embryos. It does not deal with genetic experimentation. It does not deal—nor should it—with an attempt for example to introduce extra genes into the reproductive mechanism to cope with some desperate inherited disease. I just hope that by raising the pathetic inadequacy of this bill I do not find a member suddenly rushing through an amendment to try to block even that area. 
This bill scratches a political itch—a desire to be seen to be publicly upholding someone’s cultural values. In clause 4 “Principles” paragraph (f) directs that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect:”. Of course—but what does that mean? This is slogan law. How much respect? Does it override the rights of everyone else even if some Maori decide they do not like any kind of interference with the course of nature however red in tooth and claw nature may be? 
Then I see that someone decided that that provision looked a little bit racist so the next provision was stuck in: “the different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect.” How respectfully at the moment are we treating the 30-odd percent of New Zealanders who are Catholic when we openly have the Abortion Supervisory Committee admitting that we have abortion on demand? Catholics think that that is murder. I do not but they think it is murder. The law treats abortion on demand as highly illegal yet the House connives year after year at 18000 or 20000 embryos being destroyed a great affront to those Catholics and in breach of the law and we do nothing. Instead we pass drivel law like this. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 It does seem odd that Mr Franks might agree with the regulation of lawyers but not with the regulation of the production of humans because that is what the bill is about. If anything Parliament’s interest in the issue is to do with the fact that a growing proportion of human assisted reproductive technology is publicly funded and Parliament should always be interested in the ethical use of public funds. 
I signal some concern about the way Part 1 is structured. It does not really cover research which will be important in our consideration of Part 2. A fair bit of the focus of the principles and purposes of the bill is to do with the benefits of assisted reproductive procedures. There is a strong focus on reproductive procedures—in particular on those of women and children—and the use of those procedures in research. Of course a growing proportion of the activity is in research for its own sake. It is for the production of human tissue for the purposes of research not for the purposes of reproduction. Substantial numbers of embryos can be created without any intent to use them in reproduction. According to the rules here scientists can do whatever they want to with the human tissue created in the first 10 days fully intending to destroy or not progress the tissue beyond that 10 days. 
I am concerned that the principles in clause 4 are laid out as if it is all about offspring and babies being born. I would be interested if the member could tell me a bit more about that because the more I have thought about it the more I think Parliament’s concern should focus on the scope and direction of research. A lot of the issues around reproduction are not new. Mr Franks might think Parliament deals with this issue regularly because it is sexy but it has actually taken years to get to this stage. Having some legislation is certainly better than having none but in that time committees have dealt with a lot of the issues to do with reproduction. In my view what lies ahead of us are much greater challenges to do with the issue of the research carried out on embryos however one wants to define their existence. 
Part 1 seems to me to be sadly lacking in that respect. It provides a useful framework for coming to decisions about established procedures—that is the things that have been going on—and it is quite a useful device but it is not a very useful framework for dealing with what might happen next. While some feel very confident that scientific research will follow paths that most people are happy with others of us do not share that confidence. There is no reason to believe that that will automatically be the case. In my view the purpose and principles are weak in that respect. 
I particularly want to look at how the select committee dealt with the paramount issue the welfare of the child. There is I suppose a sensible scientific view about risk. Those procedures are risky. In fact from a natural point of view they are hugely inefficient and wasteful procedures. An enormous amount of production goes on and a very small number of offspring come out the other end. I know those efficiency rates are increasing somewhat. We know very little about why so many in vitro fertilisations fail. I suspect that it is because the process is much more open to genetic mistakes and that is one reason why a lot of the gametes produced do not survive. 
 So it is a hugely risky process. But I do not like that sense of risk about the scientific procedure being seen as some kind of qualification on how we should see the risk to the offspring. While we know the procedures themselves are risky I am disappointed to see that the committee came to the conclusion that the health and well-being of the children born should not be paramount but should only be an important consideration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are a number of clauses to vote on in Part 1— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just as a point of clarification I have checked this with the Deputy Leader of the House but I want to make sure that from where you are sitting the leave sought to allow votes to be split is confirmed from the second reading through to the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that and I do have it in front of me. Leave was given and it was agreed that notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b) the party votes cast by a party on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill include numbers cast for the Ayes and the Noes and recorded abstentions. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to delete from paragraph (a) after the word “individual” the words “but particularly those of women and children” and substitute the words “women men and children”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 95 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (f). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert a definition of “Customs officer” in clause 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
New Zealand National 1; United Future 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 1; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to add new subclauses (4) and (5) to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 5; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Prohibited and regulated activities 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 clauses 8 to 41 and including debate on schedule 1 stand part. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 has some of the most important aspects of this bill. Not only does it deal with the area of prohibited and regulated activities it also deals with the very important ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee. Mr Chairperson might I say at this stage that it would be helpful because of the wideness of this part to be able to have multiple calls if at all possible. 
I start by once again making the point that there have been no specific regulations governing this area of reproductive technology in New Zealand but there have been a variety of bills. Over the last 20 to 30 years the newer reproductive technologies have become much more prominent and at the same time the ability to adopt children has become almost negligible in New Zealand. Consequently there are significant numbers of men and women in New Zealand who more and more wish to take advantage of those technologies. To suggest there is no harm is absolutely inappropriate. But it is important to realise there is such a spectrum of procedures available. There are not just complicated ones like in vitro fertilisation. It varies from simply allowing the environment of the female genital tract to be marginally changed to allow conception to occur to much more complicated procedures that carry with them excessive harm. We have had cases in New Zealand of mortality occurring from ovulation stimulation associated with in vitro fertilisation. 
So there are indeed examples in this country of mortality. If one goes through the list in schedule 1 for instance one can see the prohibition on cloning embryos. We in this country know from animal reproduction and from the work done with Dolly the sheep in Britain that there are higher morbidity mortality and ageing problems associated with cloned animals. There is no doubt that at this stage of events it would be unwise to embark on those procedures with humans. It is right and proper that there is such a list. 
I also point out that clause 8 in schedule 1 includes a prohibition against implanting into a human being a genetically modified gamete human embryo or hybrid embryo. Undoubtedly there are provisions throughout this bill that deal with the area of genetic modification and that is absolutely right and proper. However this bill does not deal with the area of stem cell research. It will be addressed through the Human Tissue Act but once again it is highly contentious. 
We note that so many areas in the bill have a wide polarity of view about them. We are seeing right now the tremendous debate in the United States on stem cell research. On the one hand President Bush has banned it except in very restricted circumstances and on the other hand the presidential contender Kerry has promised $100 million of extra funding into stem cell research. There is no doubt that the spectrum of technologies involved engender with them a great polarity of view. That is why it has been so important to reach a practical balance. On the one hand there are simple procedures for which it would be totally inappropriate to bring in amendments through Parliament every time. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just as a point of clarification my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison indicated at the start of his contribution that he was keen to make more than one contribution to this part of the debate. In the first part of the Committee stage the Government senior whip moved a closure motion. I seek your advice Mr Chairperson in respect of the convention. I believe that during a members’ day the matter is very much in members’ hands as to when a part in a debate comes to a conclusion. I would be interested in what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say. I just want to confirm with you that we will not be engaged in a time-based closure motion situation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. He will note that the senior whip has not put any more closure motions. In reality the position is that it is in the hands of the chair of the Committee as to when a closure motion is accepted. He will also know that last time the speakers were given a good hearing and I think it went very well. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the spirit of good communication I can assure the member that subject to the normal ability of any member to seek a closure motion if he or she feels the debate is deteriorating and to seek the decision of the chair I do not think Government members are in any hurry to curtail this debate. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 2 and schedule 1 deal with some of the concerns I have heard people express in this Chamber. Schedule 1 clearly delineates those prohibited activities that will not be allowed to take place in New Zealand without resulting in 2 years’ imprisonment or a $200000 fine. There are quite hefty penalties for anybody who attempts to break the law in respect of this legislation. 
Some of the things we are debating tonight have to do with philosophy. The issues in this bill come back to the understanding of when life begins to the whole concept from the past of test-tube babies and to where we go in allowing the level of human assisted reproductive technology to develop in this country. The areas in schedule 1 that are prohibited are very clearly delineated. There was discussion on what would be an accepted activity and about how new technologies being developed would be allowed on to the accepted activity list. Concerns were expressed about how Parliament would have scrutiny over new developments that there is doubt about. 
Clause 10 refers to the ethics committee and states that human in vitro embryos can be kept for only 10 years. I think clause 10 gives us a really good example of how an ethics committee would work. It states that a gamete or embryo can be kept for a period of only 10 years and that it would then be up to the ethics committee to make a decision whether to approve any longer period. Let us imagine a child of 13 who finds that she has ovarian cancer and who wants her eggs to be kept and stored. At the end of 10 years she would be only 23. That person may not have found a permanent partner in life and may not want to have a child at that time so she would ask for ethics committee approval for the 10-year period to be extended. If she did not know about that time period and the end of the 10-year period was coming up in a couple of months there would have to be a fairly speedy process. We could not have a 2-year process for approval because those eggs would be destroyed and that would be the end of her chance ever to have children. So we do need a process that can respond to such a situation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Before the dinner break we were talking about the role of the ethics committee as well as the role of the ministerial advisory committee as set out in Part 2. We are also considering schedule 1—“Prohibited Actions”. There are nine points clearly set out in this schedule which state that artificially forming for reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo implanting a cloned embryo implanting an animal gamete or embryo into a human and so on are all prohibited. This legislation will have the power to give surety in these areas. 
Another issue that was debated and that will be restricted is the sex selection of human embryos. A sex-linked genetic defect is a defence against the charge of breaking clause 11 which states the restrictions on sex selection of human embryos. So people cannot say that they want a girl or a boy and have an embryo selected on that basis. However if there is a genetic disorder or disease that is passed on because of the sex of the child then a child’s sex can be selected for that reason. 
There will be only one ethics committee and that is appropriate because this is a very highly specialised area and there should be only one agency. The advisory committee about which the Green Party has stated its concerns will have eight to 12 members. They will be looking at the issues of donations of embryos embryo splitting gametes derived from dead people informed consent pre-implantation genetic analysis—that is examining what the genetic code of an embryo may be before it is implanted to ensure that it does not have defects—and importation and exportation of in vitro donated cells. When we start looking at some of these issues we begin to realise the complexity of the issue that we have been debating. For example if people who immigrate to this country have frozen embryos in another country there has to be provision for them to be able to bring in those embryos if they want implantation at a later date. There may be a situation where a man has donated sperm and he still lives in a different country. If a woman has one child through the process of using the donated sperm and she may want to have another child with that same genetic inheritance there has to be a way to be able to import or export in vitro donated cells. Gametes derived from someone who has died brought up a very interesting case in Britain where a woman wanted to use the sperm cells from her husband who had been killed in an accident to create a child. That was a hard-fought legal case. 
These are all interesting ethical and procedural matters that the ministerial advisory committee will have to look at. They often arise from one specific case that may end up before the courts and then worldwide attention is focused on that particular case to look at the moral and ethical dilemmas that are brought about by such a case. 
The other thing we must remember about this bill is that although it has a certain jurisdiction we also have the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation and the Medicines Act. The legislation overlaps to some degree concerning the use of therapies such as somatic cell gene therapy and embryonic stem cell therapy used in genetic modification. There is an overlap that is somewhat different from that of other countries. 
I turn to the status of the advisory committees. It will be an offence to go outside the guidelines. We heard the Hon Bill English’s concerns about the advisory committee and the Minister. The Minister is an elected representative of the country who has been appointed to be in charge of health. He or she will have the responsibility as an elected official to look at the advice given by the ministerial advisory committee. It is a committee appointed by that Minister or maybe by a former Minister. If there are concerns then the Minister should seek further advice either from the public to have a debate on these issues or from the Ministry of Health. The Minister could even ask the select committee for an inquiry or the legislation could be changed if he or she is unhappy with what may have happened or have been proposed. The Minister of Health will be the person who will make those changes. It will be that person’s responsibility to decide what will change from being experimental to becoming a recognised procedure. Look back to the cloning of Dolly the sheep. When that occurred around the world there was a call for legislation to try to prevent cloning and that will happen with this legislation tonight. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why support it? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I am supporting this bill because it gives a clear way to regulate against the sorts of things that very few people in this country would want to see. They would not want to see cloning and they would not want to see the genetic engineering of babies—they would not want to see that. But there needs to be a process whereby we can move forward. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I listened to that speech and thought it a very good example of the kind of well-meaning humbug we find so often when Parliament rushes to legislate in areas in which it understands nothing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 8 long years. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The rush was in introducing it. The reason it has not gone through is that parliamentarians even though they would love to look busy in this area realised that they do not have the faintest idea of what is happening. They do not know how to regulate this issue and do not know what the mischief is but they still want to write rules. That is why it is a rush to legislate. The fact that they have not managed to get it through is slight evidence of a wee bit of humility but no more—a tiny bit of humility. In Part 2 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill the establishment is saying that it really wants to make rules although it has not got a clue why. Here we ban the commercial supply of embryos. We ban paid surrogacy. If this bill was covering— 
Judy Turner 
: Are you for it? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am absolutely in favour of paid surrogacy. A woman who goes through all of those months of pregnancy fully deserves to be paid for the time the investment the weariness and all the other costs that relate to pregnancy. She should absolutely be paid for her surrogacy. 
I cannot understand at all why New Zealanders should be prohibited from even seeing advertisements. What a fatuous bill! Under clause 15 the penalty will be 3 months in prison or a fine of $2500 if someone’s Internet site shows that somewhere in the world one might be paid to hold an embryo—to be a mother for someone else. There have been wet nurses and nannies for generations for centuries. In fact the ruling classes have often wanted someone else to do all the hard work of child bearing. We now say that that is to be criminalised! 
It will happen. New Zealanders will do it. They will go to the United States China or some Pacific Island country—somewhere where someone will carry a child for them—and they will pay the women handsomely. But this sanctimonious mob in this Parliament says: “Oh no we think that’s awful. We’ll ban that.” 
I know why there is an ACT party in this Parliament: because we are not bound by political correctness. We are not too scared to say it like it is. We stand up and ask why this measure is being put through. Why is clause 11 putting a legal restriction on sex selection of human embryos? Who is to say that New Zealand people will not do that anyway? It could easily be that shortly we will know exactly what environments in the womb or the uterus favour male sperm. It could easily be that shortly this matter will be right out of the hands of the politicians and the people will be able to decide. Then we will have the real decision—the decision as to what we do if people consistently favour one gender over the other. We do not know which one it will be but it is very likely that humans will work it out without the help of an all-wise all-knowing nanny Government. They will work out what to do if a sex imbalance emerges. We are watching that huge experiment happening in China right at this minute. 
This Government says it will ban sex selection in New Zealand but it knows that it cannot enforce that and it knows that people will find excuses. It is interesting as a lawyer to consider the sorts of arguments that might be put to a court on exactly what is a genetic disorder or disease. There are many propensities that are gender related and that people might argue they do not want their children to incur. I know for example that schizophrenia has a higher propensity in certain families than in others and that it is gender related. Will that be an excuse? I suspect it will. I suspect that the unhappy uncomfortable couple who are looking at a higher propensity to incur a certain disease will be able to walk around this restriction in exactly the same way as people have walked around our anti-abortion law by pretending to find serious mental risk when they want to justify an abortion. 
This measure is an exercise in futility. It is an exercise in smugness and sanctimony. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Well I am not sure why Mr Franks is so exercised about this bill because I think that—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Franks is implying that this bill sets stringent regulations on these various issues. If he looks at the fine print he will find that it does no such thing—that in fact some rather wiffly-waffly guidelines around these various things—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairperson I seek your protection. I am unable to hear myself think because of the shouting in my right ear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will protect the member. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The point is that far from having strict regulation we will have instead some wiffly-waffly guidelines that will set policy in far-reaching areas—areas such as embryo splitting and the derivation of gametes from deceased persons. We will actually have that unelected and unaccountable committee setting policy in areas that the ordinary New Zealander will have very very strong views and feelings about. In fact an unelected and unaccountable committee will be making those far-reaching decisions and setting guidelines—guidelines that if existing guidelines are any indication will be extremely vague. So Mr Franks need not be worried. I think that most people will find a way around those guidelines. I suspect that most of the guidelines will not even be enforceable. 
I want to mention that the Green Party has a couple of amendments to this part. One is to tighten up the rules around preimplantation genetic diagnosis and to prevent it from being used to select embryos for reasons other than preventing serious genetic diseases or increasing the likelihood of implantation. We strongly support the use of embryo selection techniques such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis to help couples who carry genes for disorders such as Huntingdon’s disease cystic fibrosis and so forth. But we are strongly opposed to the use of that particular technology for social or eugenic purposes. 
The problem is that in the way the bill is currently drafted it could be used to allow people to select embryos for any other genetic characteristic except sex. Now Mr Franks will not be worried about that but I have an article here in which James Watson a biologist who has been very involved in this area stirred some controversy in the United States recently by saying that if a gene for homosexuality were discovered a woman should be free to abort a foetus that carried it or to select such an embryo. That created something of an uproar but the truth of the matter is that it would be left to that particular unelected and accountable committee to make far-reaching decisions such as that. 
The National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction put out some guidelines on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and if anyone had concerns about the guidelines of the advisory committee these guidelines from the ethics committee would enhance those concerns. They are not only extremely vague but they set down few stipulations. They state: “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for conditions that are not covered here can be approved on a case-by-case basis.” In other words that committee is basically saying that it will be possible to use the technology to select desirable traits in off-spring and screen out undesirable traits on a case-by-case basis—so it leaves it wide open. With our amendment therefore we want to make it absolutely clear that embryo selection techniques such as those can be used only to prevent serious genetic diseases or disorders and that they cannot be used to improve athletic performance or whatever. 
I note that the United Kingdom has regulations around preimplantation genetic diagnosis which once again of course are much much tighter than ours. The UK allows only a very limited number of licensed clinics to use the technology and then only for severe and life-threatening disorders. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is happy to support Part 2. We especially support the list of prohibited actions in clause 8 which states in subclause (1): “Every person commits an offence who takes an action described in Schedule 1.” Because of the great sensitivity here in relation to ethnic peoples touching on the sanctity of birth and children I speak on behalf of those people and say that this should be taken into consideration. New Zealand First is happy with the list of prohibited actions and supports it. We are pleased with the provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating or preventing genetic disease. This is a sensitive topic. There are those of us who believe that a spirit of a person is chosen to be male or female even before it enters into this life. So we are very very happy with the part of the bill that prohibits the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos. This will be allowed only for treating or preventing genetic disease. 
 It is great to have a functions and ethics committee set out clearly. The committee will be held responsible for the activity allowed for the laws and functions and for the counsel and advice that might be given to the public. It holds a great responsibility towards the general public towards humanity and towards people who through no fault of their own are unable to have children of their own. They are people who are in a situation where they have to make serious decisions. 
We believe that the number of people on the advisory committee may be too large. Between eight and 12 members would I think be sufficient in terms of control and keeping track of this legislation. There should be a member of the ethics committee on the advisory committee by right. Too many lay persons on an advisory committee may have a detrimental effect in terms of the expertise already there. It is great to have the advisory committee guidelines made public. Because of the seriousness sensitivity and importance of this legislation the public and the people it affects need to be advised of what is actually happening. We welcome the strengthened provisions for public involvement. 
Other than that when we look at the restrictions on sex selection of human embryos we notice that there is a penalty of up to 1 year’s jail and a fine of $100000 or both for breaches in this area. With the seriousness of this issue I think the penalties should be extended a bit more. There are many who may be able to afford the $100000 or even look at spending 1 year in prison—it would be all over with the flick of the fingers and back to it again. Clause 11(2) states: “Every person commits an offence who contravenes this section and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $100000 or both.” 
Stephen Franks 
: Who’s the victim? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: In this case the people involved. They would not be victims because—[ 
Interruption 
] The member from ACT has had his say. They have made that choice. They have made the decision to be put in that situation and they know the responsibilities that go with it. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I to refer to comments made earlier by Mr Franks. He said that we do not need a framework that society will work it out for itself and that it will all come right in the wash. He cited the situation in China and said that although China now has a slight imbalance in its population due to sex selection it will all clean up in the wash. When we look at the percentages in China we see that the situation does not look too bad—until we look at the real figures. In the next 10 years I say to Mr Franks China will have 30 million males. There will not be enough females to partner them. I do not quite know how that will come out in the wash. That is the current situation due to sex selection in China. 
I want to talk about some of the amendments I have put forward to Part 2. The first is to clause 9. Clause 9 provides for the ability for an embryo to be developed for 14 days. A very interesting bit of wording that has slipped into the clause refers to the fact that in counting those 14 days we exclude any day during which the development of the embryo is suspended. I have asked officials about this and they thought my concerns were unfounded. However I have done the maths and I still cannot figure out how else this can work. Assuming that the technology is developed whereby we can suspend development start it again and then suspend it again—and I am sure that at present no embryo could survive that repeated process but we may yet develop the technology—then that means an embryo could start developing for one two three or four days and then say on day five have its development suspended. But day five does not have to be counted because it is the day the action was suspended. So even though the embryo is 5 days old it is called a 4-day-old embryo. Then it can be thawed—or whatever the process is—and the counting started again. Its development can then be further suspended but the day on which that occurs does not have to be counted. That means that an embryo that is officially 14 days old has actually been developed beyond 14 days because of the exclusion provision in this clause. I propose that we eliminate the bracketed words in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 9(4). That would mean that we count 14 real days and if development is suspended on a given day that day is still counted as a full day. 
The next amendment I propose is to clause 11 “Restrictions on sex selection of human embryos”. It is a simple change to the heading of that clause about sex selection so that we regulate sex selection using not just embryos but of course gametes as we understand that sex selection can take place before an egg is fertilised. 
Stephen Franks 
: Ooh you’re on to that! 
JUDY TURNER 
: We want to make sure if we are to have some regulation around this that we cover the full extent of the process. 
Clause 33 is another where I would like to see the ability for the advisory committee to include a representative from the Office of the Commissioner for Children that representative to be on the committee specifically to make sure that the interests of offspring are fully explored on any given issue. I think it is important that children’s interests are specifically attended to at that level. 
Also I would like new clause 35A “Guidelines to be referred to committee of the House of Representatives” to be inserted. This requires that guidelines from the ministerial advisory committee be referred back to Parliament for scrutiny. 
During the debate on this part we have had some discussion on the “PGD” or preimplantation genetic diagnosis process. I want to bring up an interesting point. In New Zealand in the middle of this debate on this legislation it has been advertised that the Minister is calling for submissions from people who want to have their say on what sort of guidelines should be set for this process. Interested people have received letters with some dates set as to when submissions close. The date is 12 November this year. However it appears that the Minister has already made a decision on this matter and has announced it I think in the last day or so. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 We have heard the arguments from Stephen Franks who certainly would like to have no regulations and who states that there is almost no risk with these procedures. We have heard from a member at the other end of the spectrum Sue Kedgley from the Greens who would love to have far greater regulations and who also suggests there is an enormous degree of risk with most of these procedures. In the middle is Judy Turner who wants the suspending of embryos to last for a microsecond within 14 days. They are all pretty impossible tasks and they all demonstrate the need for flexibility within the mechanism we come up with to achieve a practical solution in dealing with this vast spectrum of human assisted reproductive technology. Once again I stress the fact that there is such a vast spectrum of it that it is impossible— 
Stephen Franks 
: Stay out of it then. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—to be able to generalise or make rigid rules either way. I hear Stephen Franks say we should stay out of it but we just have to go to one specific area. 
 For instance let us look at clause 13 “Commercial supply of human embryos or human gametes prohibited”. Undoubtedly in New Zealand there is a strong feeling that altruistic surrogacy and the altruistic supply of human embryos and gametes provide a hugely positive opportunity for those couples in need. But we know from the United States of America where commercial surrogacy and commercial dealing in human tissues occurs that some of the most awful distortions of human nature and results are imposed on the babies due to legal entanglements and fighting. We certainly would not want that sort of dealing to happen in New Zealand at this stage of events or at least until we sort it out a little bit. 
Stephen Franks 
: Tell us about it! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am sure that it would personally suit Mr Franks very well. It would keep him in business at high cost to the misery of potentially hundreds of thousands of people for a long long time to come. There are much more important things to work out. Practically it would be quite inappropriate in my view to have such dealing in a country where we do have altruistic donors who are willing on an altruistic basis to make it possible for people to take advantage of the technologies available. I think it was Sue Kedgley who said that there are no regulations but here is a specific regulation that basically bans the commercial use of embryos ovaries and surrogacy and undoubtedly that is right and proper. 
When we look at clause 10 we see that human in vitro embryos and human in vitro gametes are not to be stored for more than 10 years. As my colleague Dr Lynda Scott pointed out that is a hugely important provision. If indeed a young girl of 15 was diagnosed with cancer then this may be her only opportunity to store her own gametes. She would be only 25 after 10 years—much below the average age of conception these days in New Zealand—but due to the flexibility of this bill the ethics committee could allow her to have those gametes stored further. On the other hand it is very important to have this under constant monitoring because that same girl could have died. Who then owns the gametes embryos or whatever they are? Once again we get into these enormous potential legal tangles. These are not simple matters but it is important to work out some basic areas where we decide by consensus that there is sheer practicality for having these provisions and I believe in clause 10 that is exactly what has happened. 
Clause 11 talks about restrictions on sex selection of human embryos. Once again this is an area where there is a possible defence. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The previous National Party speaker slightly mischaracterised my argument. I was not arguing that there should be no regulation; of course the normal constraints of the Hippocratic oath “first do no harm” and all the other kinds of obligations on medical practitioners should apply. The idea that someone should be allowed to deliberately or quite cold-bloodedly sacrifice the interests of one patient for money is antithetical to that in any event. In this area all the normal medical ethics would prevail. There is no reason to consider that they are excluded. However the member talked about enormous complexities and legal problems. We simply do not know that. 
Parliament is imagining a host of menaces and Frankenstenian monsters and deciding in advance what powers it will confer on a group of doctors. They will kick for touch because they are already battered by legal risks. They will make sure New Zealand is not at the forefront of any of this. New Zealanders who are rich will be fine. New Zealanders with the money will be able to go off shore just as Irish women had to go off shore to get around the Catholic Church - inspired ban on contraceptives—in fact as New Zealanders used to have to go off shore for abortions. Wealthy people will not be hurt by this. This will hurt ordinary hard-working people who cannot afford to go to countries that do not have a bunch of politicians who are quite so sanctimonious. 
When I look at the provisions that were mentioned for example clause 13 “Commercial supply of human embryos or human gametes prohibited” I see there is no reason why people would cease to be altruistic simply because others might advertise and be willing to pay for the inconvenience embarrassment and risk particularly now that this bill goes on to require that there be disclosure. Now we cannot have anonymous donors although we can still have entirely anonymous fathers—I think we have 15000 of them every year through the welfare system where there is no requirement to disclose who impregnated the beneficiary. We now have a requirement. People may want to be compensated for the risk that in 10 or 15 years’ time someone will front up to them and say: “Hello dad I want you to meet your moral obligations.” 
What we have here is a very prissy and very anti-commercial attitude. It sounds very fine saying that there should not be commercial surrogacy but it really means that the really public-spirited person the person who has loved having her own kids has found pregnancy not to be a burden and would be quite happy to add that delight to another family cannot be compensated. Curiously enough the elite folk in the industry have made sure that they have exempted themselves. They are allowed to collect store transport counsel surrogacy inseminate for surrogacy purpose do ovulation and pregnancy tests for surrogacy services and give legal advice. They are free of any sanction. However the woman who does all the work and who actually carries the child could be fined $100000 by the prigs who pass this law. 
I ask this Parliament to think a little bit past the self-righteousness that goes in saying: “We will only have volunteers in this industry.” That is all very well if there are enough volunteers. What about the thousands of New Zealanders out there at the moment who cannot find adopted children? Volunteering does not necessarily meet the demand. In an orgy of self-congratulation this Parliament is about to pass a bill that simply states that we cannot compensate someone for carrying a child for another family. I do not see anything worthy about that. I do not see anything high-moralled about that. I see that as a simple exercise—one group of privileged people saying: “We will judge others.” Similarly with advertising. Then look at the committee provisions. This committee however it is composed will do something that our society rejected years ago. When electricity came in when flying came in or when motorcars came in if a committee of experts had been available to decide whether those were utterly safe they would never have gone anywhere. They would not have happened. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 When we look at the fine print of this bill someone like Mr Franks should be very reassured because in the absence of any regulation basically it is all left to some very vague guidelines that would enable almost anything to take place and that would be very very hard to police. Dr Hutchison corrected me—there are some regulations that prohibit some things and we are very thrilled about those. Despite what Mr Franks said they do prohibit genetic engineering cloning and a few other things and we are very very pleased about those. But although this bill has a whole set of regulations about what is prohibited it basically has no regulations about what is permitted and that is our problem. That is why we have a very simple amendment to insert new clause 35A which basically states that guidelines issued by the advisory committee may be used as a basis of an ethics committee approval once they have been issued as regulations. 
I want to point out to the Committee just how weak those guidelines are. I have a number of those guidelines and one could literally drive the veritable bus through any of them. In fact I do not see how any of them could be enforced. As an example the guidelines on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis just released 2 days ago say basically that it is the responsibility of the providers—the fertility clinics—to decide whether a disorder is likely to be serious in an offspring of a particular couple. So it is up to the fertility clinics to decide. Where does one draw the line? What is a serious disorder? Is it a cleft palate? What is it? That is just an example. The guidelines state that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for anything will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Dr Linda Scott is looking perplexed. She should look at the guidelines. 
Another guideline I have here is for the disposal storage and use of sperm of a deceased man and it states: “A clinic should undertake an annual review … It is expected that sperm collected in the circumstances would be stored for a maximum period specified by the clinics.” How will that be enforced? It is expected that they will be collected for a maximum period—it is expected. It is also stated that partners of the deceased should be encouraged to inform the wider family or whanau. How will that be reinforced? These are wiffly-waffly words—“it is expected; we should have done this or we should have done that.” How will the Government try to use that as a basis for policy making regulation or enforcement? It will not be able to. 
Here is another example and this will exercise Stephen Franks. It is “Guidelines for non-commercial altruistic surrogacy using IVF as a treatment” and it states that the prospective birth mother and her partner should have completed their family as this may reduce the likelihood they will want to keep the child. It also states that they should take measures to ensure that they do not conceive their own child during the treatment. Frankly it is just laughable. Fortunately the Minister is listening to this. Those are the guidelines that will regulate some of the most far-reaching things in New Zealand about how far we may go in assisted human reproduction and where we will set the limits. Basically Mr Franks can rest assured. 
If one was cynical one would say that this bill is almost in the category of a regulatory facade. It sort of implies that there are clear limits but when we dig down and look at the fine print we see instead that we have some wiffly-waffly guidelines that basically will be unenforceable. That is why all we are asking is that the guidelines as in every other Western country that has legislation should have regulatory force. All we are asking is that they have the force of regulation that would have to be considered by the Regulations Review Committee. Also we have amendments to the effect that the guidelines should come before Parliament and be sent to the Health Committee for consideration. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I take over from where my colleague Sue Kedgley left off on this issue because I share her concerns. These guidelines are nothing short of a complete abdication of responsibility by the ministerial advisory committee. They are saying: “Our advice is that we give the responsibility to clinics.” That is so far from what any of us in the select committee thought the guidelines would be like. We thought they would have a little more substance to them than that. Straight away for me alarm bells are ringing. That brings me to I guess what is my greatest concern. 
If I had to pick one issue out of this bill and say that for me it is the No. 1 scary issue it is clause 37 which is directly linked to the issue Ms Kedgley has just been talking about and is directly linked to these proposed guidelines. Clause 37 states that the advisory committee is to provide specific advice in respect of human assisted reproductive technology and it lists a number of things that the ministerial advisory committee has to develop guidelines on as a No. 1 priority. Some of these things were strongly recommended by submitters to be included on the prohibited activities list but they were not included on that list. They have been put in here and the ministerial advisory committee has by its intention already shown that it will abdicate its responsibility and pass it over to fertility clinics and fertility counsellors. Those clinics and counsellors will decide what should be done on issues such as donations of embryos embryo splitting which has a huge number of implications and even legal ramifications gametes derived from deceased persons—this is our own “Mrs Blood” potential; we are now asking for guidelines on those to be developed with no reference back to this House—and requirements for informed consent. 
Even the requirements for informed consent are interesting. When we look at what ethics committees decide we see that most of what the guidelines seem to be concerned about is whether everybody has signed the right piece of paper and whether everybody has consented rather than some of the considerations that a lot of us have. What are we doing to society? What will be the long-term outcomes for offspring and their families as a result of allowing those procedures? We need to look at the bigger picture not just at whether everybody who is involved today has signed the appropriate consent form. 
We are requiring the committee to provide guidelines on pre-implantation genetic analysis. We are asking it to provide guidelines on the importing or exporting from New Zealand of in vitro donated cells or in vitro donated embryos. These are hugely significant issues. Mr Franks is making light of the fact that we will have court cases out of this. I tell Mr Franks that there are already active court cases right now in New Zealand involving biological parents warring with each other over who is the legal guardian. For instance we have cases where— 
Stephen Franks 
: This doesn’t resolve it. 
JUDY TURNER 
: That’s my point. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why support it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: I am not supporting it. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why are you voting for it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: I am not voting for it. This is the point I make. However my solution is totally different from that of Mr Franks. His solution is: “Let’s all just take our hands off and let the market get it right.” I am saying that this legislation is too loose. We need to tighten it down. We need to turn these guidelines into regulations so that we are very very clear issue by issue as to what is acceptable practice and what is unacceptable practice. There has been a general scrutiny of these issues by people with a vested interest. As members of the House of Representatives we are in what I consider to be the unenviable position of representing large numbers of voters in this matter and to be excluded from any part of this process would be a very very sad thing. 
I encourage members of the Committee who have a copy of the bill in front of them to take a very close look at clause 37 which I think is the most dangerous clause. If I was concerned before I entered the Chamber tonight I am now even more concerned when I see the test case of what is already recommended in the guidelines which as I said before show a complete abdication of responsibility. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I did not finish talking about the Green’s final amendment to clause 72. I would like to take a final call on this one. 
Richard Worth 
: You’re jumping ahead. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I am sorry the member is absolutely right. I will go back to new clause 35A. I thank the member for pointing out that I have jumped ahead of myself. 
Basically I want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is supporting this bill but only because we believe it is slightly better than the status quo. We are not supporting this bill because we think it is marvellous and we are enthusiastic about it. What we did think was an excellent bill was Dianne Yates’ original bill before it was gutted. The original bill set up a proper licensing regime and a system based on what is used in the United Kingdom—a system similar to that in Canada and other places. 
The bill has been completely gutted. It must be distressing to Dianne Yates but I am sure she takes the view of the Green Party that it is better to have something in this area than nothing. At least we have outlawed some of the worst excesses—namely genetic engineering and cloning—and at least we will have a committee that will consider the issues and call for submissions. 
I am interested that some of our members were as horrified as I was to read the guidelines that have been put out. All we will have in the future are those waffly guidelines. I agree with Judy Turner. Frankly it is shocking that the guidelines would leave it up to providers to decide on such fundamental issues as what is a serious genetic disorder and what is not. It is completely left up to the fertility clinics. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: An excellent idea. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well that is not what Bill English was saying. Of course I know that some members on that side of the Chamber have a background in fertility clinics and from their perspective I am sure that fertility clinics would like the absolute minimum of regulation. Well they have it in this bill. They have virtually the green light to do whatever they like. We have a bit of a regulatory facade in many respects which makes it sound as though we have some sort of control over these areas but frankly when we look at the fine print we see that the guidelines are virtually unenforceable. What will happen if some fertility clinic goes beyond these wiffly-waffly guidelines? How will someone try to enforce them? I have read out some of these things such as “they should do this” and “they should take measures for that” but frankly the guidelines are completely unenforceable. 
I appeal to members to do the simple thing of putting them into regulation. The Associate Minister of Justice David Benson-Pope is here. I know he has taken this bill on at the last minute and I know he is very very busy but I appeal to him to show a little common sense. What is the problem with following the example that has just gone through the Canadian Parliament and giving the guidelines the force of regulation? Why is the Labour Party so utterly opposed to putting regulations on these extraordinarily contentious areas? We have regulations for almost every conceivable thing. The Regulations Review Committee deals with regulations morning noon and night. The chairman of that committee Richard Worth is sitting here. Why on earth would we not have a regulation surrounding such issues as the taking of gametes from deceased persons embryo splitting and other such contentious issues? Why would we allow that to go to an unelected unaccountable committee which as Bill English pointed out is basically a law unto itself and not accountable to anybody? Why will we not even allow those issues to be debated and discussed in this Parliament? 
I will let members know when we come to my amendment to Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper that our amendment states specifically that if the issues are inconsequential and small then of course the Minister can say they do not need to come to Parliament. We are saying that only on contentious issues—those about which New Zealanders are likely to feel very strongly—should we in this House have the ability to discuss and debate them. Let us make no mistake about it this committee is basically setting policy. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I have made no secret of the fact that in some areas of this bill I would prefer a regulatory system rather than guidelines. As members know guidelines cannot be enforced but regulations can and they have a checks and balances process through the Regulations Review Committee. 
Some areas in the bill that are internationally highly controversial are open to the guideline process—such as as we have seen taking gametes from a deceased person. The consent process in terms of both the technology and the patient is also left up to guidelines. In most other countries that have this legislation the consent process is also subject to regulation and is quite clearly spelt out. That is particularly the case as has been said already in Canada. 
The other thing I wish to speak about is Judy Turner’s amendment to clause 33. I think it is a very good amendment. Clause 33 refers to the ministerial advisory committee and who should be on it. The select committee agreed there would be one member with expertise in reproductive technology one member with expertise in human reproductive research one or more members with expertise in ethics one or more Maori members with expertise in Maori custom and values one or more members with the ability to articulate issues from a consumer perspective and one or more members with expertise in relevant areas of law. 
This amendment also states that there should be one member with the ability to articulate the interests of children and refers to the appointee being someone from the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Taking note of the opinions of in vitro fertilisation children who submitted on the bill and of what Dr Hutchison said I think it is an extremely good idea and a very good amendment. The paramountcy of the rights of the child have not been included in the bill and I think it would be a very very good idea for someone on the ministerial advisory committee to be given the responsibility to represent the rights of children and to be able to look at the future interests of those who are born from this process. It is part of the principles of the bill and by including the clause 33 amendment in the name of Judy Turner we will have the interests of children at heart. That will also include and take into account some of the concerns Mr English has about this bill. I think it is a very good amendment and we will be supporting it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Again I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. This is the bill that will regulate assisted conception and forbid cloning and hybrid embryo transfers etc. It is not common in Parliament that we debate issues in genuine debates. I have appreciated the opportunity to hear Ms Judy Turner’s contributions and to see the amendments she has put forward. She tells us that United Future will oppose this bill and I am glad about that. But she has attempted nevertheless to mitigate its consequences. I am however really puzzled about the position of the Green Party. The member sitting beside me Sue Kedgley who spoke for the Green Party on this bill has talked constantly about it being effectively not regulation at all. She has called it “wiffly waffly” and not achieving any objectives. She has used a whole lot of terms to say that the bill does not do anything. 
What I am baffled about is that Sue Kedgley was the deputy chairperson of the Health Committee and the committee’s report states: “The Green Party is pleased at the way many aspects of this bill have been strengthened by the select committee. We are particularly pleased with the new provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and that prohibit the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating and preventing genetic disease. We also welcome the strengthened requirements for public consultation …”. That does not sound very “wiffly waffly”. The report goes on to state: “The bill gives the Ministerial Advisory Committee wide-ranging and virtually unlimited powers to issue guidelines and advice on any matter relating to any kind of assisted reproductive procedure …”. Now it is true that at this stage guidelines could be seen as “wiffly waffly” but Ms Kedgley goes on to state in the report: “These ‘guidelines’ will not only set out policy on a wide range of assisted reproductive procedures; they will also be in reality binding legal instruments or a form of delegated legislation …”. 
 How is it that we can hear so many strident speeches in the Chamber about “wiffly waffly” non-prohibitions that at the same time are binding legal instruments or a form of delegated legislation? They have to be one thing or the other. I would really appreciate it if the member in the chair Dianne Yates who is in charge of the bill could seek advice from the officials and give us at least their view on whether this stuff is as “wiffly waffly” inconsequential and irrelevant as the Green member has been portraying it or whether it is as I fear a straightjacket on medical research and on medical technology in this country. This is yet another incentive for our best young graduates to disappear overseas to far more interesting and vibrant scientific environments. Worse still it is a reason because it is binding for ordinary New Zealanders who desperately want children to go elsewhere and spend their hard-earned money from New Zealand on doctors and other technologies in countries where people have not panicked at the first sign of a change in the status quo. That is what this issue is about. 
This bill is equivalent to a bunch of politicians deciding when the Wright brothers first took off from an airfield that they had better appoint a bunch of experts to decide whether anyone should be allowed to fly in case they hurt themselves. There is no difference in substance. There is no evidence of any significant risk that has materialised to anyone in this area. There are legal uncertainties just as the Wright brothers faced legal uncertainties. I have confidence that the cases that Judy Turner has mentioned will be worked out by the courts and that we will learn from those in a way that a bunch of sanctimonious parliamentarians can never learn by consulting their fear of the dark. What we have here as has been admitted is ignorance and a lack of knowledge of what could or may happen. We have a decision that instead of the New Zealand tradition that what is not specifically prohibited is lawful which is the proud boast of English law what is not specifically permitted is prohibited. That is a very bad legal principle. It follows the Continental principle. That is what despots do—they do not do anything unless they have been told that they can do it. That is what this law does. That is why most of the ACT party will vote against this bill. We think it is a very proud principle of freedom that one can do anything that is not specifically prohibited. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There were two points that I just wanted to answer. One was the repeated assertion by Stephen Franks that there is a risk-free aspect to the technologies addressed in this bill. 
Stephen Franks 
: No risks. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well he seems to be wavering on that. Undoubtedly there is a spectrum of risk. Although at one end it is indeed serious at the other end it is minimal; hence the beauty of the way that this bill is constructed in that it allows flexibility. 
The other point that I want to make once again is the value of the guidelines. Sue Kedgley from the Greens asked us what constitutes a serious congenital or genetic condition and that of course is extremely difficult to define. Last night on National Radio we heard a discussion on the proposed guidelines for pre-genetic implantation diagnosis in New Zealand by a variety of experts in the area including people from the disability sector. They made a very strong plea that there may be one particular condition such as Down’s syndrome where for the parents and in the circumstances in which such a child is born it is hugely beneficial for those around it. However they also made the point that there may be a condition like Lesch-Nyhan syndrome where automatically the baby will be born without any ability to have a functioning brain will tend to be self-destructive and will inevitably die. A parent who has had a child like that on two or three occasions would undoubtedly find it hugely traumatic to have a further similarly affected child. Pre-genetic diagnosis is a new technology that may avoid such a disastrous consequence. The point I want to make to Sue Kedgley is that the judgment of what constitutes a serious condition is extremely difficult and is variable so it is impossible to regulate a whole list of things that we will ban or that we will stop. Hence that is the absolutely appropriate reason for offering guidelines that the experts can then get on with applying practically. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 8(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 9(4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 9(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to clause 9(4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
United Future 7. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 1; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to the heading of clause 11 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 11A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 22 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 23(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the heading of clause 25 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 25A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new subclause (7A) to clause 26 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to clause 33 in the name of Judy Turner. It is a typescript amendment to add a new paragraph (g) and subclause (4)(a). It replaces the amendment to clause 33 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Judy Turner to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (4)(f) the expression “; and”; 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4)(g) 1 or more members with the ability to articulate the interests of children.; and 
to insert after subclause (4) the following new subclause: 
(4A) Any person appointed by virtue of subsection (4)(g) must at the time of his or her appointment hold the office of Children’s Commissioner or be a representative or employee of the person who holds that office. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to insert new clause 35A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 35A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 3. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 5; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 3; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 5; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Information about donors of donated embryos or donated cells and donor offspring 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This part deals with information about donors of donated embryos or donated cells and donor offspring. I think once again that this part very much exemplifies the long genesis of this bill and the thought that has gone into it from a whole variety of papers with one in particular— 
Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future 
. 
One of the themes that came through so strongly based on the evidence that Professor Bill Daniels and others provided was that the ethos of openness was extraordinarily important in this area of reproduction. Undoubtedly children do want to know where they have come from and who their parents are and the major focus of Part 3 is to ensure that there is appropriate information-gathering and the opportunity prospectively for donors and offspring to be able to find appropriate information at appropriate times—again with a degree of flexibility and according to their wants and desires. Generally one of the things that has changed now is that donors will be required to have openness about their identifying qualities and characteristics and eventually to be identifiable to their offspring. 
One of the things clause 42 does however is signal “No retroactive application”. Clearly that is appropriate if donors in the past—and it was the situation in the 1970s and 1980s—had donated anonymously and did not expect to find offspring trying to track them down. It would be quite inappropriate to overturn that. However due to a large variety of both donor offspring and donors around New Zealand contacting me and various others there has been a strong call for a voluntary register. Such a register works successfully in the state of Victoria in Australia and I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 270 to that effect which I understand the Government will be prepared to support. I think that it will be hugely appreciated by that large number of people who in the 1970s 1980s and early 1990s were not given the opportunity to be able to trace donors. 
It is remarkable to me that I had numerous emails and letters from donors as well as from offspring wanting this to happen. Some were extremely emotional about it and many said: “Look although we realise it may not be possible in every case it is really worthwhile to us and hugely meaningful for us to at least have that possibility there.” 
So I would exhort the Committee to support that Supplementary Order Paper. I added a further amendment to it that deals with half-siblings as well as full offspring. That would mean that brothers and sisters who may not have the same donor could contact each other on a voluntary basis. Again I am hopeful that the Committee will support that aspect. 
Another area that is worthwhile pointing out is clause 51 “Providers must keep track of donor offspring births”. The clinics have just recently approached me about this issue. Of course it is ideal and optimal that all births are clearly traced and recorded and that there is an excellent system. However in the reality of this world where people change their names miscarriages occur people go overseas and all sorts of extraordinary things happen in that biological bell-curve spectrum we have to deal with in this area it would be impossible in practical terms for all providers to be able to track down donor offspring births. Consequently I have tabled a further amendment whereby best endeavours are to be made to track donor offspring births. It is a purely practical technical amendment that again I urge the Committee to support. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to correct the vote of the ACT party on the last part. I inadvertently voted the wrong way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I voted eight opposed to Part 2. It should have been six opposed and two in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The corrected vote for Part 2 as amended is 102 for and 18 against. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 3 “Information about donors of donated embryos or donated cells and donor offspring” concerns an area that many people in New Zealand feel very strongly about because they are donor offspring or they have donated. I totally support Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 to have a voluntary register established before the date provided in this bill—that is before clinics started recording names. We have had a lot of emails from people contacting us about how they feel when they cannot get access to information on their genetic inheritance. 
All of us want to know where we came from if at all possible. I remember a constituent who came to me early in my time as an MP. She had just had a little boy who had a genetic defect and she never knew that she had been adopted. Right up to after the birth of the baby she never knew and the trauma she faced when she found out was enormous. It made so much of her past life a lie. 
Through this bill there is encouragement for those people who have a child via donated sperm or embryo to be honest and upfront right from the beginning and to let that child know. Up to the age of 16 the child will have access to information on the donor’s genetic make-up. After the age of 18 the child can get the name and also a great deal more information about the donor. Between the ages of 16 and 18 a court order can be made if there are special circumstances when a child needs to know. 
I remember watching a movie and I think it was based on real life where a US doctor had been the donor for many many children within a town. The reason donors have to be willing to have their names made available to children is to stop something like that happening. If people can think of doing something often it will happen. We need legislation to provide a way to prevent those sorts of very unfortunate circumstances from happening. In this bill there is no retroactive application about being able to know about donors but Dr Hutchison’s voluntary register will certainly go some way to helping those people born prior to the introduction of this bill. 
In the 1990s clinics started recording the names of donors so donors had to be prepared to give their names. Often people may want to be donors because they want to be able to help but often a donor may be known to the family. Donors may be in some way involved in the situation. They know the distress that is being caused by the infertility so they are prepared to be donors. 
In the select committee we heard from one person who was a donor offspring—and some submitters wanted the name changed from “donor offspring” to “donor child”. That person talked about the painful experience of closed adoption in the past when children could not find out anything about the genetic inheritance of either their mother or their father and how that had affected them. It is rather unfortunate today that the option of adoption has reduced so much because many adoptions were extremely successful. It is sad to see that that has become much less of an option. 
Part 3 does give pretty clear directions about the age at which someone can find out about the donor and what information can be given out. We had a lot of debate about the age and about whether people who were not yet 18 years old could find out who the donor was. In the end we decided that although genetic information could be obtained donor offspring had to be of a certain maturity before they could handle information about the actual name of the donor. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As the debate has shown aspects of this bill are highly contentious so it is pleasing that one part I think has the support of all parties in this House. I think that all of us support this provision and all of us I believe will also be supporting Dr Hutchison’s amendment to establish a voluntary register for people who have already been born from assisted human reproductive technology. 
Like others I have been contacted by people who are offspring from human-assisted reproductive technologies and are utterly dismayed that they cannot find out who their parents are. This is what is called an unintended consequence. When people began using this new technology obviously there was no thought that the offspring would be as desperate as anyone else to know who their parents were. So it is interesting that this aspect was ignored by the legislators of the day but now we are trying to rectify it. For many of those people who cannot find out about their parents it is a source of great heartache and distress just as it was in an earlier period for adoptees who were not able to find out about their parents. 
The only other thing I would say is that some people have said that if donors cannot be anonymous then there may be a significant fall-off in donor numbers and I think that that has happened overseas. In fact I heard an interview where the participants said that in Holland there had been a significant decrease in the number of donors once they were no longer able to be anonymous. But the regulators over there said that despite the fall-off in donor numbers they still felt that they had made the right decision in requiring donors to be identified and not be anonymous because ultimately the interests of the child should prevail. 
However there also have been some rare but high profile cases in which for instance someone who ran a clinic had been anonymously donating sperm to literally hundreds and thousands of people. People had not realised this and there were neighbours down the road not realising— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: There were children who looked alike. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Yes the children looked alike and they all came from the same sperm donor. We have had cases of this even in New Zealand where people have found that in various communities children all have the same father as they have come from the same sperm donor. Indeed they could be marrying each other because the sperm donation was all anonymous. There are very very good reasons why we cannot allow donors to hide behind anonymity. This move may result in a fall-off in the number of donors but we will have to live with that because ultimately—as the bill states—the rights of a child to know his or her parents must prevail in this instance. 
Many people have been talking about how sad it is that adoption rates are falling off and infertility rates are increasing. We all tend to look at adoption and technology as being the solutions but in fact we really ought to be looking at why we have such declining rates of fertility in this country and around the world and why sperm counts are estimated to have declined by up to 50 percent. For those reasons we ought to be looking at environmental causes in particular such things as the estrogenic environment that we are creating. Ultimately it is only when we look at the environmental causes behind the decline of fertility that we will find a solution to it. All the technology and techniques are expensive and invasive and they will not provide a solution to the seriously declining fertility that we have in New Zealand. 
However I digress. The Green Party is very very pleased to support Part 3 and to support Paul Hutchison’s amendments to this particular section. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a reasonably brief call on this part mainly because as somebody who has to date been very critical of the first two parts of the bill I would like to make a positive contribution on this part which I believe has great merit. While we obviously cannot force parents to disclose to a donor offspring his or her origin I think it will be very important—and I am sure it already happens—that recipients are given very good counselling about the importance of letting children know their genetic background. Historically when sperm donations started we did not anticipate the interest that offspring would have in that further down the track so it is great to now take this opportunity to address that problem. I think that the moment we start to underestimate the huge importance to children of having those important pieces of the jigsaw in place that help them with their identity and sense of who they are we really will have lost our way. Of course this issue is particularly important when we consider that at present in New Zealand nearly 50 percent of in vitro fertilisation procedures are offered to single women and to lesbian women. That fact alone makes it extremely clear why the issue of children being able to access in later years that important information about the identity of their father will become even more substantial. 
Another thing that I think is interesting is a story I heard recently. Apparently if a New Zealander who is overseas bumps into another New Zealander and the two talk together for less than 10 minutes they are more than likely to discover somebody whom they know in common. That means that we are a bit of a village here in New Zealand because of our population base so the chances of accidental incest are increased. Therefore good recording of information and the availability of that information to the people concerned are more crucial for New Zealand children than perhaps for the children of other larger nations. We need to be very aware of that. 
We had a previous speaker talk about a concern that has been expressed about a fall-off in donors. However I really do believe that even at the level of being a donor it is irresponsible in this day and age and with what we understand now to be the case to allow somebody to be a donor who is unwilling to allow the offspring who arise as a consequence of that donation to go without the all-important information about their identity. 
The other thing that struck me based on the experiences of people whom I have spoken to is the number of people who have discovered in their later years a latent genetically inheritable disease that they wanted to then notify offspring of so that their offspring could make lifestyle choices that would lengthen their lives. It will be particularly important that donors are able to track back in order to let that important information be passed on to the appropriate offspring. We are supportive of that. 
We will support Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment to have a voluntary register. I do though have some concerns that his other amendment would let clinics off the hook a little with regard to their responsibility for maintaining good information. I realise that there will be some difficulties but I think that we need to keep that as tight as possible and put a huge onus on fertility clinics to keep and to strive to keep the very best information possible for the future use of offspring. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate on Part 3 of the bill. In particular the debate has been discussing the importance of a child knowing the identity of his or her donor parent and of the details being recorded. Clause 46 states that the following details of each donor should be recorded: the donor’s name gender and address the donor’s date place and country of birth the donor’s height the colour of the donor’s eyes and hair and the donor’s ethnicity and any relevant cultural affiliation. In the case of a Maori donor his or her whanau hapu and iwi should be recorded to the extent to which the donor is aware of those affiliations. Finally anything to do with the medical history of the donor or the donor’s parents grandparents children and siblings is required. 
The interesting point that I will make is that the Health Committee has obviously gone into a lot of detail about the right of children to understand their heritage culture lineage and place in the world. I totally agree with that concept but I ask the Committee why there is not the same enthusiasm to provide children with that information about their father if they happen to be born to a mother who decides not to name the father of her child on the birth certificate for some other reason such as evading child support payments and so on. Why has Labour not done something similar to this for the 40000 children in New Zealand today who find themselves in that situation? I find the double standards in this Parliament quite bizarre when we can be holier-than-thou and say how important it is for children who come under the auspices of this bill to have the right to know who their other parent is whereas out there in New Zealand today there are 40000 kids whom nobody seems to care about. I find it absolutely bizarre that on the one hand our New Zealand Parliament can treat the issue with such care concern and consideration and on the other hand it does not give a toss. 
I would like the members of the Labour Party who all appear to be voting en masse for this bill to actually reflect on that issue. The issue is alive for every single child out there who does not know who his or her father is not because of the fact that his or her father is hidden away on the other side of the world and cannot be found but simply because the State colludes with the mother to prevent that child from finding out who the father is. I think that is one of the biggest disgraces in New Zealand today and it is aided and abetted by this Government. Just this week the Government passed a bill to a select committee that dealt with this issue without actually even trying to address the right of those children to know their dads in the way that we see in this particular bill here. I think that it is something that this Parliament should actually be ashamed of. If anybody listened to the families and the children out there who do not have a dad and who know that that is because somebody did not ask their mother to provide the detail on the birth certificate they would realise what heartache there is. Also we have heard about the future genetic problems as children who are related and do not know it intermarry and so on. Those issues are alive and well out there and it has been going on for the last decade yet nothing is being done to fix it. 
I would suggest to the member sitting in the chair Dianne Yates who has obviously persuaded her own party that it is an important issue that certain rights and provisions should be made for children that maybe she needs to extend that influence to the other children who are not captured by this bill. I suspect they are out there in far greater numbers than the children this legislation will affect so I suggest she picks that up as an issue that she can help to pass on to her colleagues. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 42 be agreed to.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I just clarify. Is this the amendment that will bring in the voluntary register—this is the beginning of that amendment? Is that correct? 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Yes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
51Providers to inform themselves about donor offspring births 
Providers must use their best endeavours to keep themselves fully informed about the births of donor offspring. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand National 22. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to proposed new clause 61A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in his name be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (9) the following new paragraphs: 
(d)a person whom the Registrar-General believes on reasonable grounds to be a person— 
(i)who shares a donor with the donor offspring; and 
(ii)who is 18 years or older; 
(e)a person whom the Registrar-General believes on reasonable grounds to be a person— 
(i)who shares a donor with the donor offspring; and 
(ii)who is under 18 years. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 61A as amended and new clause 61B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 62(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have listened to the debate this afternoon and this evening with some interest. I have heard several parties give a split vote. I am formally asking your advice on how I can get to know who in those parties voted for and who voted against. I believe the public is entitled to know. This is quite shattering legislation and I think the public want to know who put their name up to go with it and who voted against it. I know that National recently had a split vote; as did United Future in particular and probably some other parties. I just want your advice on how I can obtain the names of the people who voted for and voted against. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 We voted a split vote at the first reading and this House allowed a split vote to be taken at that time. That has continued today during the Committee stage. The House gave approval for a split vote and that is why we— 
Peter Brown 
: I am not opposing it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be silent while Mr Tisch is speaking. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I know the member is not opposing it. The procedure is as we are conducting it. I do not believe when the House has given approval for a split vote that an individual’s vote has to be divulged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. That is exactly the situation. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that— 
Peter Brown 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am just affirming Mr Tisch’s analysis. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am not wishing for this to become a personal vote. I am simply asking that the parties at least say who voted for and who voted against any particular clause. I believe that the public is entitled to know. I believe with due respect to yourself as Chairperson that this is a serious issue and I do not want to go past it tonight unless I can get some assurance from the Speaker—and I am prepared to call the Speaker back on this matter. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I understand that this issue was also traversed by the Business Committee today. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yesterday. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yesterday—I am corrected. 
Peter Brown 
: No it wasn’t. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It was actually. I have seen the minute referring to it so it should be no surprise to any party that was represented there. I suggest to the member that if he wishes to have that information he could write to the whips who if they chose or if party members authorised it could make it available. But obstructing the business of the Committee around a procedural issue that has already been debated is hardly constructive or productive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I want to confirm this. Mr Benson-Pope is quite correct. That is exactly what the Business Committee did agree to and it is entirely a matter for the whips whether they divulge that information. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I concur with your ruling. We have written proxies from our members which I hold here. I am not prepared to divulge who voted which way. I have cast the votes with the leave of the House for a split vote and it is certainly not my intention to divulge the information about our members’ preferences. This is not a personal vote where we go out to the lobbies. This is a split vote which the House has agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: And the House gave leave for that. Mr Lindsay Tisch is absolutely correct. That was exactly the procedure the House gave leave for. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to get it absolutely clear in my mind that you are accepting Mr Tisch’s assertion that he can sit privately and in no way divulge who voted one way or the other. That is acceptable to the chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is the leave the House gave. It has nothing to do with Mr Tisch. We are talking about the leave the House gave. That was the correct procedure as was indicated. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will seek the leave of the Committee if I have to to divulge—not necessarily now and not privately to me but publicly through the system—who voted which way. I seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave for that purpose; that is quite correct. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Part 4 Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This includes debate on schedule 2. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 People might think that Part 4 does not matter much but of course it does because it is about enforcement. Enforcement will matter a lot in this bill because the structure is so loose. There are a few hurdles that a new procedure has to get over and Part 4 puts the whole of the burden of enforcement and practical monitoring on the so-called “authorised person”. That authorised person referred to in clause 64 is defined in the interpretation clause as including the Director-General of Health or someone authorised in writing by the Director-General of Health. The first issue I want to raise is a technical one. For the first 9 months of this legislation the Director-General of Health is both the rule maker and the enforcer. I do not think that will work and I hope officials and the Government are aware of that. 
Clause 75 designates the Director-General of Health as the advisory committee for the first 9 months. The Director-General of Health is also the authorised person who has the powers to enter premises to label things to take jars away and that seems to me to be a pretty fundamental conflict of interest for the initial period of the legislation; I would be interested in the Government giving some explanation of why it thinks that that would work. 
 The second thing is that we are in the odd situation where the transitional provision in clause 75 looks to me to be much more desirable than the permanent one settled in Part 3 because at least a transitional provision makes the advisory committee accountable. The Director-General of Health is someone we can have in front of a select committee he or she is subject to a purchase agreement with the Minister and can have his or her own advisory capacity within the Ministry of Health while carrying on as the advisory committee. That matters because in that 9 months it will not be a committee of the great and good that is potentially making very important decisions that I believe this Parliament should make; it will be the Director-General of Health. 
Let us look at the kinds of decisions that the Director-General of Health will be able to make. He or she will be able to decide whether people will be able to use gametes derived from deceased persons and to decide what the requirements are for informed consent. It is my contention that those decisions ought to be made by the Parliament but because Parliament has voted to support Part 3 those decisions will be made by some vague formless and maybe well-intentioned committee—decisions over embryo splitting and the selection of embryos using pre-implantation genetic analysis; every one of them an ethical and public policy minefield and on which one does not need to be an expert to have an opinion. 
The transitional provisions depending on one’s point of view either make it worse because they put in charge a civil servant subject to political direction—a civil servant subject to political direction will make those decisions; or one can decide that it is a good thing as I think perhaps it is because the Director-General of Health is personally accountable for the decisions in a way that the advisory committee never will be because the Director-General of Health is subject to the accountability procedures of this Parliament. 
I would like to see the term of 9 months extended to 5 years because we would then have a start-up period where the Parliament can get at the people who make the decisions—in this case the Director-General of Health. Nine months is not a long enough transitional period as far as I am concerned. I would make some recommendations to the Director-General of Health in the time that he or she will be the advisory committee—that is not to rush off making decisions about these things except to be conservative and cautious. The Director-General of Health in her capacity as the advisory committee should not allow any of these new procedures to occur. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 4 indeed does deal with enforcement and miscellaneous provisions. The Hon Bill English has once again asserted that the structure of the bill is too loose. The strength of the bill is due to the fact that it caters for the broad spectrum of conditions and techniques that are available and it allows flexibility. When he talked about transitional provisions and clause 75 which covers the powers of the Director-General of Health I think he should be reminded that the existing situation has worked very well for the last 20 years or so without any specific legislation. As we know a variety of Acts influence this area but now for the first time specific legislation is being applied. 
The other point that I think should hopefully give Mr English some degree of security is the fact that the clinics themselves are all very much affected by the fact that they belong to the Australasian reproductive technology accreditation group. That is a requirement of their being able to register and function. That group in itself has very very strict guidelines as to standards quality and information gathering and it has really served New Zealand and New Zealanders extremely well. It is because of the fact that we—unlike other countries like Canada UK and Australia—have not had specific legislation in this area that this bill has finally come into being after 9 years of gestation. 
While there is indeed under clause 75 the period of 9 months whereby the advisory committee will then come into power in the meantime some very strong safeguards are already in existence. The Hon Bill English should be assured or reminded of the fact that there has not been any major concerns in terms of people breaking the law with the whole spectrum of activities that are available. As I said Part 4 does indeed deal with enforcement and there are some pretty clear enforcement requirements. 
Clause 64 states: “An authorised person who believes on reasonable grounds that any assisted reproductive procedure is performed or any human reproductive research is conducted in a place may at any reasonable time exercise any of the powers in section 65 reasonably necessary to ascertain all or any of the following matters:”—and clause 65(1) lists a wide number of powers: to inspect to make copies of extracts and if suspicions are great to “(d) search for and seize—(i) any equipment or device … (ii) an in vitro gamete: (iii) an in vitro embryo or an in vitro foetus: (iv) a document or record …”. There is a long list of specific things that an authorised person can indeed do. It is right and proper that these enforcement requirements are there and that these powers are there and there are penalties for their being used inappropriately. 
There is no doubt that the bill does have a sufficiently wide span of enforcement instruments available to it and they include the clinics themselves entry of dwelling houses where it might be suspected that inappropriate activity is taking place and the ability to be able to seize equipment and look after it etc. 
One other area is clause 72 which relates to the regulations under the heading “Miscellaneous provisions”. Again a wide number of regulations can be applied by the Governor-General by Order in Council that include prescribing requirements for informed consent and providing for the use or destruction of in vitro gametes or in vitro embryos. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to discuss an amendment to clause 72 that has been proposed by the Green Party. Basically we are providing a procedure whereby regulations would first of all have to be laid before Parliament so that Parliament could examine the proposed regulations and provide some response. It does not require the Minister to follow the advice of Parliament but if the Minister did not and chose to ignore Parliament he or she would have to provide reasons. There is also a provision which would placate Dr Hutchison that would allow regulations to be promulgated without first being laid before Parliament if they were minor or if they protected a person’s health and safety. All this is seeking to do is say that there should be some provision for regulations to be laid before Parliament before they are enacted. Basically this clause is taken from Canadian legislation and as I have previously pointed out Canada does not have the very vague guidelines that we have been talking about all night. It has very specific regulations. In Canada all the policy surrounding this highly contentious area is in regulation and those regulations must be discussed by both Houses of Parliament in Canada. Similarly we know that in England there is a licensing regime and there are regulations. 
This is a last-ditch effort by the Green Party to introduce some—just some—minor scrutiny by Parliament and some accountability into this bill. At the moment once the bill is passed in the next few weeks it will be the end of Parliament’s involvement in this whole contentious area. We will have an unelected and unaccountable committee making policy in the form of rather vague guidelines in these highly contentious areas. It will make policy that is of course technically illegal because our laws say that only Parliament should set policy. Committees like the ministerial advisory committee should only implement policy that is set by Parliament. 
This legislation as we pointed out in our minority report is in clear breach of parliamentary procedures which say that only Parliament should be setting policy. In fact once this legislation comes into effect Parliament will abdicate its role and its ability to make policy in this highly significant area—an area that is full of ethical minefields. If there is any area that Parliament should be able to set policy in it is this area. But no once this bill is passed Parliament will be abdicating its role and leaving it totally to an unaccountable and unelected committee. 
As I have previously pointed out the guidelines issued by the ministerial advisory committee 2 days ago on a highly contentious area of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis do not even suggest that that committee make decisions in this area but instead delegate it to the fertility clinics of New Zealand. It is quite extraordinary. So this amendment is an effort to say that we should at least have some mechanism by which reports and regulations would be laid before this Parliament. The Health Committee could then examine the contentious issues and make recommendations. The Minister would not be obliged to follow those recommendations or the advice of Parliament but would have to provide reasons if he or she chose to ignore them. 
Our amendment would introduce a small degree of accountability and a small degree of scrutiny. I suspect that it will be defeated as previous amendments we have put forward tonight will be. So we will be setting up the most permissive and the weakest regime for assisted human reproductive technology in the Western World and we in this Parliament will be abdicating our ability to set policy in this highly contentious and controversial area. I think we all need to be absolutely clear that that is what we are doing here tonight. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 4 which deals with the regulations and transitional provisions the role of the Director-General of Health and compliance is different from what was originally proposed in the first two bills because of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act. Previously the two bills that were adapted by the Supplementary Order Paper had a quite considerable amount in them about licensing of the actual facilities that are performing fertility services. One member made the point that we have been boxing along quite nicely for all this time and we have not had any legislation in this area but of course science is moving on and developing and there is the possibility that cloning could occur in New Zealand. If other countries in the world stop those procedures then people will look to a country that did not have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.