Volume 700 Week 79 - Wednesday 30 July 2014(continued on Thursday 31 July 2014)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 700 Week 79 - Wednesday 30 July 2014(continued on Thursday 31 July 2014)[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 30 July 2014(continued onThursday31 July 2014)Business of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I seek leave for the third reading of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be set down as a Government order of the day today in the extended sitting following Government order of the day No. 10.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Parliamentary Privilege BillIn CommitteeHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):I move that the debate—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No seek leave.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I seek leave that the debate on this bill be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):Mr Chair thank you for your aide-memoire. I greatly appreciate it. I just do not carry these arcane parliamentary formulae around in my head.Hon Maryan Street: Why not?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well I apologise. Unlike Ms Street I am just a totally inadequate member of Parliament. That would be the first and only time I admit that.Speaking of adequacy I read my second reading speech the other day and I think that that probably covers the major structural changes that we have made to the Parliamentary Privilege Bill but there are just a couple of points that I thought should be read into the record. The first one is referred to on page 5 of the Privileges Committee report and that deals with the interaction with defamation law. What we have done here is remove defamation concepts like absolute privilege. When one looks at the restructuring of the bill one sees that the old clauses 9 to 13 and also clause 33(2) have been removed. What we have done there—and I am sure Mr Parker will talk about this later on—is remove defamation concepts from the legislation. They belong in the Defamation Act and we here talk about “parliamentary privilege”.The second point is a definition that has been inserted in clause 4 and that is the word “exercisable”. We had quite an extended discussion on a number of occasions through this bill about whether or not there were some terms we could modernise. One of the formulae referred to in section 242 of the Legislature Act 1908 which is going to be repealed by this legislation is the phrase “held enjoyed and exercised”. That is the conventional terminology. What we are doing here is referring to the word “exercisable” but in no way shape or form are we wanting to alter the meaning of the phrase “held enjoyed and exercised”. So there is a fascinating comment for the Committee.The heart of the legislation is Subpart 2 of new Part 1A and as I said and as other members said in their second reading speeches what we have done is restructure without intending to alter the meaning of what was the old clause 8 of the bill as introduced. We have broken it up into a number of clauses. We just want to clarify beyond any doubt whatsoever that our new clauses 8A to 8H reaffirm and clarify article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in accordance with the main purpose of the bill. Also we make it clear through clause 3(2)(b) (c) and (d) that what we are doing here is altering the law in the decision of Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and also dealing with the decision of the Privy Council in Buchanan v Jennings. So that is really the heart of the bill but I think there has been quite a lot of discussion on that so far so I will not go on at length on that question.Coming back to terminology we had quite an interesting discussion about the words “impeaching” or “questioning”. That great modernist Dr Kennedy Graham did not like the word “impeach”. He said: “Surely to goodness we could come up with a term that is more 20th century than ‘impeach’!”. I think he had Bill Clinton on his mind. So what we did was we had a very good look at it but sadly we were unable to satisfy the legitimate demands of Dr Graham and so the word “impeach” is still there. We thought that trying to fiddle around with language that goes back to article 9 could be an exercise fraught with danger.Then we had the definition of “proceedings in Parliament”. All members should take a really good look at that definition to make sure that we have covered all the types of business that really relate to the everyday business of a member of Parliament. Hopefully what we have done through that definition is make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the holdings in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and Buchanan v Jennings are reversed by this legislation.The only other thing I think I need to say is that there is a Supplementary Order Paper. Most of the points referred to in it are so pettifogging that it would be embarrassing to go through them. There are new definitions of “District Court” we are extending the definition of “tribunal” tidying up references to article 9—Hon Maryan Street: How wonderful to have that on the Hansard—pettifogging on the Hansard. Only this member would do that that.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a wonderful word Ms Street—“pettifogging”. You really should memorise it and understand it because it covers most of the contributions you make in your position as chair of the Regulations Review Committee. That is pettifoggery if ever there was pettifoggery. Then there are some references to article 9 tidying up references to that and also to that wonderful piece of legislation—the highlight of Geoffrey Palmer’s reign as Attorney-General—the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. But I am not going to go into that in any length. That is the sort of thing that probably would amuse and titillate Mr Grant Robertson so I will leave it to him.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour):Thank you to the Attorney-General for his contribution then. For those who are listening to the radio the man who just made reference to pettifogging on this cold Wellington day has not got his fingerless gloves on although rumour has it that he is still sort of busy trying to finalise those appeal documents for Alldyce v Alldyce which of course was the famous case in Bleak House.I am not going to go into the detail of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill at the Committee stage. I agree with the Attorney-General that these issues as to detail in the bill have been well traversed. I want to make a brief contribution about the overall principle because I think that is what lies at the heart of why the Privileges Committee has thought it necessary to codify parliamentary privilege.The relationship between the courts Parliament and the executive is a very very important one. In my opinion history shows that the way we do that in Westminster democracies like New Zealand’s democracy is the best way it is done in the world. We do it through having respect for the limits on the respective jurisdictions of the different arms of democracy or the different institutions that between them uphold democracy and ensure that democracy endures. Occasionally one part of democracy rubs up against another in a way that the other part thinks goes too far. As I said in an earlier contribution I like the fact that we do not try to codify everything because when those things happen if you have a mature jurisdiction that has respect for the traditions the conventions we have the rule of law human rights and the separation of powers you can effectively find a path through—not negotiate your way through but find a path through—that is wise and that everyone can live with.On this occasion we are dealing with a situation where in the opinion of Parliament the judiciary went too far to limit the rights of the privileges of Parliament. In support of that logic we go back to the 1688 Bill of Rights when these divisions between what was then the King and Parliament—and also at around the same time the relationship with the courts—were being formalised and they have stood the test of time for over 300 years since. One of the principles in the Bill of Rights is set out in article 9 in very brief form and it protects the freedom of speech we have in Parliament. It says “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament:”.In respect of two decisions the Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and Buchanan v Jennings Parliament thought that the court was constraining Parliament’s rights under article 9 with those decisions in a way that was undesirable. It has been said in earlier stages of the proceedings that those privileges do not exist to make life easy for parliamentarians. That is not their purpose. They exist in order to protect the ability of Parliament to do its work for the sake of democracy. We all know—or I think everyone in this House accepts—that democracy is such a complex web of settings not all of which can be written down in constitutional documents but when taken together that complex mix of ingredients means that you have a peaceful happy prosperous society that is fair to the people who live in it.As a consequence of the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Parliament believes that the advice that ought to be available to Ministers as they prepare for question time—and that was the subject matter that lay behind Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh—should be all of the information that officials have and can bring to bear. We do not want those officials to edit what they know because they might fear they could be tied up in some proceeding. We do not accept the view that because they might have qualified privilege as officials they would not be less open with Ministers than if they had absolute privilege.We in this Parliament think that it is important to protect the information that comes to Ministers for question time which therefore ensures that the public gets an unedited view as to what their leaders who have been elected to Parliament can say in respect of issues of public interest. If that is defamatory of the rich and famous in society well so be it. On occasions that is right. On very rare occasions a member of the public may suffer an injustice by being defamed by a parliamentarian and have no recourse for it because it happened in Parliament and was absolutely privileged. That might have been occasioned by an official within the Government giving advice to a Minister to that effect. That is the price that we pay to have an open democracy which enables us—through this Parliament which has freedom of expression—to actually make transparent things that might be going wrong in society and therefore to make sure for example that corruption does not creep into our system.We have actually seen events in recent years where we have had some very wealthy people—in particular in relation to Hanover Finance—where many hundreds of millions of dollars were lost by New Zealand investors in finance companies and allegations were made as to improper behaviour on the part of some of the directors. Those people who made those allegations outside Parliament were—and are being—subject to legal suit. Indeed Mr Brian Gaynor is one of those who notably as a financial commentator in the New Zealand Heraldhas been sued for defamatory comments.Those same sorts of allegations ought to be able to be made in this House without risk of defamation. That sort of information if it is held by a public official—and they are often the ones who look into these things—should be able to be passed to a Minister and be used in this Parliament and if it is used by a Minister in this Parliament it should be absolutely privileged. This bill addresses that situation by returning us to the law as it was before the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh.We think that a mistake was made imputing into parliamentary processes these doctrines of necessity which seem to be in part taken from the point of view of us in Parliament from a view that defamation concepts should be imported into our parliamentary privilege law. It is actually one of the reasons why in terms of the drafting of the legislation as to the principles behind it at the select committee we took out reference to the defamation language in the bill to make it clear that this is not actually about defamation; it is about parliamentary privilege.The second part of it is Buchanan v Jennings. I am not going to cover that in detail except to say that I think that most people thought it was silly that a member of Parliament could say something privileged in Parliament and could not say outside the House: “Well I don’t resile from that.” if asked the question: “Do you resile from that?”. Obviously if a member of Parliament repeats the defamatory statement outside Parliament it is a new defamatory statement and they ought to be able to be sued in defamation. But for a member of Parliament to not be able to say “Well I don’t resile from it.” outside Parliament and for the courts to effectively link “I do not resile from that.” which is not in itself defamatory to statements made in Parliament and to make “I don’t resile from that.” a defamatory statement was actually again a misunderstanding of the privilege that we allow the courts to refer to things that happen in Parliament in a way that actually we did not originally.So we are again returning that law to where it was before the decision in Buchanan v Jennings and I think again we will be protecting the reputation of democracy. In the end we need people to respect politicians and what we do in this House if we are to have respect for democratic institutions of which we are an important part. I think it made politicians look foolish if they could not say outside the House: “Well I don’t resile from that.” because otherwise it looks like they do resile from it when in fact they do not.I think this is an important piece of legislation. I thank again all of the officials and I thank the Attorney-General for bringing it to the House. I have nothing further to add.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I think it is pleasing to mark the final stages of this Parliamentary Privilege Bill. It is not often that we pass legislation of a constitutional nature through this House. As the Privileges Committee put it in our report back the importance of the bill for our country and parliamentary democracy should not be underestimated. It will form part of our constitutional framework and it will sit alongside the Constitution Act 1986.As my colleague David Parker has just said—and the Attorney-General as well—obviously the bill concerns Parliament’s relationship with the judiciary. The case had prompted the Supreme Court to define and as we saw it restrict the boundary of privilege enjoyed by the legislature based on the doctrine of necessity. That far-reaching judgment has—let us be frank—tested the principle of comity which is the fundamental characteristic of that relationship. That in turn had prompted some push-back on the part of the legislature. We were concerned to ensure that the age-old rights and powers in the Bill of Rights that Mr Parker has mentioned are not encroached upon.It was never the select committee’s intent—and it ought not be the intent of this Committee—to overreact to the decisions of the courts in the Buchanan case or the Gow v Leigh case. We did not wish to incorporate new absolute privilege protections into legislation. If we did we may have risked inadvertently extending the privilege beyond what it has historically been. Rather the intent with this bill is to restore the nature of the privilege to the status quo ante pre-2005 essentially. But this defining moment presented an opportunity to formally shape and give expression to the principle of comity in New Zealand.So the bill is essentially seeking to strike the point of optimality in the relationship between the three branches. Let us hope that the version before us is up to the task. I am certainly satisfied that the select committee has done an extremely good job and we have no further comments to add on the precise provisions including Supplementary Order Paper 482. We believe in short that it is up to the task. As it happens I believe that is due in no small part to the quality advice the select committee received from our own officials and from scholars and advisers across the country and ancillary comment from other jurisdictions. In fact we extensively revised the original version of the bill and we are now satisfied that constitutional thought in New Zealand is about to take a significant step forward.For once I think New Zealand has done itself proud in developing and articulating a major tenet of constitutional principle. It has done so on the basis of its own work without importing work from outside. The Privileges Committee has done I think excellent work overall in the last 3 years. The intrusive powers protocol and the revision of the police and SIS agreements are items of achievement. But this Parliamentary Privilege Bill is certainly the major achievement. I pay tribute in particular to the chairman the Hon Chris Finlayson and the deputy chairman the Hon David Parker.So that is the achievement essentially of the 50th Parliament. It may be that the next Parliament might be able to build on this work and perhaps undertake an even more comprehensive kind of review of New Zealand legislation that makes up the constitution of New Zealand’s Parliament. It was part of the work that was undertaken in the independent constitutional review. I think there is a general recognition that although our constitutional tenets are good and robust they should always be subject to scrutiny and review and reflection and no doubt improvement. I certainly think it would be in order for the 51st Parliament to build on the work of the 50th Parliament both in the context of independent constitutional review and the fine work that this committee has done under the chairman.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):I do not want to take too long at this stage of the passage of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill but I did think it appropriate that someone make mention of the fact that if you pick up the bill as tabled here in the House there have been a considerable number of changes made to the original bill. I felt that it was appropriate that someone actually comments on that. That goes hand in hand really with recognition of the outstanding work of the staff concerned with this.The original bill was put together and came in front of the Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the House made I think the most substantial submission on the layout and the presentation of the bill which resulted in an almost complete rewrite not of the content but of the actual presentation of the bill. In her submission Mary Harris said that “The bill when enacted will form part of our constitutional framework sitting under the Constitution Act 1986 which provides for the Head of State and the three branches of Government.” She said: “The Parliamentary Privilege Bill will become part of the overarching legislative framework for the legislative branch of government.” That is a really important point when we recognise the importance of this bill today. She made the point that the threads running throughout the bill as it was originally designed were disparate and she did not feel that we had accurately drawn all those threads together.In fact she again made the point that the bill was an opportunity to establish a very clear framework that explains and sets out the scope and the extent of parliamentary privilege by having a purpose clause that also explains why we need parliamentary privilege and the importance of it. Her suggestion to us was that we have an Act that had five parts. In fact if you look at the new bill that we are debating here today that is the advice that we took. So we have a purpose clause an explanation and an interpretation in Part 1. The second part talks about the purpose of parliamentary privilege and the privileges of the House of Representatives and then defines “proceedings in Parliament”. Part 3 then deals with how we communicate the proceedings in Parliament and goes into the details of publishing. We took the opportunity as we have all said in this House to update some of the language where that was possible and take account of new technology because it is not just about producing written copies of Hansard any more; it is immediately up on websites and people communicate through the internet.Then there are a whole lot of miscellaneous provisions. We really owe a debt of gratitude to the Clerk of the House Mary Harris and Debra Angus the Deputy Clerk of the House who was an adviser to the committee for the way that they were able to reshape this bill so that any parliamentarian could pick it up and have a read through. There is still a lot of legal terminology as there needs to be in a bill like this but any parliamentarian could follow the reasons the need and the protections that parliamentary privilege gives us all. I think that is a really good achievement. I would like to pay tribute as I say to the Clerk of the House and the Deputy Clerk of the House.I also pay tribute to the Ministry of Justice staff who put the rewrite together and listened patiently to the sometimes lengthy discussions of the committee: Fiona Illingsworth Sarah Carlin Jessica Brown and of course our specialist adviser John Pike QC who has had enormous experience in the courts with these types of legislative procedures and was able to give some very sage advice as we reshaped this bill and put it through its paces. That is the only point I wanted to make and I thank all those staff for the contribution that they made.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):Like other speakers I do not want to go deeply into the detail of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill either and I certainly wish to avoid any “pettifog-ification”. But I do wish to emphasise a couple of things.This bill is not just about protecting MPs from legal action in respect of statements they make nor about protecting their support staff; it is really fundamentally about protecting the right of representatives’ freedom of speech. It is about ensuring that advice given by their support staff cannot be used in legal proceedings brought by others. Nothing really could be much more important for our democracy than these things. Recently in this House Winston Peters revealed some disturbing information about a person behaving badly regarding the Christchurch rebuild. The purpose of that was to seek investigation by authorities and by the news media and that was a proper use I feel of parliamentary privilege. It was something that needed to be said. People outside the House felt unable to do so for fear of defamation proceedings so it was a proper use of parliamentary privilege. It is important that that be something that members of Parliament can do.The second thing I want to emphasise is that there is no real change here. The bill really just clarifies and partly codifies the operation of parliamentary privilege. It seeks to restore and affirm the scope of aspects of parliamentary privilege and to consolidate and modernise existing legislation following the judgment of the court in the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. For that reason the decision of the court has to be set aside in order to restore the previous legal position. Underpinning all this of course is the principle of comity—the mutual respect that the legislature and the judiciary must have for each other. The courts did move a step too far and this bill restores the balance but the principle of comity remains.The bill does not set out to limit article 9 of the UK Bill of Rights 1688 which is in force in New Zealand and which is the first formal instrument from a Parliament to protect freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament. Nor does the bill seek to codify comprehensively or replace entirely with rigid legislation every aspect of parliamentary privilege and that is a good balance we have achieved.It is aimed of course at one aspect as I have said: Parliament’s freedom of speech—MPs’ freedom of speech. The bill provides a clear direction that the Act must be interpreted so as to promote the purposes of the Act and the purpose of parliamentary privilege. It sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege which is to make clear the privileges immunities and powers of the bill “to uphold the integrity of the House as a democratic legislative assembly;” and to secure its independence. Concerning statements made outside Parliament the bill takes an evidential prohibition approach regarding liability from statements that effectively repeat statements made in proceedings in Parliament and relies on reinforced provisions for stays of proceedings in respect of specified authorised communications of proceedings in Parliament. Other speakers have commented on the fact that MPs often get asked whether they stand by what they have said in Parliament and it is necessary that they should be able to at least say they do not resile from that.There was a need to clarify what the term “proceedings in Parliament” as used in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 means and in particular to seek to reverse the law in the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh to stop evidence offered or received about proceedings in Parliament being used to inform or support effective repetition claims and claims of liability in court or tribunal proceedings. Although article 9 excludes evidence where the reason the evidence is offered or admitted is to impeach or question it does not prevent evidence being used with no impeaching or questioning to establish something that was said or done in Parliament just as a matter of fact. Qualified immunity is available as a defence still for fair and accurate reports of proceedings in Parliament or extracts or summaries of documents published under the authority of the House. That is very important of course for the news media.The bill strikes a harmonious balance in the area where privileges necessary to protect the independence of Parliament and the important role of the courts intersect. New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the bill. We think it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of Parliament and the right of MPs to make statements in the House without fearing defamation actions and that applies also to their support staff. So we will certainly be voting in favour.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):I want to make just a brief contribution to follow up on the excellent words we have heard today in the Committee stage of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill. Before I get into that though I do have to sadly correct my colleague the Hon David Parker. There is a first time for everything and it is today. It is Jandyce v—Hon David Parker: Jarndyce—GRANT ROBERTSON: Jarndyce. Obviously the Attorney-General knew that but being the compassionate man he is he chose not to correct David Parker when he was on his feet. But do let the record show that we have clarified our knowledge of Dickens today and that David Parker told me to say that.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): But how do you spell it?GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha ha! I will leave that to the Hansard officers to work out.I just want to make two or three remarks in the context of this bill bearing in mind that we had a good debate on this in the second reading. The first of those is a general comment about the bill as it returns to the House for its Committee stage. It looks very different and anyone reading through it would see a huge amount of struck-through material and believe that the Privileges Committee members in analysing the bill that came before us were somehow rather appalled or disgusted at what we had and that the bill had required a total and complete rewrite. That is not true. We were in fact incredibly well served by our advisers and officials whom I mentioned by name in my second reading speech.But what we decided as a committee was that it was important that the language that we used in this bill was able to be understood not only by ourselves as parliamentarians for whom the privileges are an important aspect of our work but also by the general public in looking to see what is meant by parliamentary privilege and how it is to be implemented. That required a change in the structure of the bill and we had an excellent submission from the Clerk of the House in that regard and also in some of the terminology. So for anyone who is looking at the large amount of struck-through material in the bill that was returned to the Committee of the whole House they can rest assured that it was about making this a more readable and more coherent bill and one that lays out the privileges of parliamentarians in a way that we hope the general public will be able to understand and appreciate. As I said in my second reading speech on behalf of the non-lawyers on the Privileges Committee—Mr Hipkins Minister Tolley and me—we are very pleased to be able to put that before the Committee in a manner that we think many people will be able to understand; I mean no disrespect to the lawyers who were there.Two other points that I really want to make are particularly around the question of Gow v Leigh and what is the business of Parliament. It is very important that when we consider the business of Parliament what is seen by most members of the public as the business of Parliament is what is happening in here right now on the floor of the House. But the reality of Parliament and indeed of most workplaces is that what you see on the public face of it is very little of what actually goes on within a business. A business that sells widgets has a huge amount of production line design and innovation that goes into it. That is part of that business just as in Parliament part of parliamentary business is what happens immediately before we come to this House and in the preparation for what we do here.We discussed the concept of reasonable preparation—the idea that it is more than just the necessary functioning of this House that constitutes parliamentary business; it is also the idea of reasonable preparation for being here in business that takes place away from the floor. As members of the Committee know I have worked in this building behind the scenes as a staff member in the preparation of question time. I can assure members of the Committee that that is very much parliamentary business. A lot of work goes in. When the Opposition puts down the question: “Does the Prime Minister or Minister stand by all his statements?”—or in my case when I was working in that role it was “by her statements”—there was a lot of work that went on to decide what was in that material. In fact it would be a great relief to those of us who prepared answers for the former Prime Minister in the Labour Government when we picked the right question. If we did not we certainly heard about it. So it is an important part of parliamentary business to recognise the preparatory material. We believe that the court decision in the Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh case was wrong and this goes some way to clarifying what parliamentary business consists of.My colleague David Parker has already talked about Buchanan v Jennings. It is a farcical situation to have a member of Parliament unable to say that they stand by the words that they uttered when they were in the Chamber. We are not giving licence through this bill to MPs to go out and expand upon what they have said. We are merely allowing both members of Parliament—and the media in reporting what members of Parliament have said—to acknowledge that it was said and that a member of Parliament stands by what they have said. In the clauses of the bill that deal with effective repetition it will be clear to everybody who reads them that if you choose to expand upon what you have said in the Chamber as a member of Parliament or if you say it again in detail you will fall foul of parliamentary privilege and indeed of the laws of the land. But that is covered off here.It is not just a protection for MPs; it is a protection for the news media as well and that is important. It has been said that members of Parliament obviously experience—and this is in the commentary—the benefit of parliamentary privilege. That is not the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow our democracy to operate without fear and without favour towards anyone and my colleague David Parker has talked at some length about that.I just wanted to make those two particular points about this report. I believe that it is a very good piece of work.I believe that the Privileges Committee in this Parliament has dealt with some interesting issues. I want to thank the chair of the committee the Attorney-General Mr Chris Finlayson for his excellent work on this. We as a committee are very aware of the fact that when we are on the Privileges Committee we sit at that nexus—the comity that Kennedy Graham talked about—of being aware of what the courts are doing and aware of what the executive is doing. We have dealt with two serious matters involving the powers of both the courts and the executive in recent times. That shows to me that the Privileges Committee is playing a very significant and important role. That necessary tension between the different branches of our constitutional democracy is important. There is an issue currently at play in Taylor v Attorney-General about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I suspect that at some point we may return to debating those matters here and certainly in an upcoming item of business I will mention those two matters.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I want to lift up this debate on the Parliamentary Privilege Bill a little bit and start from a fairly basic kind of premise and that is: what are we talking about when we talk about parliamentary privilege? I think that a lot of people listening in at home or watching this on TV when they think about parliamentary privilege will think about accommodation airfares—what might otherwise be described as perks. Actually parliamentary privilege in the sense that we are talking about it now has nothing to do with any of those things. So I want to reassure the public that we are not pulling a swiftie right before an election and making any changes to those things.Parliamentary privilege in that sense is really about the ability of members of Parliament when they are here in this debating chamber and when they are in select committees to undertake the functions that the public of New Zealand elects them to undertake. One of the most important rights that we have through that is freedom of speech. We cannot actually do the job that New Zealanders elect us to do if our right to free speech is not protected. This bill certainly lends itself to protecting that right and that right is a very important one. Freedom of speech means that parliamentarians can come to this debating chamber and speak on any number of issues. They can champion any number of causes with a degree of certainty that they are not suddenly going to find themselves up before the courts for example.I want to deal particularly with a challenge that has been laid down recently in the media to members of Parliament around name suppression and I do not intend to do what Rodney Hide wants members of Parliament to do but I do want to talk about the principle of the issue at stake here. It is that if a member of Parliament comes to the House and breaches a name suppression order issued by the court they would not find themselves up in front of a court for breaching name suppression but they would find themselves up in front of Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Although parliamentary privilege would afford us some protection in terms of the court’s rules privilege itself comes with a whole lot of rules and protections around it as well.So this bill is not about saying that members of Parliament are above the law or that we should be able to get away with anything. In fact what it says is that Parliament itself should administer the rules around parliamentary privilege and that all members of Parliament at the end of the day are accountable to their colleagues in the House—the other elected members of the House—for the way they conduct themselves as members of Parliament and that is the way it should be. We establish the laws here in the Parliament of New Zealand and it should not be that we in the process of doing so find ourselves in front of the courts basically having to justify what we have done or what we have said. Parliament is supreme in New Zealand and should be and the members of the New Zealand public elect us to do a job. We need to have the certainty to be able to go ahead and do that without the risk that we are going to find ourselves before the courts.One of the issues that I particularly want to talk about because I have been on that side of the fence is the protection that this bill provides to officials advising Ministers. Here in Parliament one of our jobs as members of Parliament is to hold the Government to account. From time to time that can be challenging. It can be very challenging for the Government and we will sometimes stretch the boundaries a little bit as the Opposition and that is actually the role of the Opposition but Ministers need to be well-prepared to be able to cope with that and to be able to answer whatever question gets flung at them. That means they need to be able to rely on free and frank advice from their officials and if their officials will not provide them with that advice on the basis that doing so could result in that official themselves ending up in court then the very free exchange that we have here which we rely on as part of our democratic process becomes compromised. If an official is sitting there briefing a Minister and they know some information that may be defamatory or that may be questionable and they are thinking: “If I say this to the Minister then I potentially could end up in court.” they will not say it. Actually the Minister needs to know that because in order for that exchange to take place both sides need to be able to have access to the information and need to be able to rely on that free and frank exchange.So this bill extends a certain range of privilege to those who are providing advice to Ministers. That is vitally important because at the end of the day I do not think that anyone in Parliament no matter whether they are on this side or that side over there wants a Minister to come to the House not sufficiently informed. They want Ministers to be able to answer the questions that other members want to put to them. I think that we all want that to happen so this bill certainly deals with an issue that has come up previously.Just in concluding the final point that I want to highlight from this is around the inability of members of Parliament under I guess current arrangements to do anything outside the House that in any way even acknowledges something that they have said inside the House. We have seen situations where members of Parliament have said something in the House. They have walked out of the House and they have been stopped by a journalist. They just have this blank expression on their face and they have not been able to say anything at all because even simply saying: “I stand by what I said in the House.” or: “I’m not going to add anything to what I said in the House.” suddenly finds them potentially up before the courts. That is not right and it actually undermines the integrity of Parliament. It undermines the public credibility of Parliament.So if they went out in public and repeated exactly what they had said in the House then sure they should find themselves before the court because they would be doing that in an open place where they are not protected by privilege. But simply saying: “Look I’m not adding anything to what I’ve have said in the House.” or: “I stand by whatever I’ve said in the House.” is a perfectly legitimate thing for a member of Parliament to do. If anything it actually draws a very clear line between what they are doing in Parliament and what they are doing outside Parliament. So I think that the clarifications made in this bill are very important.I guess the final point that I would make as I conclude this contribution—Grant Robertson: Finally and in conclusion.CHRIS HIPKINS: Finally and in conclusion I conclude where I began which is that for the public when we talk about privilege we are not talking about the things that members of the public will think about when they think of the privileged role of parliamentarians. It is nothing to do with what the public might describe as perks. This bill is all about us being able to undertake our duty as legislators and as members of Parliament in holding the executive to account without that fear that we will find ourselves in front of the courts.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):In conclusion can I endorse what other members have generously said and thank the officials particularly the Clerk Debra Angus and Ross Carter for their wonderful work. As Mr Grant Robertson said it may look as though there has been a complete redraft because we were dissatisfied with the earlier version. Far from it—we wanted to make this very important area of the law as clear as possible.Can I simply say that the Committee stage of the debate has really emphasised the importance of what is now clause 8B and particularly subclauses (4) and (5). Clause 8B(4) states for the avoidance of doubt: “In determining … whether words are spoken or acts are done for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee no necessity test is required or permitted to be used.” and clause 8B(5) very importantly spells out what that test is. It is very very important that all those who read this legislation understand the fundamental point that there is no necessity test which can read down what members of Parliament say or do.The final point that I would make and it is picking up on something Dr Graham said about our constitutional legislation—and this is important constitutional legislation and no one should be under any illusion as to that—is that today we are going to finally remove the last vestiges of the Legislature Act 1908. Anyone listening to this debate may say: “Well gee that’s a big change to repeal the Legislature Act 1908.” but the reality of the matter is that all but section 242 of the Legislature Act was repealed years ago. So we are removing the last remaining section of the Legislature Act but it does give rise to a more general principle and that is whether the time has come at some stage for Parliament to look at consolidating all the legislation relating to Parliament in one coherent piece of legislation. I see Dr Graham nodding. I think that that could be quite an interesting bipartisan or multipartisan project in the next Parliament because it is in the public interest that all provisions relating to our constitutional arrangements are there and are clear and easily accessible for people and you should not have to go darting and diving for section 242 of the Legislature Act.Under the Legislation Act the Attorney-General has the power to set forward a programme for revision of statutes and I have sent to my opposite number Mr Parker a proposed revision programme regardless of who might be here after the election. But I think it could be a worthwhile project to bring all the legislation together just as Ms Collins has done with the courts modernisation legislation. The Judicature Act 1908 was hopelessly out of date. Most of that had been repealed. So what she has done—and it is a very good piece of work—has brought together all the relevant court legislation into what will become known as the Senior Courts Act and then there will be the District Courts Act. So I think that it is in the public interest that there be a consolidation of all the parliamentary legislation and that could be something that all parties could work sensibly on. As Dr Graham said it is in in the public interest that all our constitutional legislation be readily accessible and available set out in clear terms for the benefit of the public.So this has been a very interesting debate. I echo what Mr Hipkins said. We looked at this word “privilege” because at first sight it looks as though we are on the final day of the 50th Parliament ramming through legislation in urgency to protect ourselves. Well actually let us be clear about one thing. When we talk about parliamentary privilege it is not the privilege of individual members of Parliament; it is the privilege of Parliament.Chris Hipkins: The collective privilege.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is the collective privilege and it is there for very clear purposes. They have been very eloquently set out by Mr Hipkins in his previous contribution and I do not need to repeat them. But when one looks at legal professional privilege or parliamentary privilege it does have connotations of lawyers looking after themselves and parliamentarians looking after themselves. Get beyond the terminology. Drill down to what we have been trying to do in this debate—that is ensuring that in the public interest important issues can be transacted in this Chamber and that the important rights of parliamentarians to raise important matters is not curtailed or circumscribed in any way.So putting it bluntly it was the unanimous view of the Privileges Committee and I take it of this Parliament that in two very important cases the courts got it wrong. That is why with the greatest of respect Parliament has needed to put it right.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 482 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)on behalf of theLeader of the House: I move That the Parliamentary Privilege Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Standing OrdersInquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National EmergenciesInstruction to Regulations Review CommitteeHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I move That the recommended amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. I also move That the Regulations Review Committee be instructed to inquire into Parliament’s legislative response to future national emergencies and to report to the House on the inquiry. These two motions reflect the recommendations made to the House by the Standing Orders Committee in its report on the Review of Standing Orders. I would like to speak to each motion in turn. The first motion is to adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders that are set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Members will see the recommended amendments shown as tracked changes at the back of the report. Once the amendments are adopted a new edition of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives will be published before the start of the new Parliament.The committee reviews the rules and practices of the House during every term of Parliament and recommends changes where there is overwhelming support for them. Such broad support is necessary because the Standing Orders are recognised as an important constitutional set of rules that should not be adjusted by a simple majority. This does not mean that everyone agrees about everything but we have discussed various proposals and arrived at something that acceptably balances the interests of the Government the Opposition and the institution of Parliament as a whole. Although this approach means that each review is unlikely to result in radical changes the fact that there is a cycle for a regular review of the Standing Orders means that the House is able to update the way it operates and sometimes even come up with some innovative ways of progressing legislation. This is an important feature of our parliamentary system and should not be taken for granted. Not every Parliament regularly reviews its rules in this way.Can I make a point that this Parliament has made significant use of extended hours to deal with matters such as the ones we are dealing with this morning where there is widespread support—in fact unanimous in the case of this morning—across the House and therefore a desire that the effects given by any of the motions that have passed this morning be enacted as quickly as possible. This was a very good innovation and Parliament should be proud of the achievements of it.Briefly then I want to run through what the committee’s new recommendations are. The Business Committee after receiving a proposal from the Prime Minister will be able to make arrangements for what will be known as State occasions—events at which Parliament as New Zealand’s pre-eminent forum can mark occasions of special significance. Speeches by foreign leaders can be part of Parliament’s proceedings and a State occasion could mark for example the approach of Anzac Day next year. This is the centenary year and we may in fact have some commemoration of that in the Legislative Council Chamber. Those matters are yet to be decided. The House will recall that the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke in this Parliament some time ago. There was a question about whether that should be a session of Parliament or otherwise. What this Standing Order will do is allow for those matters to be sorted out as a matter of normal course with the Business Committee making most of those decisions.The right of members to address the House in New Zealand Sign Language is also now part of the Standing Orders. That means that alongside English and Māori as a formal language of New Zealand it can be used in this House although at this stage it will need to be with some notice to the Clerk so that the translation service can be provided.This report includes discussion about the House’s consideration of legislation and particularly looks at New Zealand Bill of Rights Act matters. This is a significant development. At the moment papers are presented to the House by the Attorney-General to call attention to any apparent inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These Standing Orders will mean that that reference is now made directly to select committees. We have set a strong expectation that there should be good information for members when they decide whether a significant limitation on rights and freedoms is justified. Inevitably when you are passing law there will be a question about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues; it does not mean that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act pre-empts any choices that Parliament itself might make about those rights in the promotion of law. For that reason we did not reach agreement about including further formal New Zealand Bill of Rights Act mechanisms in these Standing Orders.Another new initiative is revision bills. These will start to appear in the new Parliament. They are special bills that are intended to express laws more clearly without significantly changing their meaning. I noted hearing on my way to the House the comments of the Attorney-General about the 1908 Legislature Act and the need for clarity in the way law works. These revision bills will do that and there is now a formal way in which they can be presented to the House and dealt with quickly. I would expect that before too long it may be a matter of standard course that these are dealt with in extended sittings of the House where there is widespread agreement.Financial scrutiny will also be a little rationalised under the Standing Orders so that the examination of spending plans and the performance of agencies can be arranged according to themes or sector groupings. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will be able to suggest groupings when using its existing powers to allocate financial scrutiny to other committees. This should flow through to a more thematic arrangement of scrutiny and debates in the House. To encourage this the estimates debate is being lengthened with some of the time being reallocated from the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement which occurs at the beginning of each year. That used to be a 17-hour debate; in the new Parliament it will be reduced to 14 hours which is still plenty of time to make comments on the Prime Minister’s statement.The Parliamentary Privilege Bill has just been passed and a small change is needed to ensure that the bill’s language is reflected in the Standing Orders. A new paragraph in Standing Order 3 will provide for that. Whenever proceedings are published circulated or made available to the public under the Standing Order or otherwise by order of the House the communication of those proceedings is under the authority of the House or the committee. This reflects the wording of clause 15 of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill and is intended to ensure that dissemination of proceedings is protected.The report includes an endorsement of more extensive webcasting of select committee hearings of evidence. Select committees are also encouraged to request that the Business Committee arrange set topic debates so that committee reports and other matters of interest can be debated—for example during extended sittings. It worth noting that the Business Committee did do that this term with debate in the Health Committee and it worked very well. We had one previously on relations with the Pacific. Those are very important occasions.Turning then to the second motion regarding the instruction to the Regulations Review Committee you will recall that the previous Standing Orders Committee recommended in 2011 that there be an inquiry into Parliament’s legislative response to a national emergency but that such an inquiry be referred following a reasonable period to enable the progress of recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Standing Orders Committee has suggested that this time has now come. This is not to say that there have been significant deficiencies in the way in which the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act has been used and I know that the Regulations Review Committee has kept a watching brief on this. But I think it would be good—and Parliament agrees it would be good—to set out constitutional principles for the arrangement and delegation of recovery powers for the House’s ready reference on the next occasion should this country be unfortunate enough to require the passing of special disaster-recovery legislation.I think this is particularly important because when that legislation is passed it will be because Parliament expresses a will—in most cases unanimously I am sure as it was in the case of Canterbury—to ensure that there is the facility for things to be done to improve people’s lives. I think it is best that the way in which the Act is tested is through having the Regulations Review Committee formally look at the way in which that Act is being used. It is generally a group of parliamentarians who are experienced and who understand the way in which legislation should be interpreted. It is always chaired by a member of the Opposition—these are very important points Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson as was a valedictory speech that went well over time yesterday I might point out—and I think it is important that we establish a way that gives some surety particularly to the courts that Parliament is constantly reaffirming what it intended when it passed legislation. With those comments I commend these reports to the House.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Thank you very much for letting me take the call Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson and I would also like to acknowledge the excellent speech you gave in your valedictory. In fact I acknowledge all of the excellent valedictory statements given yesterday whatever their length.These are important matters as the Leader of the House has said. I want to work through the areas that the Standing Orders Committee considered and to pick up on one or two matters. Some matters have resulted in recommendations and some have not and I believe those matters should be revisited by the Standing Orders Committee in the next term of Parliament.What I would say at the outset is that I endorse Mr Brownlee’s views that these regular reviews are an important occasion for Parliament to look again at how we do our business and what we can change to improve that business. There were many innovative ideas put before the Standing Orders Committee both by members of Parliament and by parties and also by those who submitted. I would like to thank all submitters for their contributions. Not all of the innovative ideas have made it back to the House and it is fair to say that on the committee there was a range of views about just how far we could go but it always important to respect your elders I find and those who have been here a little longer than myself. So we attempted as a committee to come to a consensus and it is those recommendations that are with us today but there are a number of matters that could be considered again in the future.Just working our way through one side note is that a very minor change has been made to the Standing Orders to recognise that if Anzac Day or Waitangi Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday the following Monday is not a working day. That is a good reminder of the excellent piece of legislation that was passed in this term of Parliament under the name of Dr David Clark.Sue Moroney: But who was it written by?GRANT ROBERTSON: Well my colleague asks who it was written by. I am too modest to note who the author of that legislation was but I do just say that it is good to see that particular law now having some effect. We look forward to 2015 when that has its first—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Always looking for a day off.GRANT ROBERTSON: We are just giving hard-working New Zealanders their full allotment of holidays every year and I am sure that even if Mr Brownlee voted against it he is pleased that it has now happened.I want to also make reference to the question of a review that the Speaker will be undertaking of the prayer at the start of each day. The current prayer was adopted by the House in 1962. Its wording is very much evocative of that time and perhaps does not take into account the increasing diversity of New Zealand and the increasing range of faiths and beliefs that we have in our country. On a personal note I would say that it is very important that this House starts the day with some time for reflection. I think that is an excellent thing. We are all elected here as honourable members—as you often tell us Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—and it is important that we take a moment to consider what that means. We need to do that in such a way that every member of this House feels included in that reflection and my view is that there is now an opportunity for the Speaker to review that issue. There is no outcome that is specified; it is merely something that the Speaker will now do in the next Parliament and I look forward to the outcome of that review.I also want to pick up on Mr Brownlee’s comments about what I think is a very important change which is the amendment to Standing Order 105 to recognise that any member may address this House in New Zealand Sign Language. That is an important development. New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of this country. It is about time that this House recognised that as it does with Māori and also English which is not actually an official language of this country but is obviously the most commonly spoken language—Paul Foster-Bell: Yes it is.GRANT ROBERTSON: Not by law it is not. It is in fact not by law an official language.Hon Christopher Finlayson: No it’s not an official—you’re quite right.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes but it is obviously the language of convention. The Attorney-General has—for the second time actually—said I was right about something. We had better get that in the Hansard. Yes it is a very important moment.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t worry.GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha ha! That is right. He will return to type later—it will be fine. But what we do strongly understand and appreciate here is that as members of Parliament move to being able to use sign language more often we will be working in consultation with the Speaker’s office on that. But it is an excellent development for this House.The area that I want to dwell on for just a couple of minutes is the question of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets that are undertaken. The committee had a significant discussion about this and certainly some of us on the committee believe that the recommendation we have here—to amend the Standing Orders to provide that a paper presented by the Attorney-General about the inconsistency of a provision with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act stands referred to a select committee for consideration—is a good first step to ensure that select committees will look at the Attorney-General’s section 7 comments. However there were a number of members on the committee who felt that that did not go far enough and certainly Labour members on the committee would have preferred that a report from a select committee comes back to Parliament after the reference of an Attorney-General’s section 7 recommendations.We feel that this is an important area. If Parliament is going to say that we are going to allow an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then that is something that should be debated openly and clearly and should be given some attention in a select committee and at the moment we do not believe that is certain enough.The other area that concerned a number of the members on the committee was when very large Supplementary Order Papers find their way into the House at the last minute and we do not have time for the Attorney-General to look at those in the same way as substantive pieces of legislation are looked at. We have seen in this Parliament very large Supplementary Order Papers that have not had substantive consideration and certainly have not had the Attorney-General’s oversight in terms of their New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consistency. So on those two matters certainly the Labour members of the committee would have liked to see this go further but we are pleased to support the amendment to Standing Orders that will at least mean that select committees will always consider the Attorney-General’s wise words on inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.We made an important decision to increase scrutiny in a number of areas. The time for the Budget debate will now move from being 14 hours to 15 hours and the estimates debate will now move from being 8 hours to 11 hours. Those two debates are very important parts of the scrutiny of what the Government does with the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers and the committee agreed that more focus on that would be beneficial to the House. That sees a reduction in the time allowed for debate on the Prime Minister’s statement from 15 hours to 13 hours. It has been the practice in the last few years for that debate to become a bit of a catch-all and I do not think that losing 2 hours off that versus having an increased financial scrutiny would be a bad trade-off at all. So we are pleased to support those amendments and changes in the way in which debate takes place.Another area where we felt that the committee did not go as far as it could have was on the question of what to do with petitions and e-petitions and online engagement. I am of the strong view that this is an area where Parliament could do a lot more to engage with the communities that are interested in our work. So much of what happens in political debate nowadays happens online and all of us know that the signing of e-petitions is now the way in which many people express themselves politically rather than going to a public meeting or rather than even filling out a written petition. It is my strong view that we would encourage more interest in Parliament if we were to adopt something like a process where a threshold is reached on an e-petition and that then generates a debate in Parliament or at the very least results in a petition being referred to a select committee for some significant consideration.We need to do more to engage with the public about how our democracy works and what people can engage on. We could have taken that opportunity here and I am sorry that we did not. There are as Mr Brownlee has mentioned occasions for set topic debates which we also endorse. I do believe that the debate on the Health Committee report was a very very good one. We can do more of that perhaps by using the extended hours provision a little more there and we can look at that in the next Parliament. But we do need as a Parliament to think of new and innovative ways of engaging with the public and I would urge the Standing Orders Committee to take another look at this next time.I will not dwell on the changes to the pecuniary interests register except to note that obviously members of Parliament will need to look carefully at the changes particularly around the question of the definition of “gift” and to note in particular that multiple gifts from the same donor that breach the $500 threshold now need to be declared. That means that members of Parliament will need to look much more carefully at the number of gifts that they receive and keep a record of them should they end up being over $500—if you get perhaps three or four smaller gifts from the same person within a 1-year period. There are a number of changes around the definition of “gift”—description of real property unit trusts discharged debts and so on—that will make a change for us.Overall there are some very useful advances in the report of the Standing Orders Committee. We would have liked one or two more but we are happy to support the report.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to rise to support the two motions related to the triennial review of the Standing Orders. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Standing Orders Committee Mr Speaker. I would like to acknowledge the members the submitters and the officials. We did a good job.I guess I would like to start with an apology. We have got a bunch of students in the Chamber today. Sorry guys I think you have walked in on the most boring dry debate Parliament could have. But it also gives you a bit of background on how Parliament works. [Interruption] I am not speaking of myself. What we are doing is that every 3 years—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for this particular contribution to be wide ranging so that it might be more entertaining.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is hardly a point of order Mr Brownlee. In fact Mr Brownlee I thought that you were going to raise with me Speaker’s ruling 47/3 that addressing people outside the House radio listeners or those in gallery was out of order.GARETH HUGHES: I would not dare try to top Gerry Brownlee’s entertaining Standing Orders Committee speech.What we are talking about is that every 3 years Parliament gets together and reviews its rules—the laws that Parliament operates for itself. It is a triennial review. It is critically important because the way we operate in this Chamber is how we make decisions how we hold the Government to account and how we act—our code of conduct. I see—I will not make a joke about the departing students. As the former Speaker Lockwood Smith used to always point out we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world. This is something we should be proud of. We should be proud of our heritage and our traditions. But we should also be open to the future—open to new ideas new ways of doing things new technology—and I think in this Standing Orders review what we are seeing is some modest progress. It is not as wide ranging as we saw in the last Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders review but it is some modest progress all the same.The Green Party made a submission. I understand it was one of only two parties to do so. We made a number of points covering improving legislative quality improving accessibility for members recognising New Zealand Sign Language as an official language improving the lobbying disclosure regime recommending a code of conduct for MPs positive suggestions on voting reform and the process for amending the parliamentary prayer and members’ oaths improving executive scrutiny and lastly ensuring that international treaties are brought to Parliament before ratification. We put a great deal of positive solutions into the mix. Some of them were picked up; some were not. We would like to acknowledge the changes in this Standing Orders review. I think the tidying-up of the pecuniary interests register is particularly good. Moving some of the financial debate times around will I think make a difference but very modestly. So in a nutshell what I was trying to achieve through this process was some practical steps to make Parliament more accessible more transparent and more democratic. I think it is fair to say we are not there entirely. We have still got a long way to go to actually make Parliament more accessible transparent and democratic but I would like to point out some highlights from the Standing Orders review process.First up is amending Standing Order 105. In this term of Parliament we have seen New Zealand’s first ever profoundly deaf MP elected to Parliament Mojo Mathers. To be frank we had to fight to get her the resources she needed so she could participate like any other member in this Chamber. It was a battle played out through the media through backroom pressure and it was good that Mojo Mathers got the support she needed so she can follow what is happening in this Chamber. But of course there was always the inconsistency that despite being fluent in New Zealand Sign Language she could not address the Chamber in that language for want of interpreters and also for want of a Standing Order that reflects the law of this land. As has been pointed out in the previous contributions New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of New Zealand. It was outrageous that a member could not speak to this Chamber through New Zealand Sign Language. I think it is an incredibly positive step that we are taking because I think Mojo or any other member could have tried to address this Chamber in New Zealand Sign Language and it would have been incredibly embarrassing for this Chamber to have had that contribution struck down. So it is incredibly positive it is something that we have pushed very hard for and we would like to acknowledge the committee members.When it comes to select committees which are the workhorse of our Parliament where parliamentarians work together and where real change actually happens it is good to see three big areas of change. First of all is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reporting and the section 7 reports of the Attorney-General. I would like to acknowledge Minister Finlayson in particular on this section. The text in the Standing Orders report gives members I think some good guidance. The text is: “We consider that papers presented by the Attorney-General under section 7 of the NZBORA should receive detailed consideration by being referred automatically to select committees. We encourage committees to invite officials or Ministers to assist them in their consideration of these issues.” That is a very positive step.In my 5 years in Parliament what I have seen is some amendments called Supplementary Order Papers that were in fact larger than the primary legislation they were seeking to amend. I am thinking of the ultra-fast broadband legislation and other ones passed under urgency such as the so-called Anadarko amendment which criminalised protest activity at sea. That had huge human rights implications but because it was passed as a Supplementary Order Paper there was no section 7 scrutiny and there was no chance for a select committee to investigate it talk to the experts and think through those Human Rights Act implications. So it is good that the committee is encouraging select committees to bring a Minister in to analyse and consider that section 7 report.We are seeing members being granted wider access to select committee papers. As someone from a small party—well we do not call ourselves a small party anymore; we call ourselves a medium party in the Greens now—where you have got to sub on to numerous select committees it can be the bane of an MP’s life trying to get access to committee papers in the select committee portal. This change is incredibly good and will really help those single-member parties or smaller parties.Lastly the webcasting of select committees is something proposed by the cross-party internet forum which I worked on with Clare Curran Simon O’Connor and Tracey Martin. It is great that the trial was a success. I understand that more than 7000 people have tuned in and seen our select committees do their work and now this is going to be rolled out across the entire range of select committees. It is incredibly positive because what it means is that submitters who want to hear what other submitters are saying do not have to travel all the way to Wellington if they are from out of town. They can follow and engage in the committee at home by computer.When it comes to questions for written answer we have made a slight change here. I put up some proposals to actually encourage Ministers to answer them in a timely fashion through a transparency regime where those Ministers’ results and answering times are reported to the Speaker. What we are seeing is a modest change that says an interim reply is not a final reply. Phil Heatley last night in his valedictory speech reflected on what I think is the funniest answer I have ever had to a question which is when I lodged a written question asking where in New Zealand fracking had occurred. He replied: “Underground.” It was a perfect ministerial answer—absolutely accurate and absolutely useless to the Opposition member asking it. It was a perfect ministerial answer. To his credit—and he did not say it last night—he did answer the question in full the next day so I would like to acknowledge Phil Heatley for doing that. It was hilarious. What a great answer. For the rules that would have been fine. Even an interim answer saying: “I will answer it later on.” is an answer for the questions for written answer rules so it is great we are making changes there.We are going to be reviewing the prayer which is something I feel very strongly about and want to see progress in the next Parliament on. Something the Greens were the only submitters to push for was an inquiry into the preparedness of Parliament for a natural disaster. It is great that that is going to be commencing next Parliament.We also had a great number of missed opportunities. I would have preferred to see greater financial scrutiny of Parliament. We saw the Clerk of Parliament offer an estimates week idea where we could have a week to go through the Government’s books line by line which I would like to see progress on in the future. There was the proposal of a human rights select committee to do justice to human rights challenges and issues.I would have liked to see a greater ability for Parliament to send substantive Supplementary Order Papers back to a select committee. Obviously members can seek leave to do it but any member can block that. So when you have got Supplementary Order Papers that are larger than the bills they are seeking to amend and often with no heads-up to Parliament I think it is important Parliament has greater powers to get them back to select committees in order to hear from the experts the submitters and the Government.I would like to echo Grant Robertson’s call to modernise our petitions. Our Parliament even if we are the fourth-oldest democracy in the world has to be able to engage with the people. In 2014 and in other years we are going to see people going more and more online. We need to be where they are.When it comes to members’ bills I put up a proposal so that if a member’s bill had the support of half of the House including non-executive members it could be put to a first reading vote. What I would like to encourage as we see in other parliaments around the world is MPs from across the aisle working together. I proposed also that MPs from different parties could jointly sponsor a members’ bill and lastly we proposed having a code of conduct and a lobbying regime.So we made a lot of good suggestions. A lot of them got adopted. Not all of them did. We will continue to work constructively and positively with other parties to improve our Parliament’s laws. Kia ora.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports nearly all of the amendments to the Standing Orders that are proposed. We have participated in a collaborative process that has resulted in a number of very worthwhile changes. I wish to refer to only three of them.The first one was proposed by New Zealand First and was adopted by the Standing Orders Committee amending Standing Order 34 “Recognition of parties”. We were very concerned at the events that followed the registration of United Future recently. We were especially concerned at the way Standing Order 34 was applied to the situation that United Future was in. We considered the reregistration of that party for parliamentary purposes following its new recognition under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 to be illegal under Standing Order 34.It was New Zealand First’s understanding that the status of a party for parliamentary purposes is determined at the date of the last election or where relevant at the date of a subsequent by-election and at no other time. This is clearly expressed in Standing Order 34(1) which requires firstly that the party be then registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and secondly that it have a member elected in that party’s interest as at the last general election or subsequent by-election.It is also clear that following deregistration of a party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 during a parliamentary term Standing Order 34(4) applies and that any member of Parliament who had been one of that party’s recognised members of Parliament as at the last general election or subsequent by-election then becomes an independent member for parliamentary purposes under Standing Order 34(4). With regard to the new recognition of an independent member as the member of a recognised party Standing Order 34(2) has two components. One component deals with an existing recognised party and the other with a new party that becomes recognised under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and has at least six members. It is the situation in paragraph (a) that caused concern and that was the part applicable to the situation that United Future was in with only one member at the relevant time.It is particularly the use and meaning of the word “existing” in paragraph (a) that was the root of the problem. It was New Zealand First’s understanding based upon the usual rules of interpretation and the scheme and intent of the statute as a whole that the word “existing” can only mean existing as at the date of the last general election or subsequent by-election having regard to the content of Standing Order 34(1). Therefore in the case of United Future once it had been deregistered and its one member had become an independent member that member could not subsequently be recognised as a United Future member again even if the party was reregistered. This is because under paragraph (a) the party having been reregistered with new or additional members could not be the same party as the one that had been existing as at the last general election or a subsequent by-election. And nor could United Future have been recognised under paragraph (b) as a new party because it did not have six members.New Zealand First believes that whether our interpretation is correct or not it would be very desirable for Standing Order 34 to be amended and clarified in these respects. New Zealand First therefore proposed that Standing Order 34 be amended accordingly. That change I am pleased to say will now be made but it is subject to the prior requirement that the Speaker will have the authority to grant parties temporary recognition for a reasonable period. Thereafter if a party ceases to be recognised it can then subsequently be re-recognised only if it meets the criteria for a new party—in particular it would then need to have at least six MPs.Another change but one with which New Zealand First did not agree concerns the way that bills that are thought to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are handled and how they are to be dealt with. We believe that the recommendation for reference to just a standing committee is insufficient. We all know that the result of that can be little or no real consideration at all and that is really not good enough for something as important as the possibility of inconsistency of proposed legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—an incredibly important matter. We felt that reference to the Committee of the whole House and a full debate with the benefit of comprehensive reports would be necessary at least. So this is something of a work in progress for us. We believe that it is something that will need to be followed up at a subsequent time.The only other change I wish to comment on is the new rules and procedures for members of Parliament’s attendance. The Standing Orders needed to be updated on that and it needed to be made clear that there would be a sanction for MPs who do not attend regularly. There have been very few who have fallen into this category because party discipline has usually taken care of the issue but with some MPs becoming independent or being one-person parties it is wise that these new rules be incorporated. So with those changes the ones that I have mentioned and with our approval also of the various other changes—and there are many—New Zealand First will be happy to vote for both of the motions.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I intend to make a reasonably short contribution on the review of the Standing Orders which would reflect my relatively short period of time on the Standing Orders Committee. I came on to this committee part-way through this process and therefore missed many of the submissions which I felt was a great shame because certainly there were some very important contributions that had been made.Before I talk in substance to the review I would just like to make a couple of acknowledgments. First of all to you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson for your fine valedictory speech yesterday. All the best for your future and the next journey in your life that you are about to take. Can I also acknowledge Fay Paterson who is in the Clerk’s chair at present and congratulate her on her 25 years in this Parliament. I congratulate her on her final day of this sitting in this Parliament and wish her well for the next adventure in her life as well. Thank you Fay.Hon Trevor Mallard: She looks the same.SUE MORONEY: Yes well my learned colleague Trevor Mallard—well he is not learned—my honourable colleague Trevor Mallard says that she has not changed a bit and she would probably be alone in terms of that observation in this Chamber.I want to reflect on a couple of the Standing Orders provisions because certainly for me when I came into this place I was quite a stranger to parliamentary process and I can well understand people who may be listening to this debate wondering what on earth the importance of the Standing Orders is. Not only do they guide what occurs in this place but they also have a very practical application. I want to use a couple of examples of some of the things that came before the committee for discussion with this review. I will give some examples of a piece of legislation that I have been intimately involved with to show how the review applies to that.One of the issues that was raised by submitters that the committee could not find a way forward on—as many other members have already said this is a committee that acts on consensus. Therefore by definition the recommendations of the Standing Orders review are often pretty conservative on that basis because it does require the agreement of all the parties sitting round the table before we can make progress. None the less we have made some progress and it is incremental progress that will continue in future parliaments. The issue that came before the committee that I had a close and personal brush with was the issue of financial veto. There were submissions from members of the public around the idea that if a bill has majority support in Parliament a Government should be able to put a financial veto on such a bill.Louise Upston: Who pays the bills?SUE MORONEY: Well it was an issue that was raised.Louise Upston: Who has to manage the Budget?SUE MORONEY: Pardon?Louise Upston: Who has to manage the Budget? The Government of the day.SUE MORONEY: Well that is exactly the issue that I am just about to raise actually Mrs Upston. The members opposite are very very nervous about discussion of the financial veto and I understand that. I get that. What submitters said was that they had an issue to raise around democracy and how that actually played out. Some submitters I understand raised the prospect of—because the bill of course was the bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. People said: “Well look actually yes you do have a Government that has a mandate to run the books and to make decisions on what the finances are spent on.” but on this occasion one of the votes in favour of the bill was from a party that was voting to give the Government supply and confidence a party that actually gave the mandate to the Government of the day to make decisions about the priorities in which it spent its Budget. So that was a really interesting dilemma—a very interesting dilemma I think—that that bill posed because here were some of the votes that gave the Government the right to set its Budget actually voting for some of that money to be spent on a measure that the Government opposed. I think that that caused a really interesting dilemma which I do not know that this Parliament has ever seen before.Hon Anne Tolley: Oh rubbish!SUE MORONEY: Well Mrs Tolley says: “Oh rubbish!” but I am not sure that there has been a situation where a vote that has actually been used in the main for supply and confidence has been used to vote for another measure that a financial veto was going to be used on. So it was a very interesting issue.I think that during the course of this debate we have been trying to focus on issues of democracy issues of how we improve democracy and issues of how we continue in the future. It has not been a controversial debate but I noticed that the minute we discussed the issue of the financial veto the Government benches became quite hostile to the idea of us actually having something to say in debating this in this context. However it is right and it is proper to do so. It was raised through the select committee and it was an issue that the committee gave some consideration to. Where we landed I think was also right and proper. Where we landed is that it is the right of a Government to make determinations in this area and that Governments should use that veto infrequently. In fact the report says that the use of this procedure has been relatively restrained and I think that probably is correct. But it was also correct for the committee to consider that issue and wonder whether we had that in exactly the right place. We did come to the conclusion that it is for now but I think it is something that as MMP continues to test the processes of this Parliament we will continue to think about.The other issue that had a direct bearing on the procedure of that bill through this House was the new provision—now codified through the review of the Standing Orders that we are debating here today—for a Speaker to grant compassionate leave. That was a relatively new policy that was brought in and it is now being codified under this review of the Standing Orders. I welcome that because I think it has worked well. One of the times that we got to test that literally on its feet was during the second reading of the bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. When we had a bill that was passing through its second reading by one vote every single one of those votes was important but because of the Standing Orders in this Parliament we had a situation where one of the parties that was supporting the bill had a member of its caucus leave the precinct and that therefore meant it could not vote legitimately at its full strength. How ironic it was that we were debating extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks and the reason that the member of Parliament had legitimately needed to leave the parliamentary precinct was to attend the birth of his first grandchild. It is that sort of irony which actually happens quite regularly in this parliamentary debating chamber that makes it a very very interesting place to be operating in.Of course what we tested on the floor of the debating chamber right there and then was the ability of the Speaker to grant compassionate leave on those grounds. It was something that had not been tested before. It was tested that night and I am pleased to report that it was tested successfully. Compassionate leave was granted by the Speaker and that member’s vote was therefore able to be counted in the vote. How it got cast is a different matter entirely and I will not go into that because the members opposite are already getting tetchy enough at the mere mention of the paid parental leave bill which always does cause them quite a bit of angst.In conclusion I hope that people listening can see the practical application of the issues that were debated by the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that they will be able to see how it makes a real difference to the way the debating chamber operates and how laws are made in this country for the good of its people. There are areas where we can always make more progress but it is a start and as we always do in each Parliament we will continue to refine and improve the processes. Thank you.Motions agreed to.Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Sport and Recreation:Might I add my congratulations to you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on this being your final day not only in Parliament but in the Chair. I acknowledge your 27 years of very good service to the people of Manukau East and its various guises under the boundary changes and everything else and the hard work you have done for them. On their behalf you have been a great local MP and I know that you will be a great local board member as well. I look forward to seeing you at various events in that role.I move That the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This is a short but very important bill. It is designed to protect the integrity of New Zealand sport. New Zealand has a well-deserved reputation for playing fair and this bill aims to protect that. Match fixing is a growing problem internationally and has been described as the No. 1 threat to sport. As we have seen from recent events New Zealand is not immune to this growing threat. That is why the Government is taking action on this matter. The International Centre for Sports Security has estimated that over $140 billion is laundered worldwide every year through sports betting. This illustrates the extent to which organised crime is seeking to exploit the sports sector. Although there are some existing offences that may cover match fixing this bill will put beyond doubt that match fixing falls within the scope of deceptive conduct covered by the Crimes Act. This will give enforcement agencies the ability to investigate and prosecute instances of match fixing.This bill is particular timely given the New Zealand co-hosting of the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 Football World Cup from early next year. Both football and cricket are known internationally to present match-fixing risks.Match fixing involves deceptive conduct aimed at predetermining aspects of a game or race in order to make betting returns. There is the potential for large amounts of money to be made from match fixing and this inevitably attracts criminals. Match fixing not only misleads those who place legitimate bets on a game but also deprives New Zealanders of an honest sporting contest and affects the integrity growth and development of New Zealand sport.Besides being a national pastime sport provides significant benefits to our nation. The economic social health and personal benefits of sport and recreation in New Zealand are estimated at $12.2 billion. Criminal sanctions are needed therefore to deter match fixers from damaging our sporting sector. Our counterparts in Australia have recently acted to address match-fixing risks. Various Australian states have now passed legislation that specifically criminalises match fixing. Given our close sporting ties with Australia it is important that we also move to deter match fixers.This bill is not the only thing the Government is doing to protect the integrity of New Zealand sport. The Minister for Sport and Recreation the Hon Murray McCully recently announced the release of the New Zealand Policy on Sports Match-Fixing and Related Corruption. The national match-fixing policy provides a comprehensive framework for collaboration across Government the sports sector and the betting industry to address it. The policy will amongst other things help to ensure that national sporting organisations have sufficient processes and procedures in place to protect their sports. This will include such measures as regulations prohibiting match-fixing activity with associated disciplinary procedures and sanctions; placing appropriate restrictions on sports betting; and ensuring that education is available on match-fixing prevention strategies. This bill therefore forms part of a package of measures the Government is progressing the cumulative effect of which is to create a strong framework to protect New Zealand sport.Importantly those who engage in match fixing including players coaches officials and administrators will face very serious consequences for their actions whether from the criminal justice system their sports organisation or both. The bill makes it clear that anyone who obtains a benefit or who causes a loss by engaging in match fixing will commit an offence against section 240 of the Crimes Act and will be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. I consider section 240 of the Crimes Act to be the appropriate vehicle through which to make it clear that match fixing is a criminal offence.It is possible that section 240 already captures a range of match-fixing conduct; however this has never been tested in court so the bill removes the uncertainty around that. The amendments contained in the bill are relatively minor and are designed to clarify the application of section 240 to match fixing. The bill is not designed to affect the application of section 240 to other non-match-fixing - related offending; indeed that is why new section 240A has been created. To make it clear that the bill applies only to match fixing does not change how section 240 applies to other offending.In drafting this bill it is important to avoid criminalising the kind of rule-breaking that will inevitably occur in sport. This might include for example ball-tampering in cricket or deliberate foul play carried out for non-betting purposes. Such rule-breaking can be dealt with by the national sports organisations in a way considered appropriate for their sports. It is not something we necessarily want to have criminalised. What this bill does is to criminalise acts or omissions aimed at manipulating a match for betting purposes rather than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons.The bill applies to the manipulation of the overall result of a match or any event within a match. This has been made deliberately broad given the range of betting options that are now available. Match fixers may now seek to influence only small aspects of a match such as the timing of a no-ball bowled in cricket or the first point scored in a rugby match. This is known as spot fixing and is perhaps the hardest form of match fixing to detect. The bill does not criminalise the use of inside information such as information about pitch conditions or team strategies. I consider the abuse of such information is better dealt with by the governing sports bodies rather than the criminal law.The last technical point I would like to make about the bill is that it also applies to races including for example a horse race dog race car race or boat race. Races just like sports matches are susceptible to being fixed.Match fixing is a growing threat. That threat will be heightened when New Zealand hosts the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 Football World Cup early next year. This bill helps to address that threat and it does so—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just draw the attention of members who are interrupting on each other to the fact that that is out of order in the people’s House. If you want to make interjections then it is fine to do so on the person who is addressing the House—in this case the honourable Minister—but not on each other.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is always good to end Parliament on the right note. The body of case law under section 240 relating to for example what constitutes obtaining pecuniary advantage or causing loss will apply to the amendments contained in the bill. Consideration was given to a stand-alone match-fixing offence or to a regime of match-fixing offences. However while many other countries are grappling with how best to tackle this issue and whether specific offences or the general law is best to prosecute such activity an amendment that links in with section 240 was considered appropriate. This section of the Crimes Act has been identified as most likely to capture match-fixing conduct. Its application to match fixing can be put beyond doubt by the short amendments contained in this bill.The bill will protect the integrity growth and development of New Zealand sport. It will deter those in a position to improperly influence a betting outcome by manipulating a sports match. Sport is a huge source of national pride to us Kiwis and is something that must be protected from criminals. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour - Hutt South):I am pleased after 27 years of working together that you are able to do that. Mr Assistant Speaker I do want to acknowledge your service to this Parliament and say that if this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is the last bill that you are dealing with it is something that is appropriate given the fact that you are yourself a proud parent of an international athlete. I want to acknowledge that acknowledge you and thank you.I am going to ask for a little bit of indulgence to wish a couple of teams all the best. I want to say that the Commonwealth Games team I think is going exceptionally well. I follow the cyclists and clearly what has happened is that in the last decade or a bit more as there has been less doping New Zealand athletes have been doing better and better at cycling relative to the rest of the world. I think that is something that is really good.I want to wish all the best to the Black Ferns who are about to enter into the International Rugby Board Women’s Rugby World Cup and say to Fi and the team: you are in Paris. When I last watched a World Cup it was in Edmonton and I know where I would rather be. Edmonton was an awful hole in the cold and the snow when the world cup was there. I want to wish Jackie Patea who is the second Wainuiōmata Black Fern all the best as well as Claire Kelly and Kat all of whom I was touch judge for over a period of years when they were playing in Otago. I sort of regard them as like my own kids. I have watched them grow and develop into great rugby players. To Linda Itunu who is my bodyguard on occasions—my plus-one for this year’s Steinlager Rugby Awards—I would just hate to be anyone who was tackled by her. She is one of the hardest tacklers I have ever seen.With a little bit more indulgence I would like to refer to another major sporting event a historic event that is occurring at the Hutt Recreation Ground this Sunday when Hutt Old Boys Marist play Wainuiōmata. One thing that we know is that this one is going to be so hard fought that there would never be any suggestion of match fixing in it. The people out there know that I have strong family links to the Hutt. Again I was a touch judge for several years for one of the Hutt teams and in fact not much over a decade ago I had to turn out for a senior second team in an emergency when the alternative was the coach who had concussion playing for them. I think it is fair to say that all I did was run up and down the 15-meter line asking them not to give me the ball but of course they did every now and again.There is a history of people going over the hill between Wainuiōmata and the Hutt. The earliest example I know of is Kara Puketapu who was a Wainuiōmata resident a very very good rugby player but unfortunately he used to play for Pētone. Currently there are the Risdon brothers Wainuiōmata residents—a prominent Wainuiōmata family both parents and grandparents. Piri Weepu actually played for Hutt Old Boys Marist before he played for Wainuiōmata and probably played more games against Wainuiōmata than he played for Wainuiōmata against the Hutt. So there is a history of people going over the hill. But for the first time these two teams are going to meet in a Jubilee Cup final. That is the premier final for Wellington and for Wainuiōmata it is our first time in that since the club was formed in 1946. So as a local resident as someone who has followed the team for a number of years and watched some great young men develop into great rugby players I want to wish them all the best and say notwithstanding my family contacts I will be calling out for Wainuiōmata.Just to make clear we are talking about a match-fixing bill the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. It applies to sport it applies to racing and notwithstanding the comments of the colleague to my left Andrew Williams it does not apply to the Ōhariu or the Epsom electorates. If it did apply I think it is fair to say that there would be some questions because people are going into a race saying: “Please don’t vote for me.” I would generally be absolutely opposed to that other than the fact that my very good friend and colleague Holly Walker in Hutt South is taking a very similar approach. I just want to say that I have therefore got slightly mixed feelings about people who are running in an electorate and are saying: “Give us the party vote but not the electorate vote.”The bill itself makes a minor but important change. It makes it very clear that match fixing is a crime. I think arguably looking at the face of the legislation match fixing is probably already a crime but what this bill does is put it beyond any doubt whatsoever and it is being done in time for the football under-23s and for the Cricket World Cup both of which are not far off as far as we are concerned.I do want to thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for his consultation. Like most legislation in the sport area it is something that we do on a bipartisan basis wherever possible. Even though this is relatively minor it does do the trick and therefore we will be supporting it. I am very pleased that the Minister has chosen not to go as far as organisations like the International Rugby Board has gone in its draft rules. My view is that the draft rules of the board are nuts. To take an extreme example using Piri Weepu and his mum theoretically if I have a cup of tea with Piri Weepu’s mum I am not allowed to then go and bet on a sporting match because there is a relationship between him and his mother obviously and his mother and me—one of friendship—because that relationship would be caught by the International Rugby Board rules. I think that that is something that goes far too far.I regret that this bill has taken so long to get in. We knew from about October of last year that it was coming. I regret the fact that it has been relatively low on the Government’s priority list as far as passing it is concerned but we will support it. If there is a requirement—and I think there probably should be—for a shortened select committee period I do not think we need to do it as part of the motion in this House but we will facilitate it through the select committee after the election. I hope as a result of that it is passed before Christmas and the rules will be very clear before the cricket. I think as all of us know there is more money bet on cricket than any other sport in the world by quite a large factor. We support the bill we support our Commonwealth Games team we support the Black Ferns and we support Wainuiōmata. Thank you.LOUISA WALL (Labour - Manurewa):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating you on what was a wonderful valedictory speech last night along with the other members in the House who gave their valedictory speeches as well. As a colleague from the adjoining electorate of Manurewa I want to pay tribute to the work you have done in South Auckland and the work that you will continue to do. Thank you very much for the way in which you have helped me in terms of understanding the processes in the House. I certainly wish you all the best for the future.I also want to begin by congratulating our Commonwealth Games team. We got our 12th gold medal this morning. Congratulations Val Adams. It is the 600th medal that New Zealand has won in the Commonwealth Games. I think as a country we are certainly a superpower within the domain of sport which is why this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is so important. I too want to wish the Black Ferns all the best. If they win in France that is five world championships in a row. I think it is a pretty outstanding achievement. Maybe they will be a finalist in the Steinlager Rugby Awards this year if they achieve that feat. They have never been a finalist and this could be an opportunity for the New Zealand Rugby Union to acknowledge them.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s their time to win.LOUISA WALL: Maybe this will be the pinnacle for them—that is correct Mr Mallard.Labour does support the bill and as Labour’s associate spokesperson on sport and recreation I am going to highlight a few points about why this bill is really important. This bill will criminalise core match-fixing behaviour. The regulatory impact statement says the focus on core match-fixing is for several reasons the first of which is that “core match-fixing behaviour presents the biggest risk to the integrity growth and development of New Zealand sport.” Sport in New Zealand contributes over $5 billion to our economy and I think what we have seen this week is that in addition to that economic benefit it also contributes to our sense of identity our sense of pride and actually our place in the world. The reality of this bill is that if anything is going to challenge or inhibit or interfere with sport and the place it has in terms of our society then we must do all that we can.The context of sports betting in New Zealand is interesting. The Department of Internal Affairs website says the 2012-13 statistics show that gambling in New Zealand is a $2.1 billion industry. In terms of specific TAB sports betting it totals $294 million. That is a lot of money and I can see why some people would be interested in putting some of that money in their pockets by doing things that are completely contrary to what sport is all about. Having been a sportsperson myself I say that sport provides the opportunity to set goals and to work hard; to invest time effort energy and family and community support to achieve a gold medal or a personal best. That is actually what sport is all about. The contribution of sport to our society in terms of providing the framework for people to be successful and to achieve and to be part of teams is something I do not think should be underestimated.The second part of the regulatory impact statement that I want to highlight is that a more significant set of offences would likely be unachievable within the time available. We want this bill enacted by the end of the year because of the Cricket World Cup. The Hon Trevor Mallard is absolutely right. A one-day cricket match generates over $6 million of sports betting. So when we look at it in that context it is incumbent on us to enact a piece of legislation before the Cricket World Cup which will begin in early 2015.The other context that I wanted to highlight was actually around sports codes and their responsibility within the context of sports betting. I am going to take a counter view to the Hon Trevor Mallard in that I actually endorse the International Rugby Board’s anti-corruption policy. The board has been really staunch about this because it thinks that this is a big threat to the integrity of its code. If you are caught participating in match fixing that means a lifetime ban. If you are caught betting once you can be banned for a year. But what I want to highlight is that the National Rugby League for example has been incredibly proactive. In fact it banned David Williams who plays for Manly for the remainder of the season because the league had caught him betting not only on other National Rugby League matches but on matches where he himself was involved. It took a very staunch stance. There were other players who were caught betting and they got a two-game suspension.But the relevance of any information Mr Mallard can be seen from the weekend actually. The Warriors were playing Manly. No one knew that Shaun Johnson was injured up to almost before kick-off. What is the relevance? Shaun Johnson is a very good player and anybody who has been watching the Warriors lately would have seen what an instrumental player he is. He does have the ability to affect the outcome of a match. Knowing that Shaun Johnson was injured and he was not going to play would have affected somebody’s ability to make or not make a bet so whether anybody gets any inside information that then puts them at an advantage to make a bet and to make money absolutely falls within the remit of this piece of legislation.I guess the third point from the regulatory impact statement was that we do not anticipate high levels of corruption but the reality is that there is an international threat within the context of sports betting and match fixing. Sport is a huge business today.So I want to congratulate the Minister for Sport and Recreation on bringing this bill to the House. I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on being involved in discussions with the Minister. This is one of those pieces of legislation that has support across the House so we will be doing everything that we can to support the passage of the legislation. Finally I just want to congratulate Kereyn Smith Rob Waddell and the team at the Commonwealth Games particularly the cyclists. What I have seen in their teamwork is the ability for some of them to put in the hard yards during the race without an expectation that they are going to get a medal. I think that that level of teamwork epitomises what I would like to see across society—that it is all about the greater good. It is all about an outcome where New Zealand gets a medal. It is not about the individual doing what they do based on self-interest but actually based on their identification with something that is bigger than themselves. The members of the New Zealand cycling team are fundamentally doing what they do because they are proud to be New Zealanders. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.MARK MITCHELL (National - Rodney):I will take just a short call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill a very good bill. The previous speaker spoke about Shaun Johnson. I just want to mention the fact that of course Shaun Johnson is an Ōrewa College old boy from my electorate. So I just wanted to highlight that fact. We are all very proud of him obviously.I also wanted to mention—I see the Hon Trevor Mallard is in the House—Anton Cooper and Sam Gaze because he is a cyclist himself. I was the first secretary of the Rotorua Mountain Bike Club. We built a lot of the technical tracks up in the Redwoods there. I want to acknowledge those guys because all of our athletes are doing a fantastic job obviously in being ambassadors and representatives at the Commonwealth Games. But actually these two young men have put in an outstanding performance to take the gold and the silver in what is a very difficult and demanding sport. I wanted to acknowledge them.This is a very important bill. We have seen what has been happening recently. It has obviously been highlighted with what has been going on in the cricket world. It is very important that we have integrity within our sport.Louisa Wall: I forgot to say: “Go the Crusaders!”.MARK MITCHELL: Yeah exactly. Louisa was just saying: “Go the Crusaders!”. I do not know whether I can join her in that sentiment being from Auckland but anyway. It is our last New Zealand team so of course we will get behind them and give it heaps. Give it heaps guys.This bill will clarify that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act—the offence of obtaining a benefit or causing a loss by deception. I was just talking with my colleague Alfred Ngaro and I notice that Kris Faafoi is opposite. We are all members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. We have just watched the Football World Cup. Half those falls that they take—we do not really know what they are about. [Interruption] I think this is a really important part of the bill. Like I said I will take a very short call. I am very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):It is rare that the sport and recreation spokespeople of parties get to speak on a bill. We are usually congratulating some sports team or other on fantastic efforts overseas. So I am very pleased to take a call on this bill the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I personally am an obsessive follower of particularly cricket cycling and rugby. Some say that we are in fact a sports-obsessed nation. I guess there is some evidence for that. If I think back to 1981 there were plenty of people who were saying that sport in fact with the opportunity for the rugby tour from the Springboks should take precedence over fundamental human rights breaches. The sense of priority evident in that line of thinking suggests that there is something deeply askew in the minds of many. We still see that kind of thinking today. My personal favourite example of that askew thinking came in the 1980s when a magistrate was found dead in the Huka Falls after being murdered when a bondage session went wrong. The comment from Auckland Cricket because this magistrate was also an umpire for Auckland Cricket was “We can’t afford to keep losing umpires like this.”Hon Members: Ha ha!KEVIN HAGUE: Although I am a cricket tragic—not to that extent!Why is sport so important to us? Partly it is that as human beings there is something great about seeing human beings test the limits of what is possible in terms of their ability and skill and so seeing any great sportsperson performing is fantastic. There is also something inspiring about the effort. One of my earliest memories of sport was from the 1968 Olympics. It was right at the very end of the marathon when a guy called John Akhwari representing Tanzania limped into the Olympic stadium. People had gone home the lights were off and the TV cameras followed him through the streets of Mexico City when all of the other competitors had gone. His spirit his endurance and his commitment to finishing were deeply inspiring.Perhaps even more important is the sense of representation. At the weekend I had very considerable interest in the Crusaders game. I was interested in the rugby regardless of whether it was a good game or not between the Warratahs and Brumbies—as it turned out it was a pretty rubbish game. But actually my sense of stake in the game and my sense of stake in the outcome were not nearly as great as for the Crusaders’ games. Why is that important? It is because of that sense of representation that we have when we feel a sense of connection to the person or team that is competing. That sense of representation is important because we feel a sense of ownership of the success or otherwise of that person or team. When they succeed it feels like we ourselves have succeeded a bit.I join with others in congratulating the success of our Commonwealth Games team. I am very pleased that Mark Mitchell mentioned the achievements of Anton Cooper and Sam Gaze. Anton Cooper is a great young guy whom I met through the Tour of New Zealand a few years ago. I know that right now kids are competing against each other on their way to school on their bikes—you know who is going to be Anton and who is going to be Sam. That is fantastic because that inspiration that they are providing will lead to that next level not only of competition at that elite level but also of increased physical activity which goodness only knows this nation certainly needs.But what about the other side? At one point in my life I worked in the evenings for a cleaning company. The cleaning company was owned by a guy who trained racehorses in the Waikato and the other cleaners were jockeys and people who worked in the stables—people who worked in the industry. After listening to their conversations during our breaks about what was coming up in the weekend’s races there is no way in the world that I would ever bet on horse races unless I had inside information about who was actually trying to win a race and who was deliberately just stacking the odds for their next race. The industry is rigged.As people know I am a cycling obsessive as well and I am one of those people who believed against all the evidence in Lance Armstrong. I followed his career and I wanted to believe that he had transcended that terrible illness that he had and through his own efforts achieved that amazing success. It came as a body blow to me—and I know to others who perhaps had suspended their disbelief—when the evidence finally became irrefutable. Cheating in sport is like a cancer to sport and to those benefits that we get from it.I well remember a fantastic whirlwind century that Chris Cairns scored in a 1-day international against England. It stayed in my memory for a long time. What should I make of that now? I am not sure. I am a person who loathes sports betting. I wish it had never been introduced and that it was not a part of the sporting scene now. For me match fixing is another form of cheating and cheating undermines all of that nobleness of spirit that we encounter in sport that we derive from sport and that we celebrate in sport. Match fixing has absolutely no place in sport and the Green Party fully supports this bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First):As everybody knows New Zealand First lives in the real world. New Zealand First recognises—Alfred Ngaro: Which world is that one Winnie?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We will tell you shortly; just be patient. I know it is going to be good and I know it is going be relevant to the National Party but you are going to have to be patient. We recognise that national threat assessments are warning of the increasing risk of crime syndicates and individuals targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing. What is match fixing about? It is about paying someone to underperform. It is about paying someone to not do their job and to actually put in an inferior performance. There have been high-profile match-fixing cases in Australia and unless we address this practice and take it seriously match fixing will significantly damage the integrity value and growth of New Zealand sport and our reputation as a nation.We agree that the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill will address match-fixing risks and that those risks are real. We have the Cricket World Cup coming next year and we have the FIFA U-20 World Cup here next year so it is pretty important that we get on top of this legislation now. We know that of course match-fixing worldwide is dynamic and it is a fast-developing area of law globally in terms of what countries are seeking to do.Although we support this bill we consider that it does not go nearly far enough because match fixing in sport is bad and must be stopped but match fixing in politics is much worse—match fixing in politics is much worse. We have heard Judith Collins talk about integrity and issues like that. Match fixing undermines the very core of our democracy. It pays people to underperform and not do their jobs. It pays people like Goldsmith to pull down his hoardings in Epsom—to pull down his hoardings in Epsom. How National members can possibly talk of integrity and get up in this House and extol the virtues of what they are doing is simply beyond any rational reasonable New Zealander. Match fixing in politics stinks. It is corrupt. It goes to the very character of our society and it is being condoned by the National Party members today because they are its main proponents.Needless to say one party in this Parliament has never done that and never will. For 21 long years and 21 to come we have stood on our own. We have never taken money off people like that for any political purpose. They can make allegations but I fought a court case you recall on an electoral petition and Nick Smith fought a defamation case right? Did he ever declare it? No he did not. He told Parliament this and yet Margaret Bazley the registrar told me in a letter which I am happy to table that he never did declare it. In short Mr Smith you deceived Parliament so do not sit there thinking you can get away with that fraud and deceit today.Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes that is true. I have got Margaret Bazley’s letter. Do you want to see it? If you do see it and I am telling the truth will you promise to resign? No you will not.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member is far wide of the intent and the principles of this bill. This is about sport crimes and match fixing so I ask the member to come back and relate to the principles of this bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have never left those principles. I am saying that match fixing stinks and it stinks at all levels of society. It stinks if somebody fixes for example nomination forms or scholarships for a certain family to go to university and denies more talented families the chance. All those things are rotten. They corrode society.At its highest level we have got match fixing in politics. So how can you possibly say to the sportspeople that this is wrong this cannot go on we are going to stop it and yet condone it in your own business or your own profession? Pray tell me that Mr Ngaro. Mr Mitchell can you possibly tell me that? And for the faint embarrassed voice from down in the South Island of Jacqui Dean why are you smiling? Does Jacqui Dean believe that rorting the system cheating the system is right? Jacqui Dean comes from an electorate where people down there believe in the law. They have got principles. Why is their MP out of step? Why does she think it is a laughing matter to match fix?Jacqui Dean: Because you’ve got your grumpy face on.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ms Dean do not try to shout out—you know just opening your mouth and letting the wind blow your tongue around. We need a better performance from you than that. In fact there are only 7 weeks to go and it is quite possible that member will not be here. We know that we will be. For example if you come down to Kelston Hall on Sunday 10 August at 1.30 p.m. you will see what show time looks like as we launch our campaign. To anybody who hears that out there will you please tell your neighbour especially if you are in west Auckland. Come down yourself. It is free you are welcome it will be enlightening.There we will be talking about sports match-fixing but particularly we are going to be talking about political match-fixing because if the principle is wrong for sport then it is wrong for politics. How can the National Party say one thing about sport and match fixing and yet be its main guilty proponent when it comes to the big issue of democracy in our country? It is just wrong.Hon Damien O’Connor: Lead by example.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes the Labour member from the West Coast Mr O’Connor is right. He says: “Why don’t they lead by example?”. But then there is an old saying—Hon Anne Tolley: Why don’t you win a seat?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. Here is the Minister of Police. “Lead by example”—that struck a nerve did not it? Now she starts shouting. This is someone who jacks up and match fixes the crime statistics.Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well she has. She got caught doing it. This is what she said when she got caught: “It’s not happening but if it is I am going to investigate it.” All in the same sentence—“It’s not happening but if it is I am going to investigate it.” Now you try and rationalise or make logic of that statement.Hon Anne Tolley: Get on with it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes I know that the member is embarrassed. I know that the Minister of Police is seriously embarrassed because it is all about the old saying: he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is bad in sport and it is revolting in politics.It lowers the standards of this once-great democracy. Can you imagine Keith Holyoake or people like that condoning this sort of thing? He would be rolling in his grave. But then again there are some members there who have never heard of Keith Holyoake. They have never heard of him. They do not know what he stood for. Mind you he was a nationalist. He did believe in putting New Zealand first. He certainly did believe in putting New Zealand first and not trying to buy a result. That is why he was our longest-serving National Prime Minister and boy I think you guys are in trouble this time because you ain’t going to make it. I know what the National Party’s latest polls say. I know what they say about New Zealand First and you cannot match fix those. [Interruption] Oh no no no Mr Smith. You are going to be seriously concerned because there is one thing that is going to happen—match fixing in sport or whatever—in these 7 weeks. Every week we are going climb and every week you are going to be more and more nervous and the match fixing will not save the National Party. What a tragedy!Mind you National members could disown their practice. They could say: “Put the hoardings up Mr Goldsmith. Put them up in Ōhāriu. Campaign real hard for the National Party.” But no they will probably make that fatal mistake of thinking that everything of value can be bought. Well it cannot.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour - Mana):Can I just start my contribution by wishing to all those members who have chosen not to return to this House all the very best—to the Assistant Speaker who was formerly in the Chair Ross Robertson from our side of the House 27 years of service to this House is obviously something worth celebrating and to everyone else who has chosen to leave politics.This Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is a very important bill for the purposes of making sure that we are ready for two events: the Cricket World Cup which kicks off I believe in February next year and also the FIFA U-20 World Cup. We also want to make sure that for the integrity of those two events we stamp out any sense of match fixing that may go on around them and also in a sense that for the children in our own communities who play sports every weekend they grow up making sure that the sports heroes they watch on their television screens are out there doing as best as they can.Can I acknowledge Trevor Mallard and his contribution. I think Hutt Old Boys Marist versus Wainuiōmata this weekend at the Hutt Recreation Ground. I just want to tell a quick story about Trevor Mallard and his love for Wainuiōmata. One Saturday afternoon I invited him to Porirua Park as Wainuiōmata played the mighty Norths rugby club in my electorate of Mana. He was lucky to get out of there alive to be honest because of the amount of barracking and abuse of people from my electorate. From a member of Parliament it was to be completely honest unbelievable. I thought that kind of behaviour from a member of Parliament was unforgiveable. I actually told Trevor that he was lucky to get out unscathed. What was unfortunate was that Wainuiōmata won that game by one point in a last-minute intercept and a length of the field try. So at that stage Trevor Mallard was being chased by someone trying to serve a summons on him and I tweeted exactly where he was and that they should come and get him.That kind of passion for sports in our communities is really important. The fact that people travel long distances and fervently support their rugby clubs every weekend is something that we want to maintain in our communities something that we should not lose. If we are letting the scourge of sports betting infiltrate the higher levels then I think what we will see happen is that people will not give a damn about sports whatsoever which would be quite sad. We need to make sure that we protect the integrity of our highest levels of sports to make sure that our grassroots sports do survive.I am also a cricket tragic like the Green Party member Kevin Hague. It has been nice to leave Parliament and go home to watch an hour or two of India versus England which is going on at the moment but that is obviously the sport that is at the moment in the spotlight in terms of match fixing. Louisa Wall mentioned earlier that the regulatory impact statement showed just how widespread fraudulent betting and match fixing is. I think it was something like $140 billion in 2010. That being 4 years ago I think it has probably got a lot worse than that over time.This year has been an unfortunate year for that sport in terms of a couple of instances. I guess it is sad that we are having to bring this bill through but we are naive to think that New Zealand is not going to be hit by this in some shape or form. So it is for all those kids who are playing cricket probably not now but in the summer. I played cricket for the mighty Hoon Hay club which is in the fine electorate of Wigram which is represented by my colleague here Megan Woods. I think for the sense of those kids to have heroes—certainly Richard Hadlee Stephen Boock Ken Rutherford Lance Cairns all those guys whom we believed in when we were growing up wearing their test cricket beige and white with integrity and playing their guts out to make sure they would win for their country Lance Cairns and the Excalibur Martin Snedden and that catch that should have been a catch. It was a great thing to watch Sir Richard Hadlee get those 400 wickets at Lancaster Park and Nathan Astle get I think 286. You know those guys are in there giving their all for their country. To think that sports betting could cast a shadow over those kinds of things for our youngsters. I think we need to make sure that we are stamping down on this kind of behaviour and this type of match fixing quite well.So in a sense what I think we have got here is probably the first step and we should take more action when this Parliament has more time. We do need to make sure that we are ready for those two events: the Cricket World Cup which a lot of eyes will be on and the FIFA U-20 World Cup which officials tell us could be open to some form of match fixing. As we have said on this side of the House we do support the Government’s move to make sure that we stamp out any allegations or any hint of anything that may go on during those two tournaments that may not be above aboard.Can I also take the chance to congratulate our Commonwealth Games sportspeople. They have done great work over there. Our Silver Ferns are I think up for a gold medal in a semi against England and hopefully for a final against I believe Australia—another mammoth showdown. I know I am a Wellington-based MP and I do support the Hurricanes but I was born and bred in Christchurch so the Crusaders this weekend will bring the Super 15 title back home to New Zealand. I know that those red and black boys are above reproach. I wish them all the best. For that we support this piece of legislation not only for the highest level of sport but also for the integrity of sport at a community level. Thank you.DENISE ROCHE (Green):Tēnā koe i te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting this bill—of course we will—because we believe that there should be regulation to prohibit international crime syndicates from operating in New Zealand. We agree that it should be illegal to influence a betting outcome or to improperly manipulate a sporting match or a race. But I would like to note that this is the fourth bill in this term that protects and advantages the betting industry. Those in the industry are obviously very good friends of the Government.So just to recap we have had the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill which was Te Ururoa Flavell’s failed attempt to reduce harm from pokies. That is the one that galvanised the pokie industry. The Commerce Committee received 30000 or so submissions from community organisations that had been whipped into a frenzy by their pokie trust funders.We have also had the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) which was in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. That bill has been on the books since 2007. It has not been heard yet but it is on the Order Paper.There is also the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) which is yet to be heard but is scheduled for December this year. That bill puts in place some of the regulation that was talked about in the harm reduction bill that Te Ururoa Flavell put forward in the House and it has the laudable aim of focusing on class 4 gambling—that is pokies in pubs and clubs. It says that its policy objectives are to “increase transparency of grant-making … improve transparency surrounding management companies … simplify compliance and reduce costs for societies and venue owners … and ensure the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined.” So this is the one that says that pokie venues can be paid a percentage of the pokie takings which really sets up the pubs and the clubs to incentivise problem gambling because that way they can make more money.Who could forget that last year we had the Hon Steven Joyce’s New Zealand International Convention Centre Act? Its stated purpose was to give effect to an agreement between Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd and the Crown. The agreement that it referred to was that in exchange for a $402 million convention centre Skycity would get an increase in gambling opportunities. It would also have a new system called ticket-in ticket-out which is a method of gambling that increases the opportunity for money-laundering. This brings us back to today’s bill which is of course about crime.The fact is that if we had passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—which was the member’s bill in the name of Metiria Turei and which was again about crime and gambling—last year then we would have absolutely dealt to money-launderers. They absolutely love casinos—and they love the sports betting industry as well because that is where they launder their money—and we would have been able to put a stop to the fact that money-laundering does occur in casinos in New Zealand. We would have put in place a situation where money going through casinos that has been stolen or obtained as a result of crime would have to be paid back. Given that a lot of the money for betting whether the betting is in casinos or whether it is sports betting comes from small businesses or not-for-profit organisations and has been stolen by people with compulsive gambling habits that bill would have meant that the money would be paid back to them. The fact is however that the bill that was in Metiria Turei’s name which did deal just with casinos was voted down by this Government.We Greens love New Zealand. We think that we can have a fairer society and a smarter more diverse economy that is based on a cleaner environment and we do not think this bill is going to deliver that. But it is clear that this Government loves to gamble. It has been gambling with our laws it has been gambling with our economy it has been gambling with our people and it has been gambling with our environment. But having said that we will be supporting this bill because we believe in fair play.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour - Rimutaka):Irony abounds in this particular debate on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. How ironic that the Government brings this bill to the House the very week when John Key is trying to stitch up the general election result with his dodgy deals in Ōhariu and in Epsom. I want to turn to some definitions in this bill. For the purposes of this bill “deception” includes any act or omission that is done with the intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind which includes any rallies involving human participants. People do gamble—[Interruption] People gamble on the outcomes of general elections and John Key with his dodgy cup-of-tea deals is trying to fix the outcome of certain elections.Hon Trevor Mallard: Centrebet.CHRIS HIPKINS: Centrebet takes bets on elections. iPredict takes bets on elections effectively and John Key is trying to fix the results with his dodgy deals in Ōhariu and in Epsom.So what is the National Party doing in Epsom for example? It is saying to old Paul Goldsmith the man whom the National Party affectionately knows as “Goldie”—he should probably be called “Silvie” because he prefers to come second. But National is saying to old Paul Goldsmith “Don’t campaign. Don’t campaign at all.” National is basically trying to fix the deal in Epsom so that the ACT Party gets a free ride into Parliament. The party of independents the party that basically says that you should have self-reliance is basically relying on a dodgy deal with National in order to get an MP into Parliament in a deal that is fixed by John Key. What happens to people who are betting on that outcome? People take bets on outcomes of general elections. Will John Key be infringing this law if he is trying to fix the outcome and if he is trying to influence the outcome in a way that is not transparent that is dodgy all over and that is an absolute rort of the MMP electoral system? Where does that leave him? He is fixing that particular match in Epsom just as he is trying to fix the match just up the road from where I live in Ōhariu where he is trying to basically ensure that Peter Dunne can get back in—Peter Dunne the man who it has been well established now leaks sensitive information to journalists. John Key does not seem to have a problem with that.Match—Hon Trevor Mallard: “Stalker Peter”.CHRIS HIPKINS: Ha! Match fixing is a serious issue in New Zealand and it is important that we do something about it and that is why the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that when people go and participate in sports it is genuinely competitive and it is a genuine competition. That is something that we believe in for the sporting community. It is something that we should believe in in politics as well. It should be a genuine competition. It should not be about dodgy deals; it should be actually about getting out there giving it your best and actually seeing what happens on the day.It is not about trying to stitch things up in back rooms which is what the National Party seems to think politics is all about. So how ironic that it is saying it does not want that happening in sports. We do not want that happening in sports. We do not want that happening in politics either unlike this current National Government which seems to think that general elections are something to be bought and traded not something to be fairly contested in an election campaign where the voters get a say based on the ideas that they want to have represented in Government and the people they want to represent them in Government. This Government seems to think that it can simply jack it up with dodgy deals that are done over cups of tea. I think New Zealanders have had a gutsful of that. They have had a gutsful of that. They have as much contempt for that kind of approach from the National Government as they have for match fixing.So I think that this bill is a welcome piece of legislation. It will ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in fair sports and I think that is a very good thing but I think that we should make sure that the same kind of transparency and fairness that we are wanting to see in sports and particularly around betting around sports should happen around elections as well. It should not be the case that the Government can jack up particular election results that suit its interests; it should be the case that it is the voters who get to decide who they want to have representing them in Parliament and who they want to be the Government. This Government does not seem to have any respect for that whatsoever.This particular piece of legislation is very important because there have been international threat assessments that warn of increasing risk in New Zealand of match fixing and increasing risk that crime syndicates and individuals are targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing. There have already been high-profile cases in Australia. There have been one or two New Zealand sportspeople involved in allegations around this too and we want to make sure that New Zealanders can have confidence that that is not happening. It would significantly damage the credibility the value and the growth in New Zealand sport which is already contributing around $5 billion per year to our economy—probably more than that actually. So we should have confidence in our sporting institutions and in the players and make sure that there is robust legislation in place that makes it clear that match fixing is a crime under the Crimes Act. That is something that the Labour Party absolutely supports.I am going to leave my contribution at that and simply say to the Government that this is a good piece of legislation in the sporting arena. The Government should apply the same principle to the way it deals with politics.ALFRED NGARO (National):It is an honour to take the final call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I want to say to the member Chris Hipkins that obviously he has probably not had a one-to-one lesson on the history of the Labour Party and its dodgy deals and the match fixing he talked about. I actually think that that is the fault of the Hon Trevor Mallard. He should have done the 101 lesson. Chris Hipkins missed a class. If Trevor Mallard had taught him he would have told him about what happened in 1999 when Helen Clark actually did a deal with Jeanette Fitzsimons down in Coromandel. That is right “Chippy”—sorry Chris Hipkins—that is what they did. They did a deal there. He talks about dodgy deals but that is OK because Chris Hipkins was not born in 1999. He is still quite young. He is still quite green so he can be forgiven. He can be forgiven. He was not even a twinkle in the eye so he did not know—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Those sorts of comments are a personal attack against a member. I ask the member to come back and just be very careful about what he is saying.ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. They were just a rebuttal to the comments in the debate that were made by Chris Hipkins just to sort of set the story straight in the sense of talking about dodgy dealing and match fixing. This is a serious bill.Dr Megan Woods: Don’t be nasty then.ALFRED NGARO: The intent of this bill is about integrity. Oh Megan Woods said: “Don’t be nasty.” Well it is interesting because you know we just heard the attacks that have come from Chris Hipkins. I wish that Megan Woods had actually said that to him. But no that is OK—“Don’t be nasty.”Well this bill is actually not about being nasty; this bill is about integrity. This bill is important. For those of us who have actually coached who have actually managed sports and a number of people in sports it is really important. I know that from many years helping to coach the rugby teams and the netballs teams of my children as they have gone through them. We know that as young children grow up they love the ability to be able to go out to enjoy sports to have fun in sports and that is really important. So this bill is about that. It is ensuring there is not that sense of corruption inside sports even at the highest level. Why? Because our young people look at our most senior sportspersons and they see them as their role models so that becomes absolutely important. This bill is about the aspect of ensuring that corruption is not in there.I was actually in Melbourne over in Victoria last year and I remember that at the CPA Australia conference there the Australian members of Parliament talked about their anti-corruption legislation. They talked about its impact and the need for it inside sports especially around football and especially around cricket. So this is a good bill. The Government is taking a lead in this. We know it is getting unanimous support around the House. It is a pity that it has become a little bit of a political football that is going back and forth. What it is doing is actually important—this bill is important. It is about integrity inside sport. There is not much more to say.Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is running in West Auckland; he needs to know the difference between soccer and league.ALFRED NGARO: A lot has already been said and I know that Mr Mallard is there sort of chirping away. We know that this bill is important to the House. We look forward to it going through to the Law and Order Committee and being in force because the key word in the intent of the bill in regard to sport is “integrity” which New Zealand upholds in this Parliament and in this country for all sportsmen. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management BillIn CommitteeHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I seek leave of the House for the Committee stage to be taken as a single question.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1AA 1 2 3 and 5 to 7 stand part.Part 1 and 2 clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1AA to 3 and 5 to 7Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I firstly want to say that the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill being the very last bill passed by the 50th Parliament is something that in my view all parties of this Parliament should take pride in. It is actually possible only because of the cross-party agreement that has been reached. I want to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her support which is enabling us to take this measure. I know she has been a supporter of improved marine management across our New Zealand coastline. I also want to acknowledge Eugenie Sage and the Green Party. I note that Supplementary Order Paper 481 which I have tabled in my name brings forward the review of these Kaikōura marine management measures from the period of 25 years that is in the bill to 10 years which is part of a compromise that enables this bill to be passed today.This is actually a very significant bill. I note that the Chairman is one who has a passion for marine life—or generally hunting it—like crayfish. The bill actually creates New Zealand’s largest whale sanctuary a sanctuary of over 5000 square kilometres. That whale sanctuary could not be placed in a more appropriate place in New Zealand than Kaikōura. That is a place in which every New Zealander takes pride in the development of whale-watching and particularly the way in which a local rūnanga and Ngāi Tahu have developed an incredibly successful globally recognised tourism business with Whale Watch Kaikōura which has not only benefited Whale Watch Kaikōura but completely rejuvenated that community of Kaikōura.I also say that this bill provides for New Zealand’s very first seal sanctuary. The truth is that the very first interaction between Europeans Māori and these islands was from the wholesale slaughter of fur seals at an incredible scale of not millions but hundreds of millions. This bill provides for the very first area of New Zealand fur seal sanctuary. I would invite any member of this Committee to visit Ōhau Point to watch the baby seals play in the waterfall where I was 3 or 4 weeks ago with my own family—just to see the joy of hundreds of New Zealanders and visitors who see that very special experience of baby seals playing in a waterfall. It is an experience that is actually listed in that global magazine Lonely Planet as one that every person on the planet should experience and enjoy.This bill also provides for the biggest marine reserve adjacent to the New Zealand main islands the North Island and the South Island.Hon David Parker: What about the Kermadecs?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new marine reserve—and I am happy Mr Parker to respond to your point but I want to talk just about the Kaikōura marine reserve. It will be the largest marine reserve on the North Island or the South Island. It will go to the deepest waters. I think that marine reserve is very well justified. I do not think that many New Zealanders appreciate that the marine life in that Kaikōura trench so close to our mainland islands is the richest of anywhere on the globe. In fact my Department of Conservation scientists have said that the second-most abundant marine life at depths greater than 1500 metres has less than 1/500th of the abundance of marine life that is in that Kaikōura trench. It is absolutely right that we are protecting it.To respond quickly to the interjection from David Parker about the Kermadec Islands the Government’s position on the Kermadec Islands is that when you make decisions about marine protections and other use you need knowledge. That is why the Government is spending extensive money with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and also with other partnerships to actually get better information about both the conservation resources that are in the Kermadec Islands as well as the economic potential so that we can make a well-informed decision. It is the Government’s view that the Kermadec Islands are an area where there needs to be additional marine protection particularly with those “black smokers” the volcanic vents that exist in that area. It is our view that whether we are privileged to be the Government or dare I fear it the Opposition we would be supportive post the election of making progress on that front as well for marine protection.The other part of this bill provides for both mātaitai and taiāpure reserves for Ngāi Tahu and its local rūnanga. It also makes provision for significant reductions in recreational catches in that Kaikōura area.My last point would be to pay tribute to the collaborative process that has delivered these measures. I make no apologies for saying that New Zealand makes better progress around marine and other conservation issues by getting warring factions together and coming to an agreement. If there was anywhere in New Zealand where we should celebrate a successful outcome of that it is here at Kaikōura. When I went to Kaikōura 20 years ago and talked about marine reserves I attended a public meeting of over a hundred people where there had to be a police presence such was the tension between the protagonists and the antagonists around these sorts of measures. The fact that the Kaikōura community has come to a 100 percent agreement on this is a remarkable achievement. I say on this last bill on the last day of this 50th Parliament that it is equally true that we should take some pride in there being unanimous agreement by Parliament on these marine protection measures.The last thing I wish to say is I want to pay a tribute to retiring Kaikōura MP Colin King. He got me out in a wetsuit even before he was an MP—Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not retirement as such when you de-select a guy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —because he wanted to see progress being made on this bill. Well we have a contestable open process in National. [Interruption] Actually I tell the members opposite that the new candidate for Kaikōura Stuart Smith will be an outstanding member of Parliament for that community. He is strongly supported by Colin King. We are a party that is going through rejuvenation. I would remind members on the Opposition benches that they could learn from the experience of Kaikōura as to how to run candidate selections with class and democracy the way in which the National Party runs them. I know that Colin King takes great pride that on his very last day in Parliament he is seeing a dream and a vision of what would take place in his community being brought to fruition. Finally I do want to acknowledge Ruth Dyson and Eugenie Sage for the agreement that has been reached on this bill to enable its passage today.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour - Port Hills):Mr Chairman can I first of all briefly take the opportunity to acknowledge you and your role in this Parliament as you head into the last few hours of your time and say how your fairness guidance and gentle sense of humour have been greatly appreciated by this House as has your sense of dress. Your pink shirts show leadership as a Southern Man and I particularly want to acknowledge that.I agree with the Minister of Conservation who has just resumed his seat that the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill is a very good note as Parliament moves towards the end of this 50th session—it is not the last bill; there is another one on the Order Paper after this—to nearly end this session of Parliament on. Can I acknowledge the four Ministers of Conservation who have progressed this legislation: the Hon Chris Carter the Hon Steve Chadwick the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Hon Nick Smith who is now seeing it into the final stages before it concludes in its third reading.I also want to add my acknowledgment of Colin King who has as the local member of Parliament for Kaikōura—prior to being dumped by the National Party—strongly supported this legislation. I think it is a good thing that the Minister urged other parties in Parliament to support its progress so that Colin King could still be a member of Parliament during the third and final reading of this legislation. I was very happy to support this initiative by that MP.I want to acknowledge the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians who for 7 years have worked following a request from the Minister of Conservation at the start of that time to make this perhaps unthinkable agreement a reality. The Minister is right that such areas of proposed protections are often the cause of huge division in a community. In this instance through a lot of goodwill a lot of common sense and a lot of hard work the agreement has been reached and we are now able to progress a large area of marine protection. It is not perhaps what best practice would have dictated if it had been done from central direction rather than from a locally driven agreement but it is a huge step forward and the fact that it has got the agreement of all parties means that it is more likely to be enduring.The fact that the Minister supported through his Supplementary Order Paper 481 a change to the length of time for the review from 25 years to 10 years was I think a good thing and I assume that the guardians are supportive of that as well. I think that the general provision of review of marine protection is good as long as it is not one that then opens up that division again. The Minister nodded as I gently requested confirmation that the guardians are in agreement with that review. I think that it is a very good step and we will be supporting it.I also want to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee. We held hearings on this legislation in Kaikōura. I think it was great that we went to the local area. We were obviously surrounded by the beauty of that part of New Zealand but we were also very much aware of the passion the energy and the commitment the local people who made submissions on this bill have for their coastline. The pride the understanding the knowledge and the commitment they had made to put aside many differences and work collaboratively together were very obvious during our day of hearings. I want to acknowledge the select committee for the respectful way we heard the submissions and the contributions made by the submitters.I also want to acknowledge the officials. They worked hard; I think they enjoyed it. We are probably one of the most satisfying committees to work with because we put quite a lot of energy into our consideration. The officials were very responsive to our requests some of which they might have felt were a little bit obscure. For example we were very puzzled by the differences—and I know this is one that exercised the mind of my colleague Moana Mackey—in the measurements that are undertaken by different departments and whether the measurements go to two or three decimal points or one and what difference that makes to the actual measurement of the coverage of the marine protected area. So I want to acknowledge and thank the officials for their work.This bill establishes marine reserves of different types around the Kaikōura Coast—the whale sanctuary that the Minister referred to in his contribution and the New Zealand fur seal sanctuary. As the Minister alluded to we think of times when fur seals were part of the produce of New Zealand and now we so much enjoy being able to see the pups and their transition to adult life and being able to drive down the coast and see the fur seals at close hand—not too close though because they are not pets. It is a very fortunate thing for us. Many countries are very jealous of our ability to show off our animals in that way. We have different types of marine protection. We have sanctuaries as we know them but we also have the taiāpure and the mātaitai. The bill establishes an advisory committee and I think that that is a good model to hold. I look forward to seeing how that as the model for marine protection develops and whether there are some opportunities for other areas to take advantage of that. Obviously there are also fisheries regulations that are specific to this area.It is a pleasure for me as the Labour conservation spokesperson to be able to put Labour’s name alongside supporters of this area and to say that even though significant concerns were raised with the select committee by people who know this area of science very well that this bill is not in accordance with best practice—and I take those concerns seriously—we considered that the work that was done over so many years under request from four Ministers of Conservation consecutively deserves the respect of responsive support from this Parliament. Had there been different instructions given to the guardians or had the rules changed part-way through there may have been a different consideration but it is our view that the work that the guardians have undertaken in an area that they know best and that offers much better protection than we currently have and with the opportunity for a review in just a decade’s time is certainly worthy of support.I think that the changes that the select committee made improved the original legislation. Combined with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is offering they give us something for this whole Parliament to be proud of something that has been worked on for many years and something that will have a great third reading to go through in these final stages of the House as we progress this Committee stage and move to the third reading shortly afterward. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Chair ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. It is fantastic that in the last hours of this Parliament we are seeing marine reserve and marine protection laws passing through our Parliament. So I would like to do a round of thanks—thanks to the Minister of Conservation thanks to the officials and thanks to the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Maggie Barry who was actually a very surprisingly good chair. I would like to thank all the members all the submitters and most of all I would like thank Te Korowai the collaborative group that worked in Kaikōura to develop the policy that we see before us soon to become an Act of Parliament the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill.It is fantastic that we are protecting our waters. It is something that we need to do more. We have got only 0.41 percent of all of our waters less than half of 1 percent protected in marine reserves. We have got the Māui’s dolphin on the cusp of extinction Bryde’s whales going that way in the Hauraki Gulf and the New Zealand sea lion critically endangered. We are seeing our oceans in crisis with climate change acidification pollution waste and overfishing all threatening the health and viability of our oceans. The Pacific forum meets right now to discuss the moana this blue highway that connects our Pacific States. It is important that it has put the oceans on the agenda and it is great to see this Parliament doing something about it.I want to say very loudly and very clearly that the Green Party supports this bill. We support it. We voted for it at every stage. We have worked constructively in the Local Government and Environment Committee within the constraints to try to improve it. There have been some improvements such as the 25-year review now being reduced to a 10-year review once we see Supplementary Order Paper 481 agreed. In saying that we support it and we will be voting for it I do want to get three concerns on the Hansard of our Parliament. The first is that the Marine Protected Areas Policy and the marine protected areas classification protection standards and implementation guidelines were not applied. This is something that officials and Ministers have put a great deal of work into over the years. It is disappointing that these guidelines have not been applied in this case.Secondly we see the Hikurangi Marine Reserve. It is fantastic to be doing a marine reserve covering an oceanic trench—a biodiversity hotspot. Part of the thriving Kaikōura economy is built on the whale-watching industry which is associated with the trench. It is great to be doing it but what we see with this marine reserve is only a tiny amount touching the coast—1.97 kilometres. It must be the oddest marine reserve we have got in the country—a 12-sided irregular shape. I do not think there is a name for the type of shape that describes this marine reserve which only touches the bottom the benthos of the Hikurangi trench not the sides which are the real ecological hotspot areas. Given that we have heard advice from marine reserves and marine science experts that the boundary effects are magnified the enforcement obligations are made more difficult and the difficulties of communicating such a complex 12-sided shape is not ideal—obviously it would not meet those guidelines—what we would have preferred is a more regular consistent shape where those boundary effects are reduced it is easier to communicate easier to enforce and easier to protect. So we have some concerns over the process. We have some concerns over the trench reserve in particular.Thirdly when it comes to the whale sanctuary the Green Party would have preferred to have seen the other marine mammals species protected. It is great to see a whale sanctuary but we need to be protecting all of our marine mammals. So we would have preferred to have seen a similar marine mammal reserve as under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 which could have protected the whales could have protected the seals and could have protected the Hector’s dolphin which brings me to my final point.Kiwis have a very clear choice on the oceans this election. We see that this bill will pass which is fantastic but what we have not seen action on from National is real action to save the Māui’s dolphin. What we see is National opening up a third of the Māui sanctuary to seabed mining. What we see is National wanting to see seismic testing which can deafen the dolphins and drive them into lethal trawling nets. In fact we still see those lethal legal set nets and trawl nets in the Māui sanctuary. We see our New Zealand sea lions on the path to extinction and action not taken to save them. We see a Government that is literally subsidising with taxpayers’ money tens of millions of dollars to seabed miners despite the Department of Conservation itself saying that it is troubling and likely to degrade the environment—for example risking the survival of the Māui’s dolphin.So for people watching the parliamentary broadcast if people out in New Zealand want to see a party that is going to stand up to protect what we love which is the oceans the ability to catch a wave catch a cray and go for a fish and the ability to protect the oceans which are the lifeblood of our economy of which our prosperity is built on the Green Party is the clear choice because the Green Party will act to protect our oceans.MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I rise to take a short call in the Committee stage of the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. Certainly it is a piece of legislation that the Labour Party supports. It has had a somewhat unusual development path compared with other marine reserves. I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by submitters—not from Kaikōura but submitters who submitted here in Wellington—around I guess the bypassing of the regular mechanism for establishing marine reserves. Certainly there were concerns raised about the size of the reserve the shape of the reserve and the process that had been undertaken in order to get the reserve in place but I think any concerns that we had from the Labour Party perspective were allayed when we travelled to Kaikōura and heard from the Korowai group the guardians who had put together the marine reserve package. When we talked through the process that they went through the collaborative process and when we heard the submissions from all the different groups that have interests in this particular piece of ocean we certainly were convinced that it was a very good piece of work and a piece of work that should be supported notwithstanding the somewhat unusual process—or not unusual; that is probably the wrong word: the different process—that had been gone through in terms of establishing this marine reserve.Marine reserves are often contentious and you are dealing with a piece of ocean here that actually has I think far more existing rights in terms of use in terms of people making their living off the sea. Fisheries are always difficult to manage when you are establishing marine reserves—fishing rights and the rights of those who have been fishing there for a long time and who make their livelihood off that activity. But also of course in Kaikōura a lot of tourism activities occur around this area. So to go to Kaikōura and to hear submissions that were unanimously in favour of the marine reserve was a somewhat surreal experience in my experience but a very very positive one. To hear the pāua fishermen the cray fishermen the tourism operators iwi the local community and the local Forest and Bird organisation all coming to give very very positive submissions on this piece of legislation was a very rewarding experience and a very unusual experience for a select committee. Certainly we enjoyed visiting this very beautiful part of the country and being able to hear firsthand the positivity and the passion for this particular marine reserve knowing that it simply is not going to be left to the Department of Conservation to manage.This marine reserve is something that is owned by the local community by the local iwi and as they said to us this is a starting point. We appreciate that this is slightly unusual in terms of the scope of the marine reserve but we view this as a starting point and we want to build on it from here. Do not think that this is all there is going to be. Certainly they acknowledge that the lack of shoreline in the marine reserve was unusual but there were reasons for that and they were aware of them and they were going to build on that. I think that is a very positive message that we can take out of that. Although I acknowledge the concerns that were raised more generally about the scope of the marine reserve I think that when you spoke to the people who had developed it and had gone down there and heard their reasons and their stories as to how they got to where they were I do not think any reasonable person could say that it is a negative.I want to thank the officials for the work that they did on this particular piece of legislation. It is not always easy as we said. My colleague Ruth Dyson alluded to one very bizarre problem we had and I notice in the schedules that it has been completely rewritten to ensure that the GPS coordinates for the marine reserve go to three decimal points and not two. We did discover that the GPS coordinates in the legislation put the marine reserve about 20 metres out of place. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industries is in the House. Maybe he can answer a burning question that the select committee members had which we were not able to get fully answered. Why does the Ministry for Primary Industries have a policy of going to only two decimal places and not three decimal places? It seemed to us that if you have got three decimal places use them. It is going to be more accurate. We were just told in what was a very Gliding On moment that “It’s just MPI policy—two decimal places.” That is very efficient but I wonder whether the Minister for Primary Industries could tell me why—[Interruption] That is right. Why has the Ministry for Primary Industries got a strict two decimal place policy instead of a three decimal place policy? I hope that the Minister for Primary Industries will bring his ministry into the 21st century and move to a three decimal place policy as quickly as possible. Having a marine reserve that is 20 metres out of place in the legislation is not insignificant.As I said this marine reserve was started by Chris Carter. It has gone through four Ministers of Conservation. It will hopefully get the unanimous support of this House. I am very very pleased again. It is a slightly unusual process that we are going through in order to ensure that this bill passes before the election but I am very very pleased that my last speech in this session of Parliament is on something positive and on something that we have unanimous agreement on and on something that I am sure will benefit generations to come—not just on the Kaikōura coast but right across New Zealand. The Kaikōura coast truly is a very special part of the country. I was privileged to visit it for the first time when the select committee was hearing submissions.I want to wish you well Mr Chair in your future endeavours. I acknowledge your valedictory speech last night. As we close this session of Parliament I think this is an extremely good bill to go out on.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. It is a great pleasure that the last speech I give in this session of Parliament will be on such a great piece of legislation.Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura marine group in Kaikōura and all those involved in Te Korowai are to be highly commended for the exceptional work they did as a community in helping to bring this all together. When we as the Local Government and Environment Committee sat and heard the submissions including the hearings in Kaikōura itself it was most impressive to see how that community had come together across so many different entities and groups including Ngāi Tahu and local iwi and hapū the cray fishermen the pāua divers the many involved in the tourist industries there and the many involved from the community including Forest and Bird and other environmental groups. So many organisations came together collegially to come up with this and then took it through the necessary legislative processes with our various ministries to get it to this point.I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that has been undertaken by the officials from so many of the different departments involved from the Department of Conservation the Ministry for Primary Industries the fisheries people our parliamentary counsel and others—whom I have not mentioned but they know who they are—who did a huge amount of work on this bill to bring it all together so well. We certainly enjoyed working on this bill. I think this was one of the most enjoyable pieces of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked on in the 3 years of this term. We knew that it would have such a great outcome.I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Conservation Nick Smith as well for his work on this and his commitment to marine reserves. Minister Smith I know how committed you have been to creating so many marine reserves.We also sat on the Subantarctic Islands marine reserves legislation which was a magnificent outcome for those outlying islands as we did on the legislation for the Akaroa marine reserve and others. Again it is something that all New Zealanders can be proud of because at the end of the day we are the guardians of our marine estate. Marine reserves depend on humans to ensure that we take care of them and we are the guardians of these incredible resources that we have out there. In that respect every one of these marine reserves just adds to the special nature of New Zealand and our geographical position in the world—our isolation as islands in the South Pacific—and the fact is that we do recognise the need to ensure that these marine reserves are put in place to protect the environment for future generations.It was interesting to learn about some of the aspects of this bill and to go to the likes of the fur seal colony and see how that beautiful coastline in Kaikōura exists. For the people of New Zealand to be able to see those fur seals so close to the main highway so close to the railway line—the fur seals are all there basking in the sun and lying around on the rocks and scratching themselves and having a jolly good old time and jumping off into the water and doing it all right in front of people—is just extraordinary.I say to any New Zealander who has not had the opportunity to do that if you are able to go down the Kaikōura Coast it certainly is well worth doing as is the visit to the small area that is the creche for the pups or the seal calves as they are known. It was amazing to see them in the pools of water there. The select committee went up to the pools of water and watched 50 or 60 of these young seals frolicking in the water. They stay there during the day. Apparently they go back to see mum and dad at night time. They get a bit of a feed—a bit of kai—from mum and dad and then the next day they go back up to the pools and have another play around. It was marvellous to see that and to see how they were in the natural environment. The fact that all this area will be protected as a result of this bill is excellent.In terms of the whale sanctuary and the canyon off the Kaikōura Coast it is a very significant canyon a very deep canyon and one that is quite unique as it has significant food resources for the whales. One of the reasons why they have had such a longstanding habitat there is that it is such a special place for the whales to exist. As a result it is wonderful that Ngāi Tahu with their whale-watching tourism venture were able to put in place the necessary infrastructure to allow people to go out and take part in the whale-watching there and see these majestic animals in their natural habitat. Again that is wonderful. The fact that we have this marine sanctuary will ensure that that is preserved and protected and that New Zealanders and international tourists can take benefit from it. That is marvellous.It was interesting when we heard about some of the more technical areas of this bill—when we looked at the maps and at how the area was all clearly defined with the borders and boundaries of the different sanctuaries involved here—that we were down to debating decimal places. The whole debate about whether it should be to two or three decimal places was interesting. We were told initially that “The system works to only two decimal places. That is how it is.” but as we all know in this modern generation computers can go out to as many decimal places as you like. We said that for the benefit of the environment we would have to go to whichever decimal place is required to ensure that the proper protections are put in place for these marine sanctuaries and it was very pleasing to see that the officials from Ministry for Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation recognised the fact that going to three decimal places would ensure greater certainty over that. That was a great thing. We hope that it applies elsewhere in New Zealand in future as well. That would be a good thing.In closing can I just say that I have enjoyed my 3 years on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It has been a very interesting committee. We have had a huge workload. It is a very busy committee. If you can imagine both the local government side of things plus all the environment side of things you know it should almost be two committees because the amount of work covers such a huge huge area.We have literally worked very hard and I commend all the members not only the present members but members who have been on it during these 3 years of this term. Everyone has contributed well. We have had some very very good outcomes. We have looked at submissions from the public from all over New Zealand on so many different subjects. As a result wherever possible we have ensured that best outcomes have come as a result of that. We do not always agree with the outcomes and New Zealand First has raised concerns in some areas but at the end of the day democracy is upheld and we are a better place for the fact that we have a system of select committees that gives thorough scrutiny to all these areas.I commend the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill to the House. New Zealand First is very proud to have been part of this process.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. This bill the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill addresses the significant biodiversity and the uniqueness of the Kaikōura coast. It has been very interesting to listen to the speeches on it so far—in particular when the Minister of Conservation and also Andrew Williams acknowledged the Kaikōura Canyon. In my research of the Kaikōura Canyon it says that the canyon contains a hundred times the biomass of any other equivalent sort of environment. That contributes to the orange roughy and hoki industry down there. It is really important that this area is protected. This marine reserve and the whole bill go some way to doing that.The bill talks about kaitiakitanga. I would just like to explain the notion of kaitiakitanga. We use the word quite often and assume that people understand what it means. The base word of kaitiakitanga is the word “tiaki” which means to care for something. The prefix “kai” is the equivalent of having “er” on the end of an English word. So “kaitiaki” means a carer or a guardian and kaitiakitanga means the guardianship. This bill talks about kaitiakitanga and local leadership.It is really important that we acknowledge the number of local people who have been involved in this. We have heard of the diverse interests such as the crayfishermen the fishermen and local iwi. It is really important that we recognise everybody who has been involved in this in particular the group known as Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura. Korowai is another Māori word which means a cloak. They are laying their cloak of guardianship across this area.I agree with our colleague Gareth Hughes about the shape of the marine area. Looking at schedule 1 the shape looks similar to a capital F lying on its side and it is a 12-sided shape. Not having been part of the deliberations at that stage on the select committee it sort of made sense to me looking at things now that point (f) in schedule 1 could well have been connected directly to point (e) which would have taken out eight sides of that irregular shape or at the very least point (m) connected to point (j) and then (j) to (e) which would have reduced the weird shape of the marine area. As Gareth Hughes has pointed out having such a long boundary around this marine reserve sort of dilutes the effect of having such a large reserve. I do not understand why it is in this shape; I was not part of the deliberations. I am sure there was a very good reason why it is in the shape that it is.Regarding the whale sanctuary I think we need to go back a bit and examine New Zealand’s history around whaling which would bring us forward into why we need a whale sanctuary at this time. Apparently Māori used to hunt whales although very irregularly. I do not know how they managed to do it in the small waka that they would have paddled around in and I do not know how they would have harpooned them but certainly Māori partook of the bounty when a stranded whale washed up on the shore. In fact because they subsisted on such a paltry diet of crayfish oysters kinas wood pigeons berries and things when a whale washed up on the beach they probably would have thought all their Matarikis had arrived at once.There is a very famous story up north in Ahipara that when one tribe was living up on the top of a quite impregnable pā by the name of Whangatauatia another tribe was down below on the beach wondering how it could get these other guys to come out when they hit upon the idea of killing and skinning a number of dogs and sewing the skins together and wrapping them around some sort of frame in the shape of a whale to make it look like a whale was beached part-way up Ninety Mile Beach. The people in the pā came racing out and subsequently were dispatched as we did in the day. It just goes to show that Māori had interests in whale-meat; 10 tonnes of protein turning up on your doorstep was considered a bounty.Hon Trevor Mallard: What does it taste like?KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Mallard I would have no idea what it tastes like.The other two points I would like to make are around the mātaitai. We also talk about mātaitai and taiāpure and people do not really know what they are so I would just like to spell it out. A taiāpure is a local management tool established in an area that has customarily been of special significance to an iwi or hapū as a source of food or for spiritual or cultural reasons. This is spelt out under section 174 of the Fisheries Act. Taiāpure can be established over any area of estuarine or coastal waters to make better provision for rangatiratanga and for the rights secured under article 2 of the Treaty. Taiāpure provisions are contained within sections 174 to 185 of the Fisheries Act. All fishing including commercial fishing can continue in a taiāpure and this tool offers a way for tangata whenua to become involved in the management of both commercial and non-commercial fishing in their area.A mātaitai is slightly different. Mātaitai reserves are areas where the tangata whenua manage all non-commercial fishing by making by-laws. The by-laws must apply equally to all individuals. Mātaitai reserves may be applied for over traditional fishing grounds only and must be areas of special significance to the tangata whenua. Generally there is no commercial fishing within mātaitai reserves.To go back slightly to whaling and the reason we need to have the whaling sanctuary in the 1800s it was estimated that there were some 70000 southern right whales in the southern hemisphere; by the 1920s there were just 500 estimated to be left. It is estimated that over 2 million whales had been slaughtered in the southern hemisphere. This demonstrates the reason we need to have these whaling sanctuaries so we can try to do our small part in making sure the whale population regenerates. We know now that instead of trying to make money out of commercial whaling it is better to protect them and allow economies like those in Kaikōura to make money through people going whale-watching. When we explore what happened to whales parts of the whales were used for such essential items as making corsets and headwear. I believe flexible riding whips were another reason whalebone was used. The oil was used to lubricate machinery and things like that. It is just an utter waste and an utter travesty and that is why this marine reserve is such an essential thing. Kia ora.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a call on the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. It is unusual to have such a short Committee stage and no debate on the third reading. The Green Party has agreed to this so that the bill can be passed by this Parliament and the marine protected areas that it establishes can go into law before the House rises later today for the election campaign.As the Minister of Conservation and others have noted the Kaikōura coast is unique because that very deep Kaikōura Canyon lies so close to shore. It is the canyon with its rich marine life that attracts the whales particularly the sperm whales and they are of course the basis of the $30 million marine tourism industry which is the basis of the whole economy for the township of Kaikōura. This bill and the fact that it establishes the Hikurangi Marine Reserve a whale sanctuary and a sanctuary for the fur seals should help protect the base of that marine tourism industry. As well the bill establishes two taiāpure areas and three mātaitai reserves and they will certainly help to safeguard customary fishing and allow for the restoration of Ngāti Kuri’s traditional rights in those areas. As well the bill makes some changes to the recreational fishing regulations which should also benefit marine life in the area by reducing bag limits both for some species of shellfish and for fin fish.The protected areas that the bill establishes are very welcome but they are only the proverbial drop in the marine protection bucket because the area of territorial sea and the economic exclusion zone that we have protected in New Zealand is still 0.41 percent. The Hikurangi Marine Reserve as Kelvin Davis noted is indeed a very odd-shaped drop in the bucket with the “F” on this map lying on its side. That is because as we understand it the boundaries were drawn to have the least impact on crayfishers and others and they avoided two quite important sea mounts. It has been really disappointing that it has got these odd-shaped 12-sided boundaries because as the Department of Conservation officials recognised that would make it much more difficult to enforce the prohibition on fishing within the marine reserve. As submitters like the Marine Sciences Society and Forest and Bird noted because you have got these odd 12-sided boundaries it means that the edge effects from fishing outside the reserve will have an impact much further in the reserve than would otherwise occur.The other thing that is disappointing is the lost opportunity. When we have got the State highway along the coast and it is very easy for people to access the coast we have got less than 2 kilometres of the really dramatic Kaikōura coastline protected as part of the marine reserve. Again we understand that that was to protect the crayfishers but visitors want to get up close and personal with nature in an unfished state and given the importance of marine tourism to Kaikōura it would have been a great opportunity to provide more chance for snorkelling and diving in areas where fishing does not occur.We welcome the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 481 which reduces the review period from 25 years to 10 years. That is a very good initiative because we hope that the Kaikōura community will recognise the major benefits of the marine reserve and will want to see more of the shoreline protected when it goes through that review. But the marine protected areas in this bill do not make up for the fact that National is encouraging high-impact exploitation and potential devastation of parts of our marine environment through its encouragement and promotion of deep-sea oil drilling and seabed mining. We have had 11 oil company executives wined and dined by the Government soliciting their oil rigs and their oil drills. They will put our coast at risk of a catastrophe like the Deepwater Horizon one. The Green Party wants clean beaches that are safe from oil spills and no deep-sea oil drilling but National with its encouragement of deep-sea oil drilling risks our beaches being smothered with a thick and deadly blanket of oil if we have a catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.Although we are establishing in this bill a fur seal sanctuary on the one hand on the other hand the Government has failed to outlaw the deadly fishing methods like set-netting on the west coast of the North Island to protect the threatened Māui’s dolphin. As others have noted we have more MPs now than we have Māui’s dolphins. The Green Party announced yesterday its plan to protect Māui’s dolphin and to make that sanctuary a real safe haven by outlawing set-netting and trawl-netting and providing assistance to fishers to move to dolphin-safe methods. So although this Minister is certainly an enthusiast for marine reserves of course it was a previous Minister who rejected the Akaroa marine reserve. Even with this marine reserve of over 1000 hectares it is still very small compared with the area that National has opened up to oil exploration.I have been on the Local Government and Environment Committee since 2011. On first coming to that committee we had marine reserves legislation that had been languishing in front of the select committee and this Parliament for more than a decade. We have had repeated promises by National that we would have new marine reserve legislation introduced to this Parliament. I expect the Minister will do it again at the Environmental Defence Society conference next week and tantalise the environmental sector with the prospect of better legislation for marine protection. We need that legislation to avoid ad hoc bills like this one.The other comment I would like to make is that the bill provides for the establishment of an advisory committee the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians to advise the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries. We hope that given the international significance of the Kaikōura Canyon and the Hikurangi Marine Reserve in protecting a small portion of the area the Ministers will recognise that it is not just the Kaikōura community that should be represented on the advisory committee but the national and international interests in marine protection.We have got the University of Canterbury which has had a longstanding teaching and research laboratory in Kaikōura. It would be very useful to ensure that there is strong science representation on the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians because this would help provide good objective baseline research to help inform the review of the marine protected areas in 10 years’ time and it would help we think with the work that will be done by Ngāti Kuri and others in restoring the taiāpure and the mātaitai areas and the fisheries in those. Good science is the basis of good management.As Gareth Hughes noted we would have liked to see the whale sanctuary established under the Marine Mammals Protection Act so that it could have protected other species like the dusky dolphins. But we do acknowledge the work of the Minister in getting this bill through and the work of officials both here in Wellington and in Kaikōura when the select committee travelled there. We would also really like to acknowledge the huge amount of effort that the members of Te Korowai put into this—the numerous meetings and discussions and the better understanding of the different points of view around the table. That collaborative process is an improvement in terms of the opposition we have seen in the past to the establishment of marine reserves. But as we have said before it does need to be done in the context of the marine protected areas policy and the guidelines in that.We applaud the work that everyone has done in getting the bill to this stage and we look forward to it being passed. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour - Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. I want to make just a brief contribution on behalf of my whanaungas in Ngāti Kuri of Kaikōura. I would just like to put this on the record for the Committee; it is a mihi from my whanaungas.Tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā kārangatanga maha tēnei mātou e hari ana ki te mihi atu ki a koutou i runga tonu nei i ngā āhuatanga o te tika me te pono o tēnei kaupapa manaaki taonga ā-whenua ā-wai māori ā-wai tai. He kaupapa nui whakaharahara te mahi ngātahi tēnei iwi me ngā iwi katoa e nohonoho nei ki tō mātou takiwā. Hoi anō i runga i te peha o tōku tūpuna nōki te kori kia kori mai hoki koe ka whakatau i te kaupapa. Ko Tapuwae-o-Uenuku kei runga hei tītīreia mō te iwi. Ko Waiau Toa kei raro i hono ai ki tōna hoa ki te hauraro ko Waiau Uha. Ko Te Tai o Marokura te moana i ū mai ai a Tūte urutira kia tau mai ki tō Hineroko whenua i raro i Te Whata Kai a Rokohouia. Ko tōna utuanga he tāngata arā ko ngā Tātare o Tānemoehau. Ā he tātai mai ki tēnei ao. Mā tātou anōngā awa me ngā awaanga me ngā hiwi me ngā toropuke me ngā maunga me ngā awa nunui kei runga i a Kaikōura whenua e tiaki e atawhai. Ko Tahanga te marae. Ko Marukaitātea te whare tipuna. Ko Ngāti Kuri te hapu Ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi.[It is with delight that I extend this acknowledgment to you all the many callings with regard to the appropriateness and validity of this proposal of caring treasured inland fresh and coastal waterways. It is indeed a significant and marvellous scheme to work in unison with this tribe and all the tribes settled here in our tribal territory. Therefore we acknowledge the saying that was uttered by my ancestor: “The move is mine so it is you who must move in my direction to settle it.” Tapuae-o-Uenuku is indeed above as a chiefly comb for the people. Waiau Toa is below joining up with his partner Waiau Uha further down. Te Tai o Marokura is the ocean that Tūteurutira crossed over and came ashore at the land of Hineroko beneath the lofty food-gathering cliffs of Rokohouia. His cargo was people the brave warriors of Tānemoehau which serves as a lineage to this world. It is for us now to protect and care for the rivers valleys hillocks ridges mountains and broad braided rivers upon the lands of Kaikōura. Takahanga is the marae Maru Kaitātea is the ancestral house Ngāti Kurī is the kinship group and Ngāi Tahu is the tribe.]The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 481 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5C(1) be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1AA to 3 and 5 to 7 as amended agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Sittings of the HouseHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I seek leave of the House that the House continues into the lunch break beyond 1 p.m. if necessary to enable it to complete the remaining items on the Order Paper.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management BillThird ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I move That the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):I move That the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader - Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased that the House has got a little bit of time just before we close off business. I wanted to make a statement on behalf of the Māori Party in particular around our influence in the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.I do this because last night in the Committee stage there were a number of statements made in particular by the Labour members about whether or not we were for or against this particular bill. I did want to acknowledge one of the members who called me to apologise for the misinformation that was released into the public about the fact that we were supposedly blocking the bill from progressing through Parliament. For the record there was no notice of motion put to us on whether the bill should be read. The Māori Party also did not call for the bill to be withdrawn; nor did we block leave because leave was not sought. So I leave it there for the record and hope that our Labour colleagues will have heard that loud and clear.We did however express a different point of view—a strong and independent Māori position—on the debate which we continue to uphold. The reality about this bill is that it is not a black and white moment in time without having the ability to question what is going on. As Martin Luther King said: “The time is always right to do what’s right.” That is pretty much the Māori Party view—that we will always speak up on issues that really matter. So can I say that we are really aware of the conflicts and compromises that have been associated with this bill and we will not ignore all of them merely for the sake of forcing the bill through the House but I am hopeful that we will be able to do at least that today.I want to be clear from the very start that we the Māori Party have zero tolerance for companies that exploit workers or do not follow the rules—absolutely. The Māori Party has from day one supported the drive to put better safeguards in place for foreign workers on board foreign charter vessels. Indeed it was our own very productive and constructive member for Te Tai Tonga in the previous term Rahui Katene who put forward a petition from the Service and Food Workers Union Ngā Ringa Tōtā that stated that this whole process needed to be kicked off and she was the one who basically did that.In response to that petition former Ministers Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson called for a ministerial inquiry into the foreign charter fishing vessels. The inquiry was established to enable a comprehensive look at the state of our fishing industry following concerns that New Zealand jobs were being lost to foreign crews who were working in substandard conditions. We believed then and we believe now that it was an indictment on the industry itself that it would not employ New Zealand crews on New Zealand vessels. There is a whole industry—ship building maintenance and engineering and net making and fishing—where we should be encouraging and preserving jobs for New Zealanders. Whoever is working on our boats the Māori Party believes that we need to maintain New Zealand’s safety pay and employment standards for any worker within New Zealand waters. That is a basic human right that has been missing from foreign crews on foreign vessels in New Zealand.There is of course a huge issue about the contribution of whanau hapū and iwi in the commercial fishing sector. The purpose of the Māori fisheries settlement was to return Māori to the business and activity of fishing. But the quota that was delivered to iwi through the settlement process failed really to give each individual iwi an innate ability to run economic fishing operations across the whole value chain. The restrictions that the law places on our quota mean that any adjustment for iwi to meet the new rules will take longer than it would for a standard commercial fishing operation that has been in business for decades. The objective of our involvement in this bill was always about creating a time for that evolutionary process. It was certainly never to dodge our obligations. The Māori Party actively worked with iwi to develop amendments and to try to make sure that this bill would be workable for all iwi involved. From an iwi perspective iwi were certainly not opposed to ensuring that workers’ rights are safeguarded but what they were asking for was lead-in time to be able to implement the changes. In the meantime they would be happy for their boats to be monitored to ensure that they are meeting labour and human rights standards.At the second reading and indeed at the Committee stage the Māori Party opposed the Supplementary Order Papers and the revised bill because we actually believe they undermine and devalue the Treaty settlement package negotiated by iwi. We know that the changes may mean that some iwi will no longer be able to operate. Big companies are better able to absorb the costs of changes but those iwi and other operators who fish low-yield catch cannot. There is a real risk that it will threaten their business no matter how small they are.We believe that the Māori fisheries settlement must be durable. The Crown must act in good faith to ensure that we as Māori have a fair opportunity to catch up with our industry counterparts. The iwi leaders group has worked with us through its advisers such as Te Ohu Kaimoana to put its case to the Government and we will continue to work with the Government whoever that Government is to ensure that these genuine issues raised by iwi are taken seriously.The key for us is to ensure that iwi Māori are able to participate and directly benefit from having a sustainable New Zealand fishing industry. This House is very aware that rangatahi Māori have the highest rates of unemployment. Much more needs to be done to encourage them to move into the fishing industry. We need the money and those jobs in the fishing sector to stay right here where they belong and not to be contracted out to foreign crews. We want to see rangatahi Māori employed in the fishing industry.But I say that we are not about to be bullied or silenced in terms of raising the issues that whanau hapū and iwi have raised with us and in a due and proper process. I can say that the Māori Party has brought those issues to the House and to the debate in question time. We have also called various Ministers to caucus to have the face-to-face discussion that we need. We have brokered meetings between iwi leaders and Ministers to ensure that their genuine concerns are aired. We have crafted amendments to reflect those concerns. We have written directly to the relevant Ministers. We have also voted accordingly. So to those various members across the Committee last night who said that we should be ashamed I hope that they think again today. In fact I would have a good guess to say that we have probably done most of all of the parties to facilitate an outcome for this bill.Iwi leaders told us as they did the Ministers and anyone else who bothered to listen that the alleged breaches of human rights—the widespread abuse that was being discussed—was never proven in an inquiry. It was their absolute belief that the legislation that evolved was an approach that was sort of like a sledgehammer to a peanut. They always knew that there could have been a far more effective approach to resolving issues than what was eventually developed. Iwi leaders pointed out time and time again that there could have been a different way ahead. The Minister for Primary Industries the Hon Nathan Guy agreed to the approach but as a result of the political pressure from other parties that support was withdrawn.So in wrapping up we will continue to keep all parties accountable for how the proposed changes impact on iwi and their capacity to make the best possible use of their Māori fisheries settlement. At the end of the day this bill is about health and safety issues on foreign vessels chartered to fish in deep-water fisheries. We need to ensure that we are getting the best economic return from our deep-sea fisheries that the robust employment protection provisions that are available on land are also reflected at sea and that the monitoring of foreign charter vessels and domestic deep-sea operators in our waters is adequate. So on balance we vote in support of the work our party initiated 3 years ago to ensure that all human rights protections are upheld to affirm our international reputation as a world-leading fisheries manager. We acknowledge the iwi leaders group for their advice and we say there will be another day when iwi will come back to raise those concerns that they have raised and we look forward to being here to take those up. Kia ora tātou.Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)