Volume 625 Week 89 - Wednesday 18 May 2005 
Volume 625 Week 89 - Wednesday 18 May 2005 
[Volume:625;Page:20655] 
Wednesday 18 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Kenya—Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya led by the Hon Joseph KipchumbaLagat are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Breach of Privilege—Television One 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise what I consider to be quite a serious matter for your consideration. We have a situation in which there is a question mark about whether a Minister deliberately misled the House last Thursday. As you appreciate I have raised that with you in the appropriate manner as a breach of privilege. I am not about to litigate that here. But last night we had a situation whereby Television One opened its news broadcast by saying that David Benson-Pope had lied in Parliament. That was the opening sentence of the news last night. Last night on the news Television One reported Phil Weaver as saying that the Minister had lied to this House. That is not something members can do but it shows you the serious nature of what is before you in my breach of privilege complaint. We cannot have a news reporter news reports and Television One in particular saying that a Minister has lied and not have this House take it seriously. 
We also have another situation before us. The Government has announced an inquiry. I have written to the Prime Minister and suggested some terms of reference—or some things to consider for the terms of reference. But we cannot be in a situation whereby it is the Government that decides whether David Benson-Pope deliberately misled Parliament. The only body that can consider that is Parliament itself. That is done through the Privileges Committee as is proper. If it is the case that you do not want to refer David Benson-Pope to the Privileges Committee for it to consider whether he misled Parliament and lied then you have no option but to send Television One to the committee. Television One is claiming that he did lie which in itself is a breach of privilege. 
We are looking at the release of the Budget tomorrow and then at a week’s adjournment. I do not think that Parliament can be in good standing if we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Well members may like to chip in from the back of the House and interrupt me. It would be a lot easier and a lot quicker if they would follow the Standing Orders and be quiet or take a point of order after me. We cannot be in a situation in this Parliament whereby it is being reported in the news that Ministers lie in Parliament. I suggest to you Madam Speaker that for the sake of Parliament you consider my breach of privilege complaint and make an announcement on that while Parliament is sitting this week. Otherwise we will be stuck with the adjournment and the allegations will continue through the media. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. I first make the observation that it is not for any member of this House to tell the Speaker what his or her options are. I acknowledge that the member has raised the matter as a point of privilege which is the correct procedure. It is not the correct procedure to litigate a matter of privilege through a point of order which is just what has happened. I also remind members that it is for any member to raise any TV statement as a matter of privilege if he or she wishes to do so. If members do that they will do it through the correct procedure which is to write to the Speaker. The correct procedure is being followed. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I certainly did not want to litigate the breach of privilege in the House. I did want to suggest to you that it is quite serious with Television One reporting what it has reported. I can satisfy you that I have written to you again with further evidence following Television One’s reports last night and have actually suggested that if you are not prepared to take David Benson-Pope to the Privileges Committee then you certainly have to look at taking Television One news. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but he is relitigating the matter upon which I have already ruled. If he has written to me again of course I will follow the correct procedure. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—OECD Rating 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that her Government has a “goal of economic transformation and a return to the top half of the OECD ratings by 2011.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That statement was raised by a previous Leader of the Opposition more than 2 years ago at which time it was made clear that that target date was not Government policy. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did she see the graph in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
last Sunday showing that growth in average after-tax weekly earnings in Australia has outstripped its GDP growth by over 10 percent in the last 5 years whereas in New Zealand the difference was a miserable half of 1 percent and what is her reaction to that statistic? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that GDP growth per capita is up over 12 percent under this Government and I am confident that now we have monetary policy that does not crush growth every time the economy gets some steam up we are doing a lot better. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister got a date for when she intends to put this country in the top half of the OECD or is that another one of those goals on the never-never and could she explain to this House just how monetary policy has changed under the new Governor of the Reserve Bank given that the policy has not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Firstly obviously the policy targets agreement has changed. Secondly we have a Governor of the Reserve Bank who accepts right now that the economy is capable of growing at about a sustainable 3.7 percent which is significantly above what was accepted before and thirdly I will be very happy to re-evaluate a target in 2011 as Prime Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did she see the speech of the current Governor of the Reserve Bank Dr Alan Bollard in January this year in which he noted that at present levels of productivity growth GDP growth would average only 2.8 percent over the next decade and how does she expect New Zealand to reach the top half of the OECD at that rate of growth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A quick calculation suggests that such a figure may be about twice the OECD growth average. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she alarmed at the figure of 600 New Zealanders leaving New Zealand for Australia every week—equivalent to the population of Gisborne every year—and what does she intend to do to bring those people back so they can take part in her so-called economic transformation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not a matter of what one expects to do. What one’s Government is doing is driving an economy that is capable of paying higher wages but as the member obviously wants results on wages now why does he not just come out in favour of the bus drivers’ claim the medical technologists’ claim and every other claim that is around at the moment? 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the OECD statistics that show that 24 percent of all tertiary-qualified New Zealanders currently live overseas and what does she intend to do about that statistic? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that that figure is very much the same as the figure for Ireland which has an economy that is doing particularly well. The member may reflect on the fact that small countries often cannot offer the range of opportunities that larger ones can. 
Childcare—Access 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that access to childcare is no longer a financial hurdle for parents looking to return to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce today that the Government will invest an extra $55 million over the next 4 years in childcare and employer-support initiatives to enhance the work choices available to parents. The extra funding will see around 70 percent of all families with children eligible for extra assistance including 96 percent of sole parents. The initiatives include increased funding for out-of-school care and recreation providers increased income thresholds for childcare subsidies and an extension of childcare subsidies to home-based care. When we came to office just under $50 million per year was allocated to childcare subsidies; this year’s Budget will double that to just over $100 million. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure hard-working Kiwi families get the support they need to achieve a good balance between work and family life? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is too much to mention here. But let me just mention that we are making major investments to support the work choices of Kiwi families. Through the Working for Families package childcare-assistance rates increased by 10 percent last year and will go up a further 10 percent in October this year. In addition families in the $25000 to $45000 income band can now get an average increase of $80 a week in extra support rising to $100 a week by the time the package is fully rolled out. 
Taxation—Thresholds 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What dollar figure would the $60000 threshold have to be lifted to in order that no more than 5 percent of taxpayers pay the 39c rate in 2005-06 and what would be the fiscal cost of making this adjustment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 At around $80000 the fiscal cost would be $275 million a year. Taking into account claw-back from increased GST and other factors this would come to about $230 million a year. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister concede that that is a small amount considering the $8 billion - odd fiscal surplus that has been achieved for the first 9 months of this year; and would that not be a way of showing that for once this Government honours its promises and the pledges it has made to New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest that the member read recent speeches made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Clearly the governor is not arguing that the Government has been operating too tight a fiscal policy over recent times. Therefore there has not been the room for the kind of fiscal expansion that he and Dr Brash now both believe in with massive tax cuts plus massive expenditure increases from Dr Brash. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that wasteful Government spending such as hip-hop tours singalong songs and a bloated State sector ranks as a higher priority than letting hard-working Kiwis keep more of what they earn through threshold adjustments for inflation; if so why is he allowing that to happen under his watch? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The thresholds have not been adjusted since 1988. Certainly they were not under 9 years of a National Government. 
Rod Donald 
: At what level could a tax-free threshold be introduced at a fiscal cost of $230 million and what benefit would that have for low to middle income earners compared with lifting the $60000 threshold? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is asking a lot off the top of my head but I think that an approximately $500 tax-free threshold—around that kind of level—would be appropriate which would translate for the lowest-income earners into $75 a year and for the highest-income earners into about $200 a year. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen reports and arguments that many families around the $38000 income bracket as a result of bracket creep are now creeping into the second tax phase which might well be offsetting any gains they achieve from the Working for Families package and if he has seen such reports can he indicate what action the Government might be contemplating in respect of them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think that those who crept over that margin would lose much of a proportion of their family support increases that are coming through which are of course very substantial. I am stopped in streets supermarkets and other places and thanked by people for those particular policies. But it is true that because incomes have grown substantially under this Government despite what Dr Brash says people have moved over thresholds. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that a tax system in general should be fair reasonable and encouraging and does he believe that our system reflects those qualities; if not what will he do about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suspect that everybody believes that the tax system should be fair reasonable and encouraging. The fact is that we do not agree on what that means. By that the National Party means that taxes should be slashed for those at the top end. We tend to favour increases in income for low to middle income earners. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he think it fair reasonable and encouraging that under his watch the average worker in New Zealand has seen his or her marginal rate of tax go from 21c to 33c because of fiscal drag and does he think it is important to lower that marginal tax rate for average workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are a range of marginal tax rates depending on what other assistance people are eligible for. Of course under the policy of the founder of the ACT party a very large number of workers would earn a 100 percent effective marginal tax rate. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understood the Minister of Revenue to say that there were no threshold adjustments under National during the 1990s; is that correct? I just want to clarify that because if it is what he said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order actually but does the Minister want to answer? 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Minister said that can I invite him to reconsider his answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am prepared to reconsider. I think my memory does remind me that there was one but the reality is if the member cares to listen the bottom threshold—the one that affects low-income earners—was not raised after 1988 and never has been. 
Labour Force Participation—Women 
4.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her intention to develop policy and actions designed to boost participation in the workforce particularly in respect of women; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because there are currently many barriers facing women that restrict their choices about whether to join the paid workforce. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she agree with a recent Treasury report that states that getting more people into work means less time for raising children and that Government policy should actually take into account the importance of time spent with them; if so why was that report removed from Treasury’s website only hours after it was posted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously those parents who choose to go to work have less time at home with their children than those who do not but that is a value judgment each family must make for itself. With respect the second part of the question was answered in a written question to the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the surge in the number of under-ones going into childcare this year the kind of outcome that her speech favoured despite the fact that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ own research released last October indicates significantly worse outcomes for children who go into dawn-to-dusk care from such an early age; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Each family must make for itself the decision whether it wishes its members to enter the paid workforce. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any adverse reaction to her speech from parents who interpreted it as an attack on their choice to stay at home when they would argue that their work is very valuable and contributes to the country even though it does not register on clinical economic indicators; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All women’s work is valuable whether or not it is counted in official economic statistics. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the most recent population statistics that show that the number of births per woman has declined further and that women are having children later; if so does she agree the biggest challenge to future growth that faces the Government is how to support an ageing population with fewer workers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The trend to smaller families is a long-term one. If we go back to my great-grandparents’ generation it had rather large numbers of children and the number of children per family has been falling very very steadily. As everyone knows all Western societies face the challenges of ageing populations and we need to have policies that can support older citizens with a reduced taxpayer base. 
Taxation—Australia - New Zealand 
5.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe the tax cuts announced by Peter Costello in Australia last week put pressure on New Zealand to follow suit; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. The Australian objective as stated by Mr Costello is to have 80 percent of taxpayers paying a top rate of 30 percent or below. In New Zealand around 75 percent of taxpayers are on a top rate of 21 percent or below. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that even before the recent Australian Budget official New Zealand statistics showed that 600 people permanently migrate to Australia each week—which is the equivalent of 4½ Boeing 737s leaving full and coming home empty—and does he concede that the Australian Budget will make this even worse; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The numbers leaving in net terms have gone up and down quite a lot over the last 10 years. They have tended to fall for most of the last 5 years. Apart from that the changes in the Australian Budget for the great majority of workers mean no more than about $6 per week. Even on the cheap fares available through Air New Zealand it would take quite a few weeks to make up the difference. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How come Australia can afford tax cuts on the basis of a 1 percent of GDP surplus when we are sitting on a 4 percent of GDP surplus yet he keeps saying we cannot afford a tax cut for every worker? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Australians report their surpluses rather differently from us in New Zealand. But the member will find out tomorrow that as I have said many many times the Budget shows cash deficits— 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —I am sorry the members are so disappointed after their calling for them for so many years—in the out-years. What the member has to understand even in her new sharing and caring mode is that a tax cut is something that goes through every year not just this year. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that as a result of the tax changes in Australia we will not be losing any more skilled people than we have been losing already? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not the Minister of Finance in a police State and what New Zealanders choose to do is a matter for them. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree with Peter Costello that reducing the tax burden helps attract and retain the skilled workers upon which a growing economy is built; if so why has he done exactly the opposite in the last five Budgets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Actually the proportion of GDP taken by way of revenue is slightly lower now than it was previously. But of course one of the issues around Mr Costello’s Budget—as much as I agree with a very large amount of what he says—is whether in fact his tax cuts are affordable and many Australian commentators have questioned that fact. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister in any way concerned that Australia’s free-trade agreement with the US and new tax measures will together attract the investment and skilled workers that will see the income gap continue to widen between Australia and New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Contrary to the claims frequently made by the Leader of the Opposition that income gap has not been widening. He is simply using the wrong figures in that particular respect. We are keeping under advice some of the less - well reported taxation changes in the Australian Budget around the business tax area—but of course we have the largest array of business tax changes and business tax cuts in this year’s Budget of any Government since the 1980s. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister re-evaluate the position if he is wrong and we do lose a lot of skilled workers or corporates to Australia as a result of the Australian tax structures? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike minor parties I cannot pretend to print money to make up gaps between expenditure and revenue. One of the attractions of Australia has been that because of the rundown in our services through the 1990s it has better health systems than we do and in many areas better education systems. Those are also attractive to people wanting to migrate. New Zealand First of course believes that we can have Australian levels of expenditure on New Zealand levels of revenue. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister believe that all Government spending undertaken by his Government in the last 6 years has been warranted and of acceptable quality; if he does not what particular areas of his Government spending concern him the most? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I could not give the House such an assurance. Almost every dollar spent on the Opposition over the last 5½ years has been a waste of money 
Children of Separated Parents—Initiatives 
6.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What initiative is the Ministry of Justice taking to deal with trauma and adverse impact on children caused by the separation of their parents? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government is conscious that parental conflict and separation can have traumatic effects on children particularly when one parent seeks to turn children against the other parent. The Budget we are expecting tomorrow will provide $6.2 million over 4 years to provide a nationwide programme through the Family Court to help parents reduce conflict and the impact of separation on their children and to counter the damaging effects that these things can have on children’s well-being and social behaviour. 
Tim Barnett 
: What evidence does the Minister have that such programmes are effective and constitute a good investment of public funds? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Parent programmes of this nature have run very successfully for a number of years in both the United States and the United Kingdom. In New Zealand last year the Auckland Family Court Association ran a pilot programme called Children in the Middle. It produced an increase in parental knowledge about the impact of separation and conflict on their children a reduction in parental conflict an improvement in the behaviour and the well-being of the children and an extraordinarily high rate of satisfaction for those who participated in the pilot. We have every reason to believe that these very positive results can be replicated across the country with major human and social benefits as a result. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm that the $6.2 million package averages out at about $1.5 million a year which—based on for example this Government’s Families Commission expenditure—would pay for two billboards and a survey; and is not today’s announcement just a half-hearted attempt to adopt Dr Brash’s policy of a much broader introduction of parenting skills courses for troubled families? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answers are no and no and I regret the negativism of the member. This funding will allow up to 8000 couples a year to be referred to that programme. Far from being half-hearted the programme will operate across almost every Family Court in the country. The member should be more supportive and less carping and negative. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that a national roll-out of the North Shore Children in the Middle pilot programme as proposed by United Future would mean that parents who are separating would be given positive strategies to protect their children from conflict; and as 97 percent of participants in the pilot said they thought the programme should be mandatory will he consider implementing my member’s bill that would make involvement compulsory for parents seeking these orders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can confirm the very positive things that the member said about the programme in the first part of the question and I welcome her support for it and the support of United Future. In respect of the second part of the question I have to say that it is not intended to make the programme as introduced mandatory but if the evidence of the positive results that we certainly expect of this programme shows that it should be a requirement for every separating couple I would certainly consider that. 
Labour Force—Strikes 
7.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does he have any concerns regarding the increasing number of workers striking over their pay and working conditions; if so what plans if any does he have to address this issue? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The number of work stoppages has actually been steadily declining over time since the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act. It is the role of the Government to set the framework for the resolution of employment disputes and in our view that is much improved since the days of the Employment Contracts Act. It is up to the parties to negotiate in good faith and it is not for the Government to get involved. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister concerned that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among many working people who see managers leaving with golden handshakes and senior executives receiving huge bonuses and other perks yet at the other end of the scale they see fishing people losing their jobs and New Zealand fruit pickers being dispensed with but foreign labour being imported to work at less than the minimum wage—is he not concerned about the concerns of working people? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course there is a broad range of issues such as the member has raised across the labour market. The Employment Relations Act sets a framework whereby these things can be resolved and the vast majority of them around 70 to 80 percent of them are resolved through the Mediation Service which is an integral part of the Employment Relations Act. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister understand that it is his discredited 2004 amendments to the Employment Relations Act that have led to the increased union militancy—an avalanche of strikes throughout April and May—and forced employers to give across-the-board wage increases; and that right now there is a threatened strike by radiologists that will mean many people will have operations put off? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No because it is not true. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why when a 5 percent pay increase across the board could be achieved without disruption to industry does this Government steadfastly refuse to accept that the sensible tax policy of the ACT party would achieve that forthwith? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said the matters around labour relations are my responsibility and as far as I am concerned the Employment Relations Act sets out a framework by which parties can negotiate their wage increases according to each other’s needs. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on any proposed future frameworks for resolving employment disputes; if so what do they say? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Fortunately yes. I have seen a report from a person who wants to repeal the Employment Relations Act and return to the failed employment policies of the 1990s. I have also seen a report stating that the “business community is broadly happy with the Employment Relations Act”. The first report comes from National’s employment spokesperson Dr Wayne Mapp and the second comes from National’s leader Dr Don Brash. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister lift the minimum wage to $12 an hour so that the hundreds and thousands of workers on the lowest wages will not have to strike to get even the barest minimum needed to live on and support a family in this country today? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member will know that this Government has raised the minimum wage every year since it has been in office and that has been a very very big advantage to lots of low-income people. 
Peter Brown 
: What is the point of raising the minimum wage for New Zealanders if the Government is going to allow foreign people to come here and work for less than the minimum wage? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member will know the report that came out the other day actually looked at how we can enforce more effectively minimum wage rates in the New Zealand fishing industry. That is a critical issue. The industry itself has agreed that this is an important issue to address. A lot of it has been around interpretation and we are going to make constructive progress working with the industry to resolve these things. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister concerned about the pay and working conditions of those who cannot take strike action for themselves like the overseas fishing crews on foreign-chartered vessels in New Zealand waters; if so will he stick up for them by taking action on United Future’s suggestion that inspectors from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Labour should be on every foreign vessel with the cost of this paid for by the New Zealand companies that charter them? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said yesterday if it was going to be an impost on the Government obviously no Government would support that. However there are some issues that the member raises particularly around enforcement—how do we enforce New Zealand law on fishing boats that are obviously out at sea for some considerable time? I am very keen and happy to meet with the member to discuss some of these things and how we might progress them. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any funding by way of levies or what have you given to the Fishing Industry Guild by operators to encourage foreign people to work on fishing boats or engage in contracting foreign fishing vessels and if he is not aware will he make it his business to find out and advise New Zealand First—because New Zealand First takes employment issues seriously whereas the Government seems to think it is a joke judging by its response? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I certainly do not consider this matter to be a joke. I have said that quite often and I certainly said that yesterday. I am aware of some arrangement between the companies and the guild. I am not aware precisely of it but I would be happy to look— 
Peter Brown 
: Will you find out and let us know? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I would be happy to look into it as far the member has asked and get back to him. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be following the lead of other elected officials such as Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee or the Deputy Mayor of Auckland Bruce Hucker or Green Party MPs and give some moral support to the Auckland bus drivers’ efforts to get better wages? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. The important point about a Minister of Labour—and this is a long tradition that goes back over many years—is that the Government sets the framework and it is up to the parties to negotiate. The Government does not get involved. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Given the advice the Minister has received from New Zealand First over recent days about the importance of New Zealand – born people working would he support a resignation from the deputy leader of New Zealand First which would cause a Kiwi to get a job in here? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that that is within ministerial responsibility. The Minister will not answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr Mallard was suggesting that an honourable member of this House was not really a New Zealander. As we are required to be New Zealanders in order to stand for election to this House I think Mr Mallard’s comment is a great offence to the whole House. I think Mr Mallard should be asked to withdraw the comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Television New Zealand Charter—Local Programming 
8.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Why since the TVNZ charter was introduced in 2003 has there been a 3 percent decrease in New Zealand programmes shown on Television One and no increase in New Zealand programmes shown on TV2 during the hours 6 a.m. to midnight? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 This is due to the following reasons: coverage of large one-off events in 2003 like the America’s Cup and the Rugby World Cup—if those sporting events were removed for example Television New Zealand would show an increase of 1.5 percent local content—and a reduction in repeat local programmes on both channels. Due to the time zone differences between New Zealand and Athens there were about 80 hours of local sport content on Television One between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. in 2004. There is also a reduction in children’s programme hours as a result of a change in requirement from New Zealand On Air that funded children’s programmes would no longer be linked between overseas cartoons but instead will stand alone as entire programmes in the future. That raises the cost per hour of production but I think it also produces better quality children’s television. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not time to admit that the TVNZ charter is failing when the amount of local content programmes shown by our State broadcaster has decreased since it was implemented despite all the charter’s fine words and the millions of taxpayer dollars going towards charter programming? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is no and if the member had listened to the answer to her primary question she would understand the reason. 
Mark Peck 
: What is the state of local content relative to the increase in funding from New Zealand On Air to $93.8 million per year and the provision of $36.8 million of charter funding to Television New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Television New Zealand is providing a wider range of New Zealand programming and is working closely with screen production industries to ensure that that programming is put to air. Local content targets are being established and all major broadcasters are achieving them. The total of non-repeat hours of New Zealand programming has increased by 60 hours from 2003. New Zealand television networks have an average ratio of around one in three programmes being New Zealand - made. There has been an increase of nearly 200 hours per annum of New Zealand content in prime time since the Labour-led Government came to power. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When Australia has local content quotas of 55 percent for all its commercial television channels the United Kingdom has on average 91 percent local programming on its television channels Canada has 75 percent Italy has 83 percent and Germany has 91 percent why does our Government allow our State-owned broadcaster to screen only a pitiful 38 percent of New Zealand - made programmes across its two channels? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think that question needs to be put in the context of the $93.8 million a year going to New Zealand On Air and the $36 million of charter funding going to Television New Zealand. These figures are opposed by the parties on the other side of the House on the whole. This Government has shown a great deal of commitment to New Zealand programming and that is why the industry in New Zealand is so happy with this Government. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When the chief executive of TVNZ says that the primary goal of the State broadcaster is “to reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders” why are 82 percent of the programmes on TV2 foreign-made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because the large amount of money that is now being committed to New Zealand programming is out there and the programmes are being made as we speak. If the member cared to go and talk to the large number of people who form the industry she would know they are doing exactly that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that it is a terrible indictment that the amount of children’s programming on TV2 declined by 71 hours last year to the lowest level in 5 years despite the fact that some of the previous programmes were just overseas cartoons with a New Zealand front-person and does he agree that this breaches TVNZ’s obligations to increase the amount of children’s programming? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not. What Television New Zealand is doing is moving from using front-people on overseas cartoons to committing itself to making a lot more New Zealand programming—entire programming—available. That means we will now have the basis of a genuine industry around children’s television in this country rather than one-off occasions when people just front up on television to say what the overseas programme is about. That is a major step forward. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with the former Speaker Jonathan Hunt who said on his retirement that we had to acknowledge that the charter was not working and that it was now time to look at other models to improve the quality of public service television such as having one channel run along the lines of the SBS semi-commercial model in Australia; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: While I fully respect the words of the previous Speaker given that he was also a Minister of Broadcasting and helped establish the system within which we are working I do not agree with that statement. I think that what we are doing at the present time is a better way forward. 
Health Services—Waiting Lists 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she stand by her statement “people are not culled. They are sent to their general practitioners to be monitored” and can she explain the difference to the thousands of patients who have been removed from waiting lists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes the Minister does stand by that statement. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the Minister deny that people are not culled but are instead monitored; or is she denying the word of Mrs Peggy Griffiths an orthopaedic patient culled from the Counties-Manukau waiting list in April who said: “I’m sitting here in agony. I can’t even get across the floor. The devastating letter came from Counties-Manukau with absolutely no instructions regarding if I would be monitored how I would be monitored or when I would be monitored.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Under this Government patients are either given surgery or advised that based on resources and their condition they will not or will not yet be able to access publicly funded services. Under the previous National Government people were placed on waiting lists to wait and wait— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the member’s answer and I am sure others in the Chamber could not either. Would members please just lower the level of interjection. Barracking is not interjection. I ask the Minister to repeat the answer please. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Under this Government patients are either given surgery or advised that based on resources and their condition they will not or will not yet be able to access publicly funded services. Under the previous National Government people were placed on waiting lists to wait and wait with no idea of where when or even whether they would be able to access surgery. In fact it was so ridiculous that the member who asked this question sent a letter to the Hon Annette King about someone who had been on a waiting list for knee surgery for 12 years. That has gone. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How has this Government’s policy of providing New Zealanders with clarity and certainty on elective services been received? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the polling data on managing the health system is a measure then those changes have been received very well. Alternatively members could take a look at the view of a number of groups. I instance Age Concern which years ago pleaded for honesty and clarity in the system. This Government has delivered just that. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department reportedly sees hundreds of waiting list patients seeking urgent attention for conditions such as gallstones and hernias and will the Government provide one-off funding so that those taxpayers can have their surgery performed in public hospitals rather than having to rely on the charity hospital; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is apparently unaware of a series of one-off funding initiatives to reduce the waiting times for certain types of surgery. For example in the last Budget the Hon Annette King announced funding that will see the number of orthopaedic surgical procedures rise by 100 percent over 4 years. Just the week before last the same Minister put more money into the budget that will see cataract surgery rise by 50 percent over 4 years. This Government does get on with making sure that New Zealanders have good access to our health system. 
Heather Roy 
: How does the Minister explain her own waiting list figures which show that 15 people have been waiting in Labour’s hidden category of active review since Bill English was the Minister of Health; or is it her view that that is still Bill English’s fault? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid that I do not have to hand any data about an active review list or whatever it was but I would be happy to answer the member’s question if she would like to approach me with a written question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister may have come to the House unprepared but preparation was not required to answer that question. He was just asked in respect of the fact that 15 people have been waiting since Bill English’s time whether he took responsibility for that or whether we are all to believe that it is the National Party’s fault. He does not need any data for that; it is just a simple statement. He should let us know the answer. Is he taking responsibility or are we to blame the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. The point of order is therefore not a valid one in this context. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you then for a ruling on behalf of the Opposition in particular. How appropriate is it when we are allocated a question to ask the Minister a perfectly acceptable oral question and to have him simply acknowledge the question by asking the member to submit it to him in writing. Surely he should now take that request as a request made in this House and provide that information to the member without the member having to ask a written question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his intervention. I am sure that that is exactly what will happen. An answer that is specific to the question that was asked will after preparation be given by the Minister. If it is not undoubtedly the Speaker will be approached. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister deny that senior Ministry of Health officials such as David Geddis have informed district health boards and orthopaedic surgeons that they must actively manage their waiting lists—which means culling—or they may not receive funding for the orthopaedic initiative such instruction being tantamount to bribery and an interference with ethical behaviour? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I really do not know what the member is on about with that question. I would have thought that the active management of waiting lists was a good idea and that doubling the number of orthopaedic procedures over the next 3 years would be an even better one. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister blame those orthopaedic surgeons who are refusing to compromise their duty to patients and who simply will not be told to remove them from the waiting list or to use the deceptive coercive techniques that she is making the ministry use so that the Government’s waiting list looks good? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I had the pleasure of attending an orthopaedic surgeons’ meeting about 2 or 3 weeks ago during which time I spoke with a number of orthopaedic surgeons all of whom are delighted with the attention that this Government is giving to orthopaedic surgery and none of whom seemed to come up with the grizzle that that member wanted to drop in the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Minister of Health’s own waiting list figures showing that 15 people have been waiting in the hidden category of active review for 54 to 59 months or longer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is; it will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The first point of order I wish to bring up relates to the statement by Minister Hodgson that a patient was on the waiting list for 12 years. I have since been informed that that patient who Minister King and Minister Hodgson claimed was waiting for 12 years had in actual fact no need for surgery by the end of the 1990s but has over the last 3 years been unable to get surgery and is still unable to get his definitive surgery date. Would Minister Hodgson like to reconsider his statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We thank the member for the additional information but that was not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You ruled that the Minister answered Heather Roy’s question when he said he would need to get the information and would get back to her if she put the question down as a written question. Heather Roy then did the appropriate thing which was to seek to table the information for the benefit of the Minister and indeed of the House. We are now in the perplexing situation where the Government denied leave for that information to be tabled and so that is the precise muddle that the House is in. The Minister will not answer the question because he has not got the information. We are now not allowed to table the information because the Government does not want to see it. I have to say having seen the information that I can understand why the Government wants to keep it secret. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can give the information to the Minister who has given his word to respond to it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three papers. The first is a letter from Counties-Manukau District Health Board dated 3 May 2005 stating that Mrs P Griffiths is removed from the waiting list and showing no evidence whatsoever of how or when she will be monitored. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is the latest surgical waiting list from the Ministry of Health which shows 23129 patients were waiting for longer than 6 months in November 2004 increasing to 25960 in March this year. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The third is an article from the Christchurch 
 Press  
dated 14 May 2005 entitled “Study urged on waiting list cull effects” and stating 
Professor Laurence Malcolm is urging the Canterbury District Health Board to investigate the impact of striking thousands of patients from the waiting lists. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the press release. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can Dr Hutchison assure the House that he has the permission of the woman whom he is quoting in that letter to table it here in the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I assure the House that that is the case. 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Suicide Prevention—Programme Funding 
10.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent funding announcements has the Labour-Progressive Government made to combat the problem of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide prevention? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 In last year’s Budget $53.6 million over 4 years was secured to fight P alcohol and other drug abuse and last week I announced that this year’s Progressive Party initiatives include a further investment of $13.5 million to continue the fight against drug abuse and develop further suicide prevention strategies. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why does the Labour-Progressive Government make these significant investments in programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs in society when all those millions of dollars according to some parties in this House could instead be returned to taxpayers in the form of income tax cuts? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think the truth is that unlike the days of National-led coalition Governments in the 1990s when individual income tax cuts were a higher priority than increased investments in essential social services like health and education this coalition Government is responsive to New Zealanders’ yearning for programmes and action to promote successful and safer communities. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Associate Minister confirm that the lowering of the drinking age in 1999 has exacerbated alcohol abuse amongst young people and can he also confirm that that legislation was voted for not only by the Hon Matt Robson but also by the majority of Labour members at the time and was opposed by every single member of New Zealand First? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My personal view is that the lowering of the drinking age was inappropriate but other members of the House have different views. As far as the vote in the House is concerned my recollection is that the Alliance members at the time—I think including Matt Robson but certainly including myself—actually voted against the lowering of the drinking age as I think  
Hansard 
 will show. 
Ministerial Behaviour—Prime Minister's Statement 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What standards of ministerial behaviour have she and her Government set in light of her statement “New Zealanders should be able to look to their government for a lead on standards of behaviour and accountability.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Ministers are required to be hard-working and conscientious. 
Rodney Hide 
: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the growing tally of scandals in her Government from John Tamihere rubbishing her her Ministers and her policies to the 111 scandal her covert knifing of a former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) debacle and now one of her Ministers publicly being called a liar for his answers in Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously one would take exception to a number of the statements in that question. But what is becoming a mounting tally is the member’s baseless smear attacks on a whole range of people. No wonder his party is turning to John Banks to be the leader! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think the handling of the 111 crisis by George Hawkins of the NCEA scholarship debacle by Trevor Mallard and of the Te Wananga o Aotearoa excesses by Steve Maharey or her own misleading of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 with the off-the-record comments on the Doone case are exhibits of hard-working and conscientious behaviour and show leading standards of behaviour and accountability?  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That question also contains a number of statements that are not true. I am satisfied that when Ministers in this Government have problems identified they fix them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in her administration when over 25 percent of her Ministers since 2000 have been sacked suspended or removed from Cabinet under a cloud and I cite Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs on expense claims; Ruth Dyson drunk in charge of a motor vehicle; Lianne Dalziel deliberate deception; Dover Samuels; John Tamihere taking a golden handshake when he said he would not; Tariana Turia for desertion; and David Benson-Pope—does the Prime Minister accept that she has a recruitment a retention and a quality problem? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Had the same standards been applied to Denis Marshall Murray McCully John Banks Tau Henare and numerous others the tally would have been even bigger under previous Governments. 
Gender Reassignment—Background Checks 
12.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the Ministry of Health conduct background checks other than psychological and psychiatric assessments before any decisions are made to fund sex-change operations; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. No other checks are carried out. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister of Health aware that one person currently seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation—a person who has also callously tried to court sympathy through the media—has committed a litany of child sex offences of the most depraved kind; and why does her ministry consider such operations as a priority for taxpayer funding at a time when health workers are striking over poor pay and working conditions and when her own figures confirm that people on waiting lists are dying by the thousand each year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The New Zealand health system does not allocate its services according to a patient’s criminal record. If people with convictions were excluded from accessing the system then my personal conviction is that that would be wrong. I suspect that that would be the member’s personal conviction too. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the custom is to go across from one side of the House to the other when calling supplementary questions. I saw Dianne Yates calling for a supplementary question before me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is really kind of you. 
Dianne Yates 
: Can doctors in New Zealand withhold treatment because a person has criminal convictions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No they cannot. A person who has a criminal record is not discounted from having access to elective or emergency surgery. There is no basis on which to decline a patient because of his or her criminal record. 
Ron Mark 
: How many hip replacements gall bladder operations knee replacements or hernias could be attended to with the $170000 set aside by this Government specifically to fund sex-change operations for people convicted of perverse activities; and what does it say to the public about the priorities of this Government when it is prepared to offer funding for sex-change operations to prison inmates and depraved paedophiles while many decent elderly people are dying while waiting for their surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot bring to mind the additional amount of money the Hon Annette King has put in for orthopaedic surgery but I think it is $80 million compared with $170000. However I think a more poignant piece of information for the member is this. An analysis was done of 2000 transsexual patients in 13 countries over 30 years. In a recent letter to the weekend  
Press 
 of Christchurch the following sentences were submitted: “Perhaps the saddest statistic to emerge were the suicide rates. Up to 25 percent of male-to-female transsexuals and almost 20 percent of female-to-male transsexuals had attempted suicide at least once before beginning treatment.” I do not want to go on and say that paedophilia and the desire for a sex-change operation are linked but I certainly could not say that they are not. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table written answers from the Minister confirming that 3701 people on the waiting list have died between 2001 and 2002. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that written answer. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table an article from the  
Dominion Post 
 confirming that this Government funded a sex-change operation last year for an inmate in jail. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I realise that it is convention to ask for leave to table documentation immediately after a question but I was taken by surprise by the Hon Jim Anderton’s lack of knowledge of the voting pattern of his colleague. Therefore I now ask for leave to table the votes on the third reading of the alcohol amendment bill in 1999. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today we heard from the Prime Minister the new motto of the Labour Government. Members might remember that a week or so ago she said in the House: “By definition I can’t leak.” The new motto for Labour is: “By definition we can do no wrong.” Whenever something goes wrong Labour Ministers say: “I didn’t do it.” It does not matter that Trevor Mallard was the Minister of Education for 6 years overseeing the wreckage and trail of destruction of so many young New Zealanders’ aspirations. He just says: “Nick Smith did it.” It is now 8 years since Nick Smith was the Minister of Education. So that is the new motto. If something goes wrong then it cannot possibly be a Labour Minister who did it. 
Well let us look at the accumulated record of the last 2 weeks. I went through a list of what has happened and I thought— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table documents showing that Nick Smith was Minister less than 6 years ago not 8. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If that Minister cared one bit about young New Zealanders he would have read the documents given to him by his ministry telling him that New Zealand Scholarship would be a shambles. If he cared one bit about young New Zealanders he would not be sitting here; he would be fixing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) which again in 2005 will cheat 130000 New Zealanders. That is what that Minister should be doing instead of trying to sling dirt around the place. Labour’s motto is: “If I did it and it went wrong it wasn’t me. I wasn’t there.” It does not matter how big the mess is. 
Of course it starts at the top with Helen Clark. I see there is more media-grovelling today about her great management of David Benson-Pope. I tell the media that she might have dug the grave quickly but it is still a grave. I do not know what that man did at school but I do know that he was a lazy incompetent and arrogant Minister who when he became Associate Minister of Education on 20 December 2004 said: “There are no issues in education.” That is what he said and Helen Clark believed him. 
So what has happened to the once-proud Labour Party that used to see itself as the defender of State education—the one that cared about students; the one that knew how to do it? In the space of 2 weeks the following has happened. A damning report on the 111 system was released which has resulted in the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police totally losing credibility. They will both go. The chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has resigned. The chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been sacked. A damning report has come out on the New Zealand Scholarship. Of course most people do not realise that the real report—the one about the NCEA—is yet to come and it will affect 130000 students not 2000 as in the scholarship report. Then there is the Doone affair and all the twistings and turnings. Has it not been exquisite to watch the cunning of that intelligent and articulate Prime Minister as she has wrangled her way around some basic contradictions? She told the court one thing and the Parliament another. That is the guts of it. 
Here is the question: what is it that Helen Clark is managing? I ask the House to consider what significant issue Helen Clark has said anything of interest on to the nation this year. What is a significant issue that she is pushing? What is she leading? I tell members that the last thing she said that anyone heard was in her prime ministerial speech and it was that young women with young babies should go to work because they are holding back the economy—and we know how popular that was. The nation is working out this fundamental point—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is customary that we have interjections of a rare and witty sort but I notice that the Hon Trevor Mallard has been interjecting which tells us that they were not rare or witty. Could you ask him to at least do it rarely. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The interjections were well beyond what is acceptable. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The nation is working out one fundamental fact about this Government. It is that Labour’s values are not New Zealand’s values. That is what it is coming down to. Not only is Labour incompetent but its values are not New Zealand’s values. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 It was interesting that National was led in the debate today by the Hon Bill English and that he got a clap from more than half his caucus. It was just under 3 years ago that Bill English led his party to the worst electoral defeat in the modern history of the National Party. It was not surprising that 8 months later he was stabbed in the back by the honourable or the less than honourable Don Brash. Everybody in National thought that Bill English was dead and buried but Bill English is now back on his feet and he sees a chance. He sees the chance created by Don Brash once again showing himself to be an inept leader. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We heard Mr Goff refer to Dr Brash as the “less than honourable Don Brash”. That is totally unacceptable. I am surprised he was not called to heel for that. I certainly took offence and I ask that he be made to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. Don Brash showed once again with his latest blunder that he is incompetent as a leader. He is not fit to lead this country. 
Last week we had the potential for one of the greatest disasters that could possibly befall this country—the threatened introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. If ever there was an issue on which there should have been bipartisanship in this House and in this country it was in defeating the threat whether it was real or a hoax of foot-and-mouth disease. Instead the honourable Dr Brash played politics with the issue. When asked by TVNZ what he thought of the Government’s handling of the issue Dr Brash said: “I am surprised that they made a public statement about it at all to be frank. If it’s only a hoax they have done a lot of damage to our reputation.” That was the most irresponsible statement that I can recall hearing in 23 years in politics. The week ended with Jim Sutton scoring 10 out of 10 for biosecurity and agriculture and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Don Brash scoring 0 out of 10. 
What did Don Brash think that a cover-up of foot-and-mouth in this country would achieve? He talked about reputation. He would have buried the reputation of this country as an agricultural exporter for all time. This would have been New Zealand’s Chernobyl. If members think that is an exaggeration I quote from Annabel Young. She is a former long-serving National MP and is now the chief executive of Federated Farmers. She said on television: “Even if you think it’s a hoax you still need to tell everybody because otherwise you are in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people will never trust you again.” That is what that man would have done to this country. The Auckland president of Federated Farmers Keith Kelly made the point that the issue of foot-and-mouth should never have been a political football and that Jim Sutton was giving 100 percent to the situation. “Mr Sutton’s advice” Mr Kelly said “will come from the highly competent people knowledgable people who realise that New Zealand’s biosecurity transcends politics.” But not Dr Brash. Of all issues Dr Brash chose to try to make a political football out of this one. 
If we had not been transparent if we had not been absolutely honest if we had not taken the people into our confidence how would we have stopped the potential spread the transfer of livestock and the risk to New Zealand’s biosecurity? How would we have had the credibility that we won from the international community? It saw that we were professional and transparent and as a result of the way this Government and Jim Sutton handled the issue not one country stopped our exports with the marginal exception of Mexico for a short period of time. The  
New Zealand Herald  
got it right. It said that honesty was the best policy and it has paid off. 
Don Brash would have destroyed this country. He is not fit to lead it. In the latest poll Don Brash at 15 percent as preferred Prime Minister is at the lowest point he has ever been in the leadership stakes. He fell 5 percent last month. Don Brash is on 15 percent and Helen Clark is on 41 percent. When the election occurs in this country—and the election is based on leadership—the New Zealand people will vote for Helen Clark who has given this country 6 years of competent and professional leadership as opposed to Don Brash who has blundered time and again and shown himself to be incompetent as a leader. That is why Bill English got the applause that he did in the House today because the National Party is desperate and is looking for an alternative. Don Brash is on borrowed time. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There is another man who should leave this House with his tail between his legs. I want to bring the House’s attention to Mr George Hawkins but before I do that I will mention a couple of names. Does anyone remember Duncan Taylor? Detective Constable Duncan Taylor was shot dead in November 2003. Does anyone remember Nigel Hendrikse? He was stabbed and permanently disabled by Mongrel Mob member John Gillies in 1993. I refer the House to the promises made by George Hawkins that he would protect our men and women in blue on the streets and that he would provide them with the resources they need to do their job. So far it has taken 5 years for George Hawkins to provide front-line officers with body armour and stab-proof vests and still he procrastinates. 
That is appalling because if we look back through parliamentary questions we find that the commissioner knew about the problem in 2000. In 2003 the issue was raised by New Zealand First. On 1 April the Government told us that a great big project would be completed by 23 July 2004 and that stab-proof and bulletproof vests would be available and still it procrastinates. Then in the January-February edition of the New Zealand Police Association newsletter we saw that an officer was protected by a stab-proof vest that he had had to buy himself. 
I have just come back from visiting the Los Angeles Police Department and I can show Mr Hawkins that it is not a problem to find body armour. I say to Mr Hawkins that the body armour I am wearing right now is available to him if he wants to get off his lazy backside and buy it. That body armour is on issue to every front-line officer in Los Angeles. Police recruits are issued with this body armour at the moment they sign up and get their uniform. Does this Minister care? Why are our police not being given body armour such as this? I ask Mr Hawkins why it is taking 5 years to finalise a purchase of stab-resistant body armour so that the men and women in our force are safe. [ 
Interruption 
] I have sat here in the House all day and no one has been aware that I was wearing a bulletproof vest. 
If the Los Angeles Police Department thinks it important enough to make the men and women in their force safe by giving every one of them a bulletproof vest why do we have officers like John Dustow having to go and buy their own in New Zealand? I will tell members why. It is because we have an incompetent useless pathetic lazy do-nothing Minister of Police who cannot extract the money out of his tight-fisted Treasurer. Where are the priorities? We now know from my question in the House today that this Government would rather pay for a sex change for a paedophile and rapist than provide money for bulletproof stab-proof vests such as this for the men and women in our police force. 
I want Mr Hawkins for once in his life to stand up and take accountability. This is a occupational safety and health issue I say to the Government. This Government tells everybody that it supports the workers of New Zealand. It tells everybody that it supports the police. It chastises the Opposition for criticising the police when they get it wrong and it says that we are anti-police. 
I say to the Government that this Thursday is “money where your mouth is” time. New Zealand First will be looking in the Budget. If we do not see funding for every officer to be issued with their personal bulletproof stab-resistant vest then we will hold this Government to account. The Government should not talk to us any longer about supporting the men and women of the force if it takes as long as this—5 long years. The Minister of Police had 9 years in Opposition of chastising three Governments. He told three Governments that they could not resource the police and that they had to use Twink to paint over the damage on their police cars and what has he done? He has done nothing. 
The Minister is useless and incompetent and the officers on the street are out there now buying their own vests because they have given up on George Hawkins and the Commissioner of Police. There is no leadership. There is no priority focused on the health and well-being of officers. Maybe that is why so many of them are throwing their hands up in the air and walking away from the police force. What struck me with the police forces of Los Angeles and San Francisco was that the average length of service is 20 to 30 years. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether that flak jacket will end up on eBay along with New Zealand First’s policies. I want to say right from the start that more and more people are asking me what has happened to Don Brash. “Whatever happened to Don Brash?” people are saying. Where has he gone? He used to be the leader of the National Party. They have been asking me whether I remember that person. We should send out a search-and-rescue party for him. I hope he has some scroggin because the search-and-rescue party could be out for some time. 
The reason why people are saying that is the reason why he is disappearing absolutely in the polls. As the last Television One poll showed our Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who does know how to lead—has gone up 1 percent to 41 percent and the so-called Leader of the Opposition Don Brash has gone down 5 percent to 15 percent. He is in a permanent slide. The reason for that is that no one knows what he is on about. 
I take up a couple of the points that my colleague Phil Goff made about foot-and-mouth disease. The reality is that people could not believe what Don Brash said. It did not get sufficient coverage. He said: “I am surprised they made a public statement about it at all to be frank. If it’s only a hoax they have done a lot of damage to our reputation. I would have thought they would have tried harder to find out whether in fact there was any truth in the allegations at all.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who said that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That was Don Brash the leader of the National Party. 
In the old days Federated Farmers and the National Party used to be linked but this is what Tom Lambie the president of Federated Farmers said: “We are also very pleased that the government has taken the decision to announce this probable hoax as soon as possible”. Meat and Wool New Zealand stated: “The Government has acted promptly and responsibly in dealing with this issue including advising key industry participants in New Zealand and overseas.” 
But that is not really the point. The point is that those things are what the newspapers and the commentators are saying. The  
Timaru Herald 
 stated: “A prime case of foot in mouth almost went unnoticed last week when National leader Don Brash suggested in a television interview that the Government should have kept the foot-and-mouth scare a secret. Remarkable. Has Dr Brash no idea what is at stake for New Zealand if there is even a hint that we are not up with the play when it comes to such outbreaks even if they are subsequently shown to be hoaxes?”. The  
Dominion Post  
awarded that particular leader the “Wally of the Week” award by asking: “Did he really think the Government could have kept secret a foot-and-mouth threat while at the same time quarantining a busy island off the coast of New Zealand’s biggest city?”. 
That is why the leader of the National Party is down to 15 percent in the polls. That is why he has no support out there from the general public of New Zealand. That is why the National Party is divided over who should lead it as it goes into the next election. We can see it from over here on the Government side. We watch the groups over there on the Opposition side as they chat plot and talk. They know that this bloke ain’t gonna do it for them and they do not know whether to go with him till the end and then sort it out afterwards or to have a desperate effort beforehand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They want Winston! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well of course that is the issue; now there is some talk about whether the National Party should join up with Winston Peters. Mr Brash once said back in 2003 that he would work with Winston Peters. Indeed he said that he would work with the devil to get rid of this Government. But now just a little while ago he has said that National members will not sell their souls just to get into office and that they certainly will not be offering the leadership of the next Government as a bargaining chip. 
So the real problem is that no one knows what Don Brash is actually talking about. When he says something no one knows whether he actually means it. That is true of whatever he says. Do members remember the issue of 4 weeks’ annual leave? That was going to go—by lunchtime—but now it is back. What about superannuation? Dr Brash said that the “Cullen fund” was an outrage but now National thinks it will keep with it. And what about being nuclear-free? He said that if National were in Government today it would get rid of the ban on nuclear propulsion by lunchtime. Do members remember that? Now that party is going to keep it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I can well remember a comment made by John Tamihere once Paul Swain became the Minister of Labour. I remember Mr Tamihere saying very clearly in the media that we were not to worry because “Swainy and the boys” would fix everything: “Now that the girls have gone ‘Swainy and the boys’ will fix it.” Well the problem with that Minister’s contribution is that it is pretty clear the only thing that has been fixed is “Swainy”. The fact of the matter is that that member should spend less time looking for Opposition politicians and more time looking for Iraqi immigrants so that at every question time when he comes to the Chamber he is not embarrassed by members on the Opposition benches. He was said to fume at his departmental officials when he discovered on coming down here and thinking he had the ace under his sleeve that he had the completely wrong individual. That member should concentrate on watching his own back. 
Meanwhile the Prime Minister is trying to dazzle the nation by convincing it that she cannot leak: “By definition I can’t leak.” Well the same cannot be said of Dover Samuels and of other Ministers. But the fact remains that nine Labour Ministers have been badly punished and relieved of their responsibilities under this Prime Minister. They have been sacked—stripped of their responsibilities—because the allegations that swirled around them did not allow them to stay at their posts. So there was Dover Samuels Ruth Dyson Marian Hobbs—do members remember Phillida Bunkle vaguely or the curtains? There was also Harry Duynhoven poor old Lianne Dalziel Tariana Turia John Tamihere and now David Benson-Pope. 
The difference is that we must ask why all those other members and Ministers have been relieved of their responsibilities when allegations have swirled around them but the Prime Minister has not applied the same standard to her own behaviour in respect of Peter Doone. If those allegations were swirling around her as they have been imagine whether she would have been able to remain at her post based on her own test. Not a chance! We see double standards—one for the Prime Minister and one for the rest of her Cabinet if they trip up. 
I also say that the education sector is in a shambles. Heads have rolled. Steve Maharey was relieved of the responsibility for tertiary education. Trevor Mallard was relieved of the responsibility for schools—but was brought back under cover of night after David Benson-Pope was stood down from his responsibilities. The chairperson and chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission resigned in its first year of operation and the new chairperson of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has gone. The chief executive of the authority has gone. The Teachers Council has lost its chair once and its chief executive four times— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What? 
SIMON POWER 
:—four times under this Government. The fact of the matter is that this Government has lost complete control of the education agenda and we have a Prime Minister who refuses to apply to herself the standards she applies to everybody else in the Labour Government. That to New Zealanders is absolutely unacceptable—completely unacceptable. 
Meanwhile issues concerning Te Wananga o Aotearoa the shoddy quality of tertiary courses New Zealand Scholarship and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and 1200 more education bureaucrats are clogging up the chances of our young people getting a first-class international education. But what has the Prime Minister done? What has the Minister of Education done? They have instituted no fewer than 15 reviews into organisations associated with the education sector. So the standard is: “If in doubt review but if you are Prime Minister never ever apply the standards to yourself that you apply to other Ministers and members of Parliament.” 
The fact of the matter is that the education system in this country is sick and it is a reflection of the state of the Government. Come election day that Government and that party will pay the price for their arrogance for being remiss when it comes to the education system and for having a Prime Minister who applies one standard to herself and another standard to every other Minister in her Cabinet. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is calling for urgent action on the appalling situation revealed by the report on the employment conditions in the fishing industry and in this debate I will focus on that serious matter. If legislation is needed we have offered our support to the Government to take urgency at the first opportunity in order to address that shameful matter because we do consider it to be serious. Firstly the report covers the issue of foreign crews on New Zealand vessels and then secondly the more important and disturbing matter of foreign charter vessels. Two companies were investigated not because they were the only ones that may have been at fault but because they were the only two New Zealand companies that had approval in principle to employ foreign crew. 
The report’s summary states that the Amaltal Fishing Co. Ltd has some matters to be addressed. We understand from the Minister’s answers to questions yesterday that Amaltal Fishing has agreed to go to the Employment Relations Authority to review those issues. To be fair to the company the report made it clear in paragraph 13 that the foreign crew members on Amaltal Fishing boats were happy with their working conditions and crew members noted that the conditions were much better that those on boats they had worked on in their own countries’ fishing industries. That is how it should be: foreign workers coming to New Zealand should find better conditions here than they had at home. The report then stated that no problems were identified with the Sealord Group Ltd but went on to state that the full information required by the inspector was not available within the deadline for the report. In reality that means that the Sealord’s company has not been investigated at all. That may explain why Sealord’s is so willing to work with the department and the New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild to change its pay practice in order to ensure compliance with the law as explained by the Minister yesterday. I will say no more about Sealord’s at this stage. 
But then we come to the matter of foreign charter vessels which is the real reason that United Future called for this report. Foreign charter vessels are the real issue of concern in our fishing industry. Approximately 35 to 50 foreign-owned vessels with approximately 2500 foreign crew are fishing under charter to New Zealand companies in our exclusive economic zone. Point 35 on page 7 of the report states: “There is a strong possibility that conditions of employment on foreign-owned vessels fall short of the standard within New Zealand.” That they “fall short” is a bit of an understatement really when we look at it. We can look at quotes from page 15 of the report some of which were read out in the House yesterday and I will refer to just one more case that of a worker who suffered frostbite from working in the freezer that was bad enough to require hospital treatment in Timaru. When he returned to the vessel he was made to remove the dressings and get on with the work back in the freezer. 
Those sorts of conditions are appalling. On page 14 point 4 of the report makes it clear that those appalling stories do not originate from the vessel under charter to Amaltal Fishing as that company’s boat had Indonesian and Japanese crew and the offending vessel had a mix of Indonesian Filipino and Chinese crew with Korean officers. That is why it is important for the investigation to be completed. We must identify which New Zealand companies are turning a blind eye to the appalling treatment of foreign workers so they can be named and held accountable without a shadow being cast over all New Zealand companies and the good ones being tarred with same brush. 
This appalling report raises the question of why we use foreign charter vessels. The answer seems to be simply because that is how quota holders get the best price for leasing their quota and I say that that is wrong. It has developed as a practice that discriminates against New Zealand fishers who want to lease quota and catch our fishing resource themselves because the consequence of using foreign charter vessels is that there is no margin for a reasonable profit for New Zealand fishers and fishing companies that pay our taxes and our wage rates. They therefore struggle to compete with the charter vessels that use almost slave labour and pay no New Zealand taxes. Rather than seeing a level playing field that allows all New Zealand fishers a chance to benefit from our exclusive economic zone and its resources we are seeing the appalling exploitation of foreign workers cause a skewing of the price of quota which benefits not real fishers but paper fishers who never go to sea any more to earn an honest living. That must be stopped and we call on the Government either to fix it or ban it. 
United Future’s suggestion is to take the first step of requiring inspectors to be on every foreign vessel and requiring that the cost of that be passed on to the New Zealand companies that are chartering them. Without inspectors we will not be able to verify and expose if necessary the truth about what is going on. What is going on is horrifying to those New Zealanders who have learnt about it in the last few weeks. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 “Save the whales” is such an iconic catchcry in this country and indeed around the world. It has been the call to action for environmentalists and conservationists and for indigenous peoples and coastal communities for decades. It has led to some of the most significant actions and campaigns about the protection of species on our planet ever seen. So say it out loud: “Save the whales” and imagine small jet boats taking on those vast whaling ships in the Atlantic Ocean or remember perhaps the faded photos of whales being slaughtered their skins slit open with axes and their blood staining the seas a deep viscous red. 
Very little is known of the ecological role played by whales but we do know that they have the largest brains on our planet as complex as human brains and that they are capable of highly complex thinking. The humpback whale creates the most complex long-lasting repetitive sound patterns of any non-human animal on our planet. Many whale species have been reduced to less than 1 percent of the number alive at the beginning of the 20th century. Most species of whales remain endangered. Many are at such a low population level and breed so slowly that they show no signs of recovery from the decimation they were subjected to between the 1940s and 1970s when highly industrialised whaling took place. 
Whales are as vulnerable and fragile now as they have ever been. Yet Japan has recently asked the International Whaling Commission to approve an extension of its annual kill of 400 minke whales to include the slaughter of humpback whales. Japan claims that it is for scientific reasons but which science do the Japanese do with the whales they kill? I know—it is consumer taste testing or maybe the important testing of the latest high-tech whale-killing technology. The scientific claims of Japan are a sham. 
Japan claims that the information it obtains about what whales eat and their age and gender is necessary for the International Whaling Commission to manage sustainable utilisation but that research has never been requested by the International Whaling Commission. It is in fact opposed by the commission. Information about whales’ diets their population and age structure are most useful to those who want to exploit and kill them. 
Japan is also well known for its buying of small countries’ votes on the commission. Until 2001 those countries included St Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica and Antigua in the Caribbean as well as Guinea and the Solomon Islands. It has bought the votes of other countries since then. The assembling of a bloc that always votes in line with Japan’s request has enabled Japan to thwart moves such as the creation of a South Pacific whale sanctuary because of the need to get 75 percent of the vote. The sanctuary is strongly advocated for by New Zealanders. The situation is approaching the point where Japan and its supporters will have a majority of votes on the International Whaling Commission. Japan aims to return the commission to a whaling industry - controlled body so that commercial whaling can resume. Since the moratorium came into effect in 1986 Japan has spent at least $200 million to buy countries’ votes through fisheries grants given to them by the Fisheries Agency of Japan. 
So what must happen if we are to continue to fight to save the whales which are critical to our ecology and form part of New Zealand’s tourist economy? What are we to do? This Labour Government needs to call in the Japanese ambassador to express opposition to Japan’s whaling activities and its recent proposals to increase the take of minke and humpback whales. It needs to make it clear to Japan that any pursuit of those proposals will lead to trade and diplomatic sanctions. At the International Whaling Commission this Government needs to actively oppose Japan’s proposals and to work in concert with the Australian Government and other nations to make it clear that the Pacific region will not tolerate the continued destruction of those marine mammals. 
The Green Party is continuing to work with the Australian Greens to develop a trans-Tasman action plan that may well include consumer boycotts. We call on this country to support them. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is plain that the National Party and the ACT party have descended to the gutter together hand in hand in their attempt to take the electorate’s mind off the lack of leadership and lack of policy that National represents and off the lack of leadership and lack of political future that the ACT party represents. There has been quite disgraceful behaviour and it is not clear whether it was a private treaty—an uncivil union—between Judith Collins and Rodney Hide or whether the National Party secretly agreed with the idea of the two of them joining forces in the most disgusting behaviour I have ever seen in this House in the nearly 15 years I have been here. 
The ACT party will not be here after the election and the behaviour of the current leader will have been the main contributor to that. So to that extent ACT is utterly irrelevant. However National’s descent into the gutter is of more concern because National is attempting to cover up its lack of leadership and its lack of policy. 
It is hard to imagine a more unsuitable person to be a Prime Minister of this country than Dr Don Brash. If Don Brash had been the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time we would have had troops in Iraq as part of the coalition called upon by the United States without UN backing for that invasion. That is where New Zealand would have been. It would have been a case of follow the leader—Don Brash following leaders George Bush and John Howard. That of course is entirely predictable from someone like Dr Brash. 
What was totally unpredictable though was his reaction to the foot-and-mouth scare we have had over the last few days. He said that he would not have issued a public statement on the fact that a threat had been made. He would have kept it a secret and he thinks that it makes a difference that it was probably a hoax. He said that we should have tried harder as a Government to find out whether there was any truth to the allegations and to say absolutely nothing in the meantime. How does that member think that our trading partners would have reacted to that sort of behaviour? 
I know that some people have already referred to a  
Timaru Herald 
 editorial but I want to quote another section from it. It states: “How to make certain there is no truth in the allegations without public co-operation generated through an open release of information is not clear. Just as it is not clear what damage has been done through the Government’s tell-all approach. Surely it was far more dangerous to keep the affair under wraps and run the risk of embarrassing leaks. What would our trading partners have thought of us then? Probably that we had something to hide. While there was even the smallest doubt that the release of foot-and-mouth might be true then it had to be treated with the utmost care—including having the public both at home and abroad onside with what the New Zealand authorities were doing. All evidence shows that this was achieved.” 
I want to put on record my congratulations to the Hon Jim Sutton and to a Cabinet led by the best Prime Minister this country has ever seen a Cabinet that takes hard issues like that one and makes principled decisions on them that have the support of the general public. That party over there would have hidden the potential risk to our country if Don Brash had been the leader. Fortunately he will not be leader for very long. 
The National Party has no leadership and no policy. No wonder even high-profile potential list candidates are falling like flies. Te Maire Tau and Judith Ablett-Kerr were both being touted as being very high-profile people to join the National Party list although we have been told that Judith Collins has spiked Judith Ablett-Kerr’s chances because Judith Collins could not stand the competition from her. 
We know that that is not correct. The real reason is that even with a promise of being No. 5 and No. 6 on the list respectively they could work out the odds of their not being elected to Parliament at all. There was no guarantee that they would be elected and neither wanted to risk giving up their work and their standing in the community to be part of a humiliating defeat which is what National has destined itself for. They wanted an easy ride into Cabinet not an easy ride on to a seat on the Opposition front bench—if they were lucky. 
Don Brash has not got what it takes. The sooner he steps down the better. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 That was the previous Minister of Immigration who had to leave Cabinet at the Prime Minister’s request for making untrue statements to the media. We have learnt quite a lot recently about the Labour Cabinet Prime Minister Helen Clark and how they operate. Here are a couple of things we have learnt. Firstly they do not care about the students in the education system. There is not one care for Mr David Benson-Pope’s victims. We have learnt that their first response to any concern is to cover up. We learnt from Jill Pettis that this Government knew for months about the complaints about David Benson-Pope sticking tennis balls— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just because someone keeps repeating something does not mean to say it is true. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Jill Pettis 
: I explained to the House immediately Mr Hide made that allegation last week that he was totally misrepresenting me. I repeat it and ask him to withdraw. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We know from Jill Pettis that the Government knew about it for months. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member made the explanation last week did she? 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She did. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Did she make a personal explanation? 
Jill Pettis 
: I did not make a personal explanation. I took a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debatable matter and it should not have been raised. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We know from Jill Pettis that they have known about it for months. That is why she will not make a personal explanation. She does not want to end up where David Benson-Pope is going to end up. So the Government knew about it for months. What then was its next response? It was to deny that anything happened. That is why David Benson-Pope is in the gun now and we have— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have somewhat of a dilemma here. It has been made clear by the Government that it knew that that toerag and his TV3 mates had been digging around in Dunedin not what they had made up. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On the same point? 
Simon Power 
: It is about the member’s point of order. No matter what the Minister’s personal views of comments made in the debating chamber all members are honourable members. To describe Mr Hide in the way that Trevor Mallard did is simply unacceptable and contrary to the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is absolutely right. I was going to ask the member in the interests of the House to withdraw that comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: So Government members knew about it for months. Then when they were asked about it David Benson-Pope denied it. Helen Clark then went on the attack trying to shoot the messenger. Why? Because they did not want those men to come out and explain what had happened to them. So the next response was for Helen Clark to go on the attack—attack TV3 the messenger; and attack the MP Rodney Hide for muckraking. Then what happened? The students came forward and said that what Rodney Hide said is true; it happened to them. A student came forward and said: “What Rodney Hide said is true. I sat beside Phil Weaver when it happened to him.” Another student who sat behind Phil Weaver stood up on TV to say that yes it happened. That is what happened. 
We are now in a particularly difficult situation because Television One reported that David Benson-Pope lied to this House in answers to questions. Television One reported twice that David Benson-Pope lied to this House in answers to questions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member may not say those words. He may not repeat them. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I in a position where I cannot refer to a Television One news report? Is the position now that Television One can have people on saying that David Benson-Pope lied to this House but I am not allowed to report what Television One said? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like to confirm that the member’s understanding is correct—standards of integrity are required in this House. Unfortunately they are not required for either the member or Television One outside the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I intervened I say to Mr Hide because in my view the member was speaking directly about a member in this House. He cannot do that and that is why I pulled him up. It had nothing to do with television at all. No member is to use something that happened outside the House and weave it into his or her contribution in the Chamber so that it becomes unacceptable to the House. I find it unacceptable. I will not allow it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: So we have the situation where TV can report something and I will not go there. I have done the appropriate thing and raised that with the Speaker. 
Then we have the next stage. The Minister has disappeared on full pay is hiding out and cannot take questions in the House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At least he hasn’t gone to Fiji to rip people off. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —and we have the likes of Trevor Mallard yelling out trying to belittle the people who are asking these questions. 
It is inappropriate for the Government to be conducting its own inquiry into the behaviour of Mr Benson-Pope. I have no faith and no confidence in the ability of Helen Clark to run an inquiry. Why? Because we now know what happened to Peter Doone. We now know what has happened to a succession of inquiries that this Government has organised. It sets the terms of reference. If it was truly open and transparent it would be consulting with Don Brash it would be consulting with Winston Peters and in particular it would be consulting with me. But no this Government does not want to find out the truth. 
We know this about Trevor Mallard. He does not care about the students. He does not care what happened to them. He does not care about the standards being set in our schools. All he cares about is defending someone against the indefensible. That is what Trevor Mallard is on about. Rather than listen to the students rather than watch TV and see what the students are saying Trevor Mallard goes on the attack. We do not hear Helen Clark now saying: “I stand by Benson-Pope and his word.” We do not hear Helen Clark saying: “I’ve got no worries.” We see Helen Clark slowly inching herself away from David Benson-Pope. By the time there is an inquiry she will be 100 miles away. She is now saying: “Oh that’s what he told Parliament that’s what he told me and I accept his word.” She is setting up David Benson-Pope for a big fall. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Listening to the previous contribution I was reminded of a song from my youth called “Let’s Do the Limbo Rock”. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is “Let’s Do the Limbo Rock”. I think the key words are: “How low can you go?”. They should be: “Let’s do the Hide rock. How low can you go? You can go as low as 2 percent.” 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rodney could never do it. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Absolutely. [ 
Interruption 
] I was quoting to make the point about “Limbo Rock”. How low can the member go? He can go as low as 2 percent. That is why this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
—the august Auckland paper that serves my region—reported a serious move a desperate move to find a way for ACT to kick itself out of the 2 percent rating. People are saying: “John Banks come back! We weren’t happy with you at some conference—but hey if that is what it takes if you are our rescue package come back into the fold.” 
Let me tell members that Mr Banks will not settle for just list place No. 5 or No. 6. There is only one number Mr Banks wants on the ACT list and it is above two. It is the only number above two. We know what that number is. It is only a matter of time; it will be a formality. Believe me work is afoot to recruit him. At least Mr Banks unlike the previous speaker would add a bit of colour and zest to that particular failing party. 
The second amazing part of the pantomime on the Opposition benches was the  
New Zealand Herald 
 headline—the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which serves my region is quite an interesting paper—on Monday 16 May about Mr Winston Peters becoming Prime Minister. I assure my New Zealand First parliamentary colleagues that I am not saying that Doug Woolerton Bill Gudgeon and from my patch Barbara Stewart have suggested this scenario at all. I assure Mr Peters that their list positions should be in no danger at all. I do not think they had any role in this. I suggest that one of the journos Audrey Young—and she can never reveal her sources of course but I do not think she was talking to New Zealand First MPs—had been having a bit of a chat to some National Party MPs about the desperate scenarios they are looking at. I have always said to people that one can have Helen Clark or one can have the other fellow Dr Brash. I did not think that in fact Dr Brash would be deputy and Mr Peters would be leader. 
One of the reasons perhaps why those National Party MPs suggested that scenario is amply demonstrated by the recent foot-and-mouth scare. As a member for the Waikato region—obviously the foot-and-mouth scare affects not only the nation as a whole but also the key dairy industry export region in New Zealand the region I represent—I say that Mr Brash’s thinking that we should somehow have kept the foot-and-mouth scare hopefully a hoax secret was absolutely bizarre. Annabel Young a former MP and now chief executive of Federated Farmers said: “Even if you think it’s a hoax you still need to tell everybody because otherwise you’re in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people will never trust you again. So they do need to tell people about it even though they think it’s a hoax. They certainly can’t keep it a secret.” 
Tom Lambie the President of Federated Farmers stated: “We are also very pleased that the government has taken the decision to announce this probable hoax as soon as possible …”. Meat and Wool New Zealand stated: “The Government has acted promptly and responsibly in dealing with this issue including advising key industry participants in New Zealand and overseas.” Yes Dr Brash has his foot in his mouth over foot-and-mouth as I think has previously been said in this Chamber. And yes that is the reason why some members of the National Party who are beginning to get desperate and beginning to mourn the fact that they will spend another 3 years in Opposition are even touting the idea bizarre as it might sound of having Mr Peters as Prime Minister in some sort of rotation deal with Dr Brash. What that would do for stability I do not know. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in this debate. I want to canvass a bit of the history of what has been going on with the Government. I heard my colleague Simon Power raising the matter of the number of Ministers who have got themselves into trouble over time and been dealt with and I started to scribble down a list of the various “gates” that have occurred under this Government. I have come to the conclusion that there are now more “gates” in the Government than on Molesworth Station. 
We started off with “paintergate” when the Prime Minister signed paintings that she had not actually painted. We then had “Bunkle-gate” “Hobbs-gate” and “Dyson-gate” followed by “Dalziel-gate” “Dover-gate” and “Tamihere-gate—although others refer to that as  
Investigate 
. We have had “Doone-gate” “111-gate”—which is a disaster—and “NCEA-gate”. Oh God! That has so many “gates” that it is not funny. We have had “speeding-gate” of which the Prime Minister says she did not know her car was going at 150 kilometres an hour. I ask members to get in a car get someone to drive it at 150 kilometres and hour and tell me they do not know they were going fast. Give us a break! 
Now we have “Benson-Pope-gate”. We have “Families-gate” with the chief executive of the Families Commission gone. We had Mr Yelash who sued the Prime Minister successfully paid for by us as taxpayers. I guess we would call that “Dally-gate”. Then there is “Peck-gate”. There are more “gates” in this Government than at Molesworth Station. 
I want to pick up on something the Prime Minister raised today. She raised a grubby little thing today and I will not let her get away with it. She raised Denis Marshall’s failure to resign over Cave Creek. I want to ask the Government whether it still stands by that sort of behaviour. A Government does two things. It sets policy and it administers the actual operational side of government. I have heard Ministers in this Labour Government day after day—George Hawkins is a classic example—saying that they cannot be held to account for operational matters. I think that that is probably right to some extent. If someone had fitted the wrong brake shoes to a truck and the truck crashed off the road it would be a bit hard to say to the Minister of Transport sitting in his office in Wellington: “Did you not know that an engineer in a workshop somewhere had fitted the wrong brake shoes? You should resign.” I think that that would be a bit harsh. 
On the Cave Creek matter I do not believe that a single member of this House believes that the Minister of Conservation sitting here in charge of policy and funding could ever have known that the builder short-changed the plan that said to use bolts and decided to whip those bolts away. It was not a funding issue or an operational issue. The builder just used nails. How was the Minister in Wellington to know that? But the Labour Party yelled and screamed and the current Prime Minister then the Leader of the Opposition Helen Clark demanded Denis Marshall’s resignation because he was the Minister. She raised the matter again today. 
But let us now turn to the performance of one of her Ministers Trevor Mallard. Let us forget the operational side. I can understand that there are operational matters in education that go wrong and leave the Minister scratching his head at night and asking: “What the bloody hell’s going on here?” and having to deal with it. But he has to take some responsibility for policy. Who implemented the whole of the schools education policy with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)? Do not blame just David Benson-Pope. He was too busy away playing tennis. Blame Trevor Mallard. By the time Benson-Pope became the Minister in charge of schools the 2004 school year was over. So all of the implementation was Trevor Mallard’s. 
What has gone wrong? Was it Karen Van Rooyen’s operational implementation? No. Was it Professor Fraser the Chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? No; it was the policy they were handed. They were handed an absolute dog and told to implement it. 
I want to tell this House and Trevor Mallard something about Trevor Mallard’s failure to listen. I took Trevor Mallard to Macleans College in early 2001 and 38 principals took him through chapter and verse about why NCEA would not work. They gave him chapter and verse about that. They were fantastic principals. They were not just from the decile 10 schools—they can get away from that sort of muck. People from Manurewa High School Dargaville High School and Western Heights High School were there. And yes of course the principal of Macleans College was there. Trevor Mallard never listened to a word they said and now he says that he does not know why it has all turned to custard. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 After that rant I can say that we have seen in the last week some very very interesting leadership manoeuvres and in one case open rebellion. If we look first at the National Party in respect of manoeuvres we see that we now have—[ 
Interruption 
] We hear from the swamp-dweller Mr Hide. We have Mr Key who is the new pin-up boy for the National Party. Anybody who saw the  
Sunday 
 programme would be advising Mr Key not to worry about attacks from the Government but to worry about attacks from his own side. We know that some very very brassed-off people are on that side now. Simon Power was demoted. He cannot write his own defence speeches—Jon Johansson from Victoria University does that. Mr Power is brassed off. Gerry Brownlee the woodwork teacher who is whittling away over there is brassed off. Katherine Rich who was executed because she disagreed with her leader is brassed off. Those three people believe that they have a greater claim than the so-called—as some National members have told me and I do not use this in a derogatory sense—upstart from Helensville. 
I will ask some questions because there are manoeuvrings. Why is Dr Brash polling only 2 percent behind Winston Peters? Where has the fall come from? Has panic broken out on the National benches? I say that panic has broken out. Why for instance did Dr Brash on Tuesday as we know blow his stack in caucus? It was because he found out for the first time that Richard Worth and Murray McCully were actively and intensely negotiating the so-called power-sharing agreement with two New Zealand First members. Poor old Dr Brash had not known so he blew. 
Then we found out who those two New Zealand First members were. One was Ron Mark and the other—ironically; I had not heard of him for a while or ever—was Edwin Perry. The problem was that Winston Peters like Don Brash did not know about the power-sharing agreement either. So he blew his stack to many a journalist around here. I am glad that Ron Mark came out with a flak jacket on today because as God is my witness when he next bumps into Winston Peters he will need it—not on the front but on the back. 
Then we turn to open rebellion. Open rebellion has to do with the ACT party. We heard a rant from the swamp-dweller who of course has a wonderful track record of executing people before they are judged— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to do this but I think that it does not add to the decorum of the House for Rodney Hide to be called a swamp-dweller. If no one on his own side will come to his aid I will ask that the member desist from doing that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Perhaps the more technical term would be “oceanic version of a bottom-dweller”. This is very interesting. The ACT party is haemorrhaging. We read in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “One source told the Herald that the party was ‘haemorrhaging members money and votes’ ”—Alan Gibbs must have closed his wallet—“and having Mr Banks on board was seen as a way of reversing that.” Deborah Coddington has given up. Donna Awatere Huata—a great member of credibility of course—is history. I do not hear certain people from the bottom of the sewer reminding the House about that. Then we have to ask ourselves whether John Banks would actually make it. 
In the  
New Zealand Herald  
article 
we found out that there has been open rebellion: “The courtship between John Banks and the Act Party has been rekindled as a group of desperate party members work to woo the former Auckland City mayor.” The article 
goes on to state: “Well-placed Act sources supporting the move believe Mr Banks would revitalise the party but his added appeal was that he would attract some National Party voters …”. We have to ask whether there is any evidence for that. Who would want to put up the list a broken-down claiming horse like the former Auckland mayor who got blown away and whose campaign manager one Brian Nicholle told porkies—just happens to be defended by that man of credibility Rodney Hide who is a good mate of his? There is somebody else whom I think Mr Peters brought up in the House who Mr Hide said was a good mate and now that person is in trouble. Who is Brian Nicholle? The ACT campaign manager! 
I looked for evidence—unlike Mr Hide—of the factional warfare in the ACT party. Where is the evidence? Today I was contacted by one of the factions in the ACT party which obtained an item that I will table. It is an unusual item—it promotes John Banks. I received that item today and I was told that one of the factions had produced it. It is a simple pen that has printed on it: “John Banks for Prime Minister”. Who on earth other than an ACT party faction that is trying to get rid of “spongy pud” over there would produce pens like that? Only an ACT party faction. I suspect that John Banks will be the ACT leader before the next election—even outside Parliament. 
I seek the leave of the House to table a pen produced by an ACT party faction—I am not sure which one—promoting John Banks— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has identified it sufficiently. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and especially for those who have travelled here to join us in the House for this very important occasion. Sadly some of those who began the long task of settling these claims are no longer with us and I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and their contribution. 
The passage of this bill will make a significant contribution towards the goal of promoting harmony between the peoples of this country in two ways. Firstly it will provide tangible and intangible redress to NgatiTuwharetoa in the settlement of their claims allowing them to rebuild their economic base and shift the focus from addressing grievances to developing and building the future. Secondly it will restore the honour of the Crown. All New Zealanders want a Government that is fair to its citizens—one that recognises when Governments have made mistakes in the past. Making amends is at the heart of being fair. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and settles all their historical treaty claims. Those grievances are at the serious end of the scale. 
NgatiTuwharetoa were faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership and sought to build strong relationships with the Crown. But the Crown did not treat them fairly in return. This bill contains a formal apology to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. 
NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty began direct negotiations with the Crown back in 1998. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in February 2001 and a deed of settlement was initialled by negotiators in October 2002. A significant majority of iwi participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly representatives of the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 6 June 2003. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to NgatiTuwharetoa. 
The historical treaty claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the bay in the 1860s and to the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare economy and long-term development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of and access to geothermal energy and to the pollution of the Tarawera River. NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matata. NgatiTuwharetoa are of the Arawa waka and are descended from the ancestor Tuwharetoa who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. 
The NgatiTuwharetoa people located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from the whanaunga around Taupo Moana. Although many descendants of Tuwharetoa migrated south and settled around the Taupo area others stayed in the Kawerau and Matata areas and have their own separate and distinct identity. NgatiTuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have also been closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours Ngati Awa. They share an interest in some of the same sites around the Eastern Bay of Plenty. 
It can be difficult for the Crown to negotiate separate settlements in such circumstances but in this instance it was clearly the right thing to do. In 1999 shortly after negotiations began the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as they were then known were entitled to stand alone in any settlement with their distinct lineage and identity properly acknowledged. 
This is the second claims settlement bill to be passed through the House this year and it will probably not be the last. The additional effort this Government has put into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year is likely to see at least three claims settlement bills passed—more than ever before in a single year. I want to acknowledge the support of many members around the House in making that possible. 
This legislation will move NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty beyond the stage of lodging historical claims at the Waitangi Tribunal or in the courts. In this sense they will join Waikato-Tainui with respect to their raupatu claims as well as NgaiTahu NgatiTurangituku Pouakani Te Uri o Hau NgatiRuanui Ngati Tama and Ngati Awa. These groups have all been through the negotiation process and have agreed that they can no longer lodge further historical claims. At the same time others have been exercising their rights as Maori to register historical claims. There are hundreds of registered historical claims now. 
The Waitangi Tribunal has already produced significant bodies of research at a general level as well as examining the detail in its district inquiries. I do not believe that 20 years after historical claims were first lodged there are many remaining issues still to be brought to the Crown’s notice through the Waitangi Tribunal. The time is coming soon when we must all increasingly shift our focus from the gathering together and presenting of historical grievances to resolving them in either a tribunal inquiry or by direct negotiations. As NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty know lodging a claim is only the beginning of the process and long years of work have been put in by the Waitangi Tribunal the Office of Treaty Settlements and especially NgatiTuwharetoa themselves to reach the end of the settlement process we are all achieving today. It is important that hearings and negotiations be resourced sufficiently to proceed apace but not constrained by any artificial deadlines. Settlements should be done once and done right. 
I am pleased to acknowledge all those in NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown who have worked towards making this day possible. In particular I acknowledge BevAdlam the chief negotiator for the settlement. Bev’s leadership and determination over past years has steered the claim through some challenging times. I would particularly like to acknowledge the dedication and goodwill that Bev has demonstrated to ensure that this bill has proceeded smoothly and is able to proceed today through the House. I also acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Margaret Wilson for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of NgatiTuwharetoa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Conservation the Minister of Finance the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotitations and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the first Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stage of the negotiations. 
I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty deed of settlement. Stories such as these are scars on our collective history but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to truly learn from its lessons. Only then are we able to build our nation’s future together on the foundation of those lessons. I wish all the best for the future to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. They will shortly begin the critical task of managing their settlement assets. I am confident that they will do so with the judgment tenacity and commitment they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their future endeavours. Kia ora tatou. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Mai Maketu ki Tongariro ki takuwhanau o Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahikua tae mai ki koneii te ranginei aku mihi ki a koutou. Ki taku tuahine kaha tuahine toa a Beverley e mihi kau atu ana ki topakari topuka tomaia. No reira tenatatou katoa. 
[ 
From Maketu to Tongariro to my family from the Bay of Plenty who have arrived here today my greetings and wishes to you. To my strong sister Beverley I acknowledge your strength your patience and your courage. Greetings to us all 
.] 
I am very proud to stand here today and contribute to the third reading debate on this settlement bill not least because the people who are the subjects of the settlement are my own relatives NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I am very pleased to acknowledge their presence and to stand and support this bill on behalf of the National Party. I am also proud when we come to third readings of settlement bills because I came into Parliament with the National Party under the leadership of Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham. Their team at the time in 1994 decided to commit to a genuine settlement of treaty claims and Doug Graham as was his way—he was very competent and very good at this work—set about in quite a short space of time developing a treaty settlement framework that has stood the test of time and is still the framework under which this settlement comes before this House today. So I do want to acknowledge those past colleagues of the National Party and those in the National Party now for their foresight and for their commitment to put in train a process that allows tribes—iwi such as NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are here today—to put the past behind them and to move forward. 
To suffer confiscation at the hands of an authority that one might have expected would be one’s protector cannot be a happy event. Of course not all settlements are based on confiscation but this one was. I think that we today in the 21st century can only guess what that must have felt like at the time when a tribe or tribes were depending on Governments to protect them. Some of those confiscations occurred not far out from the signing of the treaty which promised that their lands and other resources would be protected and then they found out some short time later that that was not to be the case. 
I do not think that anybody can really understand the hurt and the burden of pain that must descend upon the generations and the difficulty that Maori have had in looking forward while they were carrying that burden. Happily today my relatives in the gallery will be able to put that hurt behind them hopefully and really begin the process of healing. The Minister has acknowledged as I also want to that this is a really really important thing that we members of Parliament are doing in this House this afternoon. For other New Zealanders who say: “Let’s hurry up can’t we get these things out of the way?” I point out that Maori claimants are the first people to want them out of the way. They are the ones carrying the burden. 
What other New Zealanders must understand and what they must also have a sense of is that these settlements are about injustices to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. This is about injustice. From time to time we stand and say: “One law for all. Equality before the law.” but not until this sort of injustice is removed can a group feel that there is indeed equality before the law. That is something we must all remember. There is no equality before the law for groups who carry this kind of burden and this kind of injustice. 
As I said this is a good day for this Parliament. I hope that it is an even better day for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and a good day for New Zealand overall. I am proud of New Zealand. I am proud of New Zealanders because we in this country at least have shown that we are prepared to find a way to help put past grievances right. When we see on our television sets what happens in other countries we can only be grateful that generally speaking we are a fair-minded people and that if we show enough tolerance and patience we can get through this process and not only restore to ourselves all of us a measure of honour but also restore to the tribe their honour and allow them to exercise the mana they have been seeking to exercise all these years. 
Again—I keep repeating it but it is important to say it—this is a good day. Settlements are not an end to the matter; they are of course a beginning. But they do bring closure for the current generation enabling them hopefully to feel that in some way they are able to shake off what has happened to their tipuna in the past. Looking forward to the future I think these settlements are also about reconciliation. It is only when people start to feel equal that they can behave in an equal manner. Otherwise the notion of equality is just something floating in the wind. 
I expect that pretty soon Beverley who I know will not shuffle around getting dirt on her shoes will be up and doing the business. She along with the elders have driven this settlement. I am sure she already has developments in train and I wish her and certainly the tribe and all the elders much success and goodwill for their future. It is important for New Zealand children to understand that they live in a nation that can exercise fairness and tolerance and do the right thing and that can when called upon do great things and this is one of them. 
I say to the Minister that yes he certainly can acknowledge that this is the second—or is it the third—settlement. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. We certainly look forward to others occurring. Of course National is likely to be in Government pretty soon and as we have had such a lot of experience in the area I can only imagine that settlements will become more timely. Settlements should flow. Either way it is my view that it is incumbent on all MPs in this House to understand the nature of what is happening today to understand the importance of these settlements for the tribe concerned and to support them. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
NgatiTuwharetoatena koutou. Tena koutou ihara mai i te nuku o te whenua ki te whakatutukiitenei kaupapa hirahira e paana ki a koutou Rau Ropata koutou ra. Ko koutou ra te kanohi o ratoukuahinga kuangaro ki tua o te arai. Naratou te huarahi iparau na koutou te waka itoia kia tau ki uta. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Tuwharetoa. Greetings to you who have come from a distance to complete this matter of great importance to you and especially you Rau Ropata and others. You are the face of those who have passed on and are lost from view beyond the divide. They were the ones who ploughed the way and it is you who hauled the canoe ashore. And so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you 
.] 
Along with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton I stand here to support the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I welcome here today the representatives of NgatiTuwharetoa mai i Te Moana a Toi who have come here on a very important occasion. This bill comprehensively and finally settles the historical claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is a hugely significant milestone for NgatiTuwharetoa and the Crown and it addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners. Prior to the 1860s NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. That is well known. However the loss of NgatiTuwharetoa land and resources through confiscation and other means has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years. 
The two issues of historical grievances and Maori economic and social development are deeply interconnected. Although settlement redress cannot hope to fully compensate iwi for their historical losses or address all their future needs it provides a platform for future development. This also marks a break from the past. No longer will the relationship between NgatiTuwharetoa and the Crown be focused on the grievances between them. We can get on with the business of working and building a strong and inclusive country together in the spirit of partnership originally envisaged by those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The governance structures that iwi develop for receiving the redress also play a vital role. As part of its duty to the people of NgatiTuwharetoa and other claimant groups the Crown requires that a representative—an accountable and transferred governance entity—is established to receive and manage the settlement assets. Good governance is vital to development. 
This will be the fifth Act that settles raupatu or confiscation claims. There were many ways in which the Crown unfairly deprived Maori of their land and resources but warfare and confiscation is viewed by this Government as the most serious. The Crown has made significant progress in settling raupatu claims. The first of course was Waikato Tainui. In the last 6 years this has been followed by NgatiRuanui Ngati Tama Ngati Awa and the settlement bill for Nga Rauru Kitahi is currently before the Maori Affairs Committee. Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty are partially completed. In the last year the Waitangi Tribunal has reported on two more districts where there was raupatu. We hope that the negotiations can begin for the Gisborne claims soon once the mandate for negotiations is resolved. Officials have met on the Tauranga claims and already discussed possible structures for negotiations. 
To maintain this rate of settlement progress depends on bringing new groups into negotiations and last year we began negotiations with Te Arawa for their non-lakes claims Ngati Kahu ki Whaingaroa Taranaki whanui ki te Whanga-nui-a-Tara Moriori NgatiManua and Ngati Whare. We have recognised mandate negotiators for NgatiApa ki te Rangitikei and are working with Waikato River and North Island and South Island claimants to progress mandates there in addition to those I mentioned earlier. I look forward to the day when these groups will be celebrating the passage of their legislation. 
During the select committee consideration on this bill attention was drawn to the statements of association listed in the legislation. These statements describe the association of NgatiTuwharetoa with particular sites owned by the Crown. Some have questioned what the Crown is doing putting the legends and spiritual values of a particular iwi into legislation. This settlement legislation like all others before it as far back as NgaiTahu records NgatiTuwharetoa’s views for a specific reason. It is not to give their views primacy over anyone else’s; it is so that in any decisions about important resources their views are not overlooked. Many grievances throughout the country relate to the failure of decision makers to make decisions that affect Maori on an informed basis. For instance wahi tapu could have been unintentionally destroyed because a local authority had never been aware of it. Statutory acknowledgments give the claimant group the opportunity to record its association with the site in a publicly accessible form. Redress instruments like this will make it easier for the Crown to avoid causing further grievances and give iwi confidence that processes exist to protect their interests. 
In conclusion the passage of this legislation marks the end of a long journey for the people of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the dedication and hard work put in by all those people who contributed to this settlement—NgatiTuwharetoa negotiators the Ministers the officials and iwi members themselves who voted 95 percent in favour of the settlement. This is a ringing endorsement of the work put in by negotiators. I also pay special respect to those elders of NgatiTuwharetoa who began the journey so long ago towards settlement but who have passed on before it was completed. Once again I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending this bill to the House. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker a tena hoki tatau o te Whare nei. A tena hoki nga manuhiri mai i Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahi koutou o NgatiTuwharetoa nga rangatira ngakaumatua ngakuikuia. Koutou hoki te ropuikawe mai itenei kaupapa mai i te waitonoa atu e koutou ki te Taraipiunara tae noa ki teneira. Na reira nga mihi whanui ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and indeed to all of us here in the House. Greetings as well to the visitors from the Bay of Plenty especially you NgatiTuwharetoa the chiefs elders men and womenfolk you also of the group who brought this matter here who took it before the tribunal and as a consequence is here today. Therefore a great acknowledgment to you 
.]  
It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind members once again that it is the only non - politically aligned party in this House—to contribute to the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and in particular to signal our support for it. 
I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are in the precincts of this Chamber together with members of the claims negotiating team. I also acknowledge their whanau who were not able to travel to be here today and who remain at home listening to what is essentially an important day for their iwi. They have arrived at this point after a period of almost 16 years; it has been 16 years since they first initiated their claim. From that time to this a number of their fellow tribesmen who were involved in this claim have passed on. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Waiariki in acknowledging those who have returned to the spirit world. 
The passing of this bill will give final effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty back in 2003. It will also see another chapter added to the history of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty—a chapter intended to place some closure on events that have had an adverse effect on this iwi since the 1860s when war broke out ironically in the Waikato. I say “some” because although this settlement is full and final and all parties to this settlement have signed up to it no one can say that it fully compensates NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. 
Like many other claims already made to the tribunal this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and in particular to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe the inadequacies of the compensation court process and the subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing. 
It is important to acknowledge the team representing this iwi who have been able to confront the difficulties that are becoming quite common for those who are charged by their respective iwi to negotiate with the Crown. Those difficulties include getting the mandate for their own appointment; getting the mandate of the tribe to negotiate on the tribe’s behalf for what they believe is their entitlement much of which is consequently not accepted by the other party; negotiations with Crown representatives; and getting the mandate from their iwi to accept final offers. Added to that list is the length of time taken to get to the settlement point—a matter that is clearly a sad commentary on the current process of negotiation and settlement. 
However those difficulties will pale into insignificance given the task that lies ahead for the iwi of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms of how they deal with the proceeds of this settlement. To that extent I make this point to the present and future leadership of NgatiTuwharetoa. If they thought that their journey thus far has been one of challenge I say that the future will provide further challenge as they confront the demands of the future and of their iwi. I say to the leadership to never forget to look back from time to time so as to ensure that those they lead are in fact still there. 
Before I conclude I make reference to two particular issues that arose during the earlier debates on this bill. The first one is in regard to references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in the bill. It is well known that New Zealand First is seeking to have all references to the expressions “the principles of the treaty” “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and the “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” eliminated from all New Zealand statutes including all preambles interpretations schedules and regulations. 
The references to the principles of the treaty as articulated in this bill refer to an apology already given and to the definition of historical claims. It is stated in clause 15 that in terms of the deed of settlement and this Act the settlement “is final”. The settlement therefore ensures that there is finality to these claims. New Zealand First is able to vote for this bill because we support the settlement process and because the bill makes no functional reference to future decision-making around the expression or the concepts of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The second issue is that during the Committee stage an amendment was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 367 to amend the English text. I refer to recital 32. The Supplementary Order Paper from the Government asked for the omission of the words “NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) around Kawerau” and the substitution of the words “NgatiTuwharetoa around the Kawerau area”. However the Maori text was not amended. New Zealand First subsequently lodged an amendment to reflect that amendment with the suggestion that the Maori text be amended to read: “iwaenga te rohe o Kawerau”. 
To my utter surprise the Minister in the chair at the time the member for Waiariki Mita Ririnui a Maori whom I regard as quite fluent in the use of the Maori language refused to support the proposal. In his words it was purely a matter of semantics. I tell that member that we in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation made here is clear and accurate to all New Zealanders and in particular to those affected by it. Although it may be said that the amendment is unlikely to affect the intent of the bill or the durability of this settlement I think we have a responsibility to ensure that the use of te reo Maori in legislation is correctly translated whether it be from or into te reo. 
In furthering the use of te reo Maori in legislation passed by this House I had intended to propose that the title be amended to read “NgatiTuwharetoa (Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi) Claims Settlement Bill” but because of the earlier lack of support by the member for Waiariki I felt compelled to pass up that opportunity. History provides enough evidence to give credence to what I have said. If anyone has any doubt in that regard I refer them to a particular document first signed in 1840 at Waitangi in which the Maori text was not a clear translation of the English text. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I wish NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best for their journey—a journey intended to bring them economic social and cultural prosperity. Their success in that regard will be of benefit not only to them but also for New Zealand Aotearoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Te manuhiri tuarangi ngakaumatua nga rangatira o NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau kua tae tautoko mai iteneiahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elders and chiefs of NgatiTuwharetoa of Kawerau who have come here this afternoon in support welcome welcome alight here 
.] 
The Greens extend to NgatiTuwharetoa congratulations on their achievement in this claim for restitution and redress for the crimes committed against them in the past. We will be voting in favour of this third reading. That said it is always very hard I find to vote in favour of these settlement bills. I know that other parties take a very surface and simplistic approach to them but the Greens understand deeply what a sacrifice their achievement has meant. We recognise the hurt and the difficulty the potential for fracturing caused by a process whereby winners and losers are specifically picked. We support these bills because we will not perpetuate the cycle of legislative and structural abuse that is the treaty settlement process. We will not undervalue the enormous achievement of iwi getting as far as this through the settlement process. 
But our objection to the settlement process is also because we do not want to be complicit in a process that is unjust that returns no more than 1 percent if that of the original stolen resources and that requires iwi and hapu to make sacrifices they should never ever have been required to make. I know that those involved in the treaty negotiation processes across the board feel similarly. But they also acknowledge and work with the duress of poverty that is the settlement process and that the settlement process exploits because they see that steps to rangatiratanga in some form need to be made for their people. We understand that. 
The Greens want to see a settlement process that is developed by Maori. If we are to be committed to restorative justice it is critical that the wronged party has control over the nature of that restoration. Otherwise as with other justice processes the victim will remain disempowered. We completely oppose the notion of time limits to treaty settlements because to impose such time limits purposefully excludes iwi from restoration of the historical wrongs committed against them. The capacity to engage in the settlement process is already critically dependent on Government funding or funding through the Crown Forestry Rental Trust which ties its criteria to the needs and desires of Government agencies. If iwi miss out on Government funding soon they will have no chance of obtaining the redress that justice entitles them to. That is structural racism. 
The bill before us tells a story about the old Compensation Court which tried to provide redress. But because it implemented only the values and processes of the dominant culture at the time it not only failed to provide redress but in returning individual and not collective title enabled the further alienation of land and the loss of precious economic and cultural resources. Those resources have not been fully restored by this bill. The Compensation Court processes described in the bill are written again in what we are doing today. We have to learn from our mistakes. We say that often in this House. We have to learn from our mistakes but this and previous Governments have blindly refused to do so. Maori iwi and hapu suffer as a result. 
I refer to some of the issues briefly raised at the Maori Affairs Committee by other iwi and hapu who have been struggling to have their claims and views heard in the settlement process. There are stories of losing battles to get funding because of the arrangements—ad hoc though they seem to be—between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust that pick winners and losers. There are stories about claimants’ struggles to get the research to back their tribunal claims and to stand alongside other iwi as independent and capable of negotiating their own claims separately. They are not new stories. Neither will they be the last that the Government the select committee and future Governments hear during the treaty settlement process. 
I acknowledge that claimants’ rights are undermined by this bill. Until the Government—having talked to claimants—reviews and alters the treaty settlement process in accordance with the actual needs of claimants settlements will always be in part at least tools of oppression used against the claimant groups because of the pauperisation that the process requires and used against the other iwi and hapu whose rights are legislated away because of Government haste and political expediency. Part of the structural violence that is the colonisation process is seen in the more recent failures of the Government properly to address related issues. It has not been just this Government either but also previous Governments. 
The bill refers to the pollution of the Tarawera River by the Kawerau pulp and paper mill. The clean-up of that river has not been done. It remains poisonous. The toxic sites remain unclean exposed to the environment and vulnerable to floods. When I was there last year I saw asbestos rubble lying fully exposed on contaminated sites along the main road to the mill. Whose responsibility was it to clean it up? Nobody took responsibility. Who suffered the effects of the pollution? It was the workers and the people who live in the area. Many of them were NgatiTuwharetoa people who have lived and worked near that site for years. Is it a treaty issue? Yes it is. It was only a month ago that the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons Greenpeace and others came to Parliament to tell MPs what was really happening as a result of the poisoning of the environment in their rohe—the sickness the birth defects the intergenerational illnesses. Where is the restoration of these historical wrongs? They are nowhere. 
Today is a very important day for Tuwharetoa and for all New Zealanders as they see the conclusion of this settlement claim for this iwi. Some resources are being restored and that is a good thing. We celebrate that as a good thing. We also celebrate that the iwi is now able to step away from the demands of Parliament from the criticisms the accusations the abuses of Government and members of Parliament in this House and the demands and requirements of Government agencies and will finally be able to concentrate on their own needs and meet their own aspirations themselves as they have always been entitled to do. The Greens want to see a just process that is durable and acceptable because Maori have been part of the development the architecture of it. We want a process that meets the standards set by tikanga Maori and not by political expediency. Kia ora. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is always hard to follow some of the speeches on the settlement bills and it is particularly hard to follow speeches from members like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu Metiria Turei and others who have a very honourable purpose who want to see the best for their country and who are making acknowledgments to folk who have been hurt. They wish the parties all the best and certainly they wish the recipients of the treaty settlements all the best. They wish them to have prosperity pride and a focus on the future which are things that every New Zealander hopes for from the treaty grievance process. But I believe it is important that someone in this House—and ACT is prepared to do this however much the other parties may howl at us—warns of the danger of believing in one’s own rhetoric and of being persuaded by one’s own fervent wishes. I look at the settlement bills and I see that they are being passed as Acts of Parliament. They are statements of law and the claim is that they are intended to put grievances behind us. So I look at them as a lawyer and as a lawyer who is aware of just how tempting it is to other lawyers to find more problems where there should have been settlements—to turn what was intended to be a solution into permanent grievance work. 
When I look at this bill I see in it a pattern that this Government and earlier National Governments have perpetrated: a pattern of self-deception. The bill contains deliberately vague terms. It contains deliberately fuzzy language. It contains promises that are deliberately intended never to be called upon. One clause may contain assurances but 10 or 20 clauses later those precise assurances are negated. The generation that we are part of may understand that the bill is an attempt to reach a political compromise. It may be well meant but the generations to come will simply look at it and be mystified. They will ask how it could have been that the Parliament of New Zealand in trying to settle grievances that had festered for decades and decades because of a complete mismatch in understanding or because one side thought the other had been tricky with regard to language could go ahead and pass law designed to do exactly the same thing again. 
We look at the protocols and the statutory acknowledgments that the Crown sets out in the schedules—accounts of mythology accounts of special value and accounts of guardianship values that NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will be given an opportunity to impose on areas that are important to it. It looks at first sight as though the Government is handing over a genuine power of protection. Then we go a little further on and find that the clauses expressly state that all bets are off. The environmental authorities and the various bodies that have delegated government powers in the Bay of Plenty are told that they must have regard to those things that they must be solemnly recorded on titles and that they have to be drawn to the attention of people who are looking to use land. However we then find that those same bodies are told that they are to give them no more weight than anyone else’s submissions and that they have no effect in law. They are simply statements of empty rhetoric. I do not think that that is a recipe for a durable settlement. I think future generations and courts will say that they cannot imagine that Parliament actually meant this settlement to have no practical effect and they will make it have effect. What effect? That will be invented by judges on the basis of contending bitter claims. 
Another reason why ACT will not vote for these kinds of settlements is that they rewrite and falsify history without even making it consistent. In this legislation the Crown apologises because land was handed back presumably in a good-faith attempt to try to mitigate what had been a wrong. It was handed back in individualised titles. The complaint now is that the original wrongs were wrong because collective punishment was meted out. Although some of the iwi had rebelled others did not but the Crown did not distinguish between them when it exacted its own redress—when it took revenge if you like; utu or muru—on the land that was held collectively. So why do we now have pages and pages of grovelling apology that states that the Crown “done wrong” because it handed back individual land titles when the people complained initially that their collective land was taken? One cannot have it both ways. If people are to be treated as individuals and as not being responsible for what their whanau or hapu have done and if they are treated as individuals and the only assets that are available for seizure are those that are held individually why would the Crown not create individual titles? One cannot have it both ways. 
I also think it is shameful that this Parliament is apologising for actions that as clause 8(3)(f) states “eroded the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty). The Crown failed to adequately protect NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” The “Winston Peters Party” which is busy promoting a bill to abolish the so-called principles of the treaty is voting for this bill despite that utterly fraudulent apology. This is a Government that is deliberately eroding social structures. It is not only eroding the social structures of Maori but is eroding the mana of men throughout our community. It has changed schooling so that courage is a lost virtue. It has specialised in making everyone victims in whining over spilt milk and in providing a remedy for every pretended wrong. That has nothing to do with the grievance industry of the treaty. This Government has set out to undermine the status of men and families. It has set out to take any concept of muru or utu out of justice. This Government does not believe in punishment and in right or wrong yet we have a formal apology in this bill for eroding traditional social structures. That is unbelievable. The Government has destroyed the distinction that New Zealand was so proud to have created over a century ago between Church and State and that is now included in the bill. We passed a secular education Act and we tried to make sure that we knew the difference between religion and the State. Now we have a bill that deliberately recreates a form of coercive force to statements of spiritual values. 
This is not a bill to be proud of. It grasps at a temporary political solution to an embarrassment for both National and Labour which set out and encouraged completely unfulfillable expectations. Now they are creating documents that are full of weasel words that no one even in this Parliament understands or can define. The Government will leave it to the judges and to future generations to argue about what it meant. The bill does not deal with the treaty. It cannot be a full and final settlement. It does not even pretend to be full and final in terms of contemporary claims. It is a shame that the members of another generation are being set up to regard each other with suspicion. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future for the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and I welcome members of NgatiTuwharetoa to the House today. 
I do not want to delay the passage of the bill by taking a long time but I want to reflect on the fact that this settlement begins with an agreed historical account including Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of a Crown apology. The simple fact is that 87000 acres within the traditional rohe of NgatiTuwharetoa were confiscated. Of that acreage 20000 were returned into individual ownership rather than to iwi or hapu so that the tribal estate remained unaffected. Part of the consequence of being dispossessed of their land was the loss of access to traditional foods medicines and housing materials. In the 20th century Rangitaiki swamp lands were drained and access issues were overtaken by a complete loss of those traditional tribal resources. 
Accompanying the acknowledgment of the historical facts is an apology for the past breaches of the treaty and the cumulative effect of those breaches on successive NgatiTuwharetoa generations. Following close on the heels of the acknowledgment and the apology is a series of provisions for cultural redress which includes establishing at Matata a reserve that will restore access to traditional foods for non-commercial purposes. The bill will also secure and provide protection for places and sites of traditional cultural significance to NgatiTuwharetoa. The commercial and financial redress is valued at an extremely modest $10.5 million with first right of refusal on significant sites. 
United Future wishes NgatiTuwharetoa well and congratulates them on this settlement. We acknowledge all those who have negotiated this claim and we acknowledge those generations who never lived to see this day but who shared in the loss and the process that brings us to today. United Future is therefore very happy to support the third reading of this bill. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenei e tuana ki te tautoko nga mihi mai ingatahataha o te awa o Waikato mai i te maunga o Taupiri ki NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau tena koutou. 
[ 
I rise and in turn add my acknowledgments from the river banks of the Waikato and the mountain of Taupiri in support of those expressed to NgatiTuwharetoa of Kawerau; greetings to you all 
.]  
I join with my colleagues to support the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Already the House has heard that the bill is in part connected to historical events subsequent to the Land Wars of the 1860s and confiscation of lands. Much of that historical account is included in the bill. More particularly it includes the avenues for redress. 
I want to make my contribution in light of discussions that were held before the Maori Affairs Committee. We spent some time debating two particular aspects of the settlement and they are worth restating in the third reading. Firstly we debated the issue and definition of “whangai”. I reiterate that the committee felt that claimants should decide on how they want to express whangai in their settlement bill and more important to determine just how benefits are to accrue to tribal members according to their tikanga. This was a subject of some discussion before the select committee and it was noted in our report back to the House. 
The second issue was around the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. Our deliberations became quite fixated on the way in which a geothermal statutory acknowledgment would be referred to in an Act of Parliament. It is important to mention that many members around the select committee table did not believe that the particular origin of association to geothermal resources as told by ancestors and passed down through generations should be included as such in an Act of Parliament. Quite frankly none of us could guarantee that the iwi’s stories would not be made a mockery of in this House as is so evident from derogatory remarks that are being and have already been made with regard to taniwha and the like. 
I think that what is in the bill safeguards the iwi’s particular association to the geothermal resource and the integrity of the iwi’s own story. Albeit it was not the wish of its particular negotiators at the time it was the reasoning for the committee’s decision. 
I sincerely look forward to any development opportunity that looks likely to arise from that statutory acknowledgment as it is the first of its kind and we should celebrate that—certainly on this side of the House. 
I take the opportunity to thank advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements Heather Baggott and her team as we have had quite a few learning points in considering this bill and the issues that have arisen from it. 
From the committee’s perspective it is important that the information received by advisers is accurate and reflects agreements reached with the claimant group but that it also reflects concerns expressed by the select committee back to the claimant group. We felt that that is an important role the Office of Treaty Settlements plays and will be increasingly so as we deal with more and more settlements. 
In many ways the Office of Treaty Settlements became integral to the transmission of information while the bill was still with the select committee. No doubt our committee will continue to ensure that it is a full and robust process and I certainly thank Heather Baggott and her team for persevering with the deliberations before the committee. It was not an easy task at times. 
I want to make a comment on the use of te reo Maori in bills before the House. We are going into new territory with the claims settlement bills as most preambles are expressed in both te reo Maori and Pakeha. Mechanisms for redress often use Maori words in order to restate what that mechanism means in terms of redress measures. I agree with the member from New Zealand First in that as legislators and as Maori in this House we should endeavour to ensure that that is done in an accurate and robust way according to the intent of both the claimants and the Crown. That said I know that the process will probably be organic and I hope a positive movement forward. I look forward to the day when we are writing laws in Maori. 
Lastly treaty settlements in themselves cannot solve all the problems that continue to exist in our communities and neither should they. The treaty settlements provide a platform of opportunity for claimant groups like NgatiTuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty to move from grievance to reconciliation and to restoration and to the advancement of their own aspirations. That is as it should be. It is not an easy journey but deciding to start somewhere puts the next generation on a firm footing. 
No reira tenei te mihi ki a koutou iteneiwa tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so at this point in time I acknowledge you all greetings 
.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
Tuwharetoa o Te Moana a Toi tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so my greetings to you all Tuwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty.  
] 
This is a good day for the New Zealand Parliament because it marks more progress not only for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty but for the country as a whole. The National Party is very pleased to support this settlement bill because it has made a big commitment to ensuring that the settlement process moves more smoothly and with greater speed in the near future. 
Many people would wonder why we separate out some of our concerns about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from our commitment to the preservation of te reo Maori and the speedy resolution of treaty grievances. It is all pretty simple. Our view is that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed as many rights to non-Maori as it did to Maori. I ask people to consider that in light of this particular settlement. Many people will never understand quite why settlements are done but what we have today in this bill’s preamble is all the history that indicates why a grievance exists. 
In essence in the early part of New Zealand’s modern history post-1840 there were clearly occasions when the two main groups of people here Maori and non-Maori had disagreements. In this case the disagreement is well-documented right through to the start of the Waikato wars in about 1862. There was a subsequent confiscation from NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty of some 87000 acres because they fought against the Crown. Even though the Crown at the time afforded a certain amount of amnesty to many of the people involved in those early conflicts the land remained confiscated. 
As far back as 1863 the New Zealand Settlements Act of that year was designed for the hearing of claims for the return of confiscated land. But in the case of this claimant group the 87000 hectares was not given back to the entire iwi; rather it was split among about 14 people considered suitable to hold the land. I think that in essence that would be the reason for the long-held grievance of the claimant group. If that is not entirely the reason forgive me but it is what I seize upon as being a good way of illustrating why we go through the settlement process. 
All this legislation does today effectively is to confirm for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty what article 2 of the treaty confirms for any New Zealander today who holds and owns land or other property. Therefore as a settlement bill it is a statement that in this country people who are wronged can have that wrong put right with goodwill and with the right lead from the Government. I think that when we look back on this part of history perhaps in a hundred years from now when most of us will not be here—I will probably still be here but many others will not—we might well say that this was an interesting period in our history. We might say that it was a period in which a lot of the dislocation of direction that occurred in the early years up to about 1880 and then the ignoring of the grievances that were created right through probably until the mid 1980s were put right and that it was a period when as a nation we were able to be much firmer on the ground in relation to the rights the treaty guarantees to all of us. 
It is that claim—that the treaty guarantees as many rights to me a non-Maori as it does to anyone who is Maori—that probably causes the most contention and political discussion at the present time. Nobody who clings to the treaty as being important to him or her should see any threat to that relationship coming from the position we take. We simply say the treaty has a series of rights that all New Zealanders can claim and this settlement bill ratifies that. So our message to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is: “Congratulations on reaching the end of a very long road and best wishes for where this settlement will take the group.” 
We know that there are some pressing problems in this country that cannot be ignored by any Government. One of those problems is the wealth-base of the country. New Zealand is not a wealthy country despite what we like to tell ourselves compared with our neighbour across the ditch—Australia. People ask whether that is a fair comparison. It is a fair comparison if people are choosing to leave here and go there. One of the interesting things is that groups like NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will not leave here because this is very much their home—just as much as it is the home of anybody else who has come here. Individuals in families may well choose to leave so the need to address that economic gap between Australia and us is quite pressing. 
But when we look just at us we see there is a massive gap between the average incomes of non-Maori New Zealanders and Maori. That gap is about $6000 a year—a huge income gap. When people get wound up about treaty settlements and fisheries settlements and everything else I think it is interesting to consider that if we took all the money that goes into those settlements and divided it among the people who claimed to be Maori in the last census we would give them about $2000 each—once. But dealing with that income gap that disparity within our own economy would give them $6000 on average per year. 
So the sort of settlement that is being ratified in this bill the handing to NgatiTuwharetoa of the tools to carve their own destiny not only in their tribal and cultural sense but also economically is as important for the rest of the country as it is for those who receive the settlement. I say again to NgatiTuwharetoa that we congratulate them on the long years they have struggled to see this success. We wish them all the best for a bright future. It is not only theirs but also for this entire country—for us. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 That was an excellent speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I think it put very carefully the reason why National supports settlements and it gave our vision for our country Maori and non-Maori alike as we move into the 21st century. I want to emphasise the importance of looking forward in doing that and how we have to do that. 
I also want to pick up on a theme developed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu who talked about justice and equality which of course are at the very heart of National’s philosophy not just on treaty issues but on much broader issues. It is actually the reason why we carry out settlements. We cannot achieve equality before the law—equality being probably the deepest single value for our country—unless we also achieve justice. So what we are doing today on behalf of virtually the whole Parliament is giving the Crown’s recognition of the need to do justice for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is why the settlements are so important and that is the reason we need to complete them. 
I must say I remain somewhat disappointed with the view of the ACT party. It seems to me that ACT members are saying that unless a settlement meets in each and every particular their expectation of what it should be then there is no way the settlement can be supported by them. The problem with that point of view of course is that it is such an exclusive approach to settlements. 
Settlements are of necessity something of a compromise and a consensus not just within this Parliament but also by NgatiTuwharetoa themselves. They also have to compromise or else there would no settlement. Compromise is an inherent part of the process and I would ask my colleagues in the ACT party to contemplate that particular issue. 
The promise of our country both in 1840 and today is that all our citizens will be treated equally and as I said part and parcel of that process is the completion of settlements. I noted the comments by the Minister that as a nation we have been in the settlement process now for 20-odd years. Many of the claims themselves have a genesis going right back into the 1980s but of course it is time now after 20 years to be able to say that we need to hasten the process. There seems finally to be some dawning recognition by the Government of that need and I suggest that that recognition would not have occurred but for Dr Brash’s speech some 18 months ago. 
During the Committee stage I pointed out some of the defects of this legislation. Some of those defects were also noted by Mr Franks. I also say that as we go forward with settlements a National Government would do things somewhat differently. I want to touch briefly on some of those differences. 
I do not believe it is necessary now to constantly take an apologetic view of history without any recognition of the standpoints of people back then. We must certainly recognise that injustices were done but we should at least acknowledge that both Maori and Crown representatives were living in a different experience in the 1860s. Both groups were in a different experience and had a different expectation. 
For instance is it actually so bad that some land was returned to individuals? For many Maori individual ownership actually laid the foundation for economic well-being. That fact does not of course diminish the accompanying injustice whereby the iwi did not get any settlement. But individualisation of title is actually part of the pathway to prosperity and I feel we make a mistake in not recognising that. 
There is a similar position in relation to the drainage of swamps. Where would the New Zealand dairy industry be today if swamps had not been drained? We can think of the prosperity right though the Hauraki Plains and in much of the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato generally. I know that Nanaia Mahuta well understands the importance of improving land in order to build prosperity. So rather than that action harming Maori it actually benefited Maori and we need to be careful in the way in which we record our history. 
The point about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty has been well made by New Zealand First speakers but I just add this: the problem with the inclusion of principles—not just in this legislation but generally—is that it blinds people to what the treaty actually promised which was the protection of property. That is the true foundation for the reason we are undertaking these settlements and we would do much better for ourselves as a nation if we had reference to the terms of the treaty—the actual undertakings—rather than to some fanciful notion of principles that frankly I have yet to hear the Government give any credible explanation of no matter how much it tries. 
Pita Paraone 
: Haven’t they given any explanation? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No they have not. 
I turn now to the vexed question of myth and legend. I am one of those who says that they have no place in the law of our land. Everyone has beliefs. It is impossible to be a human being yet to have no beliefs. The question is: do we put those beliefs in the law? The situation is not to say—as Nanaia Mahuta and apparently the Green Party say—that if we do not put them in the law they are therefore diminished. That is simply false. 
The whole notion of equality rests on the fact that we say our law applies to everyone equally. If we put into law the beliefs of some people but not of others what we are actually doing is introducing inequality into the law. [ 
Interruption 
] There is simply a lack of understanding it seems on the part of the Labour Party and obviously of the Green Party on the role of belief law and the meaning of a secular society. 
But this is perhaps not the day for the development of those issues; this is a day in essence of celebration and a day of restitution and restoration. Parliament is voting for these settlements—unfortunately I might say—not unanimously. It would be better if the settlements were being voted for unanimously with people’s particular concerns or parties’ particular concerns being recorded nevertheless. 
I want to congratulate NgatiTuwharetoa today. As a number of speakers have said this is the end of one phase of their journey but the beginning of another phase. I want to note particularly BevAdlam the chief negotiator. I know she will have a hugely important role in the next phase of development on behalf of her whanau hapu and iwi. 
I want to conclude with this statement: National is proud of its record in treaty settlements. We believe that they need to be hastened for the benefit of our nation. I stand alongside my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Georgina te Heuheu in sketching for the benefit of this upcoming election our way forward which we anticipate will be endorsed by New Zealanders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 with the ability for the date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential threat of xenotransplantation transmitting new infections to recipients and to the wider community. There were also concerns about the adequacy of regulatory review processes and the social and ethical issues associated with xenotransplantation. 
The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health on a case by case basis. Strict criteria must be met before any approval can be given. New Zealand has therefore adopted a rigorous regulatory approach rather than forcing a moratorium. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions. Without this bill the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act 1981. After this date the scientific and integral oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. The section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate and despite further information on xenotransplantation being published the Minister of Health is advised that there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology. 
Xenotransplantation is currently an experimental technique only. There are only a small number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ could function properly in a human. In the opinion of a number of authorities the transmission of retroviruses to humans via xenotransplantation is a credible potential risk to public health. However the magnitude of the risk is the subject of considerable debate amongst experts. In the view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation similar jurisdictions including Australia Canada and the UK have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To the knowledge of the Minister no clinical trials are currently under way in these countries. 
In New Zealand the Bioethics Council is currently undertaking an extensive public dialogue on xenotransplantation. This involves in an open submissions process an online forum and a series of meetings to ascertain the level of public acceptability around this technology. They expect to complete that process and to advise the Government of the outcome in September 2005. Allowing the controls on xenotransplantation to lapse would pre-empt that process. 
The Minister of Health is monitoring international developments and regulatory approaches to xenotransplantation and emerging research on the safety of xenotransplantation. The ministry is also undertaking work on the type of legislation that may be required for this practice in the future. This work has been undertaken as part of the Ministry of Health’s review of the regulation of human tissue and tissue-based therapies. Finally as many of the risks associated with xenotransplantation carry severe consequences and are uncertain this Government is proposing a precautionary and rigorous regulatory approach as already adopted by Australia Canada and the UK. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 My view is that this is a very sad day because the Labour Government is imposing a blanket moratorium on a very promising technique that could help tens of thousands of New Zealanders in about the crudest most unthinking way possible. There is no doubt that a moratorium which is what is being imposed until at least December 2006—and it could be extended—is an absolutely unthinking way to manage critical medical research. We have just heard the Associate Minister of Health say that all xenotransplantation should be basically stopped in New Zealand. He probably has not even bothered to read the Ministry of Health’s report to the Health Committee which describes the vast spectrum of techniques that are available. They do not just include organ transplantation. They include cellular xenotransplantation and external xenotransplantation therapy. 
It seems ridiculous that we have in this country technology that 5 or 6 years ago might have seemed to carry a degree of risk—even though it was used here on six patients some of whom have demonstrated that it is successful and there has been no evidence whatsoever of risk—but that in the meantime has been shown to be much less risky than it was thought to be. Yet the Government instead of being prepared to look at scientific process has put its head in the sand and said that it will not listen and that it will clamp an unthinking moratorium on that technology. That is the level to which this Labour Government has fallen. That is its approach to science. 
Even worse the report of the Health Committee in the name of Steve Chadwick the chairperson stated that the committee considered that the content of this bill was straightforward and uncontroversial. Well the bill is neither straightforward nor uncontroversial and it penalises tens of thousands of New Zealanders who suffer from diabetes and many other conditions. No submissions on the bill were allowed despite requests from the National Party and I believe the ACT party and from bodies like Diabetes New Zealand the Royal Society of New Zealand the New Zealand Association of Scientists and the New Zealand Biotechnology Association all of which are hugely interested in progressing biotechnology in New Zealand. 
Perhaps even more poignant and relevant is a letter I received addressed to the Hon Annette King and dated 13 May from Living Cell Technologies. It is from Dr Tan the managing director and an internationally recognised biotechnologist. The letter states: “Living Cell Technologies understands that the New Zealand Government is reviewing the extension of the moratorium on xenotransplantation. This letter is to update you on current developments relative to the moratorium and urge Government to consider lifting the moratorium with respect to transplantation using cells from animals that are not genetically modified. As an international company Living Cell Technologies has kept up to date on progress in this field in the USA and Europe. In recent years new scientific information supporting the safety of xenotransplantation has been published. LCT wishes to make available its own information and perspective.” 
Further the letter states that in 2004 the Government-sponsored body Investment New Zealand introduced Living Cell Technologies to a xenotransplantation company in China China Shanghai SeeinglongBiopharmaceutics Ltd. Living Cell Technologies states it is pleased to support the message that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is free of transmittable spongiform encephalitis in farm animals and hence is an ideal source of high-health-standards animals as a source of cells for medical therapeutics. 
I think it is worthwhile to read out Dr Tan’s concluding remarks: “Rather than maintain the current status in which xenotransplantation is available to New Zealanders who can afford to go to China or Mexico”—known as “xenotourism”—“we respectfully urge Government to review recent information available since the introduction of the moratorium and permit the conduct of clinical trials in xenotransplantation. Such trials would be strictly conducted in a manner regulated and ethically approved by the Department of Health.” That is an eminently sensible approach. It is an approach based on evidence and on risk management. Yet what does this Labour Government do? It imposes a blanket moratorium on hugely legitimate research that should be carried out here in New Zealand. 
It is no wonder New Zealand scientists are heading overseas to work. It is no wonder New Zealand Crown research institutes are finding that because of the regulatory hurdles they just cannot do genomic work in New Zealand—work that in the case of many Crown research institutes like HortResearch AgResearch and Crop and Food Research amounts to something like 60 percent of their work. They have to do that work overseas contracted outside New Zealand and are losing the critical mass of people and the critical skills required to keep up to date in the area. It is important not only for the biotechnology industry but also for all of us in New Zealand to have a critical mass of scientists who are aware of the possible biosecurity problems that we face. We have to be able to recognise things. We were not able to recognise the varroa bee mite until it was endemic in New Zealand. Things like the foot-and-mouth scare could have huge implications. If we do not have a critical mass of scientists who have the ability to recognise those problems then incursions will occur unnecessarily when they could have been prevented. It is the Labour Government’s attitude towards science that perpetuates the problem. 
The letter goes on to state that Living Cell Technologies’ current intention is to conduct Food and Drug Administration - approved trials for a neurological disorder Huntington’s disease and for type 1 diabetes in the USA. However Living Cell Technologies would reallocate its resources towards conducting a trial in New Zealand if such trials were approvable. That is a tragedy for New Zealand. Finally the letter states: “LCT’s technologies are New Zealand inventions and it would give Living Cell Technology’s founders much satisfaction to see these continue to be developed from New Zealand and take advantage of the country’s unique high-health-status animals and high standards of animal care and husbandry.” 
It is with great sadness that I see across the House a Labour Government that is not prepared to look at progress in science. It wants to impose a blanket moratorium on very innovative and ingenious work that has been instigated here in New Zealand. Living Cell Technologies initially had to go to Australia. It still has its biology technology here in New Zealand but it looks as though it will have to do the work in America. That is a tragedy for New Zealand. It is a tragedy for many tens of thousands of diabetics around the world. And that is all being imposed unnecessarily by a Luddite Labour Government that has an absolutely anti-progressive attitude towards science. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I am not a scientist and I do not pretend to understand the details of xenotransplantation. But I do understand that the Government has taken the best expert advice on the costs and risks of allowing xenotransplantation in advance of other similar countries. The reality is that our friends in Australia have not allowed the types of practices that this bill disallows; nor has the United Kingdom. 
I would like to recall the structure of the argument that has been made by the colleague who has just resumed his seat. He is a former doctor who started off arguing on the basis of human health—that New Zealanders’ health demanded access to xenotransplantation. Yet as a scientist he will be aware of the difference between type A and type B error. Type A is where we do not fix something we should fix—we do not do something—and type B is where we try to fix it but end up with an even worse result. 
The trick with this issue is that the consequences of trying it and getting it wrong would be absolutely horrific. Diseases like porcine endogenous retrovirus have the potential to jump the species barrier from animals to humans and we could have a genetic mutation with the most serious consequences. So I argue that on the first ground—the ground of health—the Opposition’s case has not been made. 
But the previous speaker moved on from that. He was not satisfied that he had convinced people on health grounds so he talked about the need to locate research in New Zealand. I say to the Opposition folks that they should come clean. If you want more subsidies for Crown research institutes or medical laboratories why do you not just come clean and tell us that that is what you are really about? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Not you Mr Speaker. You of course are like the driven snow. 
More important if the case were about biosecurity which was the Opposition’s third argument then why would the Opposition place New Zealand’s international reputation at risk by taking steps that our closest friends and trading partners have refused to take? 
I believe that the reality here is that the National Party and ACT—not surprisingly in the latter case—have been captured by the narrow interests of one company: Diatranz. They have been hoodwinked that Diatranz has a fully proven medical technology but it is still very much at the experimental stage internationally and has not been proven for New Zealand conditions. If the argument is that Diatranz must be relied upon for a cure for diabetes then I ask National and ACT whether they have heard of Protemix and the excellent work of Professor Garth Cooper and his colleagues. They have not felt the need to leave New Zealand and there is no suggestion that they are the least bit threatened by this bill. 
New Zealand has world-class research. This Government is proud of New Zealand’s science establishment and medical researchers and we think the Opposition should stop running down Kiwi science understand the difference between type A and type B error and adopt a cautious prudent and rigorous approach which is exactly what this bill proposes. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. This legislation will extend the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 by which time the human tissue legislation should be in place to legislate for this area of biotechnology. The proposed amendment to the Medicines Act currently before us does not call for a ban on innovations in treatment. Instead it puts an onus on the Minister of Health to be satisfied that issues surrounding them have been adequately addressed before the go-ahead is given. 
Xenotransplantation is a complex issue. There is no doubt that this technology is very innovative. It can be used for a wide variety of purposes—Dr Hutchison outlined some of them—from the insertion of animal cells into humans and the growing of human cells on layers of animal cells to whole organ transplants. All those procedures are still developing. Some are much further along than others. It is a technology that in New Zealand both the public and the Government need to be very sure about. We know that we have world-class scientists here in New Zealand. We also know that medicine in various countries around the world uses replacement heart valves sourced from pigs. But those products are all chemically treated and are not functional living tissue. That is what distinguishes them from the various treatments used for xenotransplantation. If xenotransplantation were simply a risky trial treatment it might be that an individual’s consent would be sufficient to justify that risk. However possible risk to human health cannot be justified merely on the grounds of an individual’s consent. If that were the case we would have a set of techniques that potentially could help a large number of people who are badly off but there is also the potential for the health of a very large number of people to be threatened. 
The Bioethics Council has completed its first round of public meetings. A report is to be presented to the Government in I understand August. The council is made up of people who have been given the responsibility for making some initial recommendations about this particular matter. Not one of us in this House is an expert on xenotransplantation and we need to read the report that is currently being written after the recent round of discussions. I have no doubt that we will be very keen to see the report when it is finally produced. It was very interesting to read that since the council released its xenotransplantation discussion paper in February public interest in xenotransplantation and the work of the council has become greater than ever. There was strong participation in the online forum with submissions and in the dialogue event with registrations which shows the interest here in New Zealand. 
When we look at other countries we see that in 2004 Australia announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials. In the UK no clinical trials are under way. In Canada clinical trials cannot proceed without the approval of Health Canada. That will be the case here in New Zealand also. We are basically following the line our nearest neighbours are following and that is what we should do. We know that China and Mexico carry out xenotransplantation on a relatively large scale. Those countries do not have the appropriate regulatory authorities to develop guidelines that would safeguard patients and the people with whom they come into contact so of course it is far easier for testing to be carried out in those countries. The risks can be regarded as manageable only if proper monitoring of recipients and family contacts can be undertaken on a long-term basis. 
The last hundred years have witnessed many attempts to carry out animal to human organ transplants. At this point in time all of them have failed. We know that all transplanted organs are liable to rejection. There are no guarantees for anyone. Xenotransplants must also bring about that response perhaps even more so. Significantly we know too that pigs appear to have been the source of deadly new epidemics. The human Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918 which killed between 20 million and 50 million people across the globe was it is believed a mutation of a pig influenza virus that was spread from American pigs by US troops during World War I. We know that some of the viruses carried by pigs are difficult to eradicate. We also know of examples of diseases crossing between species such as the bird flu epidemic in Asia. We have not even found a cure for those diseases. The evidence at this point in time appears to indicate that xenotransplantation carries that risk so we need to take a prudent approach. 
With 30 new diseases having been discovered over the last 20 years most of which have been transmitted from non-humans to humans some scientific commentators have been led to assert that newly emerging viruses are now the biggest threat to mankind. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Ministry of Health officials advised us during the Health Committee briefing that the human immune system rapidly attacks and rejects tissue from animals meaning that most xenotransplants fail rapidly. We were also advised that scientists are exploring options to try to solve those particular problems. So the technique is still only experimental. Although we acknowledge that infections may be minimised in the same way as for human infections science does not know of all the infectious organisms that may infect humans and definitely what can infect source animals and here we are looking at pigs in particular. Dr Boyd Chief Adviser Ministry of Health said that substantially more informed debate needs to take place than to date and it should involve views wider than those who stand to benefit. 
Although we want to provide lifesaving solutions for New Zealanders we want to be sure that medical procedures provide the best possible medical outcomes for everyone. New Zealand First supports this legislation. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the third reading of this bill. ACT New Zealand is opposing this legislation for several reasons. The first of these is that the bill itself is about extending the moratorium until 31 December 2006. Without this bill the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end at the end of June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this date the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. So that is why we have this legislation before us today. 
We are opposed to the extension of this moratorium for the sole reason that it is a matter of political expediency in this election year. We believe that the Government does not want to have the issues around xenotransplantation in particular debated at this time. It would rather kick for touch and extend the moratorium for another 18 months when in fact what we should have—and I agree with Dr Boyd when he gave his advice to the Health Committee—is the wider debate. Rather than delaying that debate we should have it now. He is quite right when he says that it should not be only the people set to benefit who should participate it should be a very wide debate and it should encompass everybody’s views. But we would contend that that debate should happen now rather than delaying it completely. There is no guarantee that the moratorium will not be extended even further than December 2006 and I ask the politicians who do support this: are we ever going to have this debate at all? It should be held right now. 
The bill was raced through the select committee process and other speakers have said that the chair of the select committee said that this was an uncontroversial bill. It is only uncontroversial because all the bill is actually about is extending the moratorium. The issues that are covered here of course are extremely controversial and that is why we see such heated debate about this topic. Again ACT says—and we are joined in this by the National Party—let us have the real debate. Let us have proper consultation from scientists from experts in the field and from the wider community so that the real issues are discussed and we do get that proper rigorous debate that the issues warrant. 
Professor Bob Elliott’s treatment for diabetes and his research have been widely discussed at all points in this debate—the second reading the Committee stage that we had yesterday and in fact again today. There are many things that Professor Elliott in taking his research and treatment offshore has raised. Amongst this the very broad view and I think the most important one relates to the type of environment we have here in New Zealand for science and for research. The Government has repeatedly and persistently declared its belief that biotechnology is a main aspect of what it likes to call the knowledge economy. One hears terms such as “bright future” and the like. I contend that what we have here is the opposite. Where is the basis behind this knowledge economy when our scientists—our best and our brightest—have in fact been forced offshore to do their research? Particularly with Professor Elliott’s treatment for diabetes people are now going to have to go offshore to have their transplants. Professor Elliott’s xenotransplants that have been developed by his company Diatranz would appear to fit the bill. 
I think that in a decade of careful experimentation this prominent medical researcher has developed a very interesting method of dealing with diabetes and one that diabetics in this country are now going to be denied. The method I think is worth touching on very briefly. It is a method of trickling insulin from cells cultured from the pancreas cells of piglets. These are contained within a retrievable tea bag. The interesting thing about this tea bag if one likes is that it floats in the diabetic’s peritoneal liquid in the cavity of the stomach. The cells are coated to prevent immune reactions and the patient’s immune systems are not interfered with at all. We have heard repeatedly from various speakers through the entirety of this debate that we have to worry about immune responses. In this particular area of research and treatment that is not an issue at all. 
The whole debate has raised for me—and I have worked in the area of research myself—concerns about research. I think many people just do not understand what research is all about. We have volunteers who have sought information themselves and who have consented voluntarily to the treatments and to the research that they have undertaken and they are well aware of the consequences of their actions. They know that there are risks associated with the treatment risks associated with research and in fact there are risks associated with life. They take this on board and they make a voluntary conscious decision to participate or to not participate. 
There are many people who decide that the research process is not for them so they agree not to participate. There are others who weigh up the pros and the cons and undertake the research. Many of these volunteers whom we have heard about during the debate have decided that it is the thing for them and have had very good results and in many cases life-saving results. We should not forget this. It is very easy for those of us who do not know much about diabetes and the other terrible diseases that have benefited through the times of history from research processes just to sit here but it is as much a debate about progress as about anything else. 
We have focused heavily in this debate as one speaker did say on Professor Elliott his research and his company Diatranz. But we should note that there are many other companies involved and many other researchers and scientists who also have experienced similar things. They too have been driven offshore to progress their research. The obvious question when we focus on this particular area of xenotransplantation is: is pig insulin safe for humans? The answer is a very obvious one too. The answer is in the decades of injecting millions of diabetics with pig insulin. Now are we about to take that insulin away from people who since the 1950s have had a very valuable lifesaving improvement in their quality of life? I would contend that no we certainly are not. 
The experts in the field as we have heard were not able to be called to the select committee and that is certainly what I would have liked to see. Professor Roger Morris of the New Zealand Veterinary School is a world expert on transfer of animal viruses to humans and I talked about him yesterday. He is a main adviser to the United Kingdom on foot-and-mouth disease and to the Hong Kong Government on duck and hen infections jumping into humans. This is what he has to say about the use of pig cells in New Zealanders. “It’s riskier going to the zoo than to have one of these pancreatic cell transplants.” he declared. He followed that comment with: “I don’t believe it’s risky going to the zoo.” and I would have to say that I agree with him. 
I would like to touch briefly on research in this country. This bill is about delaying science. It is about delaying progress and it is about delaying the ability of New Zealand’s scientists to participate in research. That is one of the main reasons for ACT objecting to this bill and opposing it. I also touched briefly in other stages of the bill—in the Committee stage in particular—on retroviruses. A lot of talk has gone on about this and I described the technique with Professor Elliott’s research. 
The retroviruses are a worry. That is why in this country we have very rigorous regulatory regimes surrounding research projects. They are right and they are proper and we should have some faith in the process. We do not screen our tourists or our immigrants for retroviruses yet we worry inordinately about retroviruses in research where we have very tough regulatory regimes in place. I contend that we should trust our experts a little more. If we have the proper processes and regulatory regimes in place then we should be able to rely on the scientists to fulfil the requirements of those properly. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I say upfront that United Future is supporting this third reading because this amendment bill extends the expiry date and reflects a desire to put in place sensible legislation designed to facilitate the development of medical science within a safe regulatory framework. The proposal is to have xenotransplantation covered by a new human tissue bill which is well on track to be introduced into the House by the end of this year. 
Missing from the complaints from both National and ACT members was a guarantee that they will welcome that human tissue legislation and allow it to move through the legislative process without any political game-playing. Those sorts of commitments would mean that legislation could be in place well before 31 December 2006. The power to move with responsible speed on this matter could well be within the power of the current Opposition. The National Party which is campaigning to be the Government should include a reassurance in speeches made by its members that the human tissue bill will be its highest priority should it become the Government. 
The issue that has been raised about trusting or distrusting the scientific community is a complete nonsense. Responsible scientists never want to operate outside a clearly defined ethical framework. In fact scientific developments always need to happen within an ethical framework because ethics as we have stated before do not apply just to medical procedures but also include the research processes. As I have said on numerous occasions the means by which we achieve a medical outcome are as ethically important as the end itself. 
If one listens to the Opposition spokespeople one would think that the progress of xenotransplantation is the only pathway forward for diabetics kidney patients and the like when the truth is that there is a raft of other health initiatives such as improving our human organ donation rates in New Zealand that are very commendable and often superior options. 
I would like to mention now—because one does not get a lot of chance—the work of Andy Tookey and the generosity of Peter Jackson in this regard because better registration of human donors and better public health promotion around this issue would make a huge difference to our donation rates. Those kinds of initiatives are ongoing and worthy of development. When we start to see one medical option as the only way forward I think we are in serious strife. 
This amendment bill has three clauses: a title clause a commencement clause and then the one clause clause 3 that is what the bill is really all about. The clause amends the Medicines Act 1981 by deferring the expiry of Part 7A from 30 June 2005 to 31 December 2006. It also allows for that date to be extended by Order in Council should it be necessary. However my expectation—because of the obvious interest across the House on this issue—is that when the human tissue bill comes before the House we will get great support across all parties to send it to the select committee call for submissions and have the whole cause progressed with sensible speed which would mean that this issue would be a non-issue well before 31 December 2006. United Future is more than happy to support this small amendment bill at its third reading. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party too is very very pleased to be supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. This bill as the previous speaker pointed out is really a minor technical bill that extends the date of a moratorium. One of the complaints we often hear from the National Party is about rushed legislation coming before the House. Here we have an example of where the Government has said that because it has not completed the legislation it needs more time to get it right. One would think that everyone in this House would support the idea of getting something as complex as regulations and legislation surrounding xenotransplantation right. 
I do not believe that Katherine Rich deep in her heart truly believes that xenotransplantation is some great miracle that is almost devoid of risk which is what she has been arguing. I think her party has told her to say that but that she does not for a moment believe it. I think she knows like all the rest of us that xenotransplantation actually involves huge risks. 
The member from ACT quoted various people. I want to read a couple of quotations. The first is from a virologist from Cambridge University who said that if we go ahead with xenotransplantation it will be a step in the dark because so much uncertainty surrounds it. The second is from a virologist from the University of Texas. He said that it is well established that most new emerging human infectious diseases have their origin in other species and that a direct method of establishing new infectious human disease would be to implant infected tissue from a non-human species into humans and allow viruses direct access to human tissue. He said that seldom if ever have we had as much knowledge to prevent a future epidemic and that what is lacking is the wisdom to act upon that knowledge. 
That I suggest to the National Party is what is needed here. What we need is not great excited shrill calls about the potential of xenotransplantation but some wisdom to understand the risks inherent in it. Whatever we say however lightly those members try to dismiss the risks the truth is that there is the possibility that new infectious organisms not currently known will emerge and infect human beings. 
I might add that if that were the case it would actually threaten the people who receive the pig organs as well as potentially all the rest of humanity. A  
New Scientist 
 editorial stated that nothing could be worse than if in trying to save our lives we inadvertently engineered a plague. So let us not try to dismiss the risks. 
Even the Ministry of Health says that basically the porcine endogenous retrovirus is present in the DNA contained in the nucleus of all pig cells and those emerging viruses would pose a particular problem because they would be difficult to identify. 
Surely we should learn from the past. What was the bovine spongiform encephalopathy Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease crisis if it was not basically the transfer of a disease crossing the species from animals into humans? Surely something like that would give us cause to think that next time for something like this we should get it right. 
We know that both humans and pigs carry viruses within their genes. It is possible that they could combine those viruses to create entirely new organisms. We know that all organs donated—like an organ transplant—are liable to rejection. Even with a human-to-human organ transplant the body’s defence mechanisms attempt to destroy the foreign organ. But in the case of xenotransplantation far more violent responses occur. They are called hyperacute rejections. That is an incredibly strong reaction that destroys the new organ within minutes. 
Even if scientists manage to avert an inherent rejection by introducing human genes into pigs the pig organ will still face other rejection processes that scientists believe will be stronger than those faced by human organs. Even if the pig organ survived there is strong evidence to suggest that it would fail to function adequately within the human body. So let us not present this as if it were the magic bullet when indeed it is an extremely risky area. Another issue we need to consider is that rearing pigs under germ-free conditions which is what is envisaged is extremely expensive and time consuming not to mention the cost of monitoring the pigs for the presence of bacteria and viruses. That would involve huge sums of money. 
Given that our health system is already stretched scientists are pointing out and particularly people with an interest in diabetes that even if xenotransplantation were proved to be possible it would take away potentially huge amounts of funds that could be used for the care of patients suffering illnesses that could not be treated by the technology. So even if it were possible it would be enormously expensive and it would also involve turning pigs into spare-part factories and plundering their organs. Genetically mutated pigs would be raised in artificial conditions and those extraordinarily intelligent animals—I see that some members are laughing. The truth is that pigs are intelligent and they would face an unnatural and distressing existence. Do we not need to consider them as well or do we humans have the right to use animals manipulate them in whichever way we would wish no matter how much suffering we may cause them? 
The truth of the matter is that if we are genuine about trying to reduce the epidemic of diabetes in our midst which is really what most people when they talk about xenotransplantation are thinking about we have two things that we should be doing immediately. One has been touched on by the previous speaker which is getting human organs human organ donations—and we have such an appalling record in New Zealand for human organ donations. We have one of the lowest rates of human organ donations in the world. Why are we not trying to do something about that? 
Secondly why are we not trying to do something to prevent the underlying causes of diabetes? Yes we know that more than 120000 New Zealanders suffer from diabetes and we know that lack of exercise and diet are the key causes of type 2 diabetes—particularly fat and foods with a high level of sugar. 
If the National Party and the ACT party were really genuine in their passionate desire to treat diabetes they would be taking strong steps to try to reduce the amount of high-sugar high-fat foods and drinks that our children are eating and drinking in New Zealand. They would be joining in an initiative to take out of our schools all those high-fat pies and those vending machines selling sugary fizzy drinks. We know that they cause diabetes. It would be an incredibly simple step to get them out of our schools to try to do something to work with the food industry to stop them from targeting all that food laden with fat and sugar at our children. That is the single most effective thing we could be doing to reduce diabetes but no we avoid those simple steps and go on about some incredibly risky and expensive technology such as xenotransplantation as though somehow that is the panacea. 
The panacea is right in front of us—that is human organs and improving our diet and exercise. There is no need for xenotransplantation if we were to take those simple cost-effective steps. If the National Party is serious let us see it make some progress on that and not risk humanity by rushing into a science with such enormous risks. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 That speech came from a member who was going to join a campaign against dihydrogen monoxide—water. Because dihydrogen monoxide had killed lots of people she thought it was a dangerous substance and when she found out the substance was water she was a little mortified. At least she had the good grace to acknowledge the slip. Anybody who listened to that speech would have thought that some shock horror legislation was being put through the House designed to visit all sorts of unnaturals upon the populace at large. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is simple legislation which the member totally misrepresents. It actually extends the moratorium on xenotransplantation from 30 June 2005 to 31 December 2006. At the very least the member could have welcomed that. She could do that by way of interjection if she wished to. In fact what the extension allows to happen is what the co-leader of the Green Party—which Ms Kedgley belongs to—agrees with which is for an evidence-based approach to be set up for use with regard to xenotransplantation. The member forgets to tell us when she talks about diabetes that there are two types of diabetes one of which can be treated only by some form of treatment like this. I find it incredible that Ms Kedgley can go on in the way she has about this particular technology and science without the slightest bit of understanding of them. That explains why she was going to join a campaign to ban water. She just simply does not understand. 
Fortunately most of the Parliament does understand that this particular bill serves a purpose for now and that we will let the scientists get on with working out whether xenotransplantation is a safe procedure to use in humans over time. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I agree with the last speaker: let the scientists get on with their work. Let the scientists decide what science that they do. We have heard a lot of talk in the House tonight much of which I do not agree with. We already have frameworks in place. We already have ways of doing science in this country that are ethical well-managed and well-regulated. Judy Turner from United Future said we needed an ethical framework within which to undertake this kind of work. We already have that within the various Acts and regulations that we ask scientists who undertake science in this country to work under. 
Judy Turner also asked that the National Party have some pretty weird priorities when it comes into Government. She asked that our No. 1 priority be legislation to do with human tissue. I have a message for that member: when we become the Government our priorities will continue to be the main areas that Government should be concerned with—health education and the economy. I am not saying that what we are debating here tonight is not important but those are the areas that should be the No. 1 priorities not individual pieces of legislation like this. She also said that she thought this bill was sensible. I challenge her to stand opposite someone who is desperately waiting for a new treatment or for some life-saving operation and explain to him or her why these delays are a good idea. We do not agree. 
The National Party does not support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill that we are debating tonight. Even though it has only three clauses and looks like a very short technical bill the implications are quite far-reaching. The implications will be huge for the scientific community and they will be huge for people who are interested in the outcomes of xenotransplantation. 
Sue Kedgley made some comments in her speech about her disbelief that I would support this kind of bill. I have one message for that member: pig kidneys—bring them on. Four members of my family have been on dialysis. Another 10 are waiting in the wings. It costs the State about $1500 per week for their treatment. Many of them would be more than happy to have a pig kidney if the technology came to fruition. 
We are not presenting this as being a panacea as being something that is a magic bullet for all medical conditions but it is another option. It is really important that we do not try to limit scientific endeavour because while we do that in New Zealand other countries do not. Many of our scientists are already making the choice to go to the UK Canada and other areas where this kind of research can be conducted. So it is not to be presented as something that is easy. I am not a scientist but I know that most Kiwis when they are in the position of having to weigh up their medical options are smart enough to decide whether they can live with the risks. 
Heather Roy made a very pertinent point. She quoted a leading scientist who described one aspect of xenotransplantation as being as risky as going to the zoo. He then went on to say that going to the zoo is not risky either. I do not think we have heard enough of the scientific debate. These are the sorts of things I would dearly love to have asked officials and experts when the bill went through the select committee process. Yes we had access to Ministry of Health officials but we were not able to ask many other groups or experts who I think could have advised the select committee as we made our decisions. We did not ask the National Kidney Foundation we did not ask Diabetes New Zealand we did not ask anyone from the Medical Association. My colleague Paul Hutchison made a specific request that we invite submissions on this bill but that was rejected. So it went through the select committee process at breakneck speed. 
The report from the Health Committee is misleading in my view. The bill is described as non-controversial when in fact there were huge controversy and debate when this issue came up. It is not a minor technical bill. The implications are huge. We are looking at delaying scientific work. When has the answer to a problem of not having all the information been to delay work? I totally understand that we do not know everything about this technology and that there are some very fair concerns about it. But those concerns can be managed by scientists and by people who want to take part in trials who can make up their own minds. We cannot halt the scientific tide and expect the problems to go away. There are issues to be worked out with the technology and some of the comments made about retroviruses etc. are valid. But with the technology and the pace it is moving at there are ways to make sure that cells or organs are taken from animals that have been bred specifically for transplants and that we take the necessary precautions to make it as safe as possible. 
I heard David Cunliffe speak on the bill. I was concerned about some of his comments also. He wanted to give the impression that the National Party had been hoodwinked by one company Diatranz and that we were raising these concerns simply because we were bothered about one corporate that had to make a decision to leave New Zealand to continue its diabetes research. That is not the case at all. If anything we have been trying to put a human face on the problems that will be created by this bill—the people who are waiting for lifesaving operations and treatments. In some cases the treatment might not be lifesaving but a huge change to a patient’s enjoyment of life might result from getting treatment that is far more substantial than having to take insulin every day or dialyse every 3 to 4 days. We need to remember that a lot of people are waiting for these kinds of treatments and operations. When we create more and more barriers and hurdles for scientists to overcome it makes it a lot more difficult for them to carry out this sort of work in New Zealand. Many people in this House have spoken to scientists who now struggle to get the work done in New Zealand. Not only do they spend a lot of time putting together applications and getting projects turned down but once they start the work they have to get through so many barriers that some areas simply are not worth it. It is better for them to go offshore. That is why many of our best and brightest have voted with their feet and gone to continue their scientific career elsewhere. 
In my view this bill is really a Luddite approach to science. It is a Luddite approach to finding solutions for many Kiwis who are very interested in the outcomes of this work and who do understand that there are risks that can be managed. Those Kiwis are interested in progressing science so that over a period of time new solutions are found for people who need them. It is a very expensive issue for New Zealand right now. Diabetes is epidemic within this country. We have a growing problem of shortage of space in renal dialysis units. Unless we look at alternatives we will find things become very very difficult for our citizens. 
Sue Kedgley pretends that a huge number of human organs are available in this country. That is not the case at all. We have a huge shortage of them and many families do not have access to the tissues and organs within their own families either. So to just bat this issue away and pretend that the science is too complex is a bit naive. The people who are involved in medical research of this kind take their responsibilities very very carefully. A strong ethical framework that surrounds this kind of work already exists. A number of regulations that scientists are required to follow in order to carry out this work are already in place. 
This bill is not about logic. There is no logical or scientific basis for putting this moratorium in place. This is more about delaying progress. It is a real shame that Labour is not serving those who are the human face of the issue. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so with some bemusement because the very honourable retiring member from Invercargill Mark Peck got up and gave a very good speech on the reasons why we should not support this bill tonight. Unfortunately the very junior Government whip sitting next to him forgot to tell him that it was actually one of the Government’s bills and that the Government was supporting it. Mr Peck will vote for it in a minute when he gets the chance. I thank him for shedding a bit of light that one or two of the Labour caucus members once they get out from under the ether of socialism and go down south to the fresh air and clear their heads can come back to Parliament and talk sense about what needs to be done. I am with him 100 percent. This is a pro-science debate and an anti-bill debate because the bill delays science. It is that simple. 
Tomorrow in Parliament we will hear Dr Cullen present the Budget. There will be a lot of backslapping and people will talk about the amazing things that will come out of that Budget in terms of it being pro-growth pro-science and pro-development. Tonight in Parliament we are debating a bill that delays science and denies scientists the opportunity to experiment and potentially to produce something that would be beneficial to a large number of people. That is an oxymoron. A Government cannot claim to be pro-growth pro-science pro - economic development and pro-health and vote for such a bill. The two just do not and will not square. I look forward to the honourable member taking another call to explain to me how they do square because I am absolutely astounded by it. 
I want to say to the member that there are a number of experts who have submitted to this debate and this process. One of them Professor Bob Elliott has been talked about in a couple of other debates earlier on along with his company called Diatranz which has developed a unique and world-leading technology to help people who suffer from diabetes—something that is a major health problem in this country. He has been forced along with his company to go offshore—to Australia. He was one of the 600-odd New Zealanders who depart from this country every week. I say to members opposite that this country’s economy and Dr Cullen’s Budget tomorrow are able to exist because of the leading edge biotechnology science that has been a hallmark of this country particularly in the agricultural industries but also in the medical field. This bill is yet another example of how a Luddite Government with its head in the sand will stand in the way of that kind of development. 
I suggest that the members talk to the likes of Professor Bob Elliott and Professor Roger Morris a well-known expert who is hired all around the world. He spends more time out of New Zealand than he does in New Zealand. Although Professor Morris’ skills are recognised internationally back here the Labour Government does not need the advice of somebody like him; it already has its own advisers who just say “Yes sir no sir and what do you want us to do next sir?”. I ask members to listen to the likes of Professor Morris who is a world-renowned expert. He will tell us that pig-tissue transplantation—xenotransplantation as it is known—is something that could hold the key to a range of problems in terms of the medical fraternity. He will also tell us that having a very healthy pig herd in this country is the best way to detect any kind of disease that potentially may infect the human population because pigs are the closest species to humans in terms of that kind of detection. So I ask members to have a talk to him. It is as simple as that. If members ring him up I am sure he will give them a briefing on some of this stuff. 
He has said that the kind of technology that is being proposed in terms of xenotransplantation—and it is not some loony field of new development—is safe and there is no science at all that can tell us that it is not. That is the interesting question. The test that has to be measured is whether it is unsafe. That is what the debate is about. Are we sure that it is unsafe? How can one tell that it is unsafe if there is no science to say that it is unsafe? We know that motorcars are unsafe but we all drive them. We know that an earthquake can kill thousands of people but we still live and work in the capital of New Zealand which is on a fault line. We know a range of things that are unsafe but in this case there is no science and no evidence to say that it is unsafe. 
Yet tonight we are debating the extension of a moratorium so that scientists can presumably go offshore and carry out experiments to develop our technology somewhere else. One of the worst things happening in this country at the moment is that some of the best inventions in the world in a range of scientific areas are being taken offshore because they simply cannot work and survive under the regulatory framework in this country—whether it be tax or whether it be moratoriums on this kind of experiment. 
So I say to members that xenotransplantation is not new. It has been around for a long long time as I have said in every debate in this discussion so far. The first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 on a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. That is going back a bit. The first successful organ xenotransplant took place in 1963. The problem has always been as has been mentioned throughout the debate that the human immune system rejects the new material. That is the problem. 
To allow science to find a way around that problem I would have thought would be hugely beneficial not only for medical science but for a range of other potential science experiments as well as producing potential intellectual property that could be worth millions of dollars to New Zealand. But no not with the socialists in charge. If someone wants to muck around with that sort of stuff that does not sound as though it will fit into their little corner of thinking then that person must take it offshore. They will not allow it in this country. 
What we are debating here tonight is legislation that effectively kicks science for touch for a little bit longer until the Government can get past the next election then it will be able to have a look out there and see whether it can round up some votes from the United Future party or whichever party might turn up. In the meantime it will put it in abeyance. The Green Party will certainly not allow the bill to move forward so the Government will kick it out for another few months—that is the politically expedient thing to do—and see whether it can cobble something together at the end. 
Mr Peck’s speech earlier reminds me of the occasion when I was a new member when we were relying on Alamein Kopu’s vote for a piece of legislation. She supported it but the last person who spoke to her disabused her of the notion that she should support it. Halfway through my speech she changed her vote so for half my speech she was for it and for half she was against it. That is one up on Mr Peck who spoke in favour of the bill but who will now vote against it tonight. 
Some interesting things have happened in Parliament. This tonight is not one of them. This bill is another socialist measure to kick the scientists offshore. There is no basis to the argument that has been put forward and we in the National Party will not support the extension of the moratorium. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Oaths Modernisation Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 17 May. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Tonight National will vote against the Oaths Modernisation Bill. We do so on three principal grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary the second is that it is part of the Government’s surreptitious agenda and the third is that it is designed to lull the public into accepting a process of incremental change. There is no compelling reason to change our oaths and affirmations. I will give an example of that. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Government is doing important things—so important that it intends to replace the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. That has huge significance I imagine! Further the Government intends to replace the word “divulging” with the word “disclosing”. It is extraordinary that the Government is spending hours of the House’s time to do something that is pointless and unnecessary. 
Now I know that the Government will say that the bill is just a modernisation bill and that the National Party is opposing it just because that is what that party does to Government measures but our second reason for opposing the bill is also important. This bill is clearly part of the Government’s agenda of creeping republicanism. Government members know that—they know precisely that. Let us look at the record of creeping republicanism. First this Government dropped the Privy Council and established the Supreme Court. I ask my colleagues whether a referendum was held on that. 
Hon. Members 
: No! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There was no referendum. Second this Government replaced photos of the Queen in our embassies and high commissions with photos of the Prime Minister. Third it has made the change from the Governor-General taking the general salute at military parades to the Prime Minister taking the salute. Who else takes a salute? The person who usually does that is a president. That is the usual name for such a person. Fourth the Government is changing the term “Queen’s Counsel” to the term “Senior Counsel”. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: You’re joking! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is right. Fifth the Government has abolished knighthoods. Finally as part of the Government’s plot with the United Future party the lapdog party that surreptitiously supports the Government whenever it can the Government has created the Constitutional Arrangements Committee. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that he cannot refer to members or parties in that way. The member will withdraw that remark. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well if anyone would take offence I would withdraw that remark. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for the remark. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
At no stage has the Government set out its real agenda. It clearly does have one and it is an agenda of republicanism. If we compare for instance former Prime Minister Jim Bolger with Prime Minister Helen Clark we see that former Prime Minister Bolger was perfectly clear to the public of New Zealand about what he intended. He is a republican. He is proud of that he put it clearly on the public record and he wanted to have a debate on precisely that. When the current Government is challenged on the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic its members say: “Oh no. This is nothing to do with that. It may happen 50 years from now or something like that but it is not part of our agenda.” That is the difference is it not? On the one hand there was Jim Bolger with the courage of his convictions standing up and being willing to debate the issue with New Zealanders—he actually shifted people’s beliefs; the figures went up from 35 percent to 45 percent in favour of republicanism simply because of his advocacy—but on the other hand it is clear that in contrast the current Government is moving towards republicanism secretly and covertly and with the help of its ally and stooge United Future. So we say that this Government has a surreptitious design and that this bill is all part of that agenda. 
Our third ground for opposing the bill is that the bill is intended to get people used to the idea of change and to change to long-held traditions. There is no particular reason to do so but the Government is doing it anyway simply to set the pattern of change so that for each and every case—or at least certainly in this kind of case—it can say the change is just a minor thing and ask how anyone could object to it. Last night I heard Mr Goff say precisely that. But the purpose of the bill is quite different from its stated purpose. The purpose is designed to get people used to the idea of change. A few minutes ago I set out a pattern of behaviour. This bill conforms to that pattern of behaviour. The bill is of itself a device a fiction a transparency and in fact it is so successful that the New Zealand First members—members of a party that actually supports the idea of New Zealand’s arrangements remaining as they are unless there is a clear plan—have themselves been brainwashed. They are supporting this bill going to the select committee so unwittingly—and I acknowledge that it may be unwittingly—they themselves have embarked on allowing the process of creeping change and of allowing small components of change at various points along the way. 
I conclude by saying that I could respect the Government if the Prime Minister and others on the Labour benches came out with their agenda and were prepared to have an open discussion with the New Zealand public. But they are not prepared to do that. Instead they are going through a process of conditioning and grooming that is intended to change the public mood. That is the real purpose of this bill. It is not to alter the wording of the oaths but to encourage the idea of change. For that reason National opposes the bill. We do not trust the Government. We have ample evidence as to why we should not trust the Prime Minister. Her statements in this House show an untrustworthy nature and on that basis we say to New Zealand that this Government cannot be trusted with regard to these kinds of bills. The Government is trying to dupe the citizens of New Zealand. Therefore this bill should be opposed. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We hear many rubbishy speeches in the House. Tonight we have heard a speech of real excellence and I would like to say on behalf of myself and of the member of Parliament for Invercargill what a great speech we have heard. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows very well that that is not a point of order. I just warn him about points of order. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I first of all say that I agreed with Dr Cullen earlier on today when he said he could not guarantee that all Government spending was worthwhile because it was hard to say that the money spent on the Opposition was money well spent. That was actually amply demonstrated by the member who preceded me the member who praised Mr Bolger but was one of the colonels who led the coup against him. 
Hon Member 
: Shipley’s man. 
MARK PECK 
: Yes Shipley’s man. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Very short-term memory. 
MARK PECK 
: Yes very short-term memory. This debate is interesting. I support the bill—surprise surprise. It is very interesting— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Don’t ruin it Mr Peck. It’s good stuff and you’re going to blow it. 
MARK PECK 
: No I am not. I am going to quote the member’s own words back at him. I am going to remind that member what he challenged the Government to do. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Are you talking about Richard Worth? 
MARK PECK 
: This is Richard Worth and it is before he became a doctor by the way. Now that he is Dr Richard Worth I am sure he stands by his words. This is what he said we must do: “We need to make our agenda clear in a review of the oaths and affirmations.” And this is what he wants us to do: he wants the removal of old and archaic language from the wording of the oaths and affirmations. We have done it in the bill. It is a very very good bill. And he said: “We have to make sure we have references to the Queen.” We have done that too. They are there. I say to the member that he said this about Mr Goff: “He needs to be reminded that the Queen is not only the head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.” Well we know that too—check check check. It is a check check check bill. Three out of three ain’t bad! 
Hon Member 
: Meatloaf! 
MARK PECK 
: It is better than Meatloaf. So why is the member not supporting the bill? That is what I would ask him. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He should be. 
MARK PECK 
: He should be but he has been rolled by Wayne Mapp. Wayne Mapp got him despite the fact that we have Dr Richard Worth Mr Wayne Mapp rolled him. I have to say to the member that he has to get a little bit fitter—I see him in the gym from time to time—so he can take on Dr Wayne Mapp who is not that much of a specimen. He was defeated resoundingly by Phil Goff when he tried to get the Labour Party nomination for Mt Roskill. So not being able to be a Labour Party politician he did the next best thing—as far as he could see—and became a Tory. 
This is a good bill and I support it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the honourable member was referring to me but his comments are a gross misrepresentation of my political career which has been star-studded as the member well knows. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that was not a point of order. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Oaths Modernisation Bill at its first reading so that it can be referred to a select committee. We are all in favour of having some of the archaic language in the various oaths modernised as they have been in the proposed texts. It is good that the oaths now have a Maori version. However we should not exaggerate the importance of oaths. In most cases uttering an oath does not change people’s actual behaviour all that much. That fact has been recognised in one respect in the proposal to drop the teachers oath which is no longer necessary. 
Oaths have a use in marking the beginning of a person’s new responsibility and his or her dedication to it such as when becoming a citizen of New Zealand a lawyer or even a member of Parliament. For an oath to have real effect the person uttering it should feel as comfortable as possible with it so that it really means something. For years we had people utter a religious oath even when many of them were atheists or agnostics. Now we at least have in the system affirmations for the non-religious and those people can now feel truer to their pledge. 
Unfortunately the same principle has not been applied to the question of whether a pledge to the Queen should be included in the oath. The explanatory note of the bill states that among those who submitted to the review group there was clear support in favour of retaining loyalty to the Queen in the oath. Of course that support was not universal in the submissions. For a start the republican movement opposed its retention. However it is not how many of the limited number of submissions were for or against the retention of loyalty to the Queen in the oath that should count. If we apply the same principle that we have been applying to religion and religious belief—that of not wanting people to swear to something they do not believe in; like not swearing to a god if they are atheists—then we should not make republicans swear their loyalty to the Queen. It only demeans the oath. It devalues the oath when we all know that 35 percent or more of the population are republicans and another big chunk of New Zealanders do not really support the monarchy as an institution but cannot really see that this is the right time to make a big constitutional change in that respect. 
So all those people who are not really for the monarchy will be reluctantly swearing an oath to Queen Elizabeth a woman whose office they do not really believe in. To take “loyalty to the Queen” out of the oath is not to deny that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. We just need to look at countries that have a similar constitutional situation like Australia—particularly Australia—which is also a constitutional monarchy. That country has a new citizenship oath that does not mention the Queen. It reads as follows: “From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.” There is no mention of the Queen. In other countries new citizens pledge their loyalty to the State or the nation or to its laws its constitution its people or some combination of those. The United States for example is big on citizens pledging loyalty to its “constitution and laws”. In Ireland a new citizen declares himself or herself to have “fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State”. In Jamaica people pledge to “the constitution and the people of Jamaica”. 
The Canadian Parliament has before it a bill that represents a compromise in terms of changing the oath away from being an oath to the monarch. It is proposed to remove the reference in the oath to the Queen’s “heirs and successors”. Unfortunately that term is still in our oath. I think that the reference to “her heirs and successors” helps to get to the heart of the problem we have in keeping the monarchy as part of the oath because it reminds us that the Queen is not our head of State as Queen of New Zealand because of any democratic procedure but because of an accident of birth—she was born into the right family. We as New Zealanders under this constitutional arrangement are stuck with her “heirs and successors” because heredity rules in that respect. 
From a republican perspective and even other perspectives this leads to an inbuilt contradiction in the new oaths proposed in this bill for the people of New Zealand be it the new citizenship oath or in the Parliamentary Oath that we as members of Parliament have to swear. Under the new and I believe improved oath I am supposed to swear that I as an MP will “be loyal to New Zealand and will respect its democratic values and the rights and freedoms of its people” which I am happy to do. But as far as I am concerned this makes the oath internally contradictory. How can I possibly pledge loyalty to democratic values and at the same time declare loyalty to the Queen as a head of State whose selection process is a complete denial of democratic values? There is simply no democratic selection process for our head of State. Queen Elizabeth is there only because she is the daughter of a particular human being—George Windsor. 
Democracy should also involve public accountability and there is no democratic public accountability system for the Queen or any proper democratic means of dismissing her. She is there for life as are her heirs and successors without there being any means of removal. Of course the existence of this contradiction in the oath does not mean that all Greens would object to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Not all Greens are republicans and we do not have an official party policy on republicanism or the monarchy. But we could easily have an oath like Australia’s in order to get out of the problem of making people swear to something they do not believe in and devaluing the oath accordingly. 
As members may know I have a member’s bill the Head of State Referenda Bill in the ballot. If that bill is selected and we have the appropriate referenda and the monarchy is dispensed with then that would remove the contradiction in the oath as clearly that would have to be removed from the oath. 
The essence of oaths should primarily be a loyalty to the people the nation and the law of the country. That is why I quite like the Australian and Jamaican oaths. In this respect I am a little concerned about the proposed police oath and armed forces oath in the bill. The police oath should be focused on the police upholding the law whereas the emphasis is on serving Her Majesty and the reference to the law is a little too indirect—that is to “perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law.” The armed forces oath emphasises loyally obeying “all orders of Her (or His) Majesty her (or his) heirs and successors and of the officers set over me …”. This is all about obeying orders with no reference to loyalty to the people nation or laws of New Zealand let alone to the “democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.” which is rightly in the citizenship oath and the Parliamentary Oath before us. 
I think the select committee has a fair bit of work to do to remove the contradictions and the weaknesses in the oaths before us. We have made a step forward in the proposals in getting away from some of the archaic language of the old English tradition but I think we should have a simpler citizenship oath along the lines of the Australian oath. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 McCarthyism is alive and well in New Zealand. Who would have thought it? Instead of reds under the bed we have republicans under the bed. National Party members are searching for them anywhere they can find them. I listened on the radio to the speeches given last night. I must say that the quality of the speeches was reflected in the fact that there was a bit of slurring indicating that well-lubricated speakers were making speeches on this bill. 
I know that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has an important obligation to oppose anything the Government wants to do but sometimes it goes to a ridiculous extent. I must say that the repetition I have been hearing in speech after speech made by National Party members shows the shallowness of their arguments in regard to this issue. Is there anything in this bill that we should be concerned about? United Future does not put it past the Government to be introducing PC changes social engineering and doing it underhandedly and surreptitiously. I looked at the words in the bill quite carefully to see whether I could find anything there. I just cannot see it. There is nothing in these changes that could ever lead one to believe that somehow this is a big plot on the part of the Government to destroy the fabric of New Zealand society. 
What objection can be taken to words like “I will be loyal to New Zealand.” or I “will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”? Yet somehow National does not want to see those new words added to the text. What is wrong with adding after the words “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” the words “Queen of New Zealand”? For 150 years effectively that has been the situation. Although our oaths refer just to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” I think it is quite appropriate 150 years later to recognise that when we are talking about the Queen we are talking about the Queen of New Zealand when we have a Queen who is Queen of other countries as well. I think it is important that we make it clear to people who are taking oaths that effectively the Queen they are providing loyalty to is the Queen of this country not of England or other countries in the Commonwealth. So what is wrong with that? 
What is wrong with a phrase that states: “I will be a faithful and diligent Councillor.”? How do National members see any problem with that in terms of some sort of hidden motivation? Instead of the words “well and truly serve Her Majesty” we have the words “faithfully and diligently”. That is only modernising the language. The citizenship oath states: “I will be loyal to New Zealand … and will respect the democratic values …”. Is not that what National Party members stand for? Or are we led to believe that they believe that pledging loyalty to democratic values is some sort of sinister plot? We are changing the wording to say “faithfully and impartially serve” and referring to the “people of the realm of New Zealand” in the Governor-General’s Oath. Certainly that is what we should be doing. 
The Judicial Oath now asks judges to say that they will “act fairly and impartially and do right to all people without fear or favour affection or ill will …”. What is wrong with that? What hidden motivations are there in an oath that states that our judges will pledge themselves to act fairly and impartially without fear or favour affection or ill will? In fact one could argue that that should have been in the Judicial Oath years ago because that is certainly what New Zealand citizens expect of their judges. 
So all we see is a modernisation of the language. There are no hidden agendas. There is a modernisation and a consistency of language across the various oaths. The problem it appears is that National members would have us believe that they do not like change. They like the archaic language. Richard Worth in particular likes the archaic language. Why should we not keep language in modern society that people do not understand instead of replacing it with something that people will readily understand! 
It is the same sort of approach National members took when we were speaking on the Evidence Bill. When I spoke about the need for fundamental reforms in the criminal justice system to bring it into a form more befitting modern society they wanted to bury it in the past. They want to clutch to our 18th century system. I admit there were a lot of very positive 18th and 19th century reforms of British justice. But as our society has changed over the years it is important that we reflect on that and ask: “Is it the best system that we have?” and that we are bold enough to make changes. 
The problem with National Party members is that they are so fixated in their historical perspective they do not want change they are scared of change. They are scared of looking at and improving the system we have had to make it far more acceptable to New Zealanders. 
I welcome also in this bill the fact that we are to have te reo text. Maori is an official language in New Zealand. The language is unique to New Zealand despite also sharing similarities with languages of Pacific Islands as far as Rapanui. But we need to be proud of the Maori language. I think it is very important to have in an Act of Parliament oaths that are in te reo and that are the official version of those oaths. We do not then depend on somebody who wants to speak te reo making his or her own interpretation and Maori version of the oath. It is important that there is consistency and that in so far as we want to promote and endorse te reo and increase its usage and recognition in New Zealand it is important we make provision for that. That is what this bill does. It is a very welcome move. 
I find that the opposition to this bill is far-fetched to the point of being ridiculous. Trying to find republicans under the bed in this McCarthyism that I see happening in National’s vain attempt to try to make some sort of logical opposition to this bill—simply because it has a duty to oppose anything the Government does—is being taken to poor extremes. United Future is very happy with the changes that have been made. We are quite happy to support them. We are not lapdogs. We are guide dogs. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. I think that the speaker who has just resumed his seat has totally lost the point. It is all very well for him to stand and say that United Future members are not lapdogs; he should say that to the country. Where are that member and his party registering in the polls? In the zone where people see that party as the lapdog of the Government. So he should think about that. 
I do find though that I am in total agreement with my colleague the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp of course. This bill is totally unnecessary. The speaker before me started to go through the various oaths and asked what on earth can be wrong with this that and the other. I ask him what the point is. Why do we need to say Queen of New Zealand when all New Zealanders know that she is the Queen of England? Formally she might be the Queen of New Zealand but we do not think of her as that. She is the Queen of England. Maori people more than anybody understand that notion. It was the Queen of England whom we signed the Treaty of Waitangi with and it is still the Queen of England whom we look to if we think we can get some redress from her. 
The United Future member can go through all those particular rights that are set out in the bill and ask what the harm is in them but we ask what their point is. 
That brings me to the points that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp raised. First of all these changes are totally unnecessary. They do not add to or detract from anything. There is ultimate meaning in the oaths as they are. There is absolutely no need to change them. New Zealanders will not feel any more or less committed— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Most people out there are crying out for it! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I have to disagree with my colleague Maurice Williamson. I do not think New Zealanders are crying out for the oaths to be changed. By and large most New Zealanders rely on tradition. There is nothing like tradition to provide stability in a democracy. Again Maori certainly realise that. I cannot say that for anyone else because I do not presume to speak for anyone else but I certainly know what it is that Maori deem important. Tradition is totally important and tradition is vitally important in oaths and allegiances. So there is the fact that this change is totally unnecessary. 
The second issue is that this legislation is part of the Government’s agenda for creeping republicanism. I agree with Dr Wayne Mapp—again—when he says that at least Jim Bolger an avowed republican put republicanism on the table in 1995. He did so much to the unhappiness of a lot of National Party members; he put it on the table and said that one day we must start debating the issue. That was the right thing to do. Mark Peck is absolutely wrong when he says that it is not the right thing to do—that the point of the process is not to put the issue on the table. It absolutely is the point. These things must be put on the table. They must be discussed by New Zealanders not just by a coterie of Labour Party left-wing socialist people who have their own little discussions in their own little rooms and decide that New Zealand will go down the path of republicanism and that they do not need to tell the public of New Zealand. That is the difference between Labour and this side of the House. We have put things on the table. We recognise when it is the right of New Zealanders to discuss these things—unlike the Government which as a typical socialist Government thinks it knows best. 
The third point is that as my colleague said this bill has been put forward to condition the people to and groom them for the idea of republicanism. I have to agree with him totally—absolutely. 
Stephen Franks 
: They are like paedophiles—they groom. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Gosh! I am not going to say that but there is more than a hint of grooming in this bill. Why would the Government put it forward unless for the purpose of lulling New Zealanders into a sense that it is OK and that they will go along with it? I warn New Zealanders who may be listening tonight that if they give this Government a third term—[ 
Interruption 
] They are all listening; they love listening to this House. I warn them that if this Government gets a third term we will be on the pathway to republicanism. This Government—given its conduct in abolishing reference to the Privy Council and abolishing Queen’s Counsel knighthoods and so on—will put us on that pathway because it thinks it has a God-given right to do such things without having the public of New Zealand behind it. 
The Government thinks this is a discreet little bill but funnily enough it could be the Government’s undoing. It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is PC nonsense. What Maori person out there said: “We need you to make sure there are translations of the oath.”? Who said that? Who asked for it? 
Stephen Franks 
: Tame Iti! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No Tame Iti would not do that. Who asked for it? What Maori person asked for it? Nobody asked for it. Was Tariana Turia—whom I know members opposite love to hear us talk about—debarred from taking the oath in Maori when she was sworn in? I do not think so. Was she? [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think so either. And since her taking the oath in 1996 a number of Maori have walked up to the Speaker’s Chair and taken the oath in Maori. So what is the purpose of this PC nonsense? Maori is an official language of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick and Ruth Dyson should listen to this. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Georgina! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Steve Chadwick—a good Maori name from Tuwharetoa and the Hawke’s Bay. Maori is an official language of New Zealand. We do not need to state in legislation that Tariana Turia can now take the oath in Maori. What a lot of rubbish! 
I agree with my colleague totally for those three reasons. The bill is totally unnecessary. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Mr Jim Peters commenting. Does that mean New Zealand First will vote against this bill too? I know that New Zealand First likes tradition too. Winston Peters is a traditionalist so I hope New Zealand First will vote against this bill as well. Tradition gives consistency and stability. Bringing things up to date? What a lot of nonsense! The meaning is not changed whatsoever. Bowing to Maori? Does the Government think it will hold the Maori seats with this? If so it can think again because it will not. It should think on that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I feel thoroughly inspired after that ringing speech. One does not often come to the House not knowing which way one is going to vote deciding instead to listen to the quality of the arguments before making up one’s mind. On this bill I think I will have to leave everyone hanging on my decision. 
I will just run through some of the arguments as they appeared. The first thing that struck me is that one simply cannot imagine what possible purpose is served by putting this bill forward. Of all the issues facing New Zealand—of all the matters for which we could use the $80000 an hour or so that it takes to run this place—we occupy ourselves by replacing the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully” in the oath of the Auditor-General. That is an odd one. Come to think of it what does the Government mean by taking an “honest” Auditor-General and making him a “faithful” Auditor-General? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It sounds like a lapdog. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I think it sounds like lapdog language. I wonder whether United Future had something to do with that change. One can quite easily be an honest Auditor-General but to be a faithful Auditor-General one has to be faithful to someone. Faithful to whom? It is a bit of a worry. At first I thought the change was quite innocuous but now that I look at those words and try to work out what it could mean to use parliamentary time at $80000 an hour for however many hours it takes to change “honestly” for “faithfully” I am not so sure. That same change has been carried through to the oath for the environment commissioners. At the moment the environment commissioners have to carry out their duties “honestly”. In future they will have to carry out their duties “faithfully”. [ 
Interruption 
] It does seem a little sinister yes. 
Another change—and I think it was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who drew this to the House’s attention—is the attempt to curry favour through political correctness by including all these oaths in another official language. I do not know whether members are aware that we are about to have yet another official language inflicted on us. Mouldering in the Justice and Electoral Committee is a bill to make New Zealand Sign Language another official language. Just imagine! How does one take an oath in Sign Language? Who can tell whether one is doing so honestly? I am disappointed in the Government that it does these politically correct things but has given no indication of how one takes an oath in sign language. I am quite sure that if one official language has an oath then those who use another official language have every right to demand an oath in their language too whatever it is. 
I come back to possibly a slightly more significant point. For us to replace the words “fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen” with the words “respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people” is not innocuous. That is a significant change. When one fulfils one’s duties as a New Zealand citizen it is perhaps reasonably straightforward to understand that there is a duty to obey the law. There is a duty to turn up for military service if a law is passed to say that one must. There is a duty to assist the police if called upon although they so rarely call upon citizens these days. But what does it mean to “respect the democratic values of New Zealand”? I can respect the Catholic church but still decide to pay absolutely no regard to its teachings. I can respect it as a religion but that does not mean I have fulfilled the duties laid down on Catholics. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to take away what is currently a duty and replace it with words that mean nothing. The Government is disguising that. That oath is a citizenship oath. It is the oath that states to immigrants that they should recognise that they are changing their allegiance and changing the persons to whom they owe duties. Instead we are taking that concept out of our oath and replacing it with the weasel word “respect”. 
I also have a lot of curiosity about what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Let us assume that an immigrant—some poor refugee—has come here from North Korea and that he wants to know what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Well the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are according to Helen Clark whatever she says they are. That will feel pretty familiar to a refugee from North Korea and to someone who has come from Iraq. Those people will be familiar with countries where the rights and freedoms of the people depend on the ruler from time to time. Why do we not have something that swears to uphold the freedoms we have inherited—the freedoms under the law as it stands at the time—not the rights and freedoms that this Government decides to leave to New Zealanders? We see in almost every Act that this Parliament passes a further erosion or removal of rights and freedoms. The oath is meaningless as it stands and it has done virtually nothing to increase what it should be increasing which is the obligation taken on by immigrants. That is the third point. 
Why are we tinkering with the words of oaths when this Government does not bother to enforce the obligations that they are intended to create? How many prosecutions are there for perjury these days? How often do we find that someone who has sworn a false oath borne false witness or lied on oath has paid a heavy price? The ACT party has had a consistent policy for as long as I have been in this Parliament that it would make the penalties for suborning justice—lying on oath—as severe as the penalties the person has tried to avoid by lying. One of the bills that is waiting on the Order Paper while this drivel is being brought forward tinkers with the penalties for perverting the course of justice. Possibly it will not even get through before the Government decides to call an election. Meanwhile we are wasting the time of this House in dealing with the form of the oaths without looking at the substance of them. The House should really be considering the consequences of lying by people in official positions or in positions where they have promised not to lie. I can see why this Government may be a little sensitive about cranking up penalties for lying. It is quite a sensitive issue. 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us about it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I will not go into that. Others in the House have put plenty of time into it. But I certainly cannot understand why we have an entire bill devoted to the wording of oaths without a word about the consequences of making false oaths. Nothing in this bill states what would happen to an immigrant who for example swore a false oath to uphold the democratic values of New Zealand. For example do the democratic values of New Zealand include the right to maintain allegiance to another power? Many countries in their citizenship oath ask people to make their primary duty to the new country. Some require people to swear that the country is their only allegiance and to give up other allegiances. 
Peter Brown 
: I agree with that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I say to Peter Brown that I do too. I certainly believe that when people come to New Zealand and want the privilege of citizenship then they have to recognise that they become New Zealanders and that New Zealand must be their primary allegiance. There should be none of this monkeying around. I do not know why the Government does not require immigrants to become citizens before they can vote. We treat our citizenship so lightly and cheaply. The Government is prepared to spend the time of this House on tinkering with words to make them more confusing and more vague and it does not want to look at the substance of the obligations that the words are supposed to create. 
I have mentioned the replacement of the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. I am concerned too that nothing in the bill explains just when an obligation is imposed by oath or why we choose to require oaths for some offices and not for others. For example the medical profession in this country is laden down with gatekeeper roles. It is given all sorts of responsibilities that can mean a yes or a no to the eligibility of people to get treatments to get benefits to stay at home to work or to get out of trouble. Yet as I understand it we have nothing that doctors have to swear to when they accept and get those high privileges or that onerous duty. Why do we have an oath for special constables when we do not have one for other people such as doctors? I thank members for their attention. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I come from I guess a more moderate view. I truly and openly declare that I believe that the nation will become a republic over time. I am very happy to admit that I think that while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne we should pay the true homage we owe to her. She has been a great lady and I have no intention of rarking up that debate while she is on the throne. But her time will come to an end as it does for us all. 
It is at that point that I think New Zealanders will turn very quickly to saying that they do not want the firstborn male of a woman from a nation on the other side of the world which bears no resemblance to our Kiwi nation to be their head of State. That is my view. I think we will find another way. There is a lot of debate about whether we will have an elected appointed or—in the case of Helen Clark—self-appointed president of the nation but in the end I am very happy to say that a New Zealand republic will be the case. 
We may need to look at changing some of the wording of oaths because currently we refer to “Her Majesty Her heirs and successors” and of course that would change if it became “His”. I am sure that a lot of feminists especially those on the Labour side of the House must find it galling to think that three or four daughters in a row could be born and not one of them would qualify but that suddenly if a bloke is born he is in. I agree with the feminists. I think it is just a nuts system; it is part of an anachronism from the past. 
I ask the members of this House and I ask them to answer me honestly how many people stop them in the street run after them chase them try to grab the hem of their garments and say to them: “Mr Williamson!”—or whatever their particular name and electorate is such as Mr Gallagher from Hamilton West—“You’ve got to change the Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957!”. Honestly? How many times have they had to run through a supermarket door and hide out in the meat section while the crowds gather demanding that they give them an answer on the Oaths and Declarations Act? There has been not a mutter not a murmur and not a whisper from a single member in this Chamber. That is because the general public do not care. This is irrelevant. 
If this is the biggest issue this Parliament has to deal with we should just prorogue it tonight—close it down shut it up and walk. Because there are things about delivery of health care and delivery of education— 
Jill Pettis 
: I had someone from the JPs association saying this was good. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I want to tell the listening audience out there—and I am still talking to my devoted drive time audience in Auckland because it is only 10 past 9 and they will still be working their way home because of the roading system—that Jill Pettis the member for Whanganui heard from one person. So we now know how Labour sets its priorities—according to whether the senior Government whip gets a call from one person. Here is my challenge to all the Whanganui listeners tonight: “Call Jill Pettis with whatever your favourite issue is and you’ll have a bill in Parliament in no time because one person in Whanganui is the only person”—[ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is the only taker I have had from this entire House tonight. I ask members to look at all those other Labour members. They are sitting over there embarrassed beyond belief that this House’s time is being taken up with a pathetic piece of legislation— 
Jill Pettis 
: Sit down you’ve finished. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No no I will not sit down. Jill Pettis wants me to sit down. Actually is not Wednesday night that member’s night for elocution lessons? 
Jill Pettis 
: It is but I finished early. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well she should be at those lessons. She desperately needs to pick them up. 
I want to say that what we have has served us well. One day it will change but it will change when we have quite a constitutional shift in the head of State and there is a long long way to go before we get there—a long long way. I am happy to can this debate now. I would sit down—take my chair right now—if the senior Government whip would say that we will move to one of the other items on the Order Paper. 
Let us look at the Order Paper and see what we think would be something worth debating. Let my colleagues help me on this. Goodness me when I look at the Order Paper I do not see very much worth moving to. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: No. 19! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. 19 is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. No I do not think so. My colleague Richard Worth is from Epsom where trout is a big issue but most of us do not “trout on” as much as he does on these matters. I thought he would have pulled up the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill quite quickly. In fact this whole Order Paper looks full of rubbish—absolute rubbish. But I want to make this clear to just the few people left with their crystal sets tuned in. We are sitting here going through a bill that is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is called tidying things up. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Oh well now Steve Chadwick has just leapt into the fray! 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Who was that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That was the member for— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Taupo? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Well wanting to be the member for Taupo? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well whatever—I think she is a list MP. But her name is “Steve”. It is a “boy called Steve” and she says: “We’re wanting to tidy things up.” This is the tidy-mind syndrome. Do not members just love it? I can tell members that down at the Prospect pub in Howick every night everybody is saying: “Do you know what the Government has to do? It has to get in and tidy up the Oaths and Declarations Act because I am sick of how messy it is. Every time I go home at night after a few beers the missus and I sit down and we read through that Oaths and Declarations Act and we do not know what it means.” So Steve Chadwick has the affront and the gall—[ 
Interruption 
] We know that Jill Pettis had one person front her. 
Jill Pettis 
: He was a Tory! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: OK even Tories can get things wrong and whoever this one person was he got it wrong. Steve Chadwick will always be a list MP if she is going to go out there with a tidy-mind syndrome about tidying up an Act that has no relevance and is of no value at all. 
I looked through the clauses and to be quite frank I do not think the average Kiwi five-eighth punters out in television land after reading some of this stuff—especially when they get to each clause and look at the Maori form of it—will have a clue. I mean how bad does political correctness have to get with some of this stuff? The one thing I find just amazing is our passports. Guess what we did with our passports some years ago? We made one whole page opposite the English page in Maori. Here is a question for members. Where does one use a passport? The answer is everywhere overseas—everywhere. So I thought right! When I arrived at Kai Tak Airport I went straight up to the little Chinaman there and said: “Excuse me pal how fluent are you in te reo?”. He looked at me and said: “We’ll put you in jail if you speak to us like that.” He did not have a clue what it was. We have this political correctness. Although I think the Maori language should be honoured in certain locations and in certain forms a passport is not it. 
It is a little bit like the two-page advertisement I saw for the new Commissioner of Inland Revenue. There was one whole page in English and one whole page in Maori. If a person can be skilled enough talented enough and qualified enough to be the Commissioner of Inland Revenue but cannot speak English that person should not be getting the job no matter how good he or she is. I know that the Government has even had to wheel the interpreter in here so he can pick up on some of this. But I say to him: “Rest easy you will not need it.” With every one of these oaths and declarations and so on we have gone to lunatic lengths. 
This bill will be seen by the public as political correctness gone mad. That is coming from someone who truly believes that one day this nation will be a republic. But it will not be a republic under terms and conditions of the feminist hard-core left socialists who have decided that it will be their view and nobody else’s—and no list member called “Steve” is ever going to tell me that a tidy-mind syndrome is how we should run the Government of this nation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the motion 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 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 I propose that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. An effective and accessible court system is a fundamental part of any democratic society. It provides citizens with the confidence of knowing that justice is being delivered and that the rule of law is being applied by the courts. In order to achieve public confidence it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the courts remain effective and accessible to the people of New Zealand. 
Achieving a court system that encourages public confidence requires a number of conditions to be present. Those conditions include timely and fair court procedures. The courts need to be responsive to the needs and expectations of the public. However to be responsive and timely the courts need sufficient court resources to deal with the mounting workload they face. This bill is aimed at helping the court system in particular the Court of Appeal to remain responsive and timely by alleviating the increasing workload pressures of the Court of Appeal as well as effective and accessible by increasing access to New Zealand’s final appellate court the Supreme Court. 
This bill is in two parts. The first part deals with issues relating to the Court of Appeal and its workload. The second part covers issues arising from the establishment of the Supreme Court and some technical amendments. The Court of Appeal is and will continue to be New Zealand’s principal appellate court. In practice most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level rather than at the Supreme Court. Its role of error correction and development of the law will continue especially in those cases that do not raise any significant public issue and thus do not warrant a further appeal to the Supreme Court. 
The Court of Appeal is facing heavy workload pressures. These pressures exist in criminal appeals due to recent legislative changes and in civil appeals which are becoming more complex. The result is that a growing number of appeals are waiting to be heard. Without additional judges this trend is predicted to continue leading to negative impacts on timeliness and a corresponding erosion of justice. The last increase in the number of permanent Court of Appeal judges occurred in 1987. The bill will provide for up to two additional judges to be appointed to the Court of Appeal increasing the maximum number of permanent Court of Appeal judges from seven to nine including the President of the Court of Appeal. The increase will help ease the escalating workload of the Court of Appeal ensuring continued timely access to justice. This relief will give the Court of Appeal sufficient time and opportunity to give adequate consideration to the complex issues before it. 
The bill also provides for a more efficient use of judicial resources to further aid the Court of Appeal in facing its demanding workload. Some flexibility will be introduced into the way in which the Court of Appeal judgments can be delivered. The relevant provision in the Act is currently interpreted by the courts as requiring judgments to be delivered by any two judges of the Court of Appeal in an open court. This requirement takes up the valuable time of the judges especially when a judgment is delivered to an empty courtroom. Currently both the Supreme Court and the High Court are able to deliver their judgments in open court or through the registrar. The Court of Appeal does not have this flexibility. The bill will bring the practice of the Court of Appeal into line with the Supreme Court and the High Court enabling the manner in which judgments can be delivered to be determined by the court rules. 
Increased access to the Supreme Court is achieved under Part 2. The path to the Supreme Court from decisions of inferior courts has been limited by the decision of the High Court being considered final unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. If the Court of Appeal allows an appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision is substituted for the High Court’s decision and is final. This finality means that there is no opportunity for a further appeal beyond the Court of Appeal. The bill will remove this limitation enabling parties to seek leave to appeal a High Court decision on appeal from an inferior court either to the Court of Appeal or in exceptional circumstances to the Supreme Court directly—and I am sure that Mr Worth will see this as a very very worthy amendment. 
Part 2 also contains two amendments of a technical nature. A reference to the Privy Council in section 65 is removed and section 68 which refers to “inferior courts of extended jurisdiction” is repealed as such courts have not existed in New Zealand since 1913—which is about the time Mr Worth entered law school. The amendments in the bill will help to ensure that the New Zealand court system remains effective and accessible to all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am grateful for the flattering comments that the previous speaker made about me but I would just like to say in a measured quiet way that this bill is a gross abuse of parliamentary process. Why do I say that? The reason is that this bill is to be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As you know Mr Assistant Speaker as other members of Parliament know and as the people in the crowded public gallery know Parliament has subject select committees. 
Bills are referred to these so-called subject select committees based on the knowledge they have. We have as one of those committees the Justice and Electoral Committee which deals with issues relating to the very questions in this bill. But what is the Government going to do? The Government is to refer this bill to the Government Administration Committee. I do not know who outside this House knows what the Government Administration Committee does. But let me just say what it does do. The green book I am holding up at the moment the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 states under Standing Order 188 that the Government Administration Committee is responsible for “civil defence cultural affairs fitness sport and leisure internal affairs Pacific Island Affairs Prime Minister and Cabinet racing services to Parliament State services statistics tourism women’s affairs and youth affairs”. 
So how come this bill which is all about judges and judicial administration is being referred to a committee that knows nothing about this area—a committee that has no skill and is not interested in the very issues this bill is about? 
Behind me is Lindsay Tisch who is a hard-working and very conscientious member of Parliament. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: But not a lawyer. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As he said sadly he is not a lawyer. Yet he is to be burdened with looking at the merits of this legislation—legislation that I would say is completely without merit. 
Do members know why all of this has come about? The reason is that at the moment in this most curious set-up that characterises the Labour Government three people are responsible for the delivery of the justice portfolio. The first obviously is Rick Barker a trade unionist from the East Coast. He knows nothing about justice. We have Philip Goff who is a political scientist and we have Michael Cullen who is an economic history teacher. In a way that says it all. Something that is really important that is all about judicial administration and access to justice is to go to a select committee that knows absolutely nothing about those issues. 
So what is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) about? Why does National oppose this bill so strongly? It is not a big bill. 
It is only a few pages long—in fact it has only eight sections—yet it is seen as somehow really important. Is that not bizarre when there is a whole lot of material that is really important for Parliament to get through before this sick and dying Government is finally disposed of? Why are we bothering with this at the moment? 
This bill is about three things. First it is about increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I have said and I have been oft quoted on this issue that the judges of the Court of Appeal are workhorses. I am in no doubt at all that they are under incredible pressure. I have said that the workhorses of the Court of Appeal can be contrasted with the show ponies of the Supreme Court. Those in the Supreme Court sit indolently waiting for cases to come to them. Those in the Court of Appeal work determinedly in a setting of confraternity. The first thing this bill does is increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I suppose one would say that the second thing is a minor point if one did not really reflect on what justice is all about. 
The second thing is that the requirement for Court of Appeal decisions to be given in open court has been removed. At the moment the judges of the Court of Appeal give a short summary of their reasons in open court. They do not want to do that. I find that a bit odd. These are full-time justice employees. There is no reason where their place of business is the Court of Appeal that they cannot front up when they have worked hard and determinedly on their decisions to give their decisions in summary form in the Court of Appeal. The Government has decided that privilege should be taken away from them. That is a sadness. I have always believed as Justice Brandeis said many years ago in the United States Supreme Court that sunlight is the best disinfectant that there is an overwhelming need in matters relating to justice that issues should be openly decided and decisions given in an open way. This Government is running away from that. It is unnecessary. It is wrong in principle. 
The third issue relates to allowing District Court decisions to be appealed to the Supreme Court. That is a bit of a change. We have a hierarchy of courts in New Zealand. We have the District Court the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. This plan is to allow decisions of the District Court to go through all of those tiers. The received wisdom around the world in Western democracies is that there should be two rights of appeal only. Yet this Government for no good reason and with the significant added burden of cost is planning that these additional rights of appeal be given. Why would it do that? What does Russell Fairbrother think? He is a competent criminal lawyer who has been overlooked in the present Parliament—a man who has something to offer but has been muzzled in an utterly unfair way and who has been made the lackey of the Attorney-General; an Attorney-General who has no legal qualifications at all. 
Only once in our whole history have we ever had an Attorney-General who was not legally qualified. That was from 1932 to 1933. The then Prime Minister temporarily assumed that particular position. Dr Cullen has apparently decided that he wants to be the Attorney-General. Without any legal training at all he wants to be the chief legal officer. I have a real problem with that stance. [ 
Interruption 
] We are about to lose a Minister from the House and we are about to lose a quorum. No we are not. The Minister has glided from one position to another to be with his close friends in United Future. 
I say to the Minister and I hope he listens that the Government’s response to issues of court administration and problems with court administration has been simply to appoint new judges. We should resist that because judges are there to try to decide cases. They are not there to be sucked into the minutiae of court administration. Mr Barker does not know that. Why would he? Why would a trade union official from the East Coast have any sense of these issues at all? I am watching the Minister as I address these words to him. I see the glint in his eyes as he tries to respond to what I am saying. Why would the Minister not see the inherent truth in this argument? What has happened over the years over a period of successive Governments is that the civil service career of court administration in the ministry has been made unattractive. The answer I say to Mr Barker the East Coast trade union official is not to create more judges. Instead it is to improve the system; to create pathways and a career for court officials that is worthwhile. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next member I would like to announce a correction to a vote. The vote on the first reading of the Oaths Modernisation Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 83 Noes 36. The correct result is Ayes 84 Noes 35. 
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 We are talking about the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) and the main aim of this bill is to amend the Judicature Act 1908 in order to alleviate workload pressures on the Court of Appeal and to increase access to the final appellate court the Supreme Court of New Zealand. I think that the Minister gave a very good overview of the bill. 
I have taken a call tonight as I was a little concerned that the previous speaker was casting aspersions on the ability of the Government Administration Committee to hear this bill. I think I know that member’s colleague Lindsay Tisch better than he does and I assure the previous speaker that even though Lindsay Tisch is in that member’s own caucus and even though I do not agree with Lindsay Tisch’s politics—frankly I do not agree with a number of his views on life—I have to say that Lindsay Tisch as a good Waikato MP is more than capable of considering this bill. 
The role of Parliament is not just to leave that consideration—dare I say it—to members who have a legal background to members of the legal fraternity. I mean no disrespect because I acknowledge right now that the previous speaker in terms of his legal career is certainly very accomplished. I acknowledge that; I do not take that away from him at all. I pay his career considerable respect but I say that lay people should be perfectly able to consider this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch is a good example of a lay person and he is a good example of a solid Waikato person. Even my whip Jill Pettis would agree with that. So I believe that the Government Administration Committee is more than capable— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but it is very hard to hear on this side of the House. I would like to know whether the member said that Lindsay Tisch was a great Waikato MP. I think I heard him say that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member is trying to clarify and get something set in his mind I tell him that the member indeed did say that. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The definition of Waikato is “great”. Anyone who works in the Waikato is great. Having said that I say there is no doubt there are greater than the great—that is Dianne Yates Nanaia Mahuta and Mark Burton. They are really super-great MPs 
Because when one comes from the Waikato one has an appreciation of life. Even the Prime Minister comes from the Waikato. What I am saying and I mean it with due respect to the previous speaker is that I do not believe one has to have a strong legal background to grasp the importance of this bill. The Minister has adequately explained its importance and I think the Government Administration Committee will do a very good job. Having said that I say in tribute to the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth that at least he has made a solid contribution to Parliament and to his constituency unlike the pretender to the Epsom throne—the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. It will not surprise the previous speaker to know that I am putting money on the fact that he will probably be returned unless there is a good Labour candidate to give him a run for his money. He will have nothing to worry about with regard to the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. Let me just state it so that it is crystal clear. I disagree with some of the contributions of the previous speaker but I have to say that as the member for Epsom he has nothing to worry about from his so-called pretender the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. I commend this bill and the Minister’s speech to Parliament and I assure the House that Lindsay Tisch is more than adequate to the task along with members of the Government Administration Committee of giving proper hearing and consideration to this bill. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am sure that the honourable member made some reference to this bill in his speech but I blinked and missed it. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: It was a good speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: Was it? He must have praised somebody in the National Party. 
Many of my colleagues in New Zealand First although we do not like to criticise members in this House have grave reservations about the Government Administration Committee. It could not work out what an architect was. It did not have a clue. It took a Minister to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to tell the committee what an architect was. The committee got that wrong big time so I do not know whether it will know what a judge is. Even the National member who is on the committee says that he has no clue about lawyers and law. Does he know what a judge is? I do not know. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee. We do not speak from a position that is qualified to know exactly whether we need more judges. I have to be honest—we do not know whether there is an absolute need for more judges because we are not familiar with the routines of judges. My honourable colleague who is an accomplished lawyer is not available tonight so I cannot seek his guidance. But we are prepared to support this bill because we know that the justice system needs more people. We know that we need more police and we know that we need more prison officers so we have made an assumption at this point in time that we need more judges. 
Opposition Members 
: No! 
PETER BROWN 
: The members say no. A few moments ago I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson. He was talking about the Oaths Modernisation Bill. It was a good speech. He asked how many times members have been lobbied on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. Specifically they have not been lobbied terribly many times but people have lobbied all my colleagues in New Zealand First from time to time on the commitment that immigrants have to make to this country. 
Stephen Franks 
: So why did you vote for it? 
PETER BROWN 
: Because we wanted to tidy it up. The honourable member has made some very worthwhile remarks but by voting against it he will never get it tidied up. By voting for it we will get it tidied up by public submission. 
I want to get back what the Hon Maurice Williamson said about lobbying. As far as I am aware nobody has lobbied us about having more judges. But they have certainly lobbied us about having more police and they have certainly lobbied us about a better deal for corrections officers as more people are being brought in. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson will be interested in this. The most lobbying that I personally have received in recent times is about roading. When Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport he withheld the funds for roading. I have been told that Maurice Williamson did not have a clue when it came to administering the Ministry of Transport office. I was lobbied before I became an MP and ever since I became an MP on tidying up roads and on the funding for them. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a long time. 
PETER BROWN 
: But in that time I have heard Don Brash and Maurice Williamson agree with New Zealand First’s policy. The members may have noticed that I have moved from judges on to roading because I do not want to miss this opportunity. [ 
Interruption 
] Members have noticed. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a little concerned that the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) is really important legislation. Maybe the previous speaker has strayed into the issue of roading which is not directly an issue in the eight clauses in this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept what you say but I think he was trying to weave that theme into it. He has referred to the bill a number of times. 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I was making is that the National Party through the Hon Maurice Williamson—[ 
Interruption 
] If the members sat here a little more quietly they would hear and they could make a worthwhile point of order. National Party members have tried to establish a criteria for whether or not to have a bill by basing that decision on how many people lobby for it. But thousands—if not millions—of people have lobbied for roading and those members did nothing. So one cannot necessarily base legislation on people’s lobbying. 
I do not have the expertise to say whether we need more judges. But the question comes to mind that if we are short of judges why the dickens did we create the Supreme Court which created a need for more judges? It seems a bit ludicrous to create another court to create more jobs for the boys—for judges. But having done that and knowing that we are dreadfully short of police officers and prison officers one can conclude that in all likelihood we need more judges. 
Hon Member 
: And roads. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am glad that the roading issue has made an impression on the member’s mind because we may well receive some positive support from the member. 
This is a short bill. I have doubts whether the Government Administration Committee will do it justice but I guess the committee cannot go far off the track on a bill that is only two pages long. One would hope that its members will apply their talents with some degree of diligence and conscientiousness and report back a bill that positively addresses the concerns of New Zealand in that regard. New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I hope that by getting in before United Future members I might be able to give them a lead towards a policy that would enable them to distinguish themselves from their masters before it is too late; before the election is upon them and they have not done a thing to show people why they exist. 
Hon Member 
: They’ll be gone! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes. The polls will tell in the end. The Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) is another strange bill. There is a whole raft of these curious little bills involving matters that—in this case—are not entirely trivial. But it is certainly mysterious that they have come up at this time when they have been talked about for so long. In fact I think we were lobbied 3 or 4 years ago to increase the number of the judges for this purpose. 
We said that we were not necessarily opposed to it but that we did not want it to slide through either in a provision that simply allowed the Minister to increase the number of judges—that was the first request from the Attorney-General; I think while the Hon Margaret Wilson was still Attorney-General—or in a Statutes Amendment Bill as a matter of no importance which was the second proposal. 
In fact the number of judges is very important. It is constitutionally important that Parliament decides whether to increase the number of judges. Rulers may want to exert executive influence—they may want to put pressure on judges or to decide court decisions—without an open usurping of the judicial role. If too many judges are appointed and if it is made sure that the chief judge is a mate then the chief judge can have a very heavy influence on what happens by deciding which judge gets to decide a case. This “picking horses for courses” is one of the reasons why Parliament should keep control of the number of judges. Parliament gave that up in the legislation that created the Supreme Court or in the legislation at that time because they gave the Attorney-General the power to create a whole lot of part-time judges. Those part-time judges are subject to the very influence that our constitution tried to protect our judges from—that is the need to please a boss the need to make sure that whoever is calling the shots on the allocation of cases or work is favourable to them. The problem with part-time judges is that if they want to live off their part-time employment or if it is important to them they need to be called upon. The problem with the situation that this Parliament allowed to be created at the request of the Labour Government and supported by United Future is that we now have the possibility of having a large number of part-time judges beholden to whoever is allocating cases because of their income needs. ACT said that this was a constitutional issue; the Government and United Future did not. 
Now we have an increase in the number of Court of Appeal judges. I do not believe that this is necessary and I am very glad to have an opportunity to debate the issue in this Parliament. The reason I think it is quite unnecessary is that the judges have not looked at the end point of what has been happening for the last 40 years. In my working lifetime the number of judges has increased at nine times the rate of the increase in population. This country is consuming itself in lawyers. This country is turning decisions that used to be matters of courtesy or morality and matters of common-sense decisions by authorities into decisions that allow lawyers and judges to second-guess endlessly. 
Judges have been a big part of that. If we read a modern judgment we see that judges go through pages and pages of facts hoping that some result will flop out without their having simply to adhere to or lay down the law. When I started in practice a very long case would have taken a week. These days a week is the length of time taken for a trivial—or near-trivial—case. I should not exaggerate. Although I know that judges are working very hard very honestly and very diligently I believe that they should be looking at themselves. My concerns about perversion of the courts are concerns about what could happen not what I believe is happening with our courts at the moment. But I believe that judges should be looking at this issue of overload and asking themselves whether the huge increase in the legalisation of New Zealand society is not something to do with us as well as something to do with the triumph of the nanny State “we know best” arrogance of the left. 
I think that judges are partly responsible. I think for example of the Court of Appeal’s workload and it is the Court of Appeal we are looking at in this legislation. The Court of Appeal’s workload I think comprises nearly two-thirds criminal appeals. Well of course there will be criminal appeals when the Court of Appeal tinkers with sentences. When the Court of Appeal alters an 8-year sentence by 1 year to 7 years instead of changing the sentence only when there is a manifestly major fault by the lower court every lawyer who has a criminal defendant is going to say in good faith: “We’d better give it a go.” 
They will tinker and say: “Let’s have a crack at it.” 
Secondly the Court of Appeal never uses the obvious remedy for overwork which is to make itself a bit more unattractive. When the judges of the Court of Appeal in Britain or the German Supreme Court get a meritless appeal they let the person who brought the meritless appeal know by increasing the sentence. They do not necessarily impose a direct increase. They simply hold that the period spent on appeal does not count off the sentence. Now there is an incentive for every lawyer to stop wasting time. There is an incentive for every appellant not to waste the time of the court. If an appellant fails his or her case and therefore the sentence will include the period spent on appeal he or she will not waste the court’s time. Has the New Zealand Court of Appeal tried anything like that? It has the power to do so. No. In fact it goes the opposite way. If the judges think a case is so bad they might increase the sentence of someone who has brought an appeal on spurious grounds they warn counsel that they might be thinking of increasing it and invite counsel to withdraw the appeal. I believe that that is pathetic. 
I do not have any confidence that anyone on the Government Administration Committee is capable of sending this bill back to the Government and saying: “Think about it.” With all due respect it needs brainstorming. It needs half a dozen lawyers. Although the public may be suspicious of lawyers that is what it needs. This bill should be sent to a committee that can say to the Government and to the Court of Appeal: “Hey think about why there’s an overload. Then come back and tell us whether you think more judges are needed.” I suspect that the committee will come back and say that more judges are needed. 
The Supreme Court I believe has had 18 cases so far. Judging by what it costs—and I am not talking about the set-up costs—the annual cost of the Court of Appeal means it costs $350000 per case and that is before any lawyers’ charges. When we did the work on the Supreme Court we were told it would be a cheap option and that it would make it easier for New Zealanders. It has not been. Also the Supreme Court took the best clerks and the staff and then sat there for at least half a year leaving the Court of Appeal working their butts off without the staff who were sitting twiddling their thumbs at the Supreme Court. 
There has been a whole lot of bad management here and this Government is responsible for it just as it is responsible for bad management throughout. Now that we are coming up to an election what does the Government do? It throws resources at it. Here we are throwing extra judges at the court without looking at why we are overloaded with lawyers and legalism. We need to look at the law and at the responsibility this House has for cumbersome unwieldy sentences that do not make sense and words that no one knows the meaning of that force people into lodging appeals. We need to look at the way the judges have been using their powers and not using their powers in order to cut down on their workload. The 450-odd criminal appeals could easily have been cut probably to a fifth of that number if judges had simply used their power to say that when some meritless appeal is fostered whether by the offender or by the lawyer there will be a cost. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 One may well ask why we need more judges as the ACT member has done. The short answer of course is that we have more crime new crimes more disputes and more conflict in our society. The principal reason for all that is the breakdown of ethical standards. There has been a breakdown of community; a breakdown of enforcement of ethical standards by peer pressure in our community; the alienation of our communities; and the demise of the Church in its role of setting standards. This has come about partly because of abrogation on the part of the Church and partly by the Government usurping the role of the Church in setting standards. 
This Government has replaced traditional Judaeo-Christian standards with a liberal laissez-faire doctrine and as a result we have seen a breakdown of the family a breakdown of law and order and a breakdown of community relationships. It is no wonder that we have more crime. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.