Volume 645 Week 69 - Tuesday 11 March 2008 
Volume 645 Week 69 - Tuesday 11 March 2008 
[Volume:645;Page:14733] 
Tuesday 11 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the clause drafted by the Minister of Finance last week in relation to strategic assets may in fact not stop the Canada Pension Plan from acquiring 40 percent of Auckland International Airport’s shares despite the impression to the contrary that she may have portrayed to the public last week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be interested to know whether the member thought that was good or bad because he has held every position on this issue. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a pretty straightforward question; although she might want to indulge herself I ask you to ask her to answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Prime Minister like to add anything more to the answer? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Order in Council last week which amended regulation 28 of the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 added the following words: “whether the overseas investment will or is likely to assist New Zealand to maintain New Zealand control of strategically important infrastructure on sensitive land”. That is the criterion that Ministers will apply to the application which they will receive advice on. Unlike Mr Key I do not intend to comment on a specific application. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that the Minister of Finance has adequately protected our key strategic assets given that it would be all to easy for a future Government to quietly remove the regulations the Minister of Finance recently introduced to tighten the Overseas Investment Act; and does she therefore agree that it would be wise to entrench this regulation in law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would have no confidence about New Zealand holding on to its State-owned assets or on to strategically important infrastructure under any National Government. Why are we trying to buy back rail now? Because the National Government sold it lock stock and barrel including the track. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was specific—whether the regulations should be entrenched in law—and I would appreciate an answer to that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I call the right honourable Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am happy to address that part of the question because my understanding is that what Mr Key now proposes—his policy after eight goes on what he thought about strategic assets—involves a change in the law. I think it is time he consulted Mr Groser on what that might mean for New Zealand’s international obligations. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister as she stated before is not prepared to comment on the Canadian pension plan bid can she just answer why in fact she did comment last week when she said she had no personal enthusiasm for it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said I had no enthusiasm for New Zealand losing control of that very important piece of strategic infrastructure and further I am not so economically illiterate as the member to think that one has to get 51 percent in order to get control. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she confident of her Minister of Finance’s commitment to protect New Zealand’s strategic assets given his reluctance to state what those assets actually are and does she agree that what we need is a clear list of strategic assets that should be kept in New Zealand control set out in an appendix to the Overseas Investment Act as I had outlined in a member’s bill which the National Party did not allow me to introduce last year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure any foreign investors would make themselves conversant with the schedule of the Act and it is schedule 1 which outlines precisely what falls into the sensitive land category. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement from Michael Cullen made today when he said: “It’s now for the two Ministers to make a decision and obviously other Ministers should not be commenting or it might be seen to be influencing that decision.” and if she does agree with that comment made by Michael Cullen why did she comment last week and potentially influence the decision? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My comment last week was about my view not Mr Key’s view that foreign control by a single company is not desirable. Mr Key cannot work out where he stands; he has had at least eight positions. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in fact her office has received advice suggesting that the Prime Minister may well have breached with her comments last week the securities legislation and in fear of making the situation even more compounding given her track record with Air New Zealand she is now taking the Minister of Finance’s advice to shut up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All I can confirm is that no such advice has been received because no such infringement has occurred. If anyone ought to be worried about what he or she said it is that member with his eight different positions. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is not concerned that she may have breached the securities legislation why has she changed her position this week from that of last week; is it not a fact of life that she did not actually know she was in breach of the legislation last week and now she is worried about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No comment of any detail has been made by me about this application; nor will it be. 
John Key 
: Why did her Government seek to change the criteria in relation to the bid for Auckland airport by the Canadian pension plan a minority bid with lower voting rights when 8 months earlier Dubai Aerospace Enterprise came in with a controlling majority bid—is the reason she did not act 8 months ago but her Government is trying to act now that 8 months ago it was not so far behind in the polls and that the attitude now is to hell with the confidence in the New Zealand markets and to hell with the savings of New Zealanders; it is whatever it takes to try to prop up what we now know is a dying Labour Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that no application to the Government was received from the Dubai company. What I do know is that the Leader of the Opposition does not give a damn who has control of Auckland International Airport. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table my member’s bill which sets up an appendix to the Overseas Investment Act— 
Document not tabled. 
Debt Government—Impact 
2.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the impact of increasing Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen various reports calling for an increase in gross Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP. These come from Mr John Key. Lifting Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP would cost an extra $700 million a year in finance costs alone. We would rather spend that money on health education and infrastructure than on debt servicing to largely overseas lenders. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he received any alternative reports on appropriate levels of Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I saw a report in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on Saturday from Mr English which stated that lifting gross Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP “has never been one of our policies”. If raising debt has never been National policy then Mr English must ask Mr Key to stop promoting it or perhaps Mr English has simply learnt earlier than the rest of us to take little notice of Mr Key’s pronouncements. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister of Finance is so sure of his record about Government debt then what does he make of the figures on page 57 of his half-year update that show gross sovereign issued debt excluding settlement cash increasing from $30.89 billion in 2007 to over $33 billion forecast for 2008; if he is increasing Government debt by $2.4 billion then what is he spending it on? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is still below 20 percent of GDP and as the member well knows that is gross and includes for example the cash held by the Reserve Bank. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that the half-year update changed the definition to exclude Reserve Bank settlement cash; and can he answer the original question which was if the Government debt is forecast to rise by $2.4 billion then is he spending that to fund the company tax cut the technology fund announced today or some spending increases that he has not told us about yet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I would like the member to tell us is whether he opposes the Government tax cut or opposes the money going into the fund for primary sector research. What that member has to tell the House is whether $33 billion is less than 20 percent of GDP. Can he do the sums? And the answer is: “Yes it is.” 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the director-general’s inquiry into the handling of conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; and why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in the Director-General of Health and in the independence of the process which is being supported by the Crown Law Office. I await the delivery of that review. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why was the former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board given only 3 working days to provide comment on version two of the panel’s report—a version that was radically different from the first version—and how can the public interpret that as anything other than part of a whitewash to suppress highly critical comments of Annette King’s appointee Mr Hausmann? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place that is a question I cannot answer because it is a matter for the director-general. In the second place the member might do well to read the report when it is published rather than trying to undermine it before it is issued. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that version one of the report largely exonerates the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and severely condemns Annette King’s appointee Mr Hausmann for lack of disclosure of his heavily conflicted involvement in multimillion-dollar contracts and is that not the real reason why this report is being suppressed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As far as I am aware there is absolutely no report that is being suppressed and I cannot answer the question about versions I have not seen. If the member thinks he has any information here the question is how he got that information. All work I understand has been the subject of lawyers’ confidentiality deeds. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the director-general seek to extend the media gagging order on version one when there were and are no court proceedings that could be affected by its publication? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Again that is a question for the director-general but I imagine it was in order to preserve the integrity of the process—a process that that member seems to be determined to undermine. Just what is it in that report that the member is so afraid of? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister undertake to the House that version one of the report will be released so that the public can draw their own conclusions; if not how will the public ever know the full extent of the conflicts of interest of and broken undertakings by Annette King’s appointee? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is important that all members of this House respect the proper legal process that the director-general has employed upon Crown Law advice. It does the member no good to pretend that he has information that he either cannot have or does not legally have and thereby seek to discredit a review that he has not seen. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Government instruct the director-general not to seek permanent suppression of version one because if that report is permanently suppressed the public of New Zealand will never have the opportunity to draw their conclusions about why version one is so different from version two? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It seems strange that the member would ask the Minister to compromise the independence of a civil servant acting upon Crown Law advice. I thought the National Party did not like that kind of thing. 
Pastoral and Food Industries—Innovation 
4.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What initiatives has the Government announced to encourage innovation in our most important pastoral and food industries? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Today the Prime Minister the Minister for Economic Development and I launched New Zealand Fast Forward. This historic initiative is a partnership between the Labour-Progressive Government and the powerhouse industries in the engine room of the New Zealand economy. This new partnership is designed to take our country’s economic and environmental performance forward in a quantum leap. Today the Government committed $700 million in a capital sum for investment over the next 10 to 15 years. The food and pastoral industries have pledged to match this funding annually. Over the next decade or so $2 billion is expected to be invested in research and development as well as in skills training education and innovation. This will ensure that New Zealand is capable of meeting the challenges confronting our economy and of seizing the opportunities that lie within our comparative advantages. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why is the Government making this investment in innovation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Innovation is especially crucial in our primary sector because our primary sector is so crucial to New Zealand.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: For 9 years you’ve been cutting the size! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If Mr Smith wants to object to this I ask him to tell us clearly why and we will spread that around the rural areas. If we can achieve a step change in the performance of our pastoral and food industries then we have an opportunity which does not come along very often to change the economic destiny of New Zealand. This Government does not talk vaguely and in imprecise slippery terms about how ambitious we are for New Zealand. Today’s announcement shows that only the Labour-Progressive Government has a genuine vision and a plan to take New Zealand forward. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: New Zealand First agrees absolutely with the proposed Agricultural Innovation Fund but as strong advocates of agriculture science we ask the Minister why has he not done this much earlier. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has increased its own investment in research science and technology but the problem has been that the private sector is relatively low by OECD standards. In stumping up the up to $1 billion in an upfront fund which we dedicated especially to research science and technology development we have challenged the private sector to match that sum so we can lever off up to $2 billion. The private sector has done exactly that. I notice that the National Party’s rural affairs policy stated that National would put up a sustainable fund. But it would put it up by selling Landcorp. That tells us something about National’s agenda. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding this exciting announcement? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen reports from a range of organisations expressing considerable support for New Zealand Fast Forward. The chair of DairyNZ the Hon John Luxton has welcomed the initiative and described it as being significant for the dairy industry. The Professor of Agriculture at Massey University Jacqueline Rowarth said that today’s New Zealand Fast Forward announcement is a huge statement about the value that the Government places upon the primary sector. She said that the step taken today is the foundation for a paradigm shift that we need with skills science and innovation enhanced in the primary sector. New Zealand will be a model for the rest of the world. And well may a Government that can lead that model stay in power to do it. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did it take the Labour Government 20 years to realise that agriculture is not “a sunset industry” as it was described by David Lange in 1988 and to finally realise that agriculture is the backbone of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is a bit rich when the member blames someone who is dead for a policy that his party does not have itself. For 9 years National was in Government and it did nothing about this issue. For nearly 9 years National has been in Opposition and has done nothing about it except put up the sale of Landcorp. I would call that pretty bankrupt in policy terms if I was anybody. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Did the Minister see the quote in the December issue of  
Farmers Weekly 
 that described the agriculture spokesman for National as being “the invisible man”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact I did and I could not remember who he was. 
Debt Household Levels—Changes since 2000 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is Treasury’s most recent estimate of the change in household debt levels since 2000? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury estimates that household debt has increased from $71 billon to $157 billion. At the same time total assets have increased from $353 billion to $774 billion so that the net position is some 2½ times higher. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the proportion of disposable household income spent on servicing this record debt risen; if so by how much? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes it has risen substantially since about 2004 as we have seen both higher borrowing and of course increases in interest rates. That has increased I think from about 9.5 percent to about 14 percent of household income as I read the graph quickly. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he received on support for Government initiatives to improve household savings rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I released a report today that states that as at 29 February 470000 New Zealanders have signed up for KiwiSaver. We now expect to reach the 500000 mark in approximately 2 weeks’ time. I have also seen reports that KiwiSaver was “a terribly designed system” other reports that stated that KiwiSaver “was gonna be successful” and an additional report that the take-up of KiwiSaver would be low. All three of those reports came from Mr Key who has voted against KiwiSaver 40 times. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister say to households who are carrying this record debt who cannot afford to save in KiwiSaver who face continued high inflation in their food prices and now interest rates rising to around 10 percent driven partly by his excessive spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government spending certainly has nothing at all to do with food prices—that is determined by international market prices. I was not aware that National had reverted to trying to set controls on food prices in the New Zealand economy. In terms of KiwiSaver the member may be quite surprised when the evaluation report comes out that those now entering KiwiSaver through the compulsory enrolment process are very broadly spread across the income range. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statements last year that New Zealand needs a mortgage interest levy on top of the fixed-rate mortgages to stop people paying too much for houses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member ought to have known since his leader was actually quite interested in the idea at the meeting in my room the mortgage interest levy would have replaced part of the movements in the official cash rate not be an addition to those movements. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that part of the scheme with the mortgage interest levy was that when interest rates eventually go down the mortgage interest levy would be imposed and can he tell Parliament today that if he is re-elected he will not impose a mortgage interest levy when interest rates eventually go down? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I think the Prime Minister has already said the mortgage interest levy is a dead idea and I assume that in trying to kick a dead horse the member is simply practising to attack his leader after the election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that circumstances have now turned heavily against householders who face record debt very high interest rates and high inflation can he confirm that his proposition for the mortgage interest levy last year was a cynical political exercise that suited him at the time just as his last-minute intervention in the Auckland International Airport has been and why has he completely given up on sound economic management for pure political management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have two responses to that. The member seems to have forgotten that when the mortgage interest levy was floated the member criticised the Reserve Bank of New Zealand for not having put up interest rates sooner and harder. That was his answer to that particular issue. In relation to Auckland International Airport he seems to have forgotten that by the end of the week National having started off in confusion had supported a regulation to ban any ownership in excess of 50 percent of strategic assets under any circumstance an idea that was so bizarre it was adopted within a matter of days by Robert Mugabe. 
Women—Well-being and Status 
6.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the well-being and status of women in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 The Government has taken lots of steps. Since 1999 we have improved the well-being and position of women by introducing 14 weeks’ paid parental leave 20 hours’ free early childhood education Working for Families and 4 weeks’ annual leave. This Saturday this Labour-led Government celebrated the successes with hundreds of women as we marked 100 years of International Working Women’s Day. 
Darien Fenton 
: What support has the Minister received for such initiatives? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: These initiatives have improved the lives of New Zealand families. One group though has steadfastly refused to support these initiatives. It has consistently opposed the well-being of women by voting against the introduction of paid parental leave now reaching over 100000 families; Working for Families which will benefit 360000 families; 4 weeks’ annual leave; and 70000 3 and 4-year-olds getting 20 hours’ free early childhood education. However these initiatives have been so popular that National has again been forced to flip-flop over them but women and families in New Zealand want to know what National’s position is. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she received any recent reports on the future of the agency established to advocate for women the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have. I have received two reports and I am really not sure which one to take seriously. One states that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs needs to go altogether; it calls it “a sexist relic”. Another advocates for the complete opposite stating that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs could be doing so much more than at present. Those two statements come from the two Opposition spokespeople. Is National in favour of a voice for women or not? 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I note the Minister of Police is not in the House this afternoon. I seek leave to have this question held over until she returns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
111 System—Failures 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement in December that “I am always saddened to hear stories where there has been a failure in the 111 system”? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: 
 Yes the Minister stands by her statement. 
Simon Power 
: Is it acceptable that it took more than an hour for the police to respond to a 111 call from a Christchurch mother whose 6-year-old daughter found an intruder in her bedroom and then they failed to do any sort of scene examination once they did turn up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister is advised that the call about an intruder was received at 2055 hours. This call should have been coded as a priority 1 for immediate attention; regrettably the wrong code was entered by the officer at the time and the car was despatched as if it were going to a lower-coded case. The caller who took the call has not been debriefed at this point and is on roster so the decision making around the priority code is still being researched. The Minister stands by her statement. All of these incidents are to be regretted. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister tell the House what information has been received about the number of 111 calls received by police communications centres and how quickly those calls are answered? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister has received information that shows that from the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 the police communications centres received 660000 111 calls. Of those calls 95 percent were answered within 10 seconds and 99.5 percent were answered within 120 seconds. The Minister has also received information that shows that for the week beginning 2 March there were 14521 111 calls of which 95 percent were answered within 10 seconds—by any measure a creditable performance standard. 
Simon Power 
: How is it then following that answer that the latest information made available to me through answers to written questions on police response times to priority call-outs is for the year ended 30 June 2005 because a new reporting system that was to be completed before the end of September 2007 got pushed back to the end of 2007 and is now due on 30 June 2008; how is it that the Minister has this information to hand today but it is unavailable through the written questions system? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot answer that question immediately but I will have the matter investigated. What it does show to the member of the House is that the Government’s investment of substantial sums of money and extra staff is improving the 111 system. We have invested $45 million over 4 years. There were 362 staff members; there are now 507. The system works much better than it did previously. 
Simon Power 
: How is it if the system works much better that a second problem occurred with the 111 system in the past fortnight after an operator hung up on a customer who was reporting a knifepoint attack in a Bay of Plenty dairy without assuring her that the police were on their way and when the police did turn up it was 43 hours later? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister of Police has the highest expectations of the police. The police have high expectations of their own standards as well. From time to time mistakes do occur. The police are not infallible just as politicians are not infallible—like the politician who said without reservation that we would support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain whenever and wherever our commitment is called upon. I ask Simon Power whether committing New Zealand to go to war was a mistake. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by the advice of the former Commissioner of Police Rob Robinson that it helps to scream down the phone in order to get the police to respond to 111 calls? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is the advice of the commissioner. I am advised that after the review and a substantial amount of investment there is an ongoing programme of learning from mistakes—when they rarely happen—in order to make sure the system improves. We aim for our police to be infallible but unfortunately like all the rest of us the police are human and they do make mistakes from time to time. 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
8.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the appeals and removal processes of the New Zealand Immigration Service; if so why? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Yes; the processes are robust and have been tested over time. 
Peter Brown 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in the Deportation Review Tribunal when it has allowed a Tongan man who had previously been deported and who then returned and sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl to remain in New Zealand because his wife was “scared of the dark” and was easily sunburned; and can he tell the House how any system is feasible that allows that sort of carry on? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I point out to the member that the decisions of such bodies are the decisions of independent statutory organisations. I encourage him to study the entirety of the decision which outlines some very sensible reasoning. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer why does the Minister have confidence in the Refugee Status Appeal Authority which recently allowed an Iraqi whose Internet romance with a Kiwi woman was over so quickly that she would not even meet him at the airport on his arrival in this country to stay because he had claimed that his family would kill him for not marrying a first or second cousin; why does the Minister have confidence in such a system? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Avoiding talking about amorous matters I repeat that the decisions of such bodies are the decisions of independent statutory organisations. From time to time such organisations which are a valuable part of the overall immigration system will deliver decisions that may not please all members of this House. However they do reflect an important role that independent organisations need to serve. 
Peter Brown 
: I do not think these decisions please many members of this House. Why does the Minister have confidence in the Deportation Review Tribunal which recently allowed a Samoan man to remain in New Zealand after he had chased his neighbour around his neighbourhood with a machete? He had also overstayed and had a list of prior convictions which included drink-driving and assaulting a man with a chair while drunk. How can the Minister have confidence in that system? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Once again such decisions may not meet with the approval of the member—notions of waving machetes drunkenness etc. However the reality is that as long as we have independent organisations that are charged to receive submissions and hear pleadings they perform a valuable function. Admittedly some of their decisions do not please all members of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there was a massive drop in the number of people deported last year compared with the 3 years prior—the number dropped from an average of 1000 per year to 620 last year—and taking note of the examples that I have just outlined to him does he concur that they reflect a soft attitude in Government policy and in some of these independent organisations? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The member has accurately reflected the figures; I would encourage him to see them as a reflection of the Government’s proactive stance in moving the borders out by identifying those types of people who do represent a danger and not allowing them into the country first time round. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table an article from today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 on the decision to allow the Tongan man to stay— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table an article from today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 on the decision to allow a Samoan man to stay despite multiple serious convictions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Sunday News 
 on the decision to allow an Iraqi to stay despite his Internet romance falling apart. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table answer to written question No. 1567 (2008) showing the decrease in deportations. 
Document not tabled. 
Election Advertising—Financial Agent Authorisation 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that a financial agent’s authorisation on electoral advertisements should contain their residential address; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: The responsibilities of parties candidates third parties and their financial agents are set out in the Electoral Finance Act 2007. The relevant provisions reflect the decisions of Parliament in passing the legislation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission that the law requires that electoral advertisements promoted by financial agents or parties candidates or third parties must contain a statement setting out the name of the financial agent and the full address of the place where that person usually lives.? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen a press statement to that effect dated last week—I am not sure which day—from the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why did the Minister introduce the Electoral Finance Bill which Parliament subsequently passed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: For several reasons: to stop money filtering; to stop a well-to-do party from buying an electoral outcome; to stop well-to-do third parties from buying an electoral outcome even if they themselves do not vote; and to ensure that free speech is not drowned out by paid speech. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the law she passed the agency responsible for investigating breaches of the Act is the police and should the police investigate a CD produced by the Labour Party with the wrong authorisation on it and is the Electoral Commission the correct body to refer that CD to the police for investigation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not entirely sure of the process but I do know that when we discover what it precisely is we would be better to send this CD/DVD I have in my hand off to whoever it is who needs to investigate it because it has no address on it—none whatever. That is because it is called  
Ambitious for New Zealand—Meet John Key 
 and we all know that that man slips from one Auckland suburb to another and has no fixed abode. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it Government policy that the person who put the wrong authorisation on the CD should be investigated and that that person is Mike Smith party secretary of the Labour Party; and does she believe that the police should investigate Mike Smith party secretary of the Labour Party or does she believe that the law of common sense applies to Labour and that it does not matter what it does but everyone else has to keep to the law? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member asks after Government policy and Government policy is to be found enshrined in the Electoral Finance Act 2007. Let us just recall however where the requirement for a residential address came from. Back in 2005 the Exclusive Brethren spent over $1 million on pamphlets that opposed the Labour Party and the Green Party. These are the pamphlets that John Key and Gerry Brownlee claimed to have no knowledge of until evidence to the contrary arrived. Meanwhile Jeanette Fitzsimons worked out what was going on and tried to track down the Exclusive Brethren only to find that the addresses they used were empty house lots. When she finally did find a proper address she was met at the front gate by security guards. It was not pretty. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm whether the police should investigate whether Mike Smith secretary of the Labour Party who knew the law broke it and then misled the media about it is the same Mike Smith who before the 2005 election wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer promising to include the pledge card as part of Labour’s electoral expenses and then 3 days after the election wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer saying he withdrew that undertaking; and why should anyone believe anything that the head of the Labour Party says about electoral law? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat for the House that Government policy is to be found enshrined in the Electoral Finance Act 2007. If however we want to talk about CDs or DVDs let us have a look at this one called  
Ambitious for New Zealand—Meet John Key 
 which has no address on it whatsoever. In it he is not clear whether he is ambitious about ditching the Maori seats or selling the railways again or whether he is ambitious about hocking off Auckland airport to a bunch of Canadians—or is his ambition limited to just trying to get through this week without making another mess of it? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that I raised concerns about the requirements for authorisation by financial agents at the beginning of February that Labour Party president Mike Williams responded to media concerns by saying they were a bit paranoid and that the Labour Party knew what the requirement in law was but Mike Smith went ahead and authorised the CD in direct contravention of the requirement of the law knowing what it should have been; and how can we believe anything the Labour Party says when it so deliberately broke the law it had passed just a few months before? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that we have been taking a liberal approach in the House but that member asked the Minister to take responsibility for something that he—Bill English—said and for something that the general secretary did neither of which is the Minister’s responsibility. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I can handle this I think Mr Brownlee. The Minister will answer the question in terms of the ministerial responsibility. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat for the House that Government policy is to be found enshrined in the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why is Labour breaking the law? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Nick Smith asks whether the New Zealand Labour Party has broken the law. If he is intent on going tit for tat then that is what we will do. I can advise Mr Smith that last month at Otago University National Party member of Parliament Dr Paul Hutchison was giving out National Party parliamentary material whilst at the same time collecting membership fees. That is clearly in breach. It is true that he got only seven memberships in the entire day whereas students picked up 75 for the Labour Party. But one is one too many. I do not think he even knew he was breaking the law to be honest but he was and I watched him doing it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Government spokesperson on tertiary education has impugned my integrity. I would like him to make a clear statement and prove that exactly what he said was true. Can he also explain how it was that he was holding Labour Party balloons that pretty well said “Vote Labour” and had on them a parliamentary crest which had been paid for by taxpayers. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Were they in— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You will leave the Chamber Mr Brownlee if you interrupt. Everyone must be quiet please. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: At Otago University a few Wednesdays ago the National Party had a stall from which people passed out parliamentary National Party material as they are entitled to do and at the same stall they collected memberships of students which they are not entitled to do. I was next door to that stall passing out Labour Party parliamentary material including balloons. Some distance away—actually upstairs—a whole lot of people were collecting a great deal of Labour Party memberships. That is the difference. He broke the law; I did not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Two members interrupted after what I explicitly said. Dr Mapp and Pansy Wong are the two I heard; there were others. Would those members please leave the Chamber. The matters the members have raised are very interesting but they are matters of debate not of order. 
Pansy Wong 
: Madam Speaker I did not— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please leave the Chamber. I warned members explicitly on that point of order. I allowed some to intervene against the Standing Orders then I in fact explicitly drew it to the attention of members. Members then chose to ignore it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp withdrew from the Chamber. 
Pansy Wong withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Party spent all last year trying to push through this Draconian complex and impractical legislation and that already this year it has been caught out hosting an illegal website trying to hide an interest-free loan from a very large donor misrepresenting the opinions of the Chief Electoral Officer to the public and breaking the law by putting an incorrect authorisation on an item in a political advertisement; and if Labour members are the ones chiefly breaking the law why did they bother passing it in the first place and being so moralistic about everyone else’s behaviour? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let us do a bit of moralising shall we? I was out of the country last week but as I understand it what happened was that the Labour Party put a box number instead of a residential address on a publication—not that anyone is in any doubt about where the Labour Party is. It is in Upper Willis Street and has been there for years. However we have this DVD from the National Party from John Key called  
Ambitious for New Zealand—Meet John Key 
. Do members know what? It does not have any address on it at all. It does not even say “somewhere in Auckland”; it does not even say that. 
South African Brown Mussel—Incursion 
10.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What actions has he directed Biosecurity New Zealand officials to take to respond to the incursion of a potentially invasive South African brown mussel which was discovered following the de-fouling of the oil rig in Tasman Bay last December? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I understand that Biosecurity New Zealand has organised for the following actions to be taken: dredging the seabed where the oil rig was de-fouled and disposing of the material in a landfill; and identifying the species in the dredged material to determine whether brown mussels are present and in what density. Biosecurity New Zealand met with the industry Maori and local authorities on 27 February and will be meeting with them again in the week beginning 17 March. Biosecurity New Zealand has issued a number of information advisories to affected stakeholders including industry local iwi and regional authorities. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that the iwi of Tasman Bay namely Te Atiawa Ngati Rarua Ngati Koata Ngati Tama the Ngati Rarua-Atiawa Iwi Trust and Wakatu Incorporation are extremely angry that this attack on the environment took place in their rohe; if so what steps has he taken to restore the relationship between Biosecurity New Zealand and the iwi of this area other than the meeting that took place in Nelson on 27 February 2008? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I indicated to the House the local iwi have been involved in discussions with Biosecurity New Zealand in terms of immediately following advice that Biosecurity New Zealand received that there may be brown mussels in this de-fouled material. Subsequently further meetings are scheduled. As I understand it Biosecurity New Zealand has a good relationship with local iwi. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In light of the major risks to the local and national $200 million mussel industry what reason did Biosecurity New Zealand have for allowing the rig to be cleaned in New Zealand waters and will the Minister be addressing the obvious flaws in the low level of biosecurity standards required for the aquaculture industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Biosecurity New Zealand agreed to the cleaning location because it believed that the rig was outside our territorial waters. At the time the seas were rough and there were safety issues for divers. Preliminary analysis of samples from the rig that had been taken previously did not reveal any potential high-risk species although subsequently lab analysis revealed a small quantity of brown mussels. In effect Biosecurity New Zealand modelling has shown that the biosecurity risks of de-fouling the oil rig just inside or just outside New Zealand’s territorial limit were the same—that is the brown mussels would have posed a biosecurity risk even if they had been dislodged from the oil rig just outside our territorial limit. No legal authority vests in Biosecurity New Zealand to do anything about it. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of the recent statement made by the Ngati Koata Trust that the Crown has let down Maori and New Zealanders with its vaunted but inadequate biosecurity and what action will he be taking to ensure that the livelihood of many of the iwi of Tasman Bay is protected through a comprehensive clean-up of the affected area? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I indicated to the House Biosecurity New Zealand is taking every step it can to make sure the area is cleaned. The company involved is paying for the defouling of the surface of the ocean floor. I accede to the fact that there is a need for a more precautionary principle involved in all of this—I accept that. I recommend to the member that he and other Maori organisations in the fishing area take the same view as far as fishing is concerned. 
Maori Trustee—Funds Transfer 
11.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill seek to transfer $35 million of beneficiary moneys from funds for which the Maori Trustee is responsible to a new Maori business development fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 No. Funds held in trust by the Maori Trustee—unclaimed money and other funds owned by beneficiaries—will not be transferred to the Maori business development fund set up by the bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why then in the Minister’s speech to the House in the first reading of the bill did he state that $35 million from the common fund from the Maori Trustee would be used to set up to establish this new entity? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: What I did say was to point out where the $35 million was coming from: the general purposes fund. The Crown Law Office has advised that the general purposes fund is owned by the Maori Trustee and that no other person has a claim over it. The general purposes fund has accumulated over many many years of the business activities of the Maori Trustee. No money held in trust for beneficiaries including unclaimed moneys will be transferred to the new entity. 
Moana Mackey 
: What value will come from establishing a new Maori economic and business development entity? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The new entity Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand will accelerate Maori development by bringing together resources and expertise from across a range of existing functions and organisations including for example supporting opportunities for Maori economic growth. Other activities referred to in the bill include providing business advisory and mentoring services and providing networking and sector development services. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Ask a question Georgie. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Finished Mallard? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: [ 
Interruption 
] Very shortly. Why were Maori who attended the consultation hui not told that Labour intended to pilfer $35 million of beneficiary money and spend it on people who are not beneficiaries? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Maori were told several facts as the hui were held around the country. During the consultation on the changes to the Maori Trustee participants wanted the Maori Trustee to take a leadership role in Maori development. This feedback has resulted in work that was already under way being progressed through the bill. Let me explain it again: the general purposes fund is the fund accumulated from interest rates. The Maori Trustee has the responsibility for paying out at 3 percent 4 percent and 5 percent and the remainder is accumulating. Following the introduction of the bill information about the bill—including the new economic development entity—was sent to approximately 49000 stakeholders. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is not the real reason for this new fund an effort to set up an election-year slush fund to be administered by the Minister’s personal appointees free from Public Service scrutiny and neutrality who will dole out over $10 million in every Maori electorate seat in the country in a vain attempt to keep Maori tied to Labour’s purse strings rather than encouraging them to take control of their own future and become independent of this Government’s handouts? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am perplexed to understand why that member over there does not want to join in encouraging positive advancement for Maori. At the end of the day that is what this is about. There have been Ministers of Maori Affairs before this time who did nothing—who did nothing. That fund has $60 million sitting in it and it is from interest rates. If that member understands the multiplicity and the fragmentation of our ownership then he will see that this is a very very good positive idea. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Has the Minister contacted those beneficiaries that he is about to pilfer $35 million from; if not when— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do I need to draw your attention to what has just been said by the member? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the member does. I cannot hear anything that is happening in the House at the moment and I assume that none of the other members want to hear either the questions or the answers given the level of noise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Madam Speaker I would hate to suggest that I am better attuned to that member than you are but he very clearly made an unparliamentary suggestion about the Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker the term that was used by the Hon Tau Henare was “pilfer”. He was asking the Minister whether he would engage in this exercise of pilfering money from beneficiaries. I think that “pilfer” is probably the wrong word but can I can ask Madam Speaker whether you would accept that he should be asking whether the Minister is appropriating from beneficiaries money that would otherwise belong to them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I think I will first of all take part of the member’s helpful suggestion. The Hon Tau Henare should withdraw the term he used apologise and then rephrase his question. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. Has the Minister contacted the beneficiaries of the $35 million and asked them for their view on the fact that $35 million of their money is being misappropriated? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not sure what is wrong with this member. It is a simple organisation. There are two separate funds the general purposes fund and the common fund and he should get it through his thick skull— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please be seated. Is there a point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] No the member has withdrawn his point of order. Have we heard the end of the answer? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes we have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is this the same fund owned by 125000 beneficiaries that was imperilled by the Maori Trustee in the Quality Inn deal in 1991 which the previous National Government then supported against its then Minister of Maori Affairs and had him sacked and which concept was refloated in 1999 by the then Minister of Maori Affairs one Tau Henare? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. And that is misappropriation at the end of the day. 
Easter Sunday Openings—Bunnings 
12.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: How many times has the Department of Labour prosecuted Bunnings for opening on Easter Sunday and what has been the total amount of fines sought over the last 5 years across all stores in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Twenty-six. I do not have the exact detail of fines sought—[ 
Interruption 
] There is something unusual happening here Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes—please be seated. Would those members who are standing up and moving around the Chamber either sit down or leave the Chamber immediately. We are still on question No. 12. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The number of times is 26. I do not have advice as to the exact amount sought but the total possible fines were $26000. It is not too hard to work it out. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned that the very recent change of heart from Bunnings towards trading on Easter Sunday has followed a letter from Bunnings workers to the Australian Government requesting enforcement of the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises rather than as a result of the enforcement work by the Department of Labour? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am concerned that any company or any individual breaks the law. Whether it is a big company a small company a local company a foreign company a company that has had a letter or a company that has not the company should obey the law. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about assault? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Just go hit someone else Nick. 
Sue Bradford 
: What will the Minister be doing to ensure that New Zealand - owned companies that have indicated they may well open on this coming Easter Sunday—such as Pak ’N Save in Gisborne—will similarly follow New Zealand law rather than just opening their doors for business and collecting fines over and over again as Bunnings used to do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member has highlighted a problem with Easter trading laws and penalties. It is clear to anyone who has looked at this issue that the law is not working well. If there is a continuation of a ban on trading on Easter Sunday—and that is the preference of some people as heard under recent consultations—then I do not think there is much doubt that there should be proper penalties. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What response has the Minister received from unions and churches to his November 2007 discussion document  
Easter Trading and Holidays Legislation 
 and can he confirm that public opinion increasingly supports the view that Easter Sunday should remain set apart for rest family worship and recreation rather than for work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A lot of submissions were made from churches and unions on the discussion document and they tended to be opposed either to the current law or certainly to any liberalisation. I think it is fair to say that there were a lot of representations the other way. A lot of people think we have got to the point—as shown by the example of Bunnings or Pak ’N Save—where the law has been made very much a farce of and that we should give up pretending to enforce it. I think if any group of members have a discussion amongst themselves they would probably find that from any four members there would be four different opinions. 
Building Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 6 March. 
Clauses 1 2 and 3 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We have in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction Shane Jones who says that things in the building regulation area are going swimmingly well. With this bill he will further drive up the costs for councils for ratepayers and for building consents. 
In debating these three clauses I remind the Committee of the absolute mess this Government has made of building regulation. This bill makes a complete mockery of the Government’s commitments to improve home affordability because its provisions will make it even more difficult for New Zealanders to afford homes. Let me just run through what is going on out there for ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to get their building consents. 
Last week I tabled documents from the Rodney District Council that show that under the Building Act it now takes 110 pages of bureaucracy to have even the most minor of building consents go through. The Wellington City Council said that before this Government’s stupid Act it used to take three A4 plans and 20 pages of documentation to get a building consent for a standard house. Under the new Act it takes 12 A3 plans and 200 pages of documentation. This Minister has increased the bureaucracy tenfold as a consequence of the Act and the costs are going through the roof. A fortnight ago my own Nelson City Council announced a 50 percent increase in building consent costs. The Minister of Housing across the road there Maryan Street said that it will cost only $100. What planet is the Minister of Housing on? Under this Government the cost of a building consent is thousands of dollars and the Government is driving it up by thousands of dollars more. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Where’s the proof? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me take the Minister through the proof. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: It’s $100. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Maryan Street to tell me more. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: $100 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will bet that Minister the best bottle of Nelson wine that the 50 percent increase in the Nelson City Council fees is a heck of a lot more than $100. But it is not just the Nelson City Council I say to Maryan Street; the Dunedin City Council has announced increased costs of $1 million a year because of her and this Minister’s Act. I ask Maryan Street who in Dunedin City will pay the extra $1 million a year. Why does the member not take a call? The member is running for cover she is running scared because she knows in her heart of hearts that the Government has made a complete botch of this area of law. 
What we see in this bill is the Government creating a huge Government bureaucracy the Department of Building and Housing. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You can’t have it both ways. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Judith Tizard would know all about building would she not? Judith Tizard is part of the problem because she and her stupid ministerial colleagues have hugely increased the cost of regulation in the building sector and that increase is now being passed on to ratepayers. She and the Minister on their $240000 a year salaries may not understand that those thousands of dollars of increased costs are hurting people who are desperate to get their own home and are hurting ratepayers. What this bill does is dump on to the councils the costs of accreditation for the building consent process. What that means is that $4 million of Department of Building and Housing costs is being dumped on to the councils at the same time that this Government says it will make homeownership more affordable. Hang on a moment: the Government increases its charges by 50 percent then says: “Oh we care about housing affordability.”! In the last census we saw the biggest ever drop in homeownership since the census included the homeownership question. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It’s the market. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Mr Shane Jones says it is just the market. Let me explain why it is not. When the Government puts up as it does in this bill the building consent fee by 50 percent who pays that? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: 101economics. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says “101 economics” pays it. Actually the building consent applicant pays it. I have another question for the Minister: in 2002 this Labour Government changed the provision for development levies and said that it would put the cost on to the developer; what does the Minister think the developer did with the cost? We have seen development levy costs increase from $8000 a section to the latest figure of $26000 a section. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh no! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Parekura Horomia says “Oh no!”; those figures are from Local Government New Zealand. This Government’s legislation resulted in the development levies going up from $8000 a section to $26000 a section. Who does the Minister think paid that increase? This Government changed the legislation with the result that those fees increased; who do those members think paid that increase? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Infrastructure levy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Shane Jones says “Infrastructure levy.” Yes and it has gone up from $8000 a section to $26000 a section. Could it possibly be that it has actually put up the price of sections? Could it possibly be that the developer passed that cost on? Or does the Minister think the developer community decided to absorb that extra cost of $16000? Let me tell Mr Jones the figures. When Labour came to Government the average cost of a section in New Zealand was $76000. The cost of a section today is $186000. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Supply and demand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who is cutting the supply? Whose Resource Management Act is making it slow and expensive to bring new sections on to the market? This Government’s Act. Who has amended the Resource Management Act to make it more difficult than ever to get sections through? Who has passed Building Act amendment after Building Act amendment that has driven up the cost? This Government has. I say to the Minister in the chair that the next time he wants to give a speech about housing affordability he should have a damn good look in the mirror because this Government’s resource management policies and building policies have made homes for average New Zealanders more unaffordable than ever in our history. 
I challenge the Minister to say whether anything in this Building Amendment Bill will make homes more affordable for struggling Kiwi families. The answer is there is nothing. The answer is that it will make it worse. This bill is just another exercise in red tape and is putting more costs on the building sector. My contacts within the building sector say that the industry is in crisis. The industry is so buried in red tape that more tradesmen are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia than at any time in recent history and that is because of this sort of impractical bureaucratic red-tape legislation which is doing so much harm to our building industry. 
The National Party is saying that help is on the way. There is a mood out there in New Zealand for change a mood against the bureaucratic red tape unaffordable sorts of policies that we see in this bill. The best hope for those young families who are striving to own a home is a tax cut fair interest rates and sensible reform of the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make homes genuinely more affordable. 
The last point I want to make is this. We know and the record shows that homes have become more unaffordable during the 8 and a bit years of this Government than they have been under any other Government on record. If members ask the Parliamentary Library for the statistics they will find that this Government has the worst record on home affordability of any Government in New Zealand history. Why would we trust this Government to try to address that situation? This bill should be rejected. A very different bill is needed. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 This bill will pass. Soon this bill will become a permanent feature of our legislative landscape. I must say that the last speaker is promoting a reduction in standards a departure from accountability and a rejection of any liability so that those who are most vulnerable will not be able to rely upon the quality of the builder the integrity of the council inspections and the professionalism of the designers. That member is encouraging the Committee to open up this area of governmental activity holus-bolus to the surge of the market with no regulatory oversight at all. That is actually the conclusion of his very loud but largely incomprehensible unhelpful— 
Hon Member 
: Irrelevant. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well it is irrelevant because the man will not be on the front bench for much longer. There is a far more talented group of people. They are slightly younger and more energetic and they have a better appreciation of where the spirit of the New Zealand family is. 
Of course the average New Zealand family when they are approaching house purchase are concerned about the cost of money and concerned about delay but deep down they do not want to see a perpetuation of the misery the agony and the dread associated with the collapse of the building industry which led to the leaky houses. 
Let us go back to the pith of what lies underneath these reforms. Admittedly the member is able to dredge up information from Nelson although he has been challenged by my colleague Maryan Street as to the accuracy and the veracity of what he says. I do not actually get quite as worked up as Minister Street does. We generally dismiss what Dr Smith says because it lacks accuracy and it is used and distorted for a purpose for which it was not designed. But one cannot escape the underlying story that the amendments associated with this bill are designed to ensure that we close the gaps that led to the development of the leaky homes hangover. 
There are people who are still associated with these problems. They are looking for councils to remain thorough and they are looking for building practitioners to improve their level of professionalism and skill. Dr Nick Smith does not want that to happen. He wants to dress up that kind of activity as unnecessary bureaucracy and overshooting regulation etc. whereas in actual fact underlying the problem is the fact that people want to be in secure homes. People want to be confident that where there is a problem they can rely on the process to find those who have put them wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 110 pages? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Would the member say that homeowners should rely on something as skimpy as a small scrap of paper the size probably of his intellectual pedigree when they discover a problem and try to find someone to help them solve it? 
One cannot walk away from that problem. I say to Dr Smith that one cannot walk away from the underlying challenge here which is to ensure that the legislation improves the prospects of all Kiwis whether they are buying an exceedingly expensive property or what we might regard as an affordable property and to ensure that they can rely on the quality of the monitoring and the skill associated with the construction of the dwelling. Now that is what this bill seeks to do. 
This bill will pass. No doubt this is not the final iteration of the code and the associated regulatory framework for New Zealand housing. Far be it from me to say that this is the final word. But I must say after going around and talking to people that the insurance industry is waiting to see these reforms fully implemented because councils cannot actually get any further insurance. They are not able to insure against the problem of leaky homes which is what we have sought to remedy with the passage of this legislation. 
It may be said that some councils are being over-zealous in the amount of paper they require. But we have a system of central government and sub-national levels of government. Those local government bodies I say to Dr Smith have at their disposal the ability to regulate the amount of paperwork they require but they need a handsome strong framework which is what this bill produces. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In the Minister’s contribution he questioned the figures I had used in my speech and he used quite derogatory language to describe them. I seek leave to table the statement by the Nelson City Council dated 28 February which states that building consent fees in Nelson City would need to increase by 50 percent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the statement from the Tasman District Council about increasing its building consent fees by 36 percent in response to the Government’s building legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document from the Dunedin City Council announcing a 67 percent increase in the building consent fees in Dunedin City in response to the Government’s Building Act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the statement from the Wellington City Council that the forms required for a standard home under this Building Act have increased from three A3 plans to 12 and from 20 pages of documentation to 200 pages of documentation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I listened closely to what the Minister in charge of the Building Amendment Bill Shane Jones had to say. If people listened to his speech on the surface they might have thought that some of those things he was talking about were probably reasonable. But the unfortunate thing is that this is the fourth building bill in 4 years that this Government has brought in. Every time the Government brings in a building bill it tells us that the bill will fix the issue. The first bill in 2004 was going to be the remedy; it was going to solve people’s problems. Unfortunately it did not. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Minor tinkering. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister might say it is minor tinkering but it is not minor tinkering when someone has a bucket under a leak in the middle of the lounge or someone has to put a cloth around a window because the wind is likely to be blowing it in as a result of the stupid regulations and rules that were brought in under the Building Act 2004. 
The Government brought in another amendment bill and said that it had not got the legislation quite right but would fix it up with that bill. The Minister knows although he was not in Parliament at the time that unfortunately that did not happen. So the Government brought in another amendment bill to fix up the mistake it had made in the second bill which was brought in to correct the first bill. Unfortunately that did not work either and here we are today with the fourth bill to fix up the stuff-up in the third bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the second bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the first bill. 
The Minister referred to the fact that there are leaky homes in New Zealand. He knows there are we know there are and local government knows there are. There are estimated at the moment to be 3200 leaky homes but actually there may well possibly be somewhere between 15000 and 30000 more out there that have yet to be discovered. The problem we have is that we are addressing just those leaky homes that we have been notified about and that we know of. I have to say we are addressing them in a very convoluted way which is costing a whole lot more in legal fees than it does to fix the leaky homes but they are being addressed. 
The problem is—and the Minister knows this because he has been told not just by me by my colleague Nick Smith or by my colleagues from this side of the Committee but by the building industry itself—that leaky homes are being built right now. Leaky homes are being built right now across this country. They are not included in that number of 30000 which is anticipated as being the maximum between 15000 and 30000 of leaky homes yet to be discovered. More are being built. 
The Minister is in charge of a Department of Building and Housing that is meant to have set out quality control for the materials that are put into houses. I ask the Minister where the quality control is. The Minister knows it is not there and this Committee knows it is not there. We know that of the 600-plus materials that can be put into a house fewer than four have been certified to date. I have stated that figure in the Chamber many times and it has never been challenged. Therefore unless the Minister has some other facts and figures he accepts that it is so. 
The tragedy is that a whole lot of materials that have been imported from overseas particularly from Asia are being put into our houses today and they are faulty. The unsuspecting person who goes along and buys a spec home—a beautiful well-finished spec home—will find that in 10 years’ time or less the husband will go into the toilet and flush it and the mother will end up getting a shower in the kitchen because the copper pipe has burst. It is a real tragedy waiting to happen. 
This Minister says that it is OK; we will pass another law and more rules and regulations which will make it all better. I say to the Minister that that will not fix it. I want this Minister to explain to me how writing more rules and regulations makes the builder put the nail in straighter. How does it make the guy who puts the glass in the window put in the putty better? It does not improve the skills of the tradesmen at all; indeed it inhibits them. That is part of the problem. 
We have now got to the stage where so many of our good quality tradesmen are so frustrated by the rules and regulations they have to comply with that they are exiting the industry. We are losing good competent people. The Minister is having a meeting I think in Northland this Friday week and he will be told by the people he associates with up there that good competent tradesmen who have been in the field for 30 years or longer will not remain in the industry because of this Minister’s rules and regulations. 
The real tragedy is that this Minister in his heart of hearts knows that this bill we are debating today will not fix the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He knows it won’t. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He knows in his heart of hearts that this bill will not actually fix it. But the problem is of course that he is a Minister in the Labour Government. The Labour Cabinet has passed this bill the caucus has passed it and he has been told by his officials that it needs to be done so here he is standing up there making speeches about how grandiose it is and how it is all going to work. But he knows in his heart of hearts—and this is the tragedy and I am glad it will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 because one day in 5 or 10 years’ time I will bring it out and show him—that this legislation will not work. We will end up with more problems in this country because of this sort of legislation. 
There is an answer. The real problem and the tragedy is that local government has become responsible for faulty building. I have to ask why one would make local government responsible for mistakes made by builders. Why does local government have to assume the total responsibility? Why does local government—and finally the ratepayers—have to pick up the tab? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What is an alternative solution? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there is an alternative solution and the Minister if he bides his time will find it out soon enough when National is ready to announce that is has a very good alternative. The Minister knows it but again he cannot put it through in his policy because of his socialist Government which he is right out of step with but unfortunately joined because he could not get on the National Party list but now just has to bide with. Let us use the analogy— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Come back to the bill. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I say to the Prime Minister in waiting that I am just about to. The point is that if I go to buy a new car and it breaks down I do not rush up to the Mayor of Far North District Council and say: “Brownie my car’s broken down. Can you get the ratepayers to fix it for me?”. So why in the world should I be allowed to do that if the builder does not do my house properly because he or she could not understand the rules and regulations and did not have the skills? 
This Minister knows in his heart of hearts that this legislation will not be the remedy that is required to fix the building problem. The Minister knows that it is in fact doing the reverse. The Minister and his Labour Government—led by Helen Clark—know that this legislation is putting in more rules regulations and costs. The Minister knows that it is driving good competent tradesmen out of the industry. The Minister knows that we will end up with members of local authorities around the country holding their heads in their hands in horror and saying: “More rules and regulations.” As my colleague Nick Smith has said they will have to write out more pages of building applications and there will be more forms to fill out. There are 110 pages in Rodney. 
The Minister asked for proof of the cost increases. I have mentioned before that I recently got a deck extended and a retaining wall done; that cost $16000. The fee costs on that were $3600. The Minister asked where the proof of the cost increases was; I have to say that that is a fairly good bit of proof there right there. Then the work I had had done could not pass its compliance not because it was not constructed properly and not because it was not in place but because I did not have a smoke alarm. Well I have to say that I have not found the answer as to why one would have to have a smoke alarm on an outside deck and a retaining wall. If there is a fire surely it will not hit the smoke alarm outside. One assumes that the wind will blow the smoke away. But I do not know; this is the sort of stupidity we are now getting in the rules and regulations being passed by this Government. 
I say to the Minister that this bill will not work. It will be as good as the previous bill which did not work. It will be as good as the bill before that which did not work. It will be as good as the parent Act which did not work. I say to the Minister that sadly New Zealanders ratepayers homeowners the building industry and the country will be paying the cost of this bill. The Minister has been told that the cost of compliance in regard to just a section is spiralling up to something like $50000. That is not the cost of buying a section or putting in the infrastructure; it is the cost of just the rules and regulations. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call and speak on the Building Amendment Bill and to take up some of the points that members on this side of the Committee have well and truly canvassed. I start by saying that there is a degree of sympathy from this side of the Committee towards the Minister in the Chair Shane Jones who makes utterances and pontificates that this bill will become law. That may be the case but at the end of the day the Minister should always remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
There is another saying that is worth quoting at the moment. We have a situation that has become like an albatross around the neck of the Labour Party and the accountability issue is that two wrongs do not make a right. In fact we have had four wrongs here. We have tried to solve a problem and in our effort to do so we have made the matter worse. I tell the Minister that the saying effectively means that once something has been made crooked it cannot be made straight. Sure the bill might be passed into law but it has been a huge disappointment. 
Although the Labour Government started out by trying to solve the problem the Government itself has become the problem at this stage of the legislation. It has lifted things to a level of unaffordability. It has lifted the level of bureaucracy and the size of the Department of Building and Housing to a level that has meant that the interface with local government has had to match that. When I went back to the Marlborough District Council which is a unitary authority council members said to me: “Colin I bet you’re pleased that you’re not a Labour MP.” I asked why. They said: “If you were a Labour MP we would just about throw you out of here because of the amount of work that has been created for us around building consents construction and suchlike.” 
Really where we are today is that the Labour Government is in its final stages. It will be remembered for one major thing when it comes to what is traditionally known as being something that average New Zealanders aspire to which is to own their own family home. I tell members on the other side of the Committee that they will be remembered for creating unaffordability. It is very very sad because the Government is not fully aware of that. There seems to be a conversation way up in the stratosphere and it is not connecting with the realities on the ground. 
There are solutions and I am certainly looking forward to the time when the National Party releases its policies at a stage when we are confident they will not be stolen by the Labour Party as have the other 14 policies already taken by the Labour Party. 
It is quite interesting to see where we are at the moment with regard to the Building Amendment Bill after all the work talking and time. The Chair pointed out to us last time we addressed this bill that it has now been more than 4 months since we began the final stages of the bill. All we have been building under this Government has been growing bureaucracies. We have fewer houses being built we have more costs being added and we have fewer builders. Builders are leaving the country in disgust and people are seeking other careers. There has been a reversal in affordability. The only dramatic growth we have seen is in the Department of Building and Housing where we have seen a growth in bureaucracy. 
It is hugely disappointing that we are confronted with the extra layer upon layer of bureaucracy which is squeezing the very inspiration and aspiration out of young New Zealand families to afford their own homes. When we look at the whole range of policies that impact on the communities in our regions and throughout New Zealand we see that we are now confronted with some of the highest interest rates in the OECD. Not only do we have the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act impacting upon people’s housing costs but also the Labour Government putting on another layer of costs. The cost of $50000 for a section is absolutely appalling. 
When one stops and thinks about the young people coming out of universities and colleges going into the workforce and looking at the challenges and hurdles they have to get over one realises that it is a shocking situation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What Government members do not understand is that New Zealanders have had a gutsful of a busybody Government that wants to interfere in everybody’s lives as we are seeing more of in this Building Amendment Bill 
Let me put some basic common-sense questions to the Minister in the chair Shane Jones. Does he think it is reasonable that the standard building consent form from the Rodney District Council for a person who wants to put in a drain is 110 pages long? The silence is deafening. Why can the Minister in the chair not come to the common-sense conclusion that every National member can come to which is that it is unreasonable and it is bureaucracy gone mad? I put the question to the Minister again. Does he think it is reasonable that the building application standard pack for anybody in the Rodney District Council area wanting to get a consent for anything from a home to a drain to putting in a kitchen unit is 110 pages long? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Address the Rodney District Council yourself! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair Shane Jones says “Blame the Rodney District Council.” I have spoken to the Rodney District Council and it says that this building legislation that has passed creates exactly that scenario. I have spoken to my own— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell the Minister how. This bill sets up the charging process around the accreditation of building consent authorities. His department is going to talk to building consent authorities in every corner of New Zealand and members of that department as busybodies will tell them what they have to put on their building consent application forms in order to be accredited. And that is how many pages it takes to meet that requirement. 
Does the Minister know how many of those 110 pages have the Department of Building and Housing’s logo on them? Sixty-two! The Minister in the chair says we should blame the Rodney District Council but 62 of the pages come from his Department of Building and Housing. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I tabled them in the House last week. What is even better is that on those pages are the words: “New Zealand Government—the key to sustainability.” Can the Minister explain to me how every one of our 70000 building consents each year that are covered under this Act— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How many? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have 70000 building consents each year. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Sorry! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I say to the Minister that those are the numbers provided by Statistics New Zealand. I do not know which planet the Minister is on but 70000 building consents at 100 pages each means a pile of paper that is just over a kilometre high. Does he think that that is a reasonable set of building regulations for New Zealand? 
I come to another question. This Parliament has set up the Commerce Committee inquiry into housing affordability. The Registered Master Builders Federation which builds 65 percent of New Zealand’s houses has told the housing affordability study that there is an extra $30000 of unnecessary bureaucracy coming from this Government’s building regulations. That is not me saying it; that comes from a very detailed submission in which the Registered Master Builders Federation sets out what that $30000 is made up of. I ask the Minister in the chair whether he believes it is reasonable to have $30000 of unnecessary building regulation costs being put on to the price of a new home. Again the Minister is silent. I say to the Minister that for him to justify his $240000 salary his ministerial car and his ministerial house he actually needs to be able to answer those questions because his Prime Minister cannot shed crocodile tears about housing affordability when her own Minister is imposing those sorts of extra costs. 
Let me tell members about my own experience. I applied in January for a building consent to put a solar water system on my house. I thought that it was a good thing to do; it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: A what? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A solar water heating system on my house. Do members know what I got back from the council? I received a note that asked whether I could please submit a plan telling the council where my fire alarms were. I asked the council why it had done that. I thought that putting some water on my roof was unlikely to increase the fire risk for my house. But the council said that the Department of Building and Housing requires anybody who lodges a building consent to automatically provide a plan of where his or her fire alarms are. I say to the Minister that that is the sort of mad bureaucracy that he is imposing on New Zealanders and that is one of the reasons that he and his lot will get the arse later this year. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 What a mess the Building Amendment Bill is. The bill states that licensed building practitioners must carry out or supervise restricted building work. What a neat way to put up housing costs! Tradesmen and carpenters will now have to pay $2000 to become a licensed practitioner—not the $300 quoted by various bureaucrats. Where does the Minister think this $2000 will go? It will be added to the price of a house. Two thousand dollars might not be much but when one adds on hold-ups the costs of getting permits which are going up and much other bureaucratic rubbish one sees that the price of a house is getting out of the reach of the middle to low income New Zealander. 
We have seen some major problems in many areas in building. Councils are getting loaded up with bureaucratic demands from Wellington. We have to take the pressure off councils otherwise permit charges will keep rising. 
The Minister talked about leaky homes and what caused them. He has it all wrong. Tradesmen and carpenters did not cause leaky homes; the Building Industry Authority was the main party at fault. It is as simple as that. 
Tradesmen and carpenters do not need to be licensed; we need better inspectors and better approval for materials. I believe that at the moment there are only three approved materials used in the building of houses. I say to the Minister that he should wake up and work out what the problem is first and then he will be able to fix the problem. 
DIY builders have not been clearly dealt with in these amendments or in building legislation. What can they do? The Minister should not tell me that they cannot build a house. Norm Kirk—Labour’s friend—would turn in his grave. He built his own house of course. New Zealanders should be able to dream and achieve. They should be able to build their own house. If they build their own house then any inspections by good inspectors should pick up whether they are doing anything wrong. Some of the best houses I have seen were built by DIY people—and they did a damn good job. 
Again I say to the Government that it should wake up find the problem and bring out a policy that fixes the problem. The Government has now had four goes at changing this bill and it is still not fixed. I do not hold much hope of the Minister getting it right in the future. I say to Shane Jones that I would like to help him but he is in the wrong party. The Government should steer people and councils in New Zealand; they should not control people and councils. I say to New Zealanders that they should be patient; the National Party is coming. Subject closed. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act and amnesty provision 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill but I would have been even more pleased to rise to speak on this bill back in early December as was scheduled. It was a cause of great regret to me that we had to go through another Christmas and New Year period with young people—including kids as young as 11 who first stick their heads up and start looking around at the world about them and seeing what is on offer—being able to see benzylpiperazine (BZP) or party pills freely available in convenience stores and dairies. Those young people being under 18 years did not see them in liquor outlets but of course BZP pills for sale in liquor outlets brings with it its own perils as no doubt the medical practitioners in the country’s accident and emergency wards will have discovered. So we have had another 4 months of BZP being visible in our community and I say again that I regret that. 
I want to address Supplementary Order Paper 180 if that is in order and to note the proposed amendments as put forward by the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton. His amendment to clause 2 proposes to omit “18 December 2007” and substitute “1 April 2008” as the commencement date. I say that this is a Supplementary Order Paper of shame. This bill should have been dealt with at the end of last year or is this just an instance of another broken promise; just another delay? 
The Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to amend clause 6 by omitting “18 June 2008” which refers to the expiry date of the 6-month amnesty and substituting “1 October 2008”. Again I say that the Minister in charge of drug policy has failed the young people of New Zealand in failing to address this issue of recreational drug use by young people. 
It is now March 2008. I was elected to Parliament in September 2005 and practically the first person who came through the door of my newly opened electorate office was somebody who was very concerned about the use of party pills in our society. At that time I thought this was only a small issue in my home town of Oamaru but as events have subsequently shown it is not. The sale of party pills is a fast-growing industry in New Zealand and in the 2½ years I have been an elected member I have been working hard to get this legal drug trade shut down. 
I turn to a press release by the Progressive party that was put out in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton who made a couple of comments about National MP Jacqui Dean “taking up this issue”. It is interesting is it not that we both support this bill yet in the press release he took me to task for bringing a petition of 7000 signatures to Parliament. He stated: “All 7000 signatories and all those other New Zealanders concerned about party pills should be assured that this government has acted is acting and will continue to act to ensure these products are appropriately dealt with.” The Minister’s press release continues: “The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs will reassess BZP party pills as soon as all the research has been completed which I am advised will be between June and November this year.” That is fine and I say to the Minister that it is a good example of front-footing it which is what the headline states. The trouble is that this press release was dated 15 March 2006—nearly 2 years ago to the day. Far from front-footing it I would suggest that “flat-footed” would probably be a more apt description. 
The shame is that in those 2 years when we were waiting and waiting the Minister could not see what was happening right in front of him in New Zealand society. More and more and ever more young New Zealanders have been cottoning on to the idea that in order to have a good time one first must pop a pill. I think that is a shame. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to make a brief comment. No one was slow-footed in this regard. What was happening was that the Government was authorising commissioning and paying for research into benzylpiperazine (BZP) that had not been taking place anywhere else in the world. The Government was following an evidence-based approach to drugs. I would recommend that approach to the member; it would stop her suggesting that water should be outlawed by the Misuse of Drugs Act! If she had done her research properly she would know things like that. That is— 
Mark Blumsky 
: That’s a silly argument. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may be a silly argument. That makes the member who proposed it pretty silly does it not? 
Mark Blumsky 
: This is not relevant. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is relevant. When someone wants to raise the issue of the Government commissioning research so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could be well advised in an evidence-based manner— 
Jacqui Dean 
: This is a serious matter. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I wish the member could take it seriously then. What the Government did was commission research that then advised the advisory committee in its decisions. I would recommend that the member show more commitment to an evidence-based approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction. If there were ever any possibility of any members opposite being responsible in Government they would have to get used to the idea that one does not have on the back of an envelope something that one wants to ban next week then turn up in the Chamber and try to do it. It does not work. 
I advise the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 177 in my name has been withdrawn and replaced by Supplementary Order Paper 180. Supplementary Order Paper 177 proposed to have an enactment date of 7 days following the Royal assent but I have been advised by the Attorney-General and by the Ministry of Health that on consideration they believe that it would be better to have a specific date. To have a date in the legislation provides for certainty around when the classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand and it is important to ensure that they are all certain of their obligations under the law. To have a date set in the legislation allows for greater clarity around this change of legal status of BZP. In addition a set enactment date provides more clarity to users of BZP and related substances regarding the exact date on which the amnesty period will expire. This amendment is designed to give certainty to those dates so that there is no lack of clarification about when legal obligations come into effect. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 which deals with the amendments to the principal Misuse of Drugs Act and also with the amnesty provision. 
One of the words that I have heard emanating from Minister Anderton’s mouth repeatedly has been the question of having an evidence base and it intrigues me that the letter of 4 December 2006 to Jim Anderton from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs states: “The programme of research on benzylpiperazine (BZP) that has been undertaken has allowed New Zealand to take a strongly evidence-based approach …”. In actual fact we do not need to have the word “strongly” in front of it; an approach is either evidence-based or it is not. 
It is highly relevant that the only controlled respective trial on these side effects was undertaken by Professor Richard Beasley. The clinical trial was abandoned because he was concerned about side effects. I accept that Professor Beasley is one of the highly regarded international clinical trialists and I very much accept his judgment that it was ethically appropriate to abandon that trial but I believe that Minister Anderton ought to be very careful about saying that everything has a strong evidence base about it when clearly we have a lot of anecdotal evidence around us that still remains quite contentious—not only as to whether it does have an evidence base but certainly from a political point of view. 
That is the reason why I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 181. I have not yet had time to discuss this Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister but I believe that he does not intend to support it. I think that that is very unfortunate because this Supplementary Order Paper proposes that there be a review by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs approximately 2 years after the Act comes into being. It is very important that that review actually does take place and that a formal process be required by Parliament to ensure that it occurs so there can be a response from the Health Committee. I was advised that it was appropriate to get the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do that review. Although there has been contention among some of the parties as to the fact that the advisory committee’s decision of advice to reclassify BZP was not unanimous I believe that it is still the best instrument to use to make such a decision in that it has the experts who are relevant to this drug and it probably has the best knowledge of anyone in New Zealand. The point is that there was great concern that reclassifying BZP might drive the drug underground and I think we want to know both the social and medical effects of having this reclassification. 
I am deeply disappointed in Minister Anderton for failing to grasp a highly constructive suggestion that would help to ensure that further evidence is discussed by Parliament by law rather than Mr Anderton suddenly deciding that no we will whip through this legislation and we will not even bother looking at it in a formal way in years to come. There is no doubt in my mind that this must be— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What are we doing now? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No—the whole point I tell Mr Anderton is that it is very important that we look at the effects this legislation will have both from a medical point of view and from a social point of view. The Minister was not listening at the time but I am sure that he has heard the highly prevalent argument that the legislation may drive the use of BZP and related party pills underground. We want to know whether that happens. It will be great if that is not the case and it will be great indeed if this legislation is effective in reducing the use of party pills in New Zealand. 
I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is not prepared to support a highly reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that is actually designed to assist the quality of this legislation. So I hope the Minister will review his thoughts on that. Once again just to go over the fact I think it is important to say that this legislation and the need for it have changed rapidly over the last 5 years. In 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that the legislation was not necessary but it reviewed that position and ended up in the opposite direction 3 years later. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to make a further point on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill to address the amnesty provision in clause 6 which provides a limited period in relation to the use and possession for personal use of benzylpiperazine (BZP). In the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180 the period is to 1 October 2008 during which time it is illegal to sell or supply BZP but there is an amnesty period for those people who have BZP in their possession to be able to take it legally. 
That is not a worthy provision in the bill; it is a sop to those drug users who have had plenty of notice that the Minister intends to act on this issue. It is a soft unworthy Supplementary Order Paper. 
I will quote from a man called Matt Bowden from the Social Tonics Association. He is a man who is associated closely with promoting this $30-million-a-year industry. He himself acknowledges that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy now they have a bit of extra time. He says that people should take a few weeks to recover between parties and to make sure they are not overdoing it. 
That says two things. It says that now people have been given this out this amnesty they will stockpile BZP—whether for their own use we do not know. The gentleman from the Social Tonics Association also acknowledges—utterly acknowledges—that what we have here is in fact a dangerous substance. It is an acknowledgment that BZP is a dangerous substance and when the promoter the seller of that substance says that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy that they should take a few weeks to recover between parties and that they should make sure they are not overdoing it I think it really shows this Supplementary Order Paper for what it is. 
I will go to the proposed amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison and say how sorry I am that I understand that the Associate Minister of Health Mr Anderton will not support Supplementary Order Paper 181 because a number of submissions to the Health Committee raised the issue of what happens when you drive a drug underground. The question raised a number of times through the select committee process was: “OK you are going to do this; you are proposing to ban BZP. What will happen?”. Well in my view Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper addresses that very issue because it proposes to monitor the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—the very committee the Associate Minister of Health has been so careful to take advice from—and to utilise that very expertise and knowledge in order to do a review of the effect of this legislation. 
I would have thought that that was a sensible and pragmatic way to address whatever consequences there might be of banning BZP. And I would have thought that the Associate Minister of Health would welcome this Supplementary Order Paper with open arms instead I suspect of just walking away once this bill has been passed into law and saying: “Oh well there we go. That’s done; move on.” I am afraid that New Zealand society will not move on like that because we have a whole generation of young New Zealanders who over the course of the past 5 or 6 years have now come to understand that drugs can be legally sold in New Zealand and that it is quite acceptable to medicate on pills about which they know very little and about which we as a society know very little. 
We know anecdotally that a number of other so-called recreational drugs are being developed and are waiting in the wings. They will come on to the New Zealand market. I would have thought that a Minister who really cared about this issue would grasp the opportunity with open arms to have a review of the effect of this legislation. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Dr Hutchison suggested that there had been only one trial in terms of evidence. There was not one; there were three. Two of the three trials strongly suggested that benzylpiperazine (BZP) was harmful and one trial suggested there was no evidence of strong harm. The trial in Dunedin at the National Poisons Centre said that BZP should be classified as a controlled drug as soon as possible—and this is “as soon as possible”. 
The second thing Dr Hutchison suggested was that there may be no evidence if we made this drug illegal that users would go on to more hard drug usage and so on. The evidence is actually to the contrary. There is evidence and the evidence is with drugs that have been classified previously. Those drugs that are classified have fallen away in terms of use. The declaration of illegality in terms of drugs is useful in respect of reducing their use. 
I point out that there are two very popular social and legal drugs—one is alcohol and the other is tobacco. Having alcohol and tobacco in use their being legal and having them on supply in dairies and supermarkets has not reduced alcohol usage by much. It is only by the most strenuous work of the Government and other agencies that has reduced tobacco usage which kills 4700 people a year. If BZP did that I think there would be riots on the street. 
This amendment of Dr Hutchison is well intentioned but it is bad lawmaking and he should know that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Talk to parliamentary counsel. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have talked to parliamentary counsel. The Misuse of Drugs Act is currently up for a complete review and that is the process and the opportunity to examine the role of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs rather than to do so by an amendment to this bill. If we want to change its relationship and want it to report directly to the House and all the rest of it we can do it in that review—if we want to. But at the moment the committee’s function is to report to the Minister. That is in the Act and that is how Parliament determined it should be. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was established to report to the Minister not to the House. That is how the legislation operates. If we want to change the primary legislation we should change it. But we should not do it with an amendment like this to this amendment bill. 
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs can now investigate examine and monitor in any way it wants to. MPs can ask it to and they do and members of the public can write to it and they do. MPs and members of the public can write to me and I can recommend or ask the committee to do it. So there is no lack of ability to get the committee to look at issues now and review them and it does. This very bill is a review of BZP by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs when it made a regulation 2 years ago that BZP should not be on sale to those under 18 and that there should be restrictions on electronic and media advertising and so on. Now it has reviewed it and has come back with a recommendation that it should be classified as class C. 
There is another problem. If Parliament instructs the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do something like monitor evaluate or whatever then who is going to pay the money? Does Dr Hutchison have some money that he is going to give to it? The committee has to have money allocated to it to do this work. The work of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in terms of the research that was done was paid for by the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. We paid about $300000 or $400000 for that research. Is Dr Hutchison or Parliament going to vote for that? They do not have any authority to do it. It is a pointless exercise to think Parliament can instruct the committee under the present way that the legislation is informed. If we want to change that it is up to the Parliament—that is true—but it should be done by a thorough review of the Act which is on the table to be done now. I thought that all parties welcomed that. 
In my view the intention of the amendment is fine but it is misplaced. It is the wrong place to do it it is not a good order in terms of policy making and the Committee should concentrate its efforts on getting this legislation through now on this particular issue then dealing with any reviews in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the proper way to go about it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment that will soon be on the Table. It is a very simple amendment to clause 2 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180. The amendment substitutes 1 May for 1 April as the date on which the Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill comes into force. It is not a huge change. 
We have made it very clear that we oppose this legislation on principle but there is a question here about the ability of businesses—particularly small New Zealand businesses regardless of whether we think they are good businesses—to be able to rely on the law as it stands. We need to have practical law in place that enables them to comply with new law in good time when laws change. 
The issue here is that between the time when this legislation is passed in this House and then comes into force a large number of small businesses in this country will have to find a way extremely quickly to recall the product they have distributed in various forms around the place—I do not know quite how that works—bring it back to their own central offices and then send it back to the distributor as it will not be lawful for those businesses to sell that product or to hold it any longer. They simply cannot do it all in what could end up being only 7 working days. It will be simply impossible for them to comply with that aspect of the law. 
As I say this is not about whether we like these businesses or about what the businesses are engaged in. But if this Government and this Committee has any respect for small businesses and for the fact that businesses are entitled to rely on the law as it stands and should be able to be assisted at least with time frames to comply with changes in the law then more time is needed. They do not need a heap more time and they are not asking for a heap more time just a few more weeks to be able to put in place the mechanisms to recall the products they will need to recall. 
I understand that they are asking for only 3 or 4 weeks in which to be able to do that. That is why we are not putting forward an amendment that will unduly mess with the legislation. It is not a delaying tactic. It is not designed to completely prevent the law from proceeding. We could have a whole range of amendments that do that. As members know filibustering is possible but the Green Party does not engage in it. We are very much engaged in practical measures to assist small New Zealand businesses. 
I urge the Committee to support the Green Party amendment which simply states that the legislation will come into force on 1 May rather than 1 April. That will give these business people the opportunity and time to recall the products they need to recall and make sure they comply with the legislation. Frankly from the information I am getting from small businesses in general—those who deal with these products in particular—I see that they want to comply with the law. They want to be able to meet the legal regulations. They are not happy with the changes obviously. The changes mean that many of them will go out of business. But they do not want to be in contravention of the law because of the very serious consequences. That is responsible behaviour on the part of these small-business people. 
These small-business people are doing their best to meet their legal obligations. Just as their product is legal now it will not be legal in perhaps a week or so and they want to comply effectively and properly. But they simply cannot within the time frame they have been given. 
I urge the Committee the Minister and the Government to seriously consider supporting the Green Party amendment which will delay the introduction of the bill for just a month. That is not a very long time but it does give a great deal of assistance to these small-business people to do the right thing. That is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach for the Government and for the Committee to take. These are businesses after all. They have employees whom they need to take care of. Employers will perhaps have to close down their businesses reorganise all of their financial arrangements fire the staff whom they have to fire and give up their premises. They may have contracts for premises. They will have to deal with all those financial consequences as well. 
There is a lot they will have to do and comply with in order to be able to go out of business if selling products containing benzylpiperazine is mostly what they are engaged in. They will have about a 7-day time frame in which to recall their products and manage their business while they are firing staff and getting out of other contracts that they may have to get out of. While bearing the financial burden of having to do that it is perfectly fair that they are not given this extra burden of having to comply within such a short period of time. I urge the Committee to think seriously about this amendment. Thank you. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can respect the motives of the Green Party members but I cannot agree with them. Originally the time given was to be 7 days. That has been extended now to 1 April to cover the issue of communications and all the rest of it. But to be fair the people in the business community who sell these products—$30 million worth a year roughly—have been under notice for about 18 months. If they had not known that this measure was coming up then they must have been on some other planet or at least in some other country. They would have known very clearly that there is very strong support in this House for the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. They would have known that. The bill’s support was almost overwhelming when it went to the Health Committee and it was clear when the select committee reported back that there was strong support for its passage. So anyone who did not know that this measure was coming in is being disingenuous when he or she says that to be honest. 
In truth many retailers have stopped selling benzylpiperazine (BZP) now. I know that. I have seen them close their shelves in various shops in Christchurch which seems to be the BZP capital of the world as far as I know and there they have stopped selling it already. The retailers know that this legislation is coming in they have stopped selling BZP and it is a no-brainer. So those people who have not stopped selling BZP have taken the risk of carrying on and there should not be any sympathy in this Committee for supporting them. 
This $30 million business dines out on offering young people primarily a substance that we now know is harmful. We did not guess that; we did not make it up on the way here. We have been told by an expert committee on drugs made up of professionals in this area that BZP is harmful. Why would we want to continue to sell it? Why would we want to continue to sell something that is harmful? We are being conscious of the young people mainly who use BZP and there is a 6-month period for them so that they do not rush into getting criminal offending going straight up. But as I said before once we make this substance illegal all the evidence is that its sale and use will slow down and eventually become virtually nil and that is the good news for the Committee. 
Members should not forget that these businesses were actually expecting to have to stop selling BZP at Christmas. That is the truth. They all knew that; I made that pretty clear. But I am afraid that the Green Party made it very clear that it would not give us approval to go into urgency if we put this bill in the urgency motion then. We knew that so we could not do it. In response to all the wailing from the National Party on this matter I say that those members should just wait until one day—not in the immediate future—when they have to manage four or five parties in the House and we shall see how they get on with that. I wish those members well; I think that the slippery sliding thing will be very obvious. Businesses have had another 3 months from last Christmas after the 18 months’ notice they were given. Christmas came and they still had 3 months so why on earth would we want to give them even more time than that? 
I cannot support the amendment. I am not suggesting that there are any ulterior motives behind it but it just does not make sense. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call firstly to say that we are always interested in practical amendments that are put forward to the Committee and I think it is a shame that once again the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton does not seem to have an open mind with regard to this one. But I will focus for a moment on Mr Anderton’s concern when he said that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is supposed to report to the Minister rather than to Parliament. Well there is no doubt that it would be very easy for a responsible Minister to then report to Parliament. I think he is indeed being somewhat circuitous in suggesting that he will not support this very important practical amendment. 
The point that should be emphasised is this. It was only in 2004 that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs clearly stated: “The Minister of Food Safety should be requested to consider the appropriateness of permitting the chemical BZP to be sold as a dietary supplement in New Zealand when it has no known nutritional value.” That was only 3 years ago. The committee went on to state: “After considering the evidence the EACD believes that there is no current schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 under which BZP could reasonably be placed.” The committee has changed its view in 3 short years and I agree that it is appropriate that it has changed its view but the point I am making which Mr Anderton seems to totally evade or misunderstand is that this is a very rapidly changing area. 
The Minister has just told the Committee that he hopes that once this legislation comes into place suddenly and mysteriously party pills will no longer be used in New Zealand. But all the evidence I have heard anecdotally is that mischievous manufacturers will be putting these pills underground and there is no doubt in my mind that Parliament should have a formal report from a respected committee such as the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs as to what is happening. 
Minister Anderton talks about the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Well why on earth after 8 years of this tawdry Labour Government has this review not happened? Why did it not happen so much earlier? The Minister is now at the eleventh hour 5 months before he is due to be tipped out talking about this being the sort of thing the Government could put in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I would say to the Minister that he is being particularly churlish in suggesting that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has to report to him. I believe that if he has any sense of responsibility then he could easily support this practical amendment which is the insertion in the bill of a new clause 5A. It merely requires “A report on the effects of the reclassification of BZP and related substances must be presented to the House of Representatives by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs within 1 month at the end of the period in subsection (1).”—that is 2 years after the legislation comes into play. 
The point the Minister is making is on a technicality that it cannot be done. I would have thought that a responsible Minister who is concerned about reacting to drugs on an evidence base should support this practical amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new clause 5A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendments are the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Would it not make more sense to put Metiria Turei’s amendment first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That amendment relates to clause 2 which is some way down the line. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Clause 2 is the first clause referred to on Supplementary Order Paper 180 and Metiria Turei’s amendment is also an amendment to clause 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we are about to vote only on the Minister’s amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to this part. Ms Turei’s amendment will come later on in relation to clause 2—and we should be there shortly—but I am advised that it has no relationship to this part whatsoever. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 Part 2 contains the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005. I make an observation of regret that the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison was so narrowly lost. It was an opportunity for this Committee to make some sensible legislation. After all we have heard from the Associate Minister of Health that there would be a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact he has been saying that for some time now. Back in November and December of last year I asked a number of written questions of the Minister about this review and I have had no firm reply. I wonder where this mythical review of the Misuse of Drugs Act is. When I asked the Minister about it he was unable to provide me with any terms of reference or any commencement date—in fact he was unable to provide me with any information at all. So I question what stage that review is at. As the review is the course of action that this Government—until October of this year—has set itself then I hope it does commence. How good it would be in 2 years’ time or so to have a report back to the House as proposed by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison as to how this amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act is panning out. 
A large amount of the debate around this issue from a number of other quarters has been the argument that if we make benzylpiperazine illegal it will just drive the trade underground. The Minister himself indicated earlier in the debate that it was his belief that the use of benzylpiperazine would in time diminish away. Which of those two views do we believe? Why is this Committee—by a very very small minority or one vote—not prepared to take that very sensible concrete step forward and evaluate the effect? We all want to know what the effect will be of this amendment to the Misuse of Drug Act. What will happen to young people and drug use in New Zealand? It is a very important question. 
My colleague has proposed a way forward which unfortunately was not successful. The Minister will be a Minister for only another 4 or 5 months but I would like to think that in that short time he will take seriously the issue of a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act and not merely walk away from this very important issue. 
I do not rely only on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which meets in Wellington because—although the committee is worthy—actually the problem arises all around New Zealand. I pop into drug shops where I am welcomed with open arms—nearly with open arms—because I am interested in the issue and do not shy away from it. Recently I was in Nelson with my very good colleague Dr Nick Smith and in two of the three pill shops in Nelson—pills are freely available on the main street of Nelson—we asked the shop assistants how they felt about the oncoming banning of benzylpiperazine and its reclassification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. These shop assistants said they did not care. They said they were going out of business in these pills anyway and that they did not use the pills because they were dreadful things. So the prevailing attitude in the sample I did—and I speak of Nelson but there are other centres where I go into pill shops—is that the sooner we get rid of these drugs the better. This is from the people who sell them. Mind you it is not from the people who are making millions of dollars out of the sale of benzylpiperazine but these are the people who are taking a wage from it. 
We need to remember that in delaying the passage of this bill in delaying addressing this issue we have created a market for these recreational drugs. In the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament interested in this issue and trying to engage with the Minister over this issue and in the 6 to 7 years that these pills have been on the market this market has been developing. We have a market in New Zealand that is worth $30 million a year. That is a lot of money; that is big big business. By delaying the passage of this bill we have—and the Minister who must take the responsibility for this has—created a market in New Zealand. There are drugs just offshore and drugs being manufactured in New Zealand that will fill that market. I suggest that this is basic principles of marketing and for me it is another cause of regret. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on Part 2 “Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005” and schedules 1 and 2. 
I just make the comment that one of the great concerns that the Health Committee was faced with back in 2003-04 was the extraordinary dexterity with which manufacturers of illicit drugs would move when a drug was put on to the schedule; the manufacturers would immediately think of another isomer or add on another molecule to make the drug different and therefore legal. I am very interested to see the work of the committee members to try to cover as many of the derivatives of benzylpiperazine (BZP) as they could think of and the combinations and permutations of them that could be manufactured. Schedule 1 encapsulates not just benzylpiperazine but “TFMPP … pFPP … MeOPP … mCPP … MBZP” as well as the “isomers of the substances mentioned” the “esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2” the “salts of [those] substances” and “Substances containing any proportion of a substance mentioned in clause 2 3 4 or 5.” Indeed the committee has tried very hard to predict where the industry might try to make a preparation that would avoid the legislation. I think that is very important. The rapid rescheduling mechanisms were brought into the House back in 2003 and 2004 to go for the more serious types of drugs—in particular methamphetamine Ecstasy etc. There is no doubt that if one brings in this sort of legislation it is very important to cover all the possibilities that the sharp minds of illicit manufacturers may extend to. I think that is very important. 
I reiterate that it is a pity that the Minister does not support there being a review in 2½ years of the effects of this legislation. He dismisses the fact that the consequences of this legislation could be profound. I would be delighted if as the Minister suggested the scenario was that BZP its derivatives and party pills in general faded from the market in New Zealand. Sadly it is highly unlikely that will happen. That is why I thought it was so important that Parliament be required to relook at this measure in a couple of years’ time. It should not rely on the Minister coming up with a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He has had an opportunity over the last 8 years to carry out a review but he has miserably failed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2Commencement 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 April 2008” and substitute “1 May 2008”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendmentbe agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3Principal Act amended 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Building Amendment Bill without amendment and the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Limited Partnerships Bill 
Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill be now read a third time 
. The Limited Partnerships Bill repeals the special partnership provisions of the Partnership Act 1908 and establishes a modern limited partnership regime in New Zealand with the objectives of facilitating the development of the venture capital industry in New Zealand and encouraging foreign venture capital investment in New Zealand. The Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill provides for the taxation treatment of limited partnerships. In particular it provides that limited partnerships will have flow-through taxation status which I shall discuss further as I move through these third readings. It also clarifies and simplifies the tax rules applying to partnerships more generally. 
Attracting venture capital investment plays an important role in facilitating the Government’s economic transformation objectives particularly in relation to growing internationally competitive firms. More specifically venture capital investment plays an important role in helping new businesses to grow. It also can play a valuable role in encouraging new product research and helping firms to access new contacts and managerial and technical expertise. 
Limited partnerships are a preferred structure for investing in venture capital internationally. However international investors expect limited partnerships to have certain key features. Those include limited liability status for limited partners and separate legal personality and flow-through taxation status for the limited partnership. The existing special partnership regime that we have here in New Zealand lacks some of those key features and has consequently not been able to be effectively utilised by the venture capital industry in New Zealand. In place of the existing special partnership regime these bills provide a limited partnership structure with regulatory features and taxation treatment that will encourage venture capital investment in New Zealand and which have the key features needed in order to be both recognised and accepted by international investors. 
The limited partnership structure established by the Limited Partnerships Bill provides for two classes of partners. The first class of partners is the general partners who are jointly and severally liable with the limited partnership for the debts and liabilities of the limited partnership provided of course that the limited partnership is unable to satisfy those debts or liabilities. The second class of partners is limited partners who are not liable for the debts and liabilities of the limited partnership so long as they do not take part in the management of the limited partnership. Both general and limited partners may make capital contributions to the limited partnership. Limited partners need to know what activities they can be involved in while not taking part in the management of the limited partnership so that they can be clear that they are not potentially exposing themselves to liability. Accordingly the bill provides for “safe harbours” that have been based on international best practice and which are those activities that a limited partner may take part in without being deemed to have participated in the management of the limited partnership. 
Another important feature of the limited partnership structure established by the bill is that it will have separate legal personality. Separate legal personality is of course important in that it provides more assurance that a limited partnership will be recognised as such in other jurisdictions and of course it minimises the risk that a limited partnership may be treated as a general partnership in some other jurisdictions. 
The limited partnership model is intended to be flexible and to allow limited partnerships to structure their affairs in the way that it best suits them. At the same time the bill contains provisions to ensure the good governance of limited partnerships and the protection of creditors. Under the bill limited partnerships are formed on registration. A register of limited partnerships will be maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The registration process is modelled upon that applying to companies although there are some minor technical differences—for example in the information that must be supplied on registration. Limited partnerships are also required to provide the registrar with an annual return each year. 
The register of limited partnerships will be a public register except in one respect: the details of limited partners held on the register are to be kept confidential under the bill. Limited partnership details are not available on a public register in a number of other jurisdictions particularly in North America. Keeping the details of limited partners confidential certainly does address the risk that some international venture capital investors could choose to bypass New Zealand as an investment destination in favour of another jurisdiction where this information was not available on a public register. 
The bill also requires overseas constituted limited partnerships to register if they are carrying on business in New Zealand. The register of overseas limited partnerships established by the bill will provide clarity and certainty to third parties about the nature of the entity that they are dealing with and should facilitate the ability of creditors or other third parties to bring proceedings against overseas limited partnerships that are carrying on business here. 
The bill provides that limited partnerships may be liquidated or deregistered through broadly the same process that applies to companies and they may use the new voluntary administration process for companies as well. 
The taxation treatment of limited partnerships is a key issue in ensuring that they attract investment and I would like to take this opportunity just briefly to discuss the contents of the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This bill provides for flow-through taxation treatment for limited partnerships which is a particularly vital issue in ensuring that the legislation fulfils its objectives around encouraging venture capital investment in New Zealand. In addition to flow-through taxation treatment the bill also establishes the tax rules that will apply to limited partnerships and clarifies and simplifies the tax rules applying to general partnerships. 
At the Committee stage changes were made to both bills by way of Supplementary Order Paper. The most significant change was to the commencement date of the Limited Partnerships Bill. This was changed to a date specified by Order in Council. The Limited Partnerships Bill cannot be brought into force until regulations are made setting out fees and forms relating to registration and those regulations are gazetted for 28 days. It is anticipated that the Limited Partnerships Bill will be brought into force on or about 1 May this year. The other changes to the Limited Partnerships Bill and Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill were of a minor and technical nature and largely designed to clarify or correct small issues in each bill. 
I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Commerce Committee for its work in fine-tuning these bills and also to thank all those who made submissions on the bills. I would also like to commend the officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and from the Inland Revenue Department who worked very hard on this legislation. 
These bills are an important contribution to the Labour-led Government’s economic development agenda. They provide a limited partnership structure with the regulatory and taxation features needed in order to be recognised by international investors and to meet the needs of the New Zealand venture capital industry. By increasing venture capital investment they will facilitate the growth of New Zealand businesses and encourage innovation entrepreneurialism and new product development. The Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill will also make the taxation law applying to partnerships simpler and easier to comply with. 
On that note I commend both the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill are of a technical nature. I was fortunate enough to be able to sit on the select committee where we heard the submissions that came forward on this legislation and very comprehensive submissions they were. I was also able to speak in the first and second readings of this legislation. National has supported this legislation right through and will continue to do so. 
The Minister made some interesting points that we subscribe to as well. The legislation frees up the market and allows for investment to give confidence in the market and I focus my debate primarily on the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund which was established in 2002 as an investment vehicle but at an arm’s length from political interference or political involvement. It is an arrangement that is allowing co-investors with the private sector and that is something National supports. 
It was reported to the select committee that in 2004 the total investment value in New Zealand equity and venture capital investments was $158 million. This is a very small percentage; in fact it is only 0.11 percent of our GDP. So New Zealand is lagging very much behind our other competitors in other countries who have been able to attract investment—venture capital—and we are well behind the OECD countries. In fact we need a 5 percent increase in funds just to compete with Ireland the United Kingdom and Singapore. So there is a lot of work to be done in that area and this legislation helps and facilitates that sort of investment. 
Also back in 2004 the fund surveyed 15 offshore investment funds representing in excess of $50 billion. They said they would consider investing in New Zealand if we had a world-class investment structure in the form of a limited partnership and flow-through taxation regime. Well that is exactly what these two bills provide; they facilitate that and that is very good news because it may now allow us to attract that important investment. 
A number of other issues were canvassed during the course of the debate and I will mention just some of them; the Minister mentioned many. They were issues primarily that the select committee was able to consider and make some changes to. The extent of safe harbours was one and the activities that a limited partner can be involved in without contravening the no-management rule was a significant improvement in the safe harbours position. The trigger point for when someone becomes a limited partner and can avail himself or herself of the protection of limited partner status was another. There was the extent of power in an insolvency to claw back distributions made to limited partners—the current test applies if the limited partner knew that the limited partnership would not satisfy the solvency test after the distribution and applies for 3 years. 
Written partnership agreements are compulsory for limited partnerships and there is continued confidentiality of names and investments of limited partners including where that information is contained in annual returns and the pass-through of all losses to investments. The question that probably needs to be asked—and it came up during the Committee stage—was whether these bills are really just a catch-up or whether we have learnt from overseas practice and in particular whether we have learnt from the experiences of our competitors for venture capital; namely Australia and the UK. 
With those points I say that National has been supporting this legislation right through we are happy to support it now for its third readings and we believe that it moves in the right direction to allow overseas investment through capital funds. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was actually quite a helpful contribution from Lindsay Tisch in looking at the purpose of this legislation—it cut right to the chase. As the member says it is an attempt to encourage the development of venture capital funds in New Zealand which are important obviously for businesses particularly in the start-up phase. It is also important to bring us into line with rules that are set internationally so that we become a more attractive haven. 
The member mentioned the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund. I did not hear the bit where he said a good Labour-led Government introduced this— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I did say 2002. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I must have just missed that; I did not quite hear it at the time. Either the member forgot it or I was not listening. Perhaps just for the record I will say that it was a good Labour-led Government that introduced the fund. I remember when we came into Government in 1999 that one of the issues Cabinet faced was the point that the member made: internationally we had a very very low venture capital fund we were not a place where capital was being attracted to and we really needed to do something about that. A lot of work went on at the time in order to attract funds. The member said that relatively speaking to GDP investment was low and that is absolutely right. Hopefully if we get a regime like this in place that everybody recognises as the kind of regime that operates everywhere around the world then there may be an opportunity for more funds to be attracted here. 
So this is good legislation. The Commerce Committee worked well on it chaired ably by Gerry Brownlee and we are now in a position—hopefully—where as a result of it we are able to get more venture capital into New Zealand. The Law Society is suggesting that this is really important legislation: probably the next most important legislation after the changes to the Companies Act. The society is running a series of seminars around the country to encourage people to learn about the legislation and I encourage people to take part in those. It is good legislation operating with a good Minister in a good Labour-led Government and I certainly support it. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure this afternoon to talk to the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This legislation is a new form of vehicle intended to encourage investment in New Zealand. It has the following key features: limited partners’ liability will be limited to the amount of their contribution to the partnership it establishes safe harbours that allow limited partnerships to participate in the management of the investment partnership without tainting their limited liability status and it makes a limited partnership a separate legal entity. This legislation also introduces new tax rules for limited partnerships and updates the tax rules for general partnerships. The legislation is a vehicle that encourages venture capital in New Zealand. Venture capital plays a critical role in driving individual company growth and innovation and this will bring substantial benefits to New Zealand’s national economic performance over a period of time. 
We have at this moment in New Zealand a capital market that is small and undeveloped by international comparisons. I understand that the reported total investment value for New Zealand’s private equity and venture capital investment in 2004 was only $150 million. This represents 0.11 percent of GDP. If members look at the OECD tables they will see that we lag behind key players at the top of the tables such as—as my colleague Lindsay Tisch pointed out—the United Kingdom the United States Israel Sweden Singapore and many more. Overseas the reality is that investors in private equity and venture capital funds are typically long-term investors such as pension funds and other institutional investors. The standard investment vehicle used by those investors to invest in funds is the limited partnership vehicle. 
The old provisions in Part 2 of the Partnership Act 1908 provided a much more restricted basis for special partnerships but this legislation goes much further and it has been much needed in this area. In this legislation those who seek to invest are commonly referred to as limited partners. They have not only limited liability but also limited control over the management of the funds in the organisation. They invest significant amounts in private equity and venture capital funds for a long-term horizon—typically 10 years or more. The investment activities of the private equity and venture capital funds are undertaken by fund managers who are referred to as the general partners or partner. 
A very significant barrier to the growth of the New Zealand venture capital industry has occurred because of the lack of investment from international and domestic institutional investors. The industry needs to attract these investors in order to develop in both scale and maturity. The lack of an investment vehicle that is easily recognised by institutional investors has been identified as one of the constraints of investment in New Zealand for our growth and our economic development. 
The Commerce Committee has made a large number of changes to the original bill. One of the most interesting changes is that in the Partnership Act 1908 where there was a constraint on banking or insurance activities being undertaken by special partnerships the officials actually sought to maintain the separation. The committee has not accepted that position and I think that in the result the officials yielded on this point because the select committee was satisfied that the generic regulation that applies to banking and insurance sectors today provides sufficient safeguards against the governance risks that may arise when a limited partnership operates as such a business. 
The one point to consider is whether this simply catches up with overseas practice or whether it learns from experience and positions New Zealand more favourably than our close competitors for venture capital. For example I refer to a management buy-out and investment option available to limited partnerships. A limited partnership is required to make a specified portion of investment in New Zealand. Is investment permitted in listed and unlisted companies? Do these issues separate us from other countries so that we will be more attractive to invest in for venture capital? 
As this legislation is implemented I think we will need to consider things and monitor certain issues such as the extent of our “safe harbours” or activities a limited partner can be involved in without contravening the no-management rule. These are to be contained in regulations which need to be developed well in advance of the enactment of this legislation. We need to monitor the trigger point for when someone becomes a limited partner and can avail himself or herself of the protection of limited partner status. 
The draft legislation places the obligation on the general partner to get it right. In relation to the extent of the power in an insolvency to claw back distributions made to limited partners the current test applies if the limited partner knew that the limited partnership would not satisfy the solvency test after the distribution and applies for a 3-year period. Written partnership agreements are compulsory for limited partnerships but there is no test as to the quality of their agreement. There is continued confidentiality of names and investments of limited partners including where that information is contained in annual returns. 
Lastly I think we need to monitor the passing through of all losses to investors. At the moment this would be limited to the capital contributed to the relevant investor. I look forward to seeing the progress of these issues. National supports this legislation. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei ahiahi. One of the common catchphrases in this place is that a week is a very long time in politics. So it is from our perspective with the two bills associated with limited partnerships. Last week New Zealanders awoke to the news that Dr Cullen had introduced urgent legislation overnight to constrain overseas investments and investment applications in connection with a select group of strategically important assets. As the sun sets tonight the Government is pushing forward legislation that actually flings the doors wide open to investment structures for overseas venture capital. So we would suggest that it is no wonder the polls are dipping a little bit. It might be a case of the right hand not necessarily knowing what the left hand is doing. 
That aside these two bills—the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill—establish a new regulatory and tax regime for limited partnerships. Limited partnerships are the internationally preferred investment structures to attract foreign venture capital. Venture capital investment in Aotearoa is currently small as I understand it with the key sectors receiving investment being telecommunications software development biotechnology and other high-tech developments. 
As it stands most Maori businesses are too small to even get a look in. But perhaps more to the point the issues of ownership and accountability are the main issues of those in Maori business. As Richard Jones the Chief Executive of Poutama Maori Business Trust concluded in  
Tu Mai 
 magazine back in 2006: “They will want to have a stake in the business as well as some control even to the point of running it so investment of this nature is not for the faint-hearted.” 
This is the central hub of our concern as the Maori Party. We wonder exactly what interest foreign venture capitalists will have in Maori economic development. I am told that Te Ratonga Ture the Maori Legal Service advised the Commerce Committee that foreign capital investment will come at a price of shared equity and a measure of control. Te Ratonga Ture considered that foreign capital investment would also bring forward the possibility of moving the centre of control overseas. This is something we take very seriously. The new limited partnership business structure will open New Zealand up to foreign investment holus-bolus without we presume from its absence in the legislation any consideration for the Treaty partner to be able to monitor to assess to support or indeed to oppose such investment. 
We the Maori Party believe that it is critical that before agreeing to allow any foreign investor access into Aotearoa there needs to be extensive consideration of the conditions that will come with any such partnership. It is our belief that there are always ways to access funding without compromising what is important. The key point is not the limits of the funding but more the limits of our imagination in terms of considering possible funding partnerships and negotiating the right terms and conditions. 
As an example of the type of innovative thinking we need we have only to look in my electorate at the Tuaropaki Trust north of Taupo. The trust includes a $30 million geothermal power-generation plant 30 acres of temperature-controlled export tomato and paprika crops and satellite wireless communication. In their case the capital was raised through a non-recourse bank loan—the first of its kind. What it means in effect is that the bank has a claim over the project but not over the land. The Maori Land Court authorised the trust to form a single-purpose company also known as a single-purpose vehicle and the company was therefore able to apply for the loan. If it can work once it can work again and again and again. 
Another key factor in our analysis of these two bills is the suggestion from the select committee that confidentiality clauses should be incorporated into the legislation. The Commerce Committee recommended the deletion of clause 99 of the Limited Partnerships Bill and a replacement clause stipulating that the registrar must treat limited partner information as confidential. But in a really curious twist what the select committee recommended next was even more secretive than the privacy constraints because the select committee also recommended that the Official Information Act should not apply to limited partner information. 
Submissions received by the committee put forward an alternative view. Lawyer Christopher Littlewood pointed out the inconsistency in the application of one law for limited companies and another law for limited partnerships. He maintained that public registers should be public and that there is no rational argument to justify hiding information such as contract details or the nature of the partnership. We of the Maori Party agree with Mr Littlewood’s logic that the public has a fundamental right to know whom they are dealing with and to verify that information by consulting with the register. 
For another even more relevant opinion on the issues relating to privacy we were interested in the advice of the Office of the Ombudsmen which put forward the view that the privacy of individuals can be addressed through the routine application of the Official Information Act. As such the Ombudsmen believed there is no need to exclude application of the Official Information Act from this legislation. 
Four short words sum up what has lifted most successful individuals above the crowd: a little bit more. Those individuals do all that is expected of them and a little bit more. These two limited partnerships bills reinforce for the business leaders that investment and supportive initiatives may need a little bit more—creative courage to search for the required funding from alternative sources. There is no reason to fear that the only finance available will be that with an overseas address tag—a tag that brings with it the downstream problems associated with majority-share ownership. 
Large-scale foreign venture capitalists aim to buy in make money and get out regardless of the consequences. When we look at some of the development scenarios being considered we see that we have to start being concerned about these consequences. Biological materials from bio-prospecting activity on the foreshore and seabed or geothermal developments are just some of the areas in which growth may bring with it additional risks and cost. Capital is often traded for some form of ownership control and relocation requirements. The question remaining for the Maori Party is precisely around this issue of control. How safe is any guarantee that we can retain ownership and control over our resources and over our development? 
We have been thinking of the leadership and inspiration provided by organisations such as the Poutama Maori Business Trust the Tuaropaki Trust and other Maori businesses that deliver beyond all expectations. Their managers and their boards went a little bit further in taking the risks necessary to be successful. We learn from their example and the Maori Party believes that we must also give a little bit more in terms of responding to the model of leadership we see evident in Te Ao Maori. We know that Maori economic development Maori businesses can prosper without having to sell their souls. We know that confidence for business leaders will demand high standards of professionalism but also of open and brave accountability. We do not think hiding details away under confidentiality clauses excluding potential investors from the reach of the Official Information Act or throwing caution to the wind and opening up our domestic markets to foreign venture capitalists will work to support the long-term aspirations and best interests of tangata whenua. 
Without a doubt many Maori businesses need access to seeding capital to take them from concept through the start-up phase to a point where they are viable long-term prospects. If that capital were more accessible perhaps more Maori businesses would be in a position to negotiate with foreign venture capitalists. But what would remain of the fundamental questions of this time—the ownership and protection of customary resources and of whenua of the traditional knowledge of forests underground steam minerals water and organisms on the foreshore and seabed? Those are resources that the Crown attempts to claim as its own brokering deals for development that take ownership and profits elsewhere. 
This bill comes before things that need to be in place or that are in place. We need settlement of the Wai 262 indigenous fauna and flora claim. We need the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and we need fair and just settlements of Treaty claims. When these issues are resolved the Maori Party can return to the question of limited partnerships. Until then we will not be supporting this legislation. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future and in particular on behalf of the Hon Peter Dunne to speak to the third readings of the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This legislation introduces new tax rules for limited partnerships and updates the tax rules for general partnerships. The changes are designed to support the new regulatory rules for limited partnerships to make it easier for New Zealand firms to attract international investment capital. 
Under the proposed rules limited partnerships will be taxed in the same way as general partnerships with partners being taxed individually in proportion to their personal share of the partnership income. Limited partners will be subject to new tax-loss limitation rules to ensure that the losses they claim reflect the level of their economic loss. Limited partners will be able to offset only the tax losses to which they have exposure which will help prevent limited partnerships being used as tax shelters. 
The legislation also introduces a new comprehensive definition of “partnership” into the Income Tax Act and clarifies which forms of co-ownership are covered by partnership rules. The new tax definition of partnership is based on that contained in the Partnership Act and covers partnerships defined under that Act as well. New Zealand resident partners of foreign general partnerships in certain foreign limited partnerships are part of that definition as are joint ventures whose members choose to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes and also co-owners of property though not companies or trusts if the all co-owners choose to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes. 
The bill clarifies the appointment of income expenses and other items to partners for tax purposes. The new rules will ensure that income expenses tax credits rebates gains and losses flow through to the individual partners and those items will generally be allocated to partners in proportion to each partner’s share in the partnership income. The rules will allow deductions for expenditure incurred through the original partnership to be claimed by new partners subject to them meeting the other tests of deductibility in income tax law. 
The proposed rules make a number of useful changes that should reduce compliance costs for partners and increase certainty. These include not automatically treating a partnership as having dissolved when there is a change in partners and ensuring that individuals leaving a partnership do not have to make tax adjustments when the tax effect is not significant. 
In addition to these measures the committee has recommended some extremely useful changes to the legislation to make it easier to comply with the rules. These changes include things like making the tax rules clearer when a partnership dissolves ensuring the rule that treats transactions between partners or partnerships as being at market value will apply only when the transaction was entered into to avoid tax clarifying that a partner’s share in the partnership income can be different from his or her share in the partnership’s assets and lastly relaxing some of the restrictions on limited partners’ losses for amounts that are guaranteed by limited partners. 
In the bill as introduced a partnership was treated as having dissolved when there was a 50 percent or more change in the partnership’s ownership within 12 months. This was designed to prevent large asset transfers giving rise to significant deferral of tax liabilities. Submitters expressed concern that a deemed dissolution with an ownership change of 50 percent within 12 months was not appropriate as the operation of the rule was not sufficiently clear. As a result the committee recommended that a final dissolution for tax purposes should occur when the partnership dissolves by agreement of the partners court order or some other way and when the partnership’s business ceases. 
In the bill as introduced most transactions between partners or partnerships would have been treated as being at market value for tax purposes. This requirement was designed to protect the tax base and ensure that assets could not be transferred in and out of a partnership under and overvalued for tax benefits. Submissions were made for this rule to be removed and it was argued that the rule was a departure from existing law and practice and that it can be difficult to determine market value in many cases. The committee agreed that this rule should not affect situations where non-market transactions between partners or partnerships occurred legitimately. Applying the rule in these circumstances could result in high compliance costs and the committee therefore recommended replacing this rule with a specific anti-avoidance rule that essentially deems a transaction to have occurred at market value if the transaction was entered into to avoid tax. 
The committee recommended that the drafting should clarify that one partner’s proportionate entitlement to income from the partnership can be different to his or her share in the partnership’s assets. For example in professional services firms such as accounting or law firms it is common for each partner’s rights to the profit of that partnership to fluctuate from year to year based on individual performance but each partner’s share of the partnership’s assets remains the same. The drafting changes recommended by the committee clarify that this situation is within the policy intent of the new rules. 
To prevent limited partners from claiming excessive losses the legislation restricts limited partners’ losses to amounts that limited partners actually have at risk. For the purposes of calculating the amount of loss that a limited partner is entitled to in the bill as introduced amounts of guarantees were recognised only to the extent of that partner’s share in the partnership. The select committee recommended recognising in a wider range of situations amounts that are guaranteed by limited partners. The full amounts of the debt that has been guaranteed will now be recognised subject to certain restrictions such as where other limited partners have also guaranteed the debt. United Future commends all those who have contributed to this bill and we support its third reading. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Limited Partnerships Bill be now read a third time and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bills read a third time. 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I move  
That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill will bring New Zealand’s funding agencies slightly closer to a digital age. Like our counterparts overseas New Zealand is moving steadily into a new digital era where analog transmission will become obsolete within a few years. In this new digital world broadcasting-like content will increasingly appear on a variety of media and devices. Audiences of the future will as a matter of course expect to access content through a choice of platforms and at times of their choosing. The Government’s public broadcasting policies under the broadcasting programme of action aim to maintain and enhance the availability of public broadcasting content in the digital era. The changes proposed in this bill will enable our broadcasting funding agencies to support the production of local content in this new and exciting environment. A rich variety of local content is fundamental to any well-performing public broadcasting system and is crucial to that success. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Fire it up! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says: “Fire it up!”. Whenever he says: “Fire it up!” I think of cigars! How could one think of anything else? Where there is smoke there is someone who is steaming. 
This bill will allow New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund types of content archiving and transmission that are likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms such as the Internet mobile phones and other mobile services. The ability to do this—as members are all aware I am sure—is currently outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act 1989. This bill has been thoroughly considered. It was hardly controversial; there were only two submissions on it. I want to thank those people on the Commerce Committee who considered the bill. 
This bill does some really interesting things like introducing the terms “content” and “transmit on demand”. In fact we had to change “Contents” to “Particulars” because of the introduction of the new term “content”. Even in doing a bill like this I learnt something. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Does the member believe in this bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I learnt that members of the House of Lords do not say “Aye”; they are asked whether they are “Content” with a piece of legislation. Even “Lord What’s-his-name of Monaco” learnt that as well when I told him. So the definition of “content” was something particularly important. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not certain whether the current person addressing the Chamber was referring to me but if he was that was a wholly inappropriate appellation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. He has been here long enough. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is relatively sad as far as that member is concerned that the National Party has decided to put him up in Epsom so that Rodney Hide can win. I mean that is a sad state of affairs for a member of Parliament. 
The current definitions which will apply elsewhere in the Act will be retained but for the purposes of the two funding agencies they will be supplemented by the new terms. The bulk of the bill is concerned with permitting the agencies to fund the desired forms of digital content transmission and archiving. It will allow Te Mangai Paho to fund the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes. It has been a fault of probably both Governments that that was not able to be done earlier on. In addition the bill carries over the Act’s existing protection against ministerial interference in decisions. Ministers cannot even suggest let alone direct what should be archived and what should not. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Tell us about the regulation you’re bringing in. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a protection I suppose in the very long term against a Tory Government. I would love to have the power but in 20 years’ time it will not be— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Tell us about the regulation you’re bringing in after this. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no. What I said to the member—and if he was not in a cloud of smoke and if his ears were clean he would know what I said—was that after we have had the digital review which is going on there will almost certainly be further legislation. The regulatory environment will change. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: When? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It will change almost certainly next year because that is how long it will take to work through that process. Anyone who has thought about convergence which is touched on in this bill but is occurring— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Touched on? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not want to sound too much like one of my colleagues but it is a matter of both convergence and fragmentation. We are getting both of them happening at the same time and we have to have a regulatory environment— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Sounds like the Labour caucus—fragmenting and converging. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no I think not. I think anyone who looked at John Key in the House today saw how sad he looked with those shocking bags under his eyes. He was doing an imitation of Mike Moore at his worst. That was John Key today. Clearly the pressure is getting to that man. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: He hasn’t done anything yet! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no. He has clearly spent the weekend crying. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well members opposite asked me to discuss the regulation and the inability of John Key to react to anything at all. I know it was a different regulation that he was reacting to but the question from Jonathan Coleman was one that was more general. 
I would like to thank the people who made submissions to the select committee. We live in an age where traditional models have to be responsive to new technologies. This bill will ensure in a very small way that the public funding mechanisms for local content reflect the potential of the digital environment. I look forward next year to introducing more substantive legislation than this bill and I look forward to some members opposite debating it at that time. I think that one day we will have an idea from Dr Coleman because when the digital review was introduced he said there was nothing in it then he went on the radio and said there was a lot in it and everyone should make submissions. The way he changes his mind is a bit like the way John Key changes his mind. He might be trying to imitate the leader—to grease up to him to be on the front bench—because he acts like John Key— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a Minister giving a speech on a third reading. I draw your attention to Standing Order 107(1) in terms of relevancy. This speech is far off the topic of what a concise Minister’s speech should be. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his intervention and just mention that the Minister is responding to some interjections from the other side of the House which do not actually help the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will go back to the essential point that this is a relatively small bill. We are likely to have a larger bill introduced to the House as a result of the consultation process occurring at the moment and one of the things we will be interested in when that bill comes in is whether by that stage Dr Coleman has got his head round the convergence issues that are driving these changes and whether he will get his head round the fragmentation issues that are changing the face of broadcasting— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: He’ll be in Opposition so it won’t matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am an old-fashioned member; I think occasionally people can make a contribution from the Opposition. Clearly Jonathan Coleman is not there yet. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Well that was a really interesting contribution from Trevor Mallard because he probably spent a good 3 minutes talking about the Opposition spokesperson on broadcasting. I really think that when a Minister goes so far off the topic during what is supposed to be a third reading ministerial speech it shows that either he does not know what he is talking about or he is severely rattled. Trevor Mallard really went off the script there. I mean he started in a boring monotone reading out the stuff that officials would have given him this afternoon. Then with a little bit of interjection Mr Mallard lost it completely. That is vintage Trevor Mallard—he loses it; he is out of here. 
But what was really interesting during the Committee stage of this bill was the fact that Trevor Mallard assured us that after this bill was passed there would be further legislation. And that was the big mistake he made because we know that the legislation he is talking about will involve some heavy-handed regulation. The fact is that Labour has put out a consultation document through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that is a review of digital broadcasting. It has laid out lots of options and it is a couple of hundred pages long. It will be of a lot of interest to journalists broadcasters and politicians but not of much interest to the general public. But it is really a Trojan Horse for what the Minister wants to do which is to regulate broadcasting heavily. 
Labour has a real problem in broadcasting: it has a failed broadcasting policy that has really shackled Television New Zealand (TVNZ). Basically with the charter TVNZ can be neither fully commercial nor fully public. It is caught in the middle and its finances are getting a lot worse. This Government has managed to halve the value of TVNZ. Steve Maharey managed to cut the value of TVNZ by half and if he had had another term as Minister I reckon he would have got it right down to zero. So really the next election will come as merciful relief for this Labour Government in terms of broadcasting because it is flat out of ideas. It does not have any ideas. This digital review is basically a bottom-trawl for ideas which the Government will throw back up and push through in legislation. Trevor Mallard has been quite open about that. 
National is supporting this bill as we have heard today. It will bring funding arrangements into line with newly developing technology. Trevor Mallard was right: he talked about fragmentation and convergence. That sounds like the Labour caucus which is fragmenting and then converging to the right of the party. But there are some major technological changes and this bill will mean that Te Mangai Paho and New Zealand On Air will be able to fund content for new platforms. When the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1989 we basically had only radio and television. We have moved into a completely new age and people are getting their content from the Internet they are downloading things and they are able to watch things on platforms such as mobile phones. The funding arrangements will mean that those broadcasting funding agencies can fund content for those new digital platforms. 
But an interesting point is that National members are very keen to make sure that anything that receives public funds is available free to air to all New Zealanders. If content for a mobile phone platform will be funded for instance we would have some concerns if that were a pay-per-view service. So there may be one or two things that need ironing out but in general we are very keen for the funding arrangements to reflect the new technology. 
One thing that is an issue is the TVNZ charter. As Richard Worth said I think in the second reading the problem with the current charter is that it is just a bunch of aspirational statements with no concrete measurable goals. That is causing a problem because it means that the charter is essentially meaningless. The Government has had a review which has rehashed the wording of the charter and it is being brought back before the Commerce Committee but it will not make any difference. There are still no measurable goals. We have to ask ourselves in relation to the TVNZ charter whether there is any difference between what is on our screens now compared with the time before we had the TVNZ charter. The basic reality is that there is no difference. There is absolutely no difference. I mean what is charter programming? People at TVNZ can say that it is absolutely anything.  
Dancing with the Stars  
is supposedly charter programming. So I think we need to get to an environment— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It shouldn’t be. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well it should not be; it is nakedly commercial. But we really need to have some transparency around where public broadcasting funding goes and we need to have a charter that is actually meaningful and that provides some concrete measurable goals. Clearly there is a need to look at what is happening in broadcasting. 
I think we can say—quite succinctly—that Labour’s broadcasting policy has been an absolute failure. What we have is the State broadcaster basically going down the drain. Labour has eroded the value of the State broadcaster. We now have new FreeView channels which are getting $104 million of public money. There is no certainty that they will survive commercially because if those TV6 and TV7 channels are to succeed they will have to draw audiences across from TVNZ. That will be a problem for TVNZ because there will not be any advertising on those two new digital channels. So there is an environment where audiences will be sucked across to the new channels and Television One and TV2 audience numbers will be dropping. As a result of the audience numbers dropping the advertising revenue will drop TVNZ’s revenues will drop and the bottom line will continue to deteriorate. This is the result of broadcasting policy under this Government. 
So just to come back to where we were I say that National does support this bill. As I say it brings the funding arrangements into line with modern technology but it raises some serious issues. This bill illustrates where technology is going in broadcasting and that raises a whole raft of issues around the sustainability of TVNZ and how it will continue to remain financially viable. It also brings up the point of the terrible burden the charter has saddled TVNZ with. Basically we have a Labour Government that has failed New Zealanders in terms of broadcasting. It has been a case of poor stewardship of public broadcasting and poor stewardship of public money and it is time for change in this field. In summary National is supporting this bill but there are real challenges in broadcasting ahead. The real danger is that as Trevor Mallard has said Labour is very keen to get in and regulate this particular sector and it will do so under the guise of the review of digital broadcasting. Thank you. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I was hoping for a bit of policy there from National and some knowledge of what it would do but that was a bit of a wasted effort. Never mind! I support the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a very good bill. It actually brings New Zealand into the 20th century. The 21st century will come up next year with potentially some new legislation. The bill simply allows transmission on other forms of technology including the Internet and cellphones. This is good legislation and it needs to be supported by the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Prior to the House being suspended for the dinner break at 6 o’clock the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu was speaking. As she was interrupted after only a few seconds had passed I have decided that she should have a full 10 minutes of speaking time. I invite the member to seek the call. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: At least I had time to say something that is more important than anything which is that National supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. There are obvious reasons for this. The bill brings New Zealand’s broadcasting funding agencies into line with the digital age. It enables those two broadcasting funding agencies that we have New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to support the production transmission and archiving of digital content. Obviously with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally these agencies need to be able to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital world—to meet the changing needs and expectations not only of broadcasters but particularly of content producers and the New Zealand public. 
In other words the bill is about funding content for the new digital platforms. Specifically it permits New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund such developments as video on demand interactivity between broadcaster and audiences and the re-visioning of content for non-broadcast platforms like the Internet and mobile phones. The common feature of this is that transmission occurs at the demand of the individual viewer or listener in contrast to traditional broadcasting where of course the broadcasters themselves like those in television and radio rule—or so they think. 
As I say this legislation is about the listener and the viewer and being able to bring to them what they want and what they need in a digital era. These new platforms are the mechanisms by which broadcasters and content creators seek to retain and expand their audiences and to serve them better. In that context this is a simple but important bill. Audiences expect to access content through a choice of platforms and at times they do choose to do so. That is why essentially National supports the bill. 
One other important change I want to mention—although I have certainly raised this in the second reading debate and maybe in the first reading debate—is that the bill will allow Te Mangai Paho to fund the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes. This has been a bit of an anomaly in our law in that New Zealand On Air has had such a function in relation to general broadcast content and Te Mangai Paho has not. Given the very important role that Te Mangai Paho plays not only in funding Maori programming but in funding programming that enhances adds to and supports a unique New Zealand identity this is extremely important as well. As the bill is such a necessity now given the modern developments in the digital age one wonders why it took the Government so long to bring it to the House. 
I must say I was interested to hear from the new Minister of Broadcasting—and he is new; I have not heard him say all that much about broadcasting since he took office. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who is it? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I know who it is because he stood in the House this afternoon. It is the Hon Trevor Mallard. I am not surprised that my colleague Chris Finlayson does not know who he is. As I say I cannot recall that I have heard him say much about broadcasting. I suppose this is a nice little tidy bill for him to bring to its third reading and to pass into law. 
Of course content and particularly local content reigns supreme in the sense that the New Zealand taxpayer shells out millions of dollars each year to fund local content. In that regard although we are making provision for the funding of alternative platforms I have to say that sometimes we look at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) programmes and wonder whether it has come to grips with the traditional platform seeing that over a period of 9 years the value of TVNZ has been wiped pretty badly. It has not come to terms with its twin remit of commercial and public broadcasting and it has lost audience share quite dramatically over the last few years. 
On the one hand we have to keep up with modern developments particularly in terms of the digital era but in other respects it seems that on some days TVNZ is way way behind the eight ball. That is a shame. This Government has spent so much of the last 8 years wringing its hands and finding itself in trouble with the goings-on at TVNZ that frankly the actual introduction of FreeView to make digital transmission available to all audiences in New Zealand for free has been rather halting as well. With the move to digital transmission—the digital age internationally—New Zealand still seems to be lagging behind. 
I turn to the issue of content and especially local content. If  
Dancing with the Stars 
 is meant to satisfy our need or the needs of New Zealand audiences for local content I point out that this programme follows an international format. Sure it has local people New Zealanders dancing around on the floor—and very nice they look too—but I really do not know that that programme meets the responsibility of TVNZ to make sure that it satisfies the public broadcasting element of its remit and to make sure that New Zealanders see something of themselves. 
I do not intend to go on. Given that the bill is urgently required and given the pace of digital technology and digital platforms we support the bill. We will be very pleased to see it pass into law not a moment too soon. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 In the context of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill we have an opportunity just for a moment to reflect on the strength of public broadcasting in New Zealand across the various media—I am thinking obviously of television and of radio. I have had an opportunity as this bill has progressed through its various stages to talk about some aspects of it at some considerable length but I certainly do not plan to do that tonight as this is from any view of it simple legislation. But what I have done is bemoan the fact that we have lost an opportunity in this bill to be so much better than we might have been. 
Those in the Maori Party who are here tonight made a really good point in the earlier stages of this bill. They said that here was the opportunity to provide a secure funding line for Maori television and Maori radio—and I would add to that non-Maori television and non-Maori radio—to ensure that these facilities are appropriately resourced. Yet the bill as we know is quite silent on this issue. Sure it gives effect to the Government’s decision to enable the broadcasting funding agencies—the Broadcasting Commission known as New Zealand On Air and Te Reo Whakapuaraki Iriangi known as Te Mangai Paho—to be able to support the production transmission and archiving of digital content with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally. It makes some other changes to the Broadcasting Act that are particularly important. But my issue is this: in a setting where National supports this bill why did we not go further when we had the opportunity to deal with the issue that the Maori Party has raised and with another issue that I would like to dwell on just for a moment. 
That issue concerns those charter arrangements that burden and in my view cloister Television New Zealand from being something more than it currently is. I started off in this debate by saying that we should be proud of public broadcasting and are we? I do not think that we are. If we ask the further question as to why we are not then the answer to that is in substantial measure around this Television New Zealand charter. This charter will I hope be scrutinised and closely examined by the Commerce Committee in terms of the references that are made in legislation to it. But it is an impossible deal. We have a current charter we have a charter that was redrafted and now we have a charter that has been redrafted following the input of submissions. The charter is structured under a number of headings—eight in all—and we need only to look at the headings to see immediately what the problem is. 
I dwelt in earlier debates on one part of it “An Informed Society” and I looked at the elements that were stated as part of that broad heading to describe them as meaningless aspirational sentimental and non-measurable. So what I thought I would do tonight is to look at another part of the charter. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: They were the good parts. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Well we searched for a good part I say to Mr Finlayson. I thought I would just pick up the second heading which is “National Identity and Citizenship”. That is the main heading and there are a number of subheadings. The subheadings are “To provide entertaining educational and informative programmes that reflects”—it should be “reflect” but it states “reflects”—“the diverse range of cultures and interests that contribute to an understanding of who we are as New Zealanders”. That is the aspirational statement. Then come the fulfilment provisions including “Provide shared experiences”—I ask what that means—“that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. Who is sharing that? Is that Television New Zealand sharing with us—the listeners the viewers—that sense of citizenship and national identity? The second is “Provide programmes that contribute towards intellectual scientific cultural sporting and spiritual development;”. I just pause to reflect on that phrase “spiritual development” for a moment. 
The third element is another opportunity: “Enhance citizens’ opportunities to participate in public life by featuring programmes that provide a forum for critical and many-sided debate;”. Well I am not sure that those who sit at home and watch Television New Zealand think: “Wow I feel great about this. I am participating in public life.” Surely that is a complete nonsense. Then there is an element: “Provide programmes about the diverse cultures history heritage and natural environment of New Zealand and its regions;”. We would say that is great; I would say that it is great also. There is also “Provide programmes that cater for minority interests;” “Provide programmes intended for general audiences that address minority interests;” and finally “Strive to enable New Zealanders of all abilities to engage with the fullest range of programmes.” What does that mean in the context of a broad-based aspirational charter? 
That is why I have said in the debates centred around this bill that we need to look again at that charter. We need to set some hard-nosed measurable goals so that it will be possible in that setting to say yes Television New Zealand is a good public broadcaster because it has achieved some goals that were set and are able to be reckoned in the market place as having been fulfilled or not. 
As for the bill itself as others have commented it is in two parts. It is a short bill consisting of Part 1 “Amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989” and Part 2 which is headed dangerously “Miscellaneous”. So one looks in Part 2 at a raft of stylistic amendments that have been made. I think we were both entertained and concerned by the comments in speeches that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu made in the Committee of the whole House in connection with Part 2 because she appropriately—very appropriately—drew to our attention the shortfalls in Part 2. It is a very curious part. One of the clauses is headed “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989” but as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu explained to what was as I recall it a hushed Committee and a crowded gallery these changes are much more than stylistic. They touch on punctuation they touch on grammar they touch on style and they touch on a raft of issues. 
I will conclude now—somewhat sadly I suppose—by just saying that here is legislation that could have been so much better. We have supported it because of its principal thrust. It is a really good example of a Government that is uncaring and that is not really prepared to go the extra distance that would produce strong and good work. Instead it is a Government that is exhausted and is simply not prepared to look for perfection where perfect outcomes are possible. So the bill completes its final reading—this the third stage. What lies beyond? It is the Royal assent only. I express the fervent hope that the Governor-General of New Zealand as commander-in-chief will sign this bill into law. He assuredly should do so in terms of the constitutional conventions but it could have been a lot better than it is. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. The fact that we are considering this Broadcasting Amendment Bill at this time is very very auspicious for a number of reasons. On this day 21 years ago on 11 March 1987 the Maori Language Act was passed declaring Maori to be an official language of New Zealand. The Maori Language Commission was also established and given a specific responsibility to promote te reo Maori as a living language. 
The importance of the Maori language to Maori broadcasting of course is that it was the Court of Appeal decision obligating the Crown to protect and promote the Maori language that led to the funding and the growth in Maori radio and the eventual creation of Maori Television. It is also worth noting that policy and funding for Maori broadcasting was seen by the Waitangi Tribunal and accepted by the Crown as a way for the Crown to honour its Treaty obligations to protect and promote te tino rangatiratanga o te reo Maori—not just Maori language but “an authentic and independent Maori voice”. It is the very same authentic and independent Maori voice that the Maori Party has so very clearly become in this very Parliament. 
The fact that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is being read for a final time this week is also worth noting because for many Maori this week will also be notable for another ending. This week we had the announcement of Whai Ngata’s retirement as general manager of Maori programming at Television New Zealand. As we move to digital transmission and aim to strengthen the archiving of Maori programming we are also farewelling one of Maori broadcasting’s true veterans. He is a man who has helped steer Maori broadcasting for more than 30 years who won the 1980 Mobil radio award for his documentary on the 28th Maori Battalion and who 20 years ago was made deputy head of the brand new Maori programmes department of Television New Zealand which was responsible in its first years for three new programmes:  
Kohanga Reo 
  
Tagata Pasifika 
 and  
Waka Huia 
. Just a year ago he was awarded the title of Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to Maori broadcasting and television. 
As we celebrate Whai’s commitment to advancing Maori broadcasting in Aotearoa we think too of those others who have been at the vanguard of Maori broadcasting—legends like Ernie Leonard Wiremu Kerekere Wiremu Parker Henare Te Ua Haare Williams Selwyn Muru Henare Kingi Huirangi Waikerepuru and many many others who have made a significant contribution to the industry including the Maori Party’s candidate for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti seat Mr Derek Tini Fox. 
In amending the Act to allow Te Mangai Paho to fund the archiving of Maori programmes this bill will allow us to honour many of those people I have mentioned and a veritable host of others whose stories have been passed down through waiata karakia haka whaikorero and interviews many of which were recorded through programmes like  
Te Puna Wai Korero 
  
Koha 
  
Nga Take Maori Te Mana Maori He Rerenga Korero 
 and other Maori programmes that are a vital part of our sound and visual archives. 
This week is also auspicious for another reason. Come this weekend all eyes will be on Rotorua for the hosting of the annual Maori Media Awards a ceremony initiated by Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Maori under my chairmanship. The awards are an opportunity to celebrate Maori excellence in the field of Maori broadcasting. As we recognise many of the talents within the burgeoning Maori broadcasting sector it is timely that we recognise the importance of the digital world and embrace the latest in broadcasting and communications technology along with the people who have the skills to maximise our opportunities from that technology. 
Mind you for all of that celebration there is still much to be done including addressing the age-old problem of Maori programmes being shunted around to suit the commercial ratings of Television New Zealand. Twenty-one years ago Hone Kaa said that Television New Zealand’s decision to screen the current affairs programme  
Nga Take Maori 
 at 10 p.m. on Sundays “shows a lack of commitment to Maori programmes”. Well as we all know now those were actually the good old days when 10 p.m. was almost prime-time viewing compared with the midnight slot that  
Te Karere 
 has been ghettoised into. Yet there is nothing in this Broadcasting Amendment Bill that addresses this marginalisation and denigration of Maori programming. There is a big hole in this bill in that it can talk so easily about valuing the past through the archiving of Maori programming and about preparing us for the future by funding things like video on demand and managing content on other platforms but completely ignore the present demand for prime-time viewing of Maori programmes on mainstream television. 
The Maori Party will support this bill because it has a positive focus on archiving and on digital development but we remain critical of the fact that Labour’s Maori MPs have remained silent during the three readings of this bill on the issues that matter most to Maori: one why there is no commitment to the ongoing funding of Maori broadcasting; two why Maori programming on Television New Zealand gets shunted to midnight to suit commercial ratings when Maori is an official language in this country and when Television New Zealand has a charter obligation to promote the Maori language; and three why the Crown will not allow Te Mangai Paho to be appointed by the Crown and Maori in the same way that the Maori Television board is appointed. This last issue raises of course a fourth issue: why will the Crown not allow the Television New Zealand board to be appointed by the Crown and Maori in the same way that the Maori Television board is appointed? 
We take this opportunity to again challenge Television New Zealand to lift its game by accepting its obligations to honour the significance of the Maori voice by giving the Maori voice the recognition that comes with prime-time viewing by enabling Maori to be full players in the growth of new technology and by recognising the increasingly more important role that Maori are playing in the future of our society. 
Finally we wish Television New Zealand’s new Maori programme commissioner Kath Graham of Ngati Koroki Kahukura all the best in her challenge to increase the number the quality and the placement of Maori programmes on Television New Zealand’s channels. The Maori Party is committed to a future that includes a continued growth in Maori broadcasting Maori programming and Maori people who themselves are focused on increasing Maori programming in all broadcast media. We will be supporting this bill on that basis. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena hoki tatou. I want to make one or two comments about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. Although New Zealand First will support the bill I ought to say that we certainly share some of the disquiet expressed by previous speakers particularly in terms of the ongoing funding and placement of Maori programmes. As we live in 2008 with the digital age well and truly upon us it seems appropriate that the sort of funding provided for in this bill is supported. 
I looked up the Broadcasting Act 1989 which the bill before the House amends. I would think that those who are strongly pushing things Maori would have taken the opportunity of submitting a Supplementary Order Paper to include the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in this amendment bill. 
Hon Member 
: Why didn’t you? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Members know why members of New Zealand First did not—because we do not believe in them. 
It seems to me that this country can have legislation that affects Maori that does not need to include the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It just reaffirms the point that New Zealand First has always argued which is that the principles do not exist. They are a figment of someone’s imagination a figment that much of this House supports. I would have thought that some members would raise the issue given that this amendment bill is all about enabling the broadcasting funding agencies like Te Reo Whakapuaki Te Irirangi commonly known as Te Mangai Paho to fund the production transmission and archiving of new forms of digital content. 
There has not been any reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi particularly from those Maori members who have spoken in the past with regard not only to this bill but to a lot of other bills where a lot of emphasis has been placed on those principles. I would think they would have taken the opportunity to do so in respect of this amendment legislation. Quite clearly this House does think we can have legislation—even legislation that as in this case refers to Maori broadcasting—that does not need to make any reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I know that my leader and other members of New Zealand First have often asked those who have supported the notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to actually articulate just what those principles are and if they are able to articulate them to explain why the principles are not listed in legislation. I hope that someone who has very strong views on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in legislation might take a call after me to suggest that the principles should be included. But I signal to anyone who has that notion that New Zealand First will certainly not support it. 
As the previous speaker from the Maori Party pointed out it is almost 21 years since the Maori Language Act came into being. I believe that this amendment will add impetus to what the Maori language is all about. 
Hone Harawira 
: Stop pushing in on our research here. 
PITA PARAONE 
: My brother from Te Tai Tokerau Mr Harawira must have had an oversight on his part or in reality he believes that there is no such thing as the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that we can have good legislation like this amendment bill without making any reference to those principles. 
But I have to say that New Zealand First certainly supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to point out that New Zealand First’s bill was actually a bill to oppose the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order and the member has been here long enough to know that. 
PITA PARAONE 
: It is important that those who are charged with the fiscal provision for organisations like Te Mangai Paho will take this amendment into consideration when they are placing requests for increased funding because surely they will need it. As a number of our old people pass on I think it is important that the recorded comments they have made are properly archived so that the mita o te reo is maintained. 
I acknowledge the increased use of the language today but much of the language that is in use today is different from when I was growing up. Be that as it may it also shows that te reo Maori is a living language and moves with the times. In conclusion I reiterate the point that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this amendment bill. Kia ora. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. I have not been involved in this legislation at all and I was not on the select committee but I am surprised at the very short report that has come through from the Commerce Committee. I note that there were only two submissions on this bill and that there was unanimity at the select committee. I found the speech from Dr Richard Worth on this matter to be rather strange—he said that it was a pity that there were not more amendments—because the committee obviously had every opportunity to make amendments if it had considered them to be necessary. One or two little changes looked more like typo changes and changes in numbering but apart from that the content of the bill has stayed as it was through the select committee deliberations and through the Committee stage until now. 
I note that the aim of the bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989 and that the bill will allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. I think that is something to be praised because it means that technology will come on board. This will enable the agencies to fund a variety of services and it is about Government funding keeping pace with that technology. In itself it is basically a technical bill in that it enables broadcasting as we have it now to keep up to date and to enable that funding to be directed into those areas. 
As has been mentioned the bill also amends the Act to allow Te Mangai Paho to archive funded Maori language and culture programmes. I think that is extremely valuable not only to preserve the language but also for the speaking of older people—perhaps we should call it “classical Maori” as opposed to “modern Maori”—to be archived. 
I have had the privilege of attending some of the concerts and works that have been presented during the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts. Those works that have been New Zealand - orientated have paid tribute to Maori language and to Maori music in many ways. Some of the music is taken from ancient music and ancient instruments that have been revived in New Zealand and I think it is extremely important. I know that Hineani Melbourne who worked in Hamilton for a long time and who has sadly passed on was one of the people who enabled the recording and the revival of traditional Maori instruments. I am pleased to say that this bill will enable archives to be funded to be kept alive and to be used. It is one thing to have archives and to bury them but it is another to be able to access them and to use that material for the benefit of people today and for the benefit of our culture and heritage in New Zealand. It is something that I think New Zealand can be proud of. We can generally be proud of the standard of broadcasting and the standard of New Zealand On Air. 
It is with pleasure that I speak at the third reading of this bill which is as I said a technical bill about technical changes that allow funding for us to utilise those facilities in New Zealand. As I get near to retiring I say that I think the new facilities in this House for recording what we have archiving what we have and keeping New Zealand in better contact with what goes on in this House are to be commended. I commend the Broadcasting Amendment Bill on its third reading to the House and I look forward to its implementation. 
Bill read a third time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts at one time. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority in their own right to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament and I thank them for that. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 21 February 2008 and I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful and expeditious consideration of the bill. 
The bill amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. The amendments proposed by the bill include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove an outdated reference to the death penalty which as we all know was abolished in 1989; and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 which substitutes the term “video record” for the outdated term “videotape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006 which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. The amendments proposed include an amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 to amend a drafting error and to remove ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence and imposes a penalty for the damage or destruction of a property in the control of the Historic Places Trust. 
There are also amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 to close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example that of lawyers and teachers. An amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will reflect changes in the terminology used in the armed forces. 
The select committee received only two submissions on the bill and it has reported the bill back to the House unchanged. To conclude this bill proposes a number of positive changes to the statute book that are minor or technical in nature. I again thank the select committee and the officials for their work and I commend the bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was referred to the Government Administration Committee as the Minister said on 20 September 2007. The closing date for submissions was 9 November. By that date we had received two submissions. 
The Statutes Amendment bills probably need a bit of explanation in the Chamber because I do not think too many people in public or in Parliament really understand the purpose of these bills. They are designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor technical and non-controversial amendments—generally typing errors or other such minor amendments—to legislation or Acts of Parliament. They are known as omnibus bills. Unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the bill being included in debate and going to a select committee. 
The select committee received an interesting submission from a Mr Graeme Edgeler who is a lawyer in Wellington. He raised the issue of the bill potentially crossing the line of being non-controversial and of potentially introducing a statute amendment that would have an effect on people. He did not disagree with the change; he disagreed with the fact that it should happen in a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
My colleague Mr Finlayson may later describe the issue around the Historic Places Trust that was raised by this gentleman. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No I won’t! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: He may not but we will wait and see. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and various other Government advisers. On balance the committee decided that the issue was not outside the normal gambit of a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore supported the bill coming back to the House. 
But it raised an interesting point which is that the executive needs to be reminded at times of just exactly what these Statutes Amendment bills are for. They are an interesting and useful tool for Government. Government needs that tool and all Governments regardless of their political persuasion need this vehicle. If the executive were ever to start venturing out into more controversial amendments then these bills would get vetoed and potentially a vehicle would be lost whereby it could otherwise normally carry out such work. 
I know that the Assistant Speaker has a keen interest in the Standing Orders and the Standing Order concerned in regard to Statutes Amendment bills is 263(1)(e). I thought I would just point that out to Mr Assistant Speaker in case he needs it later in the debate. 
The Statutes Amendment Bill we are debating here tonight the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) received the support of the select committee. This particular bill includes amendments that involve the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry for Culture and Heritage the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Economic Development the Department of Conservation Land Information New Zealand the Biosecurity Act—which is one I myself am particularly interested in being the spokesman for that particular subject—the Cadastral Survey Act the Fisheries Act and the Veterinarians Act. 
Fourteen various statutes and 50 clauses in total were involved so we have to pay close scrutiny to make sure that amendments are just minor and not any more substantial than was designed. The select committee as the Minister very kindly spelt out did its work in that regard. 
From time to time in the Government Administration Committee we have sought support on various issues from the Regulations Review Committee but in this case we received the standard response from the committee which was that the bill was fine. With those comments I say that the National Party supports the bill and I recommend it to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to make a contribution to the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and I think some speakers have already noted the background of Statutes Amendment bills—that they are designed to provide minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in these bills cannot affect policy change and unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill. This Statutes Amendment Bill is typical. It sought to amend 14 statutes and there were just two submissions which the Government Administration Committee considered and took advice on. I do commend the cooperation of the select committee and the officials in returning this bill expeditiously to the House. 
I would like to address just one of the statutes that the bill will amend which is section 35(a) of the Crimes Act and that will remove an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. I must admit that I was somewhat astonished to discover that we still had a reference to the death penalty in statute despite the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act in 1989. 
I am glad to live in a country where we do not have the death penalty. Around 124 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice but it troubles me deeply that there are still some notable exceptions such as China Iran the United States and Viet Nam. Those countries accounted for 97 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty International in 2004. Between 1976 and 2005 1004 people were executed in the United States and over 3000 prisoners were awaiting execution on what is known as death row. In China in 2001 alone a Government crack-down on crime resulted in the execution of at least 1781 people in about 4 months. Those statistics are barbaric. So I am particularly pleased that New Zealand under our Prime Minister Helen Clark has been working with other countries in the United Nations for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. 
On 18 December 2008 the General Assembly of the United Nations voted by an overwhelming majority for a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This was the objective of the World Day Against the Death Penalty held on 10 October. As our Prime Minister said at the time “Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel inhuman and degrading treatment. The death penalty violates the right to life … It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent.” Quite simply the death penalty is a failure of justice. 
The first execution in New Zealand was that of a young Maori named Maketu convicted in Auckland in 1842. Walter Bolton was the last to be executed when he was hanged at Mount Eden Prison in 1957. In total there were 83 verified executions for murder and one for treason in New Zealand between those dates. The method of execution was hanging and before 1862 executions were conducted in public. Colour Sergeant James Collins of the 65th Regiment was the first to be executed out of public view and he was executed at Wellington in January 1862. The official method of execution was outlined in an 1880 “Memorandum upon the Execution of Prisoners by Hanging with a Long Drop”. The offences that carried the death penalty in New Zealand were in accordance with English common law murder treason and piracy. 
Interestingly the Labour Party had opposed capital punishment and after it took office in 1935 it commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. This policy was confirmed by the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1941. The National Government restored it in 1950 and from 1951 to 1957 there were 18 convictions for murder and eight executions. Labour returned to office in late 1957 and the following year made the death penalty inoperative. 
With that matter seemingly swinging from one situation to another depending on which party was in office it was put to a conscience vote in 1961. Members of Parliament were not forced to vote according to party policy and accordingly 10 members of the National Government voted with the Opposition and capital punishment was removed from the statute book. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Get with the programme. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am with the programme; I am talking about one of the— 
Sandra Goudie 
: The history was that it was National that did it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No I say to the member that that is not quite correct; it was a conscience vote. With all due respect to the member it was a conscience vote. 
Treason mutiny and treachery in the armed forces are no longer punishable by death under the terms of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989. The last execution was of Walter Bolton when he was convicted of poisoning his wife Beatrice and was hanged for her murder at Mount Eden Prison. According to the reports at the time it was gruesome and it was believed that some of those in the death chamber had to swing on his legs after the hangman miscalculated and Bolton did not die instantly from a broken neck. 
The death penalty for murder was abolished in New Zealand in 1961 and there were claims that this was due partly to the circumstances surrounding Bolton’s case. But we should not think that this issue is not still alive in the minds of some New Zealanders. At times of perceived increases in violent crime or when there has been a particularly high-profile murder debate about capital punishment comes up and inevitably there is a call for the death penalty again in New Zealand. 
Some believe that the death penalty will deter people from committing crime and although I have empathy with those who have lost a loved one through violent crime the facts from the United States and other countries just do not back that up. In some countries as we know executions go way beyond violent crime; executions for political belief for speaking out against the ruling power for trade union activity for being gay and many other reasons are still being carried out today. 
Although this Statutes Amendment Bill is like others in that its changes are minor technical or inconsequential in nature it is an important moment in New Zealand’s history that the last remaining reference to capital punishment in New Zealand’s statutes is finally being removed. As I said at the beginning of my speech I am glad I live in a country without the death penalty; long may it stay that way. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is meant to be a non-controversial bill so I am surprised that the previous speaker Darien Fenton has found occasion to take a little bit of grandstanding in regard to it. One would have to question whether in fact the provision is as non-controversial as she tried to make out or whether it is quite the contrary. Having said that one of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is the fact that because it is non-controversial it means that if any matters are raised that are questionable and will challenge the non-controversial nature of the change they are removed and do not proceed. One of those matters was the changes that were proposed in relation to the Companies Act. A submission was received from Chapman Tripp that raised a number of concerns around the provisions that it was suggested should be included in the bill in regard to the Companies Act. It was proposed that the bill should amend sections 224 and 223 to also require notice to a person who is entitled to a security interest in respect of which a financial statement is registered on the Personal Property Securities Register. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear— 
Hone Harawira 
: Settle down settle down! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I cannot help it. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear that it was not quite as non-controversial as it first appeared to be and so the matter was actually dropped out of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) forthwith. It showed that it is quite an important process and that people take notice of the process and make submissions. The submission from Graeme Edgeler raised his concerns but had no quarrel with the changes proposed and it was very interesting to see what his concerns were. 
Some of the other parts that are in here—and they are quite varied—are technical. They include amendments to the following Acts: the National Parks Act; the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Act; the Radiocommunications Act; the Reserves Act; the Historic Places Act; the Fisheries Act; the Veterinarians Act; the Criminal Investigation (Bodily Samples) Act 1995; the Crimes Act which has just been described by the previous speaker; the Cadastral Survey Act; and as I said before the Biosecurity Act. All of these Acts have had a number of minor amendments made to them and I do not think we need to go through them in any great depth. As has been explained previously these matters are non-consequential; they are really just technical amendments and National is happy to support the bill going through. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one of the buffet of bills that come within the context of minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing legislation as other members have talked about. I sometimes wonder why we bother to look at them when they are such minor adjustments. I would be interested in learning from members who have been here for ever and a day about the real value of these statute amendments coming into the Chamber rather than being done by other methods. Some suggest say an Order in Council but I leave that for others to consider. That aside the fact that some proposed amendments do not hit the table because they have been vetoed by parties tells us that this kind of bill might be an efficient way of dealing with what we might say are straightforward pieces of legislation. 
Having said all that I say there are some issues of interest here that the Maori Party is pleased to put forward for debate. In the first instance the amendments in Part 1 to the Biosecurity Act 1993 will enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors authorised persons and accredited persons. That means in effect that they are able to delegate some of their functions. It is interesting that this provision is being discussed today in light of the major risks that have become apparent to the local and national $200 million mussel industry following the defouling of the Ocean Patriot oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. As a result of that fiasco bio-fouling was carried out within the 12-nautical-mile boundary in Tasman Bay. The issue I raised in question time today was that asked by iwi of Tasman Bay—namely Ngati Rarua Ngati Koata Ngati Tama Ngati Rarua-Atiawa Iwi Trust and the Wakatu Incorporation—and it is all around accountability. They want to know regardless of whether the oil rig was being de-fouled inside or outside New Zealand territorial waters who is responsible for the clean-up to prevent the potential biosecurity risk from  
Perna perna 
—the potentially invasive South African brown mussel. 
The question that is raised in my mind by this Statutes Amendment Bill is whether the delegation of some functions under the Biosecurity Act will actually do anything to address the obvious flaws in the low level of biosecurity standards required for the aquacultural industry. Will the amendment to enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors authorised persons and accredited persons have any impact on the aquacultural sector or will they be allocated to and work within the boundaries of the horticultural and agricultural sectors only? 
Keeping with that Minister Jim Anderton another set of amendments in this bill to remove the requirement to gazette the Minister’s notification of fish stock or species ceasing to be subject to a moratorium seems to be a more logical position than the current arrangements. The amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 require that such stock or species will cease to be subject to a moratorium from the start of the fishing year rather than the date of the Minister’s notification of the decision in the  
Gazette 
. The fishing year date would by all estimates be far more meaningful to fishermen than a randomly selected publication date of the printed  
Gazette 
. 
We are very pleased to support the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 which has been referred to by other members. It will remove an outdated reference to the death penalty which was repealed in 1989. There seems to me to be some irony in that this amendment will pass through this House with barely a murmur whereas another amendment to repeal section 59 of the same Act which dealt with the hitting of our tamariki created enormous reaction—reaction that still is generating some heat judging by the petition being promoted by various lobby groups. In fact so hotly debated was that particular amendment that Parliament agreed that the law would be reviewed after 2 years and it appears that every Government department in town is gathering information to be ready to be assessed and evaluated. 
The other interesting amendment perhaps is that relating to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. This amendment updates the definition of “videotape” to “video record” in line with the Evidence Act 2006 definition which allows for digital video recording. Well that is all well and good but I cannot help but think that in light of some of the changes we were discussing today in relation to the Broadcasting Act the impact and influence of digital platforms and new technologies would have meant the definition was expanded to also include say DVDs and CDs. 
I was reflecting today as we celebrate the fact that as stated by my colleague Mr Hone Harawira on this day 11 March in 1987 the Maori Language Act declared Maori an official language in Aotearoa on the advancements that have been taking place in the revitalisation of te reo rangatira that absolutely demonstrate the power of information technology at its best. We can download Maori language lessons and linguistic interpretations. Some of our more innovative tertiary institutions promote language use through distributing CDs and DVDs. Last year two of our talented young leaders Potaua and Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule directed a team of volunteers from around Aotearoa in translating Google search pages into a Maori language option. Te Ara Poutama of Auckland University of Technology has trialled te reo Maori on an iPod. We can access Microsoft Office and Windows in te reo Maori. In other words almost anything literally is possible. 
Speaking about te reo I briefly congratulate Jemma an air hostess on my Air New Zealand flight this morning on welcoming and farewelling all passengers in Maori and taking real care with her pronunciation of Maori names. It was really refreshing to have someone consider the pronunciation of Maori names. It is something pretty simple yet so many cannot be bothered. Kei runga noa atu koe Jemma—too much. I promise that the Maori party is not receiving any political sponsorship for this—although we are very happy to—but if one goes to a BNZ ATM machine one can now choose te reo Maori as an option. Ka rawe ne? Awesome! 
Let me get back to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). The other point I want to raise is in relation to the amendments to the Historic Places Act 1993 that set out procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies on the trust board. The trust is governed by a board of trustees comprising nine members six of whom are appointed by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. It is a board of high calibre including in the current membership Te Aue Davis Merata Kawharu Tumu te Heuheu and Judith Binney—a very impressive line up I would have to say. Although we understand the rationale behind specifying procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies we are interested in some of the wider context to this amendment. We support the concept of inserting those procedures into that Act but merely wonder whether provision for vacancies created by death resignation or removal from office is included in legislation for other such boards. I just ask that question. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill going forward. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and to congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the work it has done on this bill. It is a very interesting committee to be on because it does have such variety and these omnibus bills illustrate that variety. 
I note the changes that the committee agreed on in regard to the Biosecurity Act and that it makes matters clear in relation to the appointment of inspectors and accredited persons and their delegation of authority in terms of the Biosecurity Act. Unlike the previous member I think these people do a fantastic job. New Zealand can be duly proud of its biosecurity and of the people who carry out the legislation and ensure that this country is kept free of things that could attack our agriculture and otherwise affect our exports. 
I note also that there are changes to the Cadastral Survey Act. Some of those are to do with issues around who is a licensed cadastral surveyor some are about disciplining surveyors and some are about complying with the digital cadastral survey data sets. I suspect that some of the change in this legislation came about through a complaint made to the Regulations Review Committee some many months ago. I am sorry that members from the Regulations Review Committee are not here to make that clear but there was a complaint about changes in measurement changing to digital data sets and the possibility that there could be some sort of slippage in how much land one actually had. I suspect that this change in the legislation came about through this complaint which was upheld by the Regulations Review Committee. 
If that is the case and this is the legislation that refers to that then I am glad to see that the processes are working and that complaints to the Regulations Review Committee can then bring about changes to the substantive Act. That is very important and it is important that the process actually works. These types of omnibus bills which make little corrections some of which can seem very boring are very very important for some people and they can make a huge difference. 
I note that my colleague Darien Fenton has referred to the death penalty and the changes made to the Crimes Act. I also notice that some interesting changes have been made in terms of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. I like this little bit from the explanatory note in relation to Part 10: “The amendments reflect the following name changes: the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation the New Zealand Vegetable & Potato Growers Federation (Incorporated) and The New Zealand Berryfruit Growers Federation Inc have been changed to Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated; and the New Zealand Nurserymens Association Incorporated has been changed to The Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand Incorporated.” 
The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act was enacted in 1987. At last we have a non-sexist name for the New Zealand Nurserymens Association which has realised that a certain number of nurserywomen are involved in the industry. That is a really good change. 
If Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated are the people who produce  
Grower 
 magazine then I want to say that I think it is one of the best magazines we get in this House. Of course I am from the Waikato and I am concerned about what we grow and export in New Zealand and I think that  
Grower 
 is an excellent magazine. 
I commend  
Grower 
 magazine for its very very good articles on food miles. It produced some of the best counterarguments to the British scare about our exports food miles and the amount of fossil fuel it was taking to get our goods to Britain. It explained in its articles that on the whole the amount of fossil fuel that is used to get vegetables from the supermarket to the kitchens of British housewives added up to more per vegetable than the actual fossil fuel used in getting them from New Zealand to Britain. So I congratulate  
Grower 
 magazine particularly on its food miles articles. I photocopied many of them and sent them to people in Britain especially to Kiwis living in Britain saying: “Hey here is a really good counter to that fuel - food miles argument. Leave them lying around in your supermarket please.” So I congratulate the authority on that and on the name changes. 
I also note that there are considerable changes to the Veterinarians Act. I note that there were only two submissions on this bill but I am pretty sure that one of them would have been from the Veterinary Association because it is once again a very active organisation. As I come from the Waikato I am very very aware of the tremendous contribution that veterinarians make to our society in keeping our animals alive and well. People are putting a lot more money into their animals because they are much more valuable now than they used to be. Veterinarians are highly valued especially in the dairy industry. I trust that the association did make a submission and obviously that it has agreed with the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
As I say the bill seems very routine and technical but many of these changes are very very important otherwise they would not be made. Some of the changes are made because as we have seen technology catches up and the language has to catch up with modern times so Acts have to change. Sometimes other Acts change and in order to keep Acts of Parliament consistent with each other changes have to be made in Statutes Amendment bills. 
However I remember that some time ago there was a recommendation that Statutes Amendment bills should say a little bit more in their headings about what they are about. A Statutes Amendment Bill is about amendments to statutes but which ones? There was a suggestion some time ago that these bills should have a little bit more in their title in order to explain them so that they are easier to trace easier to follow and so on. We could not possibly include every Act that a Statutes Amendment Bill changes but there should be something in the bill’s title that is more indicative as to what the bill is about. 
But once again I give a big thanks to the select committee to all the people who advised the select committee and to the staff who worked in this regard. I commend the passage of the bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Oh this will be good! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I hope it will be good for Mr Fairbrother’s sake because a number of important matters need to be stated tonight. The first is that sometimes people say Statutes Amendment bills are nothing more than pettifogging trivia and indeed I suppose in some circumstances they could be. None the less as the previous speaker Dianne Yates said they are important. They pick up errors that should have been detected some time ago. The obvious example of that is Part 3 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) which deals with the Crimes Act. That was a piece of sloppy drafting that should have been dealt with 20 years ago. Another example of sloppiness is in the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. Again that is another amendment that should have been dealt with at the time the Evidence Act 2006 was being dealt with in this House. 
There are a couple of other statutory amendments to Acts that particularly interest me about which I will say something in a few minutes—minor changes to the District Courts Act 1947 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957. It is all very worthy stuff and as previous speakers have said not things that need detain this House for more than a few minutes. 
But it seems to me that an enormous amount of effort is put into a Statutes Amendment bill. If only the same effort was put into other legislation. As the Minister of Health would doubtless say when evading questions—and incisive questions at that—from my friend the member for Bay of Plenty “Parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus.” That is a quote from Horace that essentially says: “The mountains labour and a ridiculous mouse is born.” In fact when I think of that quote I think it would probably be beyond Mr Cunliffe who rarely gets beyond trite expressions such as inter alia. The point I am trying to make is this: an enormous amount of effort goes into this kind of miscellaneous statute but the same effort does not go into legislation that could have an enormous impact on the nation’s criminal procedure. 
Let us look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) again. Part 3 deals with the Crimes Act of 1961 yet the Criminal Procedure Bill also deals with important issues under that statute. In regard to the District Courts Act 1947 the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with questions there too. Again in regard to the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957 the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with issues there. 
So while this useless Government spends an enormous amount of time on minor pieces of legislation contained in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) it does absolutely nothing with very important legislation that has languished at number 17 on the Order Paper for many many months—that is the Criminal Procedure Bill in the name of the Hon Annette King Minister of Justice. Now that is a piece of legislation that amends a number of statutes and on which a lot of work ought to be put in. It is legislation that significantly reforms criminal procedure to provide for example trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances. It deals with the issues of double jeopardy majority verdicts the codification of criminal disclosure and the partial abolition of preliminary hearings. One particular change is contained in Part 3 of that bill and deals with the District Courts Act 1947. That if passed would create huge improvements in the High Court jurisdiction because so many of those methamphetamine trials would be able to be dealt with in the District Court. 
So what does the Government do with an exquisite lack of sense of priority? It pushes through legislation like the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but does nothing about the Criminal Procedure Bill which as I said is languishing at item 17 on the Order Paper yet the criminal bar the judges and society generally are crying out for that bill to be given some attention. It is one of those unfortunate things that we deal with this minor stuff with some urgency. We give the minor stuff priority but we do not pay the attention we should to legislation like the Criminal Procedure Bill. I think that is a source of great regret. I would ask someone who is reasonably sensible on the Government side a very rare bird on the Government side—well Mr Fairbrother actually when talking about criminal matters—to stand and explain to the House why it is that this useless Government can spend so much time on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but give no priority whatsoever to the Criminal Procedure Bill. I invite either Mr Burton who was the Minister responsible for this legislation or Mr Fairbrother to take the next call and perhaps explain this rather sad event to the House. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Congratulations on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker and I wish you well for your upcoming trip. I will make just a small contribution on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill went to the Government Administration Committee in September last year and there are 14 Acts amended in it. I will make a small contribution to what I think are very very important parts of this bill. 
In particular when we are talking about Part 6 which amends the Fisheries Act 1996 I want to highlight how the permit moratorium is currently not subject to the quota management system. At the moment the moratorium could actually lift part way through the fishing year which ends or starts on 1 October. Currently there could be a lot of fish caught in the small period leading up to 1 October so in essence there is a good amendment to ensure the system is in place and that the fishing stock is sustainable. 
The other contribution I will make is on Part 14 of the bill which amends the Veterinarians Act 2005. This will in effect give the Veterinary Council more power which is very important. In this House we probably do not appreciate the good job that veterinarians do around the country. Currently we have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand and the Labour Government is having to spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to attract them into New Zealand because we are not training enough of them. Government representatives are over at recruitment expos in the United Kingdom trying to attract veterinarians into the country. 
The significant point in this amendment is that the Veterinary Council will have more powers. In essence it will be a bit like a warrant of fitness regime. It will streamline the process when veterinarians are between graduation and registering and that is very very good. But I come back to the significant point. Although the primary sector—particularly the dairy sector—is booming we have a shortage of male veterinary students who are needed to deal with the big bovine animals. Currently there is a higher proportion of females coming through that course at Massey University. 
This is a 14-Act amendment bill that is supported by the National Party and we recognise the good work that the Government Administration Committee did under the very hard-working chair Shane Ardern. 
Bill read a second time. 
Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill introduces amendments to the current data-matching processes for social assistance to achieve three positive outcomes. Firstly they will allow the Ministry of Social Development to prevent people from accumulating debt. This is a positive move because repayment of debt is a considerable burden on people with low incomes. This Government recognises the negative impact that debt can have on people and through this bill is taking a positive step towards reducing debt in one area—that of benefit overpayments. Too much debt inhibits the ability of people to enjoy life and it restricts their ability to participate in their communities. It can have negative impacts on the health and education of children especially those living in overcrowded or substandard housing as a result of a family struggling to repay debts. We need to take what steps we can to lessen these impacts. 
The bill introduces amendments that will allow the Ministry of Social Development to immediately suspend benefits student allowances and the living component of student loans when a data match indicates that a recipient is in prison. A person in prison does not qualify for these payments. The changes set out in this bill allow benefit payments to be stopped in a timely way. This change will help prevent overpayments which in turn reduces debt. 
At present when there is a positive data match the ministry has to write to the person and wait for 5 working days before taking any action to stop payment. This wait can result in a person being overpaid and therefore the creation of a debt. The bill will allow for the suspension of benefits and allowances from the date the person enters prison and written notice will be issued at the same time. Benefits are paid in arrears so in most cases the suspension will not be immediate. There will still be time for the person to contact the ministry if an error has been made. In addition where the person entering prison has a partner the ministry will separately write to that partner to ensure that any appropriate support required by the family members not in prison can be provided. The result of the more timely suspension of benefits will be that the debts that prisoners face when they are released will be significantly reduced. Lower debt levels make it easier for rehabilitation to occur and also lessen the possibility of a person’s reoffending. Secondly the amendments will allow more effective recovery of debt where this has occurred. 
The bill will allow more effective use of data matches already in place between the ministry and three other Government agencies—the Accident Compensation Corporation the New Zealand Customs Service and the Department of Corrections. The bill will allow for the information provided by these agencies to be matched against the records of people with a debt who are no longer receiving a benefit. Contact can then be made and recovery arrangements put in place where appropriate. This enhanced use of information will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes that support debt recovery. 
Last but by no means least the amendments will allow early detection of the misuse of the social security student allowance and student loan systems by broadening data-matching provisions. The bill provides for the information currently provided when a person enters prison to continue to be provided as long as the person remains in prison. This will allow an application for benefit student loan or student allowance from a person in prison to be detected quickly. 
This change will not make it more difficult for prisoners to undertake studies to improve their prospects on release. Prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study costs. It is the assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. The change simply puts in place systems to more clearly identify applications for student allowances and living costs from people whose living costs are being met from the corrections system. The combination of the amendments set out in this bill will help to ensure integrity and proper use of Crown moneys and this will serve to increase confidence in the administration of the benefit system. 
I appreciate that people are concerned about the possibility that an incorrect match could result in the suspension of a person’s benefit in error. In taking a more proactive approach to the suspension of benefits the Government has had to balance the individual’s right to take time to reply against the need to act quickly to prevent debt. Although I acknowledge concern about incorrect matches the Ministry of Social Development has safeguards in place to ensure that if this happens there is minimal impact on the person concerned. Up to a week before payment is scheduled to cease affected people will receive a letter informing them that their benefit has been suspended. This will give them the opportunity to have their benefit reinstated before actually missing a payment. In addition when the ministry is alerted that a payment has been wrongly stopped the money will be put into the person’s bank account overnight. 
The Social Services Committee has recommended that a new provision be inserted to make it clear that the ministry can still allow the 5 days to pass before taking any action when this is appropriate. I appreciate the committee’s insight in this regard. Having this discretion is important. For example it allows time for the ministry to clarify that the correct person has been identified when there is a partial or inconclusive match. The committee has also recommended a number of other minor changes to the bill. These changes are positive and reflect the committee’s expertise in this area. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the select committee members for their work which has improved and clarified a relatively technical bill. The Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill will help reduce debt and help ensure that money goes to the people who need it and are entitled to receive it. The bill reflects this Government’s commitment to helping low-income people towards a better future and represents the efficient and effective use of technology time and money. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is very nice to follow the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor who made a very worthy and workmanlike speech with no flourish or excitement as is appropriate. Frankly the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill has been a long time coming. There have been 9 long years of a Labour Government and in that time beneficiary debt—owed to Work and Income—has increased from about $320 million to $760 million now. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars owed by beneficiaries to Work and Income. 
This little bill which the National Party supports could have helped to reduce that debt and to stop it getting into that situation. Not all of the debt is from people defrauding the system. Quite often it is because there has been an overpayment by Work and Income or sometimes it is simply a matter of a beneficiary or a beneficiary’s family failing to report to Work and Income that the benefit is no longer required or that the person is no longer eligible for it. 
Just a matter of 2 weeks’ owing on a benefit can be a huge amount for a beneficiary because in most cases we are talking about people who have very very little and who effectively have to live week by week. To say to them “Well it doesn’t matter you can just pay it back.” or “We overpaid you.” is a pretty harsh call. Certainly I have had beneficiaries in my electorate office in Papakura who have said just how hard it is—and I can well believe it. 
Then of course the amount owing is reduced by payments of $10 a week and this goes on and on. Effectively people are getting further and further into poverty because when they had that extra cash they thought “Gosh I can go and spend it.” 
Unfortunately we have had the Government and Government agencies contributing to the situation—in fact encouraging many beneficiaries to get into debt by the very slack attitude that the Government and Government agencies have taken. 
I have welcomed in the select committee process the Government actually acknowledging that beneficiary debt is a problem. I know that the issue has come about because National members and other people in this Parliament have made it an issue. We do not think it is fair for beneficiaries to owe three-quarters of a billion dollars— 
Hon David Carter 
: Saddled with debt. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and to be saddled with debt. These people have the least ability to repay it. They are saddled with that debt and suddenly find they cannot get out of it. And half of that money is actually owed by former beneficiaries so it is not even being deducted each week. About half of it in fact is owed by former beneficiaries so even once beneficiaries have gone back into work they have found it impossible to be able to pay back that interest-free money provided by the taxpayer. 
This is a terrible situation and clearly this Government has done very very little about it. It has obviously felt that it was a good thing to keep giving people interest-free loans from the taxpayer with no particular need to repay them at any stage other than by a $10-a-week payment. Of course the Government does not really worry about what happens to these people. The Government does not really worry about it; it thinks it will all sort itself out and that people might as well go and get that money because it is free. Well nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch and anybody who pays his or her taxes knows that. 
All those many beneficiaries have been encouraged into debt by a Government that cares more about securing votes than it does about securing the benefit and well-being of beneficiaries and their families about helping them into homeownership and about helping them to get into the sort of work environment where they can get ahead. Half of that $760 million is still owed by former beneficiaries; people who are in work. It is owed right now to Work and Income. 
Frankly this is a bill that we have been pleased to see finally come through. It is a matter of a few pages. National has supported it all the way through. We have helped to alleviate some of the difficulties that could have occurred. We have made comments about the minimisation of hardship to families. We have made comments and supported comments made in the select committee regarding how families who find that a family member has been put in prison can in fact know about it can understand and can access the right benefit so they themselves do not end up getting further and further into debt. 
We have a Government agency Work and Income within the Ministry of Social Development that is huge. It is huge; it has 9000 employees and it spends $18 billion of taxpayer money a year. It is an agency that is much better able to look after its own money to stop overpaying people when they should not be paid which gets people into debt and to stop doing the awful thing of telling them about 6 months later they have to repay their debts after they have already spent the money. That is a very cruel thing to happen. 
So in essence and in conclusion National is pleased to support the bill. It has been an awfully long time coming when all the Government had to do was give us a call on the phone and we would have helped it out straight away—which of course we did as soon as we knew of it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as chair of the Social Services Committee to follow the deputy chair Judith Collins and her latest version the 2008 version of beneficiary bashing. That speaker’s coded speech was “We’re out to get beneficiaries; we’re going to take the benefit system back to 1992 when benefits were slashed.” They were slashed to save Government spending and slashed so that the then Government’s rich mates could avoid paying more tax. 
That was the coded message from the last speaker. She was trying to dance on the head of a pin in order to avoid saying “We want to hit beneficiaries whenever we can.” This is a great example. If this bill is misused it will be another attack on beneficiaries. Well this bill will not be misused because it will be administered by Government departments led by Ministers who have hearts committed to social justice. 
The people of New Zealand need to realise that if they have a change of Government in some future time they will give away social justice for the extraction of a few dollars of tax benefit. That is what that last speaker was warbling on about in her tremulous voice as she avoided the issue at hand. 
Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was trying to say “lightweight” nicely. This bill is really about one piece of legislation called the Social Security Act 1964 and that Act feeds through this bill into three other pieces of legislation: the Corrections Act 2004 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. Each of those three Acts relates to the Social Security Act 1964 in that they all give away a degree of privacy that is owned by the beneficiary. The Social Security Act enables data matching to take place with the greater resources of knowledge of the Ministry of Social Development about the status of an individual to make sure that when an individual’s status changes either by going into prison or by leaving the country and going overseas—which is where the Customs and Excise Act comes into it—there is no continued payment of a benefit when the eligibility to receive the benefit stops. 
The Social Security Act is not really a beneficent Act to try to stop people from getting into debt nor is it a punitive Act trying to penalise beneficiaries; it is a morally neutral Act that is a movement towards greater efficiency. I note that when my very good friend the last speaker Judith Collins spoke at the first reading of this bill she adopted an oxymoron as an argument which she did not dare repeat tonight. But on that occasion which she touched on tonight she said that this bill had been 8 long years coming and that it had involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of computer systems to get here. Of course she admits that we could not have data matching until this Government brought up to date the computerised infrastructure of Government departments so that they could work well. 
This Government in 1999 inherited a hotchpotch of computer systems with no investment in infrastructure and we could not match data. It has taken 8 years for this Government to be in a position where it can even operate efficiently and the people of New Zealand will ignore that to their ultimate regret. 
It is a simple fact that a boat cannot be turned around in a few seconds. To turn the ship of State around to a state of efficiency has taken 8 short years. We as a Labour Government can now start delivering the benefits of social policy and social conscience—the social contract we have with the voters of New Zealand. 
This legislation is a prime example of that. People talk about it being a short piece of legislation. I tell Mr Finlayson not to confuse size with quality. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I wanted to wake up the member; that was all. This legislation tidies up the whole benefit system. I do not really place much emphasis on the argument that it benefits beneficiaries and stops them getting into debt. It also benefits the State because it stops overpayment of benefits. The legislation is simply neutral legislation that ties in the status of beneficiaries with the needs of the State to make sure that when benefits are paid they go to those who qualify and when people stop qualifying the benefits stop. 
However the select committee was concerned about the erosion of privacy in the three pieces of legislation—the Corrections Act administered by the prison service; the Customs and Excise Act administered by the Customs Service; and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act administered by the Accident Compensation Corporation—and that the concession of privacy contained by the amendment of this bill was covered by data matching and the 5-day notification period which were touched upon by the Minister in his second reading speech. So that allows an opportunity for a beneficiary to be aware of what is going on and to make any necessary corrections should for some reason the data matching be based on some wrong premise. 
But the Social Services Committee uttered in its report a word of warning—and I think that it is worth repeating for the record—that when individuals are sentenced to imprisonment people often think that that is a matter of glee for everybody but the passing of a sentence of imprisonment is one of the most sombre acts a judge has to undertake in a court. Many fine judges have said that the passing of a sentence is often and usually much more onerous than any trial process particularly if imprisonment is involved. The passing of a sentence of imprisonment is traumatic for all in the court and no more so than for prisoners and their families. 
The select committee report recommends that Work and Income representatives be in court whenever possible so that they can speak to families concerned and explain the process that happens from the time of the passing of a sentence. It is at that time when families are at their most vulnerable when their minds and emotions are running with a confusion of feelings and when there are conflicting emotions—concern often for the victims of crime and for themselves and despair for their loved one and their supportive one. That is the time when someone from Work and Income can sit down and with a cool head say “Well your benefit change occurs now and let’s talk about how we can help you through the transition period.” 
The recommendation of the committee was that Work and Income become proactive as proactive as the computer system will be to make sure that at these times of transition when people go to prison or leave to go overseas which is a different situation entirely the benefit stops appropriately and that the indebtedness that may occur does not occur. 
The concern of the committee was really to minimise hardship to beneficiaries. The majority on the committee did not set out to engage in any form of benefit-bashing enterprise. We accept that the payment of benefits is an act by the State. It is not based on charity but is the right of individuals to support from the State. There is a degree of trust involved. Most individuals who receive benefits—in fact the vast majority—adhere to that trust very very well. There are a very very small few who bring the majority into discredit. That very small number of individuals who approach their receipt of a benefit with a degree of distrust is exaggerated by Opposition members who use those individuals as a punching bag to demonstrate that beneficiaries should be penalised by cuts and more stringent measures. 
For anybody to say that this legislation is an attack upon beneficiaries as was referred to by Dr Pita Sharples—a man whom I respect considerably—in his first reading speech is to misunderstand the purpose of this bill we are addressing today in its second reading. It is a morally neutral bill. It is now possible because after 8 years of trying to bring the infrastructure of this country to a state where we can be proactive and start to achieve real policy this bill reflects the ability of the various Government departments to work cooperatively for the benefit of those who receive benefits and the taxpayers as well. 
This is very tidy legislation. It does have a human element to it but essentially it is technical legislation that reflects the very efficient computer systems that are now established in our Government departments. There is a nice data-matching process that can proceed by the slight release of confidentiality that beneficiaries have under the three Acts I have already referred to. 
I commend this legislation to the House. I thank the Social Services Committee for its attention to the detail involved in this legislation and particularly for the humane approach that all members on the committee took to this issue and for their very full consideration of the privacy issues that are involved. One should never underestimate their importance. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill on behalf of National. Of course we are supporting it because this is one of the first times we have seen this Labour Government make some gesture towards being serious about the mounting debts we have in the system. 
It was quite extraordinary to hear Mr Fairbrother claim that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. Clearly he is in total denial. In respect of the raw data I tell member that when Labour came into office beneficiary debt owed by beneficiaries to the then Department of Social Welfare was in the order of $320 million and it has more than doubled in these 7 to 8 short years that Mr Fairbrother was talking about. That is disgraceful. That shows no signal whatsoever that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. 
We have just been hearing Mr Fairbrother wax lyrical about the computer systems that this Government—[ 
Interruption 
] That is none other than the chair of the select committee; I refer him to Project Socrates in the disability sector or perhaps the system of Tribal Education Ltd in the Ministry of Education. I ask any of the users of those computer systems whether they are working efficiently. They will tell us that the systems are an abysmal failure and that users are very doubtful about whether the Labour Government is investing wisely. Certainly it is not implementing efficiently. 
I was also interested to hear Russell Fairbrother say that this was a morally neutral bill. We heard the views of the Privacy Commissioner who said that her office does not oppose the proposal to override section 103 of the Privacy Act but it does note that this section provides a basic protection of the principle of natural justice when Government agencies operate automated information-matching systems. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was deeply concerned about the balance there. But there is no doubt that the bill itself does make efforts to minimise hardship when incorrect data-matching occurs. 
I will end by saying that the real emphasis is that at long last the Labour Government in its dying days is bringing in a bill to minimise debt and bring about debt prevention. This is long overdue. It is an absolutely classic example of just how hopeless this Labour Government has been in terms of looking after taxpayers’ money and of course in looking after beneficiaries. During this time the Government has allowed beneficiaries who are vulnerable enough as it is to get into a huge amount of debt—$760 million worth. As I understand it Peter Hughes mentioned a few years ago that 49 percent of beneficiaries were in debt to Work and Income but now the figure is 70 percent. So when Russell Fairbrother has the gall to suggest that this Government is operating efficiently he is in total denial. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is one that we would have thought was already in place but because it is not we are very pleased to see it occurring at long last. I think that this bill particularly reflects the efficiency of the computer systems that are available today. We know that technology is advancing quite rapidly in all areas and it is good to see this bill in place and this data matching occurring. 
I note that the bill amends the legislation between the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Customs Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. As the commentary on the bill states more sharing between these organisations is expected to prevent the recipients of student allowances student loans and those on benefits from accumulating debt. This legislation should do that. I think most people in New Zealand would have been quite horrified to hear that 70 percent of beneficiaries are in debt today. 
The bill also introduces measures to help recover the debt that beneficiaries owe to the Crown and that is really important. Any changes that can be used to prevent overpayments in order to reduce debts need to be implemented. If technology can assist then we need to grab it with both hands and use it to its fullest extent. New Zealand First supports the notion that every person should receive his or her full and correct entitlements from the State and would support assistance with the recovery of Crown debts. We know that debts can become rapidly unmanageable and the fact that one is on a limited income means that debt can mount very quickly. It can take a long time to pay back any debts that are owing and of course there is a lot of stress associated with debt. It is an unfortunate fact that pawn shops second-hand dealers and unscrupulous money dealers are often the very first places that beneficiaries go to when they need money to repay debts and this can create far greater challenges than the ones they had initially. The deals that seem too good to be true—and we see them advertised on television and in many of the community newspapers—are often far too good to be true. The short-term problems disappear but further down the track the problems are often magnified beyond our comprehension and of course this can be very stressful for those who are involved. 
We in this House all know that it can be extremely difficult to manage on a benefit and with the rises in the cost of living to have to repay a debt of $10 to $15 a week is an added stress. To ensure that the debt is not incurred in the first place is absolutely imperative. We all know that being over-indebted has a negative effect on people’s health and well-being and that it can also reduce the financial advantages of returning to work. As we know and as everyone knows levels of repayment are often reduced while a person remains on a benefit so we have a whole group of people who may be staying in poverty unnecessarily. 
We were also pleased to see that changes focused on minimising hardship were included in this bill. They are important. We feel very sorry for beneficiaries who get into this downward spiral of debt unintentionally and unnecessarily so we in New Zealand First support this legislation. Any measure that stops this type of hardship is very worthy of our support. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I stand tonight to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses the detection and recovery of debts and the misuse of social security payments student allowances and the student loan system and it seeks to improve and broaden data-matching provisions. 
This bill is really simple. It affects anybody who has broken the law and goes to prison. When those people who go into prison are receiving a student loan a student allowance or some type of benefit be it a sickness benefit or an unemployment benefit they are not entitled to that benefit while they are in prison. It is as simple as that. Currently what happens is that prisoners can say voluntarily that they are receiving a benefit they will be matched off and the benefit will stop. But obviously there is a flaw in the system currently which is that it is voluntary. Not many of the prisoners who are on a benefit go through and volunteer this information. There is a delay in the time matched to the benefit they receive which then means that an overpayment has been made. When those people come out of prison there is an overpayment a debt that is then owed by them to the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income. 
This is not a new issue; it has been around for a very very long time and only in 2008 is it now being addressed. Basically it is very simple legislation that matches data. It allows databases to be matched between the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Corrections the Customs Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. It matches the prisoner to the database so that the agency stops the payment from being made. It is as simple as that. 
I am taking just a short call tonight to say that National supports this bill. We think that it is a step in the right direction and it is just a shame that this bill has come so late. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tatou e te Whare. We can tell it is election year because everybody is jumping on the law and order bandwagon condemning the rise in crime and attacking the criminal justice system. We have been witness to a number of highly charged political reactions to the homicides so far in 2008 including a whole tool box of answers ranging from boot camps to lowering the age of criminal responsibility to keeping kids in school until they are 18 to locking up the parents. New Zealand’s youngest killer has once again been pushed into the media spotlight because of his impending parole in September after 7 years’ incarceration in various youth institutions. The victim’s mother has spoken out and Victim Support says that the key focus for election year must be on strengthening the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It would appear that everyone is targeting criminal justice as an issue to grab headlines and votes. 
So it is that we come to the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill which is using prisoners to trial a range of increased surveillance and monitoring strategies. Why is it using prisoners? Well because they are a captive audience and because most people do not like them anyway. Yet the truth is that the overall crime rate is actually dropping. Last year there were 102 recorded offences for every 1000 people compared with 128 in 1997. But if we listened to all the doomsayers then we would think that Aotearoa was the most crime-infested den of dishonesty in the Western World. Mind you the fraud statistics are nothing to shout about though. In 2005 nearly 20000 cases of fraud were brought before the courts. There were 12000 cases of white-collar fraud and only 8000 cases of benefit fraud but to nobody’s surprise this bill targets benefit fraud because beneficiaries are easier to dump on and because within that group prisoners are quite literally a captive audience. 
The purpose of this bill is to stop payouts to beneficiaries who go to jail by hooking them into the Big Brother computer system—that is matching information between the Department of Corrections the Customs Service the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development and suspending any benefits allowances and student loans immediately if a data match is identified. Although that all sounds OK we are talking about people here: brothers sisters mothers fathers aunties uncles and whanau members who are in many cases the sole breadwinner of the family. Whole families are being dumped on by snooping bills like this one. The Ministry of Social Development confirms cases where the families of prisoners are hugely affected by shock interruptions to benefit payments and it says that the fault lies with the families for not contacting it immediately. It blames the poor dumb victims again which is typical behaviour from a Government that does not care about the poor. It is not as though Work and Income never causes hardship itself. The only difference in that situation is of course that when we complain about Work and Income we are trespassed off the premises it ignores our complaints and we never get our money back anyway. 
A study released earlier this year  
Improving Work-Life Balance for Domestic Purposes Beneficiary Sole Parent Families 
 included a number of comments that confirm what we hear from people about the hassles they get at Work and Income. It quotes people like Amelia who said: “The way I have been treated at Work and Income is just shocking. They look down on you”; Beatrice who said: “It’s just the way they treat the person. They look down on you as … like a bludger. It makes you feel uncomfortable”; and Marie who said: “I actually feel sick in my stomach every time I have to walk in their door. Some of them make you feel unworthy”. Even the principal of our local kura kaupapa Maori who went to Work and Income looking for an employee felt so chastised and ignored by the process that she decided never ever to go back to Work and Income again to look for somebody to work at our kura. 
This is a Government department we are talking about here; an agency of the Crown that is supposed to provide fair and just treatment to the beneficiaries who come through its doors. But it is not doing that. We have a right to expect far better service than that shown by the experiences that I have related to the House tonight. 
Another issue identified by the Social Services Committee itself is that income support may be improperly suspended as a result of data matching without the families being notified because of a policy that the notification of benefit suspension will now happen after the suspension has been acted on not before as happens at the moment. That problem is already happening and it will simply become worse under this legislation. We express our concern for upholding the human rights of all citizens of this great land including those in jail. We do not support the notion of targeting prisoners through increased surveillance simply because they are prisoners. Being locked up is the punishment. Punishing prisoners a second time by depriving them of their human rights is unacceptable in an open society. We are also concerned about prisoners being deprived of the opportunity to study given that student loans and student allowances are included in this bill as well as other forms of assistance. 
We accept that information sharing can reduce bureaucracy and may help people to be not saddled with debt while they are in jail but we believe inmates and their families should not be left in a worse position simply because of poor communication. We support the call of the select committee that all efforts should be made to ensure that the potential hardship for other family members is minimised and that families are not saddled with debt when the imprisoned family member gets out of jail. The Maori Party will support this bill but we point out again the invasive nature of data matching and the focus on the poor when in actual fact the most significant fraud continues outside the prison walls. Kia ora. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak today in support of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This is a very sensible and common-sense bill. It is intended to— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What does it provide? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member knows what the bill provides and if he sits quietly and listens I will tell him about it. The bill works very hard to enable prisoners to not incur debts while in prison through some mistake in payments whether it is to do with benefits loans or allowances. I think that is a very sensible thing. I heard Russell Fairbrother say before that when people are in prison it puts stress and anxiety on their families. Indeed to have debt mounting—and debt mounting through mistake—is not a good thing and it would certainly add to the stress of those families. So I think there are some very good common-sense moves in this bill. 
I think it is very important to note that this bill will not change the rules for prisoners wanting to take up study whilst in prison. It will not make it difficult for prisoners to undertake study to improve their prospects on release. That is a very important thing. Prisoners will continue— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member asks why it is important. That is the sort of question I would expect from Chris Finlayson. Someone who works in the law profession asked why it is important that prisoners have the opportunity to study in prison. Well I will tell him. It is important because it gives prisoners options and opportunities when they leave prison. Under this bill prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study course costs as if they were out of prison; it is assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. That means that for prisoners the right to assistance with course costs is not taken away. The change simply puts in place systems to identify clearly applications for student allowances and living costs because for prisoners living costs will be met at that time through the corrections system. 
The other thing which I do not know whether other speakers have mentioned is the very constructive suggestion from the Social Services Committee about having Work and Income representatives at court. Madam Assistant Speaker I think I saw you nodding rather wisely there. I think this is the first time I have spoken in this House since you have been in the Chair— 
Phil Heatley 
: Since your maiden speech. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and it is a real privilege. No it is not since my maiden speech as that member well knows. I think the select committee commented that it was very concerned that some circumstances might prevent beneficiaries who are entering prison from receiving notification that their benefits were to be cut as a result of a data match. The suggestion was that Work and Income consider placing representatives at major courts to adjust the benefits immediately when a recipient is imprisoned. This would serve to prevent any stress whatsoever to family members and obviously it would be the system working in a very logical way. 
This bill is very important. In amending the legislation it allows a better sharing of information between the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Customs Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. We know that this better sharing of information will prevent recipients of allowances loans and benefits from accumulating debt. As I said before that is a very sensible common-sense move. I think that the support for this bill certainly reflects that. I am very happy to stand in this House and commend this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
Human Tissue Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 November 2007. 
Part 2 Human tissue ( 
continued 
)  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia to insert new clause 33A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Technical and miscellaneous provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 3 5 and 6. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 It has been quite a while since we discussed the Human Tissue Bill; I believe it was in November last year. To recap the bill will replace the Human Tissue Act 1964. It is quite an old Act and it is time it was updated. At the same time that the Health Committee looked at the Human Tissue Bill it looked at my member’s bill the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately that bill did not get the support of the committee and in Part 3 of the Human Tissue Bill there is a provision for an organ donor register for a future Government to bring in if it feels one is necessary. 
To me that is not satisfactory. I believe there is a need for an organ donor register. At the moment we have Organ Donation New Zealand which looks after the retrieval of organs throughout New Zealand. We have had terribly low organ donor rates in New Zealand and although they seem to be picking up we are still way back from where we were a few years ago. It seems to me we are not making much progress and without a register where people can indicate their wishes for where their organs are to go after death there is no framework for an informed consent process. That is basically what this bill is all about; it gives a consent framework in which the individual’s wishes if they meet the definition of informed consent are given primacy. I think we are no better off. We will only be treading water and waiting for time and waiting for organ donor rates that might improve a little. But really we are going backwards. We have a diabetes epidemic we have a tidal wave of renal failure coming our way we have hepatitis issues and we have end-stage liver failure problems and so forth. 
I will digress a little. In the news today there has been the story of an 18-year-old woman with a young baby who wishes to donate part of her liver to her young child a baby who has a liver disorder. By the time the child is 3 years of age she will need an organ donor. Although this is a live organ donation this bill is about deceased donor organs. I make the point that it is never too late to review the situation. In the Auckland transplant unit the ethics committee was very careful 7 years ago when the unit first started to do this organ donation procedure and the ethics committee decided that 21 should be the age for consent. This liver donation procedure is now pretty much standard 7 years on and I think it is time to review that age of consent. I hope the doctors will go back to the ethics committee and ask for some discretion on moving downwards to age 18. I hope that will happen quite quickly so that this young woman can donate part of her liver in order to save her baby’s life. I think that is all about the primacy of an individual’s wishes and about moving forward. I make that point just to show that it is never too late to go back and review something. 
In the UK Gordon Brown has come out and said “Look they need presumed consent.” That is a step further than the voluntary opt-on register that I proposed in my member’s bill. So the UK is not reinventing the wheel; it is actually going further than what I proposed. I do not believe New Zealand is ready for a presumed consent register but I think we desperately need an organ donor register so we can have an informed consent process. I keep coming back to that. This whole bill is about providing a consent framework where an individual’s wishes if they meet the definition of informed consent are given primacy. Basically without an organ donor register there is no way an individual can give informed consent or dictate to people what that person wishes to do with his or her organs unless he or she has some sort of living will or hopes that the relatives will do the right thing by him or her after death. Some people do not have a family. It is a very private decision and those people may want to keep it to themselves. I keep coming back to the fact that without an organ donor register people have no way of registering their consent. 
That is probably all I have to say and to sum it up I am very unhappy about the situation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia are out of order. 
Schedule 1A agreed to.  
Schedule 1B agreed to.  
Schedule 1C agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 5 agreed to.  
Schedule 6 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the title of the Human Tissue Bill. This bill is very comprehensive. The Health Committee took a long time and there were a lot of submissions on it. As I said before we looked at this bill as well as the organ donation member’s bill. We had a lot of submissions on both bills. There were grave concerns as I indicated about the fact that an organ donor register was not supported by the Health Committee. The provision in Part 3 of the Human Tissue Bill basically gives an opening for a future Government to bring in a register but the fact is that our organ donor rates have been appalling. They are picking up slowly at this point in time but we are only really where we were 5 years ago. Without a mechanism whereby people can register whether they want to donate their organs after death there is no informed consent process. Really that is the basis of the whole bill which the National Party absolutely supports. The desire of an individual to donate his or her organs should have primacy and if a person follows an informed consent process that should be upheld at all costs. 
I know that the Maori Party had concerns with regard to its own people. If a dead person was Maori that party thought that the family should have primacy over determining where the person’s organs should go. When that was discussed in the Health Committee we felt there were a number of clauses that covered the Maori Party’s concerns. They are from memory clauses 10C 27C and 37A. They all say similar things in different ways but basically they say that the people taking the organs should take into consideration the cultural context of the donor and his or her family. That really is the out for Maori and I think that will be respected. That is why those clauses are there. So I hope that in time the Maori Party will see that this legislation does work. 
There were some other changes in the bill regarding matters that had to be exempted. We heard from CordBank which is a private bank in Auckland that takes blood from the umbilical cord of babies. Umbilical cord blood is very rich in stem cells which are very basic cells that can be turned into other cells over time. The treatment now for children who have blood cancers is that their stem cells can be used to help treat various types of blood cancer if they go on to develop one of them. Of course if the blood is chucked out at birth it is lost. The blood cannot be used if it is discarded and we cannot go back and get the stem cells. That blood is a rich source of stem cells. CordBank pays midwives or other individuals to collect the cord blood and that is not allowed for in this bill so a special exemption had to be made for CordBank. 
We heard from universities that were very concerned that some aspects of the bill in its original format would have stopped all forms of research—they would have made it just too difficult. We heard from universities that were very concerned that research would come to a standstill because of the logistics that would be required to try to trace back informed consent to where the original cells had come from. Again exemptions were made and now in the bill’s final form universities can work comfortably in their research development. 
The whole point of the bill is to cover the potential use of tissue that comes primarily from deceased people. It also covers the use of tissue for education research and audit purposes and the use of cadavers in medical schools. It covers the regulation of the trade in tissue both export and import and also covers schools of anatomy. Certainly it allows for the provision of an opt-on organ donation register if a future Government sees fit to introduce one. 
I guess organ donation is a bee in my bonnet but it is something I feel quite passionate about. We are left with Organ Donation New Zealand which is doing its best in trying to upgrade the services around New Zealand. But we have no education programme. The public are passionate about this issue. Talkback is going mad about the young woman who wants to donate part of her liver to her young child. This is a live donation issue; it is about the right of an adult. Now this woman is 18 and when the ethics committee first started to look at this procedure it was very careful and wanted to tread very carefully so it said the age should be 21. But 7 years on when this procedure is now a standard practice the committee should revisit that. The committee hopefully will go back review that and give the doctors some discretion so that they can look at using a donation from an 18-year old woman. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take what will be just a brief call. My colleague Dr Jackie Blue has outlined in this debate on clauses 1 and 2 of the Human Tissue Bill a lot of the detail that we went into in the Health Committee. It was an arduous task because for many of the committee and even for those of us with some form of history around the health professions there was the issue of the technology: a lot of jargon and a lot of things that we had to get our heads around in the bill. 
I want to say just very briefly that this bill I believe has had a secondary effect that we may not have expected of it: a lot of publicity has been generated around not just this bill but also Dr Jackie Blue’s member’s bill. There has been a lot of debate about how important it is that New Zealanders who are able to donate their organs come forward and do so and also that the one thing in essence that intending donors must do is to discuss their wishes with their nearest and dearest the people around them. Those people need to understand the person’s wishes so that in the unfortunate circumstance of the person becoming a potential donor it is clear to all exactly what that person would have as his or her own particular wishes. This publicity I understand has meant a slight jump in the number of donors in the last year. The number of donors is nowhere near the number that New Zealand needs whether they be live donors or people who have unfortunately died but nevertheless there has been a small jump in that respect. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.