Volume 691 Week 47 - Tuesday 2 July 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 691 Week 47 - Tuesday 2 July 2013[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 2 July 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.Speaker’s StatementsChamber—Commemorative PlaquesMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I draw your attention to the three new plaques installed at the back of the Chamber to commemorate military deployments and peacekeeping missions since the 1950s. The plaques will be unveiled during a ceremony scheduled for the dinner break this evening.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I seek the leave of the House for the Speaker to make a statement about the unveiling of the commemorative plaques when the House resumes after the dinner break this evening.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed?Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want an indication as to whether or not such a statement would breach urgency.Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to clarify? It will not if leave is sought. Leave is so sought. Is there any objection to that leave? There is none.Points of OrderUnited Nations Security Council New Zealand’s Candidature—Leave to Move MotionH V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a non-debatable motion No. 14 in my name. It is to do with New Zealand’s candidature for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I could just clear up something for the Government this notice of motion has been cleared with the Government through John Hayes and also through Katrina Shanks.Mr SPEAKER: I am afraid the leave has been put. It has been denied. I am sorry but there is nothing else I can do to assist the member. What I suggest the member does is take an opportunity to talk to some other members of the House. There may be an opportunity to do so at the end of question time.Questions to MinistersGovernment Communications Security Bureau—Dotcom Case and Appointment of Director1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said on 25 September 2012 that he was not briefed on who would be involved in the Kim Dotcom raid saying: “The activity in question did not require a ministerial warrant and I am not briefed on operational matters on every operation it undertakes.” was he telling the truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he was asked on 25 September 2012 regarding when he was first briefed about the ministerial certificate that the Deputy Prime Minister signed on his behalf and he answered “Last night.” was he telling the truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he replied to a question on 26 September 2012 on when other agencies knew about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case: “I am simply not in a position to understand whether those organisations knew that or not. What I do know is that the first I was aware of it was on Monday 17 September. Whether those other organisations had some information I am not sure.” was he telling the truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On 8 September 2011 when he said in regard to the appointment of Mr Ian Fletcher as the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau: “Mr Fletcher has extensive policy and operational experience” and further: “Mr Fletcher is a skilled leader who will make a valuable contribution to the bureau and wider New Zealand intelligence community.” does he stand by those statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Housing Affordable—First-home Buyers and Capital Gains Tax2.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes particularly the one where I said: “Wow it’s going to be an interesting 61 days before September.”David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “this Government is successfully managing the economy to make sure that New Zealanders can afford to buy a home.”; if so can he guarantee that any of the 39000 homes to be built in Auckland will be affordable to first-home buyers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.David Shearer: Can he guarantee that any of the 39000 houses to be built in Auckland as part of that agreement will be affordable for first-home buyers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not responsible for the actual building of the homes but in answer to the question yes I am pretty sure they will be.David Shearer: What measures is he prepared to take to ensure first-home buyers are preferred over speculators in the 39000 new homes that are going to be built in Auckland?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first important step is to make sure that 39000 homes are built. Supply is one of the big issues because if we look at Auckland in recent times the number of new homes and dwellings that have been built has been roughly around 3500. The second thing of course is to make sure that New Zealanders have jobs and increasingly that is the case. The third thing is to make sure they have affordable interest rates. Well we know interest rates are about half what they were under a Labour Government. And making sure that consents can actually happen quickly is why there will be reform of the Resource Management Act under a National-led Government. I think the chances of a first-home buyer getting a home under a National Government are a lot greater than they would be under a Labour Government.David Shearer: Given his statement: “I don’t think it should be a tool that is used to write high LVR ratios for a bunch of rich people and lock out a whole lot of first-home buyers.” what action has he taken to ensure the Reserve Bank does not do exactly that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well as the member will know the Reserve Bank is going through a period of consultation at the moment so the Government is talking to theReserve Bank. I would point out though that the preference of the Government would be that the Reserve Bank actually does use the other tools that it has in the tool box—in particular those macro-prudential tools that the member is talking about—as opposed to raising interest rates which of course is the alternative. So the Government will be working—Hon Members: Or a capital gains tax.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —alongside the Reserve Bank. Well a capital gains tax actually will not work. It does not work anywhere in the world when it comes to that.David Shearer: In light of his last answer will he rewrite the agreement with the Reserve Bank to ensure that first-home buyers are preferred over speculators in the event that loan-to-value ratios are introduced?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a bit early to go through any sort of rewriting. The Reserve Bank is going through a consultation process. The Government will participate as part of that consultation process. But if the member seriously thinks that a capital gains tax is going to solve the problems then he needs to think again. Show me any place in the world that has a capital gains tax and prove to me that it has not stopped a bubble. And as the member wells knows a capital gains tax is a realisation tax. All that people do is buy it and do not sell.David Shearer: Given that every OECD country bar the Netherlands has a capital gains tax on property why will he not introduce a capital gains tax here to dampen demand and give first-home buyers a first decent crack?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well it actually would not dampen demand and it has not dampened demand anywhere in the world where they have it. In fact what happens with the OECD and the IMF when they recommend a capital gains tax—Dr David Clark: Why is the OECD wrong? Why is the IMF wrong? Why is the Treasury wrong? Why is the Prime Minister the only person who believes this?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —is that they want a comprehensive capital gains tax. You see the reason Mr Clark is trying to shout me out is a very good reason: he knows that privately within their caucus those members are talking about putting a capital gains tax on the first home. That is what Labour is going to do on the first home for New Zealanders.Economy—Reports3.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on business and economic conditions in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Last week the ANZ issued its business outlook survey for June. After a bit of a flat patch which the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged at the weekend the survey confirmed business confidence continued to lift across all sectors. The majority of component indicators are also rising. A net 50 percent of businesses expect general business conditions to improve over the next year. There were strong readings in construction in agriculture and in manufacturing which posted a significantly higher reading for the outlook than a year ago.Paul Goldsmith: What did the latest business outlook survey report about businesses’ views about prospects for their own operations over the next year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The survey confirmed that firms remain upbeat about prospects for their own businesses as well as for the wider economy. A net 45 percent of businesses expect better times over the year ahead for themselves. Similar positive themes were apparent across the rest of the survey. For instance profit expectations are the highest since April 2010. Among the best news in the survey is that a net 17 percent of firms expect to increase employment the highest reading in 2 years. Investmentintentions are at their highest level since late 2003. Even excluding the construction sector optimism is widespread with a net 48 percent of firms outside of construction expecting better times ahead so the positive views are not all driven by construction.Paul Goldsmith: What reports has he received on the employment intentions of businesses in light of the general pick-up in business conditions?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Westpac McDermot Miller Employment Confidence Index was issued this week—it increased for the fourth quarter in a row. The index now stands at cautiously optimistic levels—the highest levels since September 2011. The improvement in employment confidence is not surprising following employment statistics showing that the unemployment rate is falling. The report also noted that the official data can be volatile and job opportunities and the net percentage of people reporting wage increases have picked up. However these levels remain low by pre-recession standards and there is much more work to do to see the better outlook for business confidence actually translated into more jobs and higher incomes.Hon David Parker: Has he been advised that the most recentANZ Job Ads data shows job advertisements declining a seasonally adjusted 3.8 percent in May which according to the ANZ “would be consistent with a sharp recoil in the unemployment rate”; if he has not seen that has he seen the statistics from Statistics New Zealand that show that 44 percent of all working New Zealanders got no wage increase in the last year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen those statistics which is why I made the point that the indicators are cautiously optimistic and I would emphasise the caution. Employment indicators have over the last 2 or 3 years been more volatile than was historically the case. However in the light of forecasts of 2 to 3 percent growth in the economy and rising business confidence the outlook for employment continues to improve rather than deteriorate.Paul Goldsmith: If the Minister had to name one sector that has contributed to the more positive outlook for business conditions and the economy what would that sector be?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of sectors I could point to that have contributed. Some of them are totally opposed by the Opposition such as the oil and gas sector. But one that has had its attention is the manufacturing sector so I thought I would pick that one. Since the beginning of 2009 the manufacturing sector as a whole has grown by 9.2 percent—Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much?Hon BILL ENGLISH: —9.2 percent—as measured by GDP by industry. However there was scope for it to grow because—Andrew Little: How much did it fall in 2008-09?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very good point. In 2008 under the Labour Government it shrank by 12 percent. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Government Communications Security Bureau Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Access to Electronic Records4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: “The inquiry team itself did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs” and does he think it should have?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):In answer to the first part of the question yes and in answer to the second part no.Dr Russel Norman: Did the Henry inquiry get written consent from Peter Dunne before obtaining his parliamentary email logs; and for the purposes of clarity we are talking about his parliamentary email logs not his ministerial email logs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check but to the best of my knowledge no.Dr Russel Norman: Did Mr Dunne agree to cooperate with the Henry inquiry by agreeing for it to access his parliamentary email logs and what evidence does he have of that agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is quite clear is that Mr Dunne actually did not agree to comply with the inquiry because on numerous occasions his office or he was directly asked to release his emails and he refused to do so. In terms of the wider issue of the metadata what I can say is that the terms of reference for the inquiry on 15 April made it quite clear that they would be accessed and no Minister raised any concerns with me about this fact.Dr Russel Norman: So with regard to the letter in April in which the Prime Minister says some form of consent was obtained—it would appear from his answer—did Mr Dunne reply to the terms in this letter by agreeing to cooperate with the inquiry by allowing his parliamentary email logs to be accessed by the inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the details of whether or not Mr Dunne wrote back. The member could put that down in writing to my office and we would be able to give him an answer. But I go back to the original point which is that the terms of reference were quite clear and they were: “Stage 1 will include reviewing communications and copying equipment and records log books and any other material considered relevant of the persons (and/or their offices) who had or were likely to have had access to the compliance review report”. No Minister raised any concerns with me. In fact when I announced the inquiry and Dr Norman thought it was a member of National who might have leaked it he was screaming for there to be an inquiry with access to all information and to get to the bottom of it.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying that the extent of the consent obtained by the Henry inquiry acting under the authority of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was simply that the terms of the inquiry were published and there was no reply from Mr Dunne agreeing to those terms of inquiry and there was no explicit consent from Mr Dunne for Mr Henry to access Mr Dunne’s parliamentary email log?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All of those can be checked in case there is other correspondence but I think it was quite clear if one looks at the terms of reference what was going to be accessed. As I said no Minister made it clear that they had concerns but what is becoming increasingly clear actually is that if the Greens were ever in Government with Labour they are obviously concerned that they might do such dodgy things that they want nothing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an unnecessary part to the answer.Dr Russel Norman: Given that Mr Dunne received the Kitteridge report as leader of the United Future party not as a Minister; given that the emails concerned were parliamentary not ministerial emails; and given that Mr Dunne never gave his consent for the Henry inquiry to access his parliamentary email account under what authority did Mr Henry access Mr Dunne’s parliamentary email log?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my view the authority that was vested in him when I asked him to conduct the inquiry when I made it quite clear that all communications copying equipment records and log books would be looked at that no Minister raised concerns and when the member himself went on to say that not only was this a very serious matter but that if I did not know who had leaked the report I should launch an inquiryand get to the bottom of it and that fundamentally I should leave no stone unturned to get an answer.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying that the authority of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet which was the sole authority that the Henry inquiry had is sufficient authority to access the parliamentary server and parliamentary emails without the consent of the member of Parliament concerned?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I think this is going to come as a shock to the member but for very good reasons when a ministerial inquiry of this nature is established then actually there is a responsibility to try to get to the bottom of that. And in fact—as I have just tried to point out with what the member himself was saying when he thought it was a National member—he was quite happy for all information to be accessed. No Minister and no staff member at any time from the moment we actually went out there and put out the terms of reference ever came and complained or was upset by that.Dr Russel Norman: So the Prime Minister is now giving himself and his staff the authority or the Henry inquiry appointed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and only with the authority of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the right to access the parliamentary emails and parliamentary email logs of members of Parliament without first obtaining the consent of those members of Parliament?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No the member is not correct. No emails have actually been looked at. What has been established is an inquiry the terms of reference of which made it quite clear that communications log books records and other material considered relevant would be reviewed. I think as I have said earlier the member would be—because he was already—one of the first to be off out of the blocks claiming that this was a serious matter that I needed to find out who leaked the report and that I should “get to the bottom of it” and all of those things but today all of a sudden he does not like it.Grant Robertson: Did his office request the email metadata from the Parliamentary Service that identified there were 86 emails between Peter Dunne and a journalist discussing the Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No that was done by Mr Henry as he conducted the report.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his office became aware of 86 emails between Peter Dunne and a journalist discussing the Kitteridge report on 22 May and why did he come to this House on 29 May and say he did not believe for a moment that any of his Ministers were involved in leaking the report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the first bit that is probably correct—that is probably the right date although I do not have that with me; I would have to check it and the member is often wrong. In relation to 29 May—because that is what I believed to be correct.Transport Projects Auckland—Network Development5.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to theMinister of Transport: How will the Government progress the delivery of the next generation of transport projects for Auckland?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):On Friday the Prime Minister announced this Government’s commitment to begin work on a new generation of transport projects to futureproof the development of Auckland as our major urban centre. We have taken an approach that incorporates rail roading public transport and some tunnelling solutions. Combined they will greatly expand the capacity of Auckland transport to carry people and freight as the population expands. We look forward to other parties supporting these excellent initiatives.Simon O’Connor: What are the Government’s priority projects to enhance and futureproof the Auckland transport network?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government sees an opportunity to build on the work already started in Auckland by speeding up the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative project and combining it with the East-West Link project. These projects will improve connections to the State highway network and upgrade the links connecting to the eastern suburbs East Tāmaki’s industrial area. The Government’s other key priorities are the second Waitematā Harbour crossing and the City Rail Link. Route protection on the City Rail Link began earlier this year and we expect to have the preferred alignment for the Waitematā Harbour tunnel by the end of this year. The Government also intends to speed up three motorway projects that will one deliver a complete motorway to motorway link between the upper harbour highway and the Northern Motorway at Constellation Drive upgrade the Greville Road Interchange and improve the Northern Busway; two widen the southern motorway between Manukau and Papakura; and three reduce delays on the final stage of the State Highway 20A link to the airport from the north by upgrading it to motorway standard. We look forward to the support of other parties particularly New Zealand First which seems over-eager to get these jobs done.Simon O’Connor: What enhancements has this Government undertaken so far to develop the Auckland transport network?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member will be aware that this Government has taken a very proactive approach to developing a transport system in Auckland. We take a network-wide approach. We have supported the route protection for the City Rail Link funded the purchase of new rolling stock for the train network and fast tracked new major new roading projects such as the Victoria Park Tunnel. In 2017 we will see delivery of the Waterview Connection. That is a project that will be New Zealand’s largest roading project ever. Along with this the State Highway 16 upgrade which of course Phil Twyford opposed will greatly enhance connections and improve movements in and around Auckland. The Government sees Auckland transport in a network sense not in the narrow sense projected by other parties.Question No. 4 to MinisterGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):In light of the Prime Minister’s answers to the questions earlier—I know this is unusual—I seek leave to table written question No. 7472—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption ] Order! They are available to all members.Point of Order—Accuracy of Quotations in Supplementary QuestionsHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are getting to a point where the Prime Minister is regularly saying that he doubts members’ words and their figures. When someone is quoting from the Prime Minister I do not think they should be disparaged in that way. If it was wrong it was his fault.Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am more than happy for members if they want me to to go back and look at all the quotes that they have put to me and you will find that more often than not they are not accurately reported they are quite incorrect and I can only accept the member’s word if I think it is right. Often it is not right.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough. The reason members seek to table a document is to help further inform members. When it is an answer to a written question they are published and are available to all members and it is not necessary for them to be tabled.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I think you missed my point of order. Members are not meant to doubt members’ words in this House without some sort of evidence. The Prime Minister did that to Mr Robertson.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back and have a look at theHansard . The member quoted a specific date—from memory 22 May—and the Prime Minister said he could not be absolutely sure offhand that it was 22 May. It was certainly not helpful for the Prime Minister to then add the point that the interjection from Grant Robertson has just made.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I am happy to hear it.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is. I am going to agree with you but suggest that we look at that tape together. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can deal with this very quickly. [Interruption ] Order! I can deal with this very quickly. The Hon Trevor Mallard is always welcome to come and see me after question time.State-owned Assets Sales—Purpose and Use of Proceeds6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: Are the proceeds from selling power companies and other assets being used to pay down debt to build schools and hospitals to fund irrigation projects to rebuild Christchurch or to fund Auckland transport projects?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The Government has been clear that the proceeds of the share offer programme will be used to buy a variety of new public assets and will help the Government avoid having to borrow to procure those assets. The Future Investment Fund was outlined in Budget 2012 and further details were provided in Budget 2013. The purpose of that fund is to ensure complete transparency about the spending of the proceeds from asset sales. The Budget confirmed another $1.5 billion of these proceeds will be invested in schools Christchurch hospitals KiwiRail and irrigation projects. However the share offer proceeds are only a proportion of the Government’s overall new capital spending.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with John Key that asset sales are necessary to “avoid a credit downgrade” or does he agree with Tony Ryall that asset sales are necessary to pay down debt or does he agree with another John Key that asset sales would be used to build new schools and hospitals or does he agree with Nathan Guy that money would be used to subsidise irrigation on multimillion-dollar farms or does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that asset sales money be used to rebuild Christchurch or does he agree with yet another John Key that asset sales will fund the Auckland rail link?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.Hon David Parker: How much funding has already been allocated for spending from asset sales via the Future Investment Fund and how much has actually been raised for the Future Investment Fund from asset sales to date?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The details of that are set out in the Budget but as the member will be aware the Government’s programme hopes to realise between $5 billion and $7 billion which is actually quite a lot of money. I would have to say that that $5 billion to $7 billion is much more useful as cash than it is as 49 percent shares in electricity companies owned by the Government.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table documents showing that $1.7 billion has so far been raised—Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?Hon David Parker: There is a combination of documents: the National Party manifesto and Treasury documents.Mr SPEAKER: No both are freely available to members if they so want it. Has the member got a supplementary question?Hon David Parker: Yes. Why does he continue to claim asset sales will reduce debt when Treasury—his own department—states that from 2017 the Crown is worse off to the tune of $50 million a year growing to $100 million a year worse off because of asset sales thereafter?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not claim it will reduce debt. What we have said it will mean is that the Crown does not have to go and borrow the money from overseas bankers. We have never understood why Labour and the Greens would rather borrow money from offshore bankers than get the money from New Zealanders who want to invest in a large New Zealand company.Hon David Parker: Has he been advised that in January 2011 John Key said the Government needed to sell power companies and other State assets to avoid a credit downgrade; if so is he aware that 8 months later New Zealand was downgraded by both Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I am aware of those things. I am also aware that the sale of the assets means that 49 percent of the ownership has gone largely to New Zealanders but also to some offshore investors. In return for that they have put cash in the Government’s bank account. I know it is profoundly irritating to the Labour Party but we are able to use that cash to buy new public assets. The public is starting to understand that Labour’s arguments against the asset sales were poorly conceived and wrong.Police—Use of Mobile Technology7.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to theMinister of Police: What updates has she received on how Police are using technology to prevent crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):Today police have completed their initial roll-out of 6259 smartphones and 3702 tablets to front-line police officers throughout the country. These smart devices allow officers to view offenders’ photographs input and access information access email and maps dictate information and take photos all while out in the community. The access to this information means that police will spend less time in police stations accessing databases and doing paperwork and much more time being visible out on the streets tackling and preventing crime.Ian McKelvie: How are smartphones and tablets being used to prevent crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Smartphones and tablets allow our front-line officers to have access to critical information when they need it allowing them to make better-informed decisions. An 11-month trial last year found that the use of these smart devices allowed each front-line officer to spend an extra 30 minutes per shift out in their community. This translates to an additional 543000 front-line police hours per year or the equivalent of an extra 354 front-line staff out there focused on preventing crime. And this is all on top of the 600 extra police delivered by this Government and a 70 percent increase in foot patrols which has seen the lowest crime rate in 30 years.Kris Faafoi: What risks were highlighted by police for the use of mobile devices especially in situations of major events where mobile coverage can be overloaded; and does she think it is appropriate that details like this were blacked out in an Official Information Act response preventing the full picture of the roll-out from being presented?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well as I said there was an 11-month trial of these devices run across four different districts of New Zealand last year including the West Coast which we all know has difficulty with some of its coverage for mobile devices. This has been identified and taken up with the suppliers. This very good contract which has been negotiated by Deputy Commissioner Bush is particularly focused on the service that was delivered rather than on the capital expenditure. So those risks have been clearly identified and are being addressed by the suppliers of the equipment. And in fact if the member goes to the police website this afternoon he will see that there is in fact a comment from a West Coast officer detailing when he was able to use his mobile device to locate and find two lost hunters.Kris Faafoi: I seek leave to table the business case for police mobility dated 14 November 2012 where the main risks and the key risks to this project were blacked out.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.Inequality Economic and Social—Income Gap8.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree withThe Economist that “inequality is one of the biggest social economic and political challenges of our time”; if so what is his Government doing to address the fact that New Zealand now has the widest income gap since detailed records began?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):No I have not seenThe Economist piece so I cannot comment on that but I can tell the member that her assertion about the situation in New Zealand is wrong. The widest gap between incomes in New Zealand actually occurred in the mid-2000s and peaked in 2004. Incomes were more unequal in the mid-2000s than they are today and more unequal than they were in the 1990s. That information is from the most recently available Ministry of Social Development incomes report which also shows that income inequality in New Zealand is close to the OECD median similar to that in Australia Ireland and Canada and that redistribution through transfers which we have maintained like benefits Working for Families and accommodation subsidies reduce inequality significantly.Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that despite his claim that New Zealanders are better off in the last year 44 percent of people’s incomes did not increase but the cost of living continued to rise?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Surveys of the labour force have always shown that in any given year a proportion of the workforce does not receive a wage increase. Given that we have been in a period of relatively high unemployment and emerging from a recession it is not a surprise that a proportion of the workforce did not receive a pay increase. However over time disposable incomes in New Zealand have risen consistently each year and that is unusual among developed countries.Jacinda Ardern: Based on that answer is the Minister saying that the 80 percent of Kiwis who when recently surveyed said that they were either no better off or worse off than they were 2 years ago are in fact wrong about their own circumstances?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is almost always the case that New Zealand households feel the pressure of constrained budgets. Whether they get pay rises or they do not it never feels like a lot more than the expenditure. However the facts are reasonably clear and that is on average disposable incomes have risen moderately in the last 4 or 5 years. The factors behind that are pretty well understood—the lowest interest rates in 50 years and the highest purchasing power of the New Zealand dollar in 30 or 40 years. That has helped to sustain household incomes through a period when across most of the developed world household incomes have dropped.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the IMF that inequality limits growth by denying low-income families the money they need to invest in their children’s futureand by allowing top-income earners to influence politicians to pass laws that favour their interests not those of the wider economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do and that is why the Opposition should be supporting two particular Government policies. The first is the implementation of national standards in our schools to ensure that every young New Zealander gets the proper rewards of a public education system and that is the social mobility that goes with educational achievement. The Labour Party should also be supporting our changes to ensure a greater supply of housing particularly in the Auckland market because planning rules there reinforce the wealth of those who already own expensive houses and lock out those who want access to the housing market. I look forward to support from Labour on both of those policies to prove its integrity on these issues.Jacinda Ardern: How do national standards or Resource Management Act reforms help the 63-year-old woman who cleans the Prime Minister’s office and is still on just $14.60 an hour after 19 years of cleaning at Parliament?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the ways that I outlined—to ensure that her children or grandchildren actually get the social mobility that a public education system promises them and I hope that the Labour Party does not agree with the teacher unions that her grandchildren cannot learn because they are poor and schools cannot do anything about it. But I understand that that is the Labour Party position—that if you are the grandchild of the cleaner of the Prime Minister’s office then you probably cannot achieve because it is the family’s fault and not the schools’ fault.Better Public Services Targets—Mobile Community Offices9.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to theMinister of Justice: How is the Government improving its justice and other services to local communities?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I have recently launched the Hutt Valley mobile community office. This is an initiative by 13 front-line service providers in the Hutt Valley area. Some months earlier the justice sector began a discussion about improving front-line community services. That discussion resulted in this specially fitted out mobile van which will deliver a range of justice health and social services including victim support neighbourhood support health immunisations Plunket Work and Income services ACC services budget advice and probation services. The police health corrections and local bodies will all be providing staff to the mobile office which will operate throughout the Hutt Valley including Wainuiōmata. They may even have some anger management courses available.Paul Foster-Bell: How does the mobile community office contribute to the Government’s Better Public Services?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yet another excellent question. The whole justice sector including the police corrections and the courts is focused on driving initiatives that make a real difference for New Zealanders. The Hutt Valley mobile community office is a first for New Zealand because it delivers a range of public services from different agencies through a single community office. The justice sector is delivering on its Better Public Services targets of reducing crime reducing reoffending and reducing youth crime. Bringing services into local neighbourhoods delivers on these promises to keep our community safe.Christchurch City Council—Building Consent Accreditation10.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East)to theMinister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When was he first made aware of the September IANZ report which warned the Christchurch City Council that “Continued accreditationbeyond May 2013 will depend on a satisfactory outcome of that assessment” and was he advised by CERA or a Ministerial colleague?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):I was advised on 7 June that International Accreditation New Zealand had had concerns about the Christchurch City Council consenting process from as far back as 2007. At that point I decided that this situation was intolerable and we have been taking action since that time. We will have further discussions with the city council tomorrow because this situation cannot continue.Hon Lianne Dalziel: How did the Minister not know about the assessment report that was prepared by International Accreditation New Zealand back in September given to the council in October and copied to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the same month; were they not monitoring that process and did the Minister not bring it to the Cabinet committee?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I certainly knew that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment had been working with the Christchurch City Council for a very long period of time and I have on numerous occasions expressed to the city council concerns about its consenting processes. But I would note that the Christchurch City Council has at all times been responsible for its own consenting. There has been quite a bit of public concern about the degree to which the Government was getting involved in council activities; most of that was expressed by the member asking these questions.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister telling the House that he was not aware that the September International Accreditation New Zealand review identified building consents that did not meet the requirements of the code and/or the Act these having the potential to cause damage to the property other adjoining property or injury to people; if so how on earth is this the coordination role that we are expecting from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If I were to know that level of detail from inside the council then the allegations made by the member that we have been overly meddling in council affairs might be reasonable. The reality is that it is now exposed we are very unhappy with it and we are doing something about it.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister telling the House that there was nobody within the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority tasked to go next door to the council building to see how it was getting on with accreditation when it was given 17 corrective action requests in September reported to it in October and obviously was not met because now we have the situation with the Christchurch City Council losing its accreditation next Monday?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly I have already said that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was working with the council for quite a time on its issues. But I would also point out to the member that she wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on 4 December lamenting in her words the loss of democracy in Christchurch referring to the dictatorial and disempowering nature of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s involvement in Christchurch and now she comes into the House and says “Although we were criticising the department for being involved we actually think they should have been more involved.” Well I am grateful to the member that we have at least one mayoral candidate in the Christchurch election who wants the Government to get more involved with the council. We will certainly take that invitation up should the unlikely event of her winning occur.Hon Lianne Dalziel: I wish to table the three International Accreditation New Zealand reports—the one from 24-28 September 2012 the one from Monday 27 May 2013 and the most recent one which is dated 1 July 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three International Accreditation New Zealand reports. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I seek leave to table the open letter to the Prime Minister sent by the Hon Lianne Dalziel quoting even the Chief Human Rights Commissioner lamenting—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—[Interruption ] That is enough information. Leave is sought to table the open letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It will also be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Television Switch-over to Digital—Progress11.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to theMinister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting):At the end of April the remaining areas of the South Island had successfully made the switch to digital television. Recent research shows that at the end of April 99 percent of South Island homes had switched over to digital. I would like to congratulate the South Island households on a very smooth transition to digital TV. That is a significant milestone in a project with fewer than 6 months to go until the remainder of New Zealand is entirely digital. We are looking to the North Island to make the move to digital TV just as successfully. Many households have gone digital and are enjoying more channels more choice and better-quality pictures and services. Going digital will free up the radio spectrum for the next generation of mobile phone and data services benefiting New Zealand families and supporting our continued economic growth.Jonathan Young: Which is the next region to go digital?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The lower North Island including Taranaki and the East Coast will go digital on 29 September. We recently marked 100 days until these areas make the switch to go digital. To keep watching TV households need to go digital by getting FreeView Sky Igloo or Vodafone cable TV in Wellington. I must remind listeners that they do not need a TV to go digital. Practically any TV can go digital with the right equipment.Hon Trevor Mallard: Of course you need a TV to go digital.Hon CRAIG FOSS: People wanting to find out what they need to do to go digital—including members opposite—can go to www.goingdigital.co.nz or call 0800 838 800.Māui’s Dolphin—Preservation12.GARETH HUGHES (Green)to theMinister of Conservation: Will he implement the recommendations to protect Maui’s dolphins contained in the report of this year’s meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):The Government will certainly be giving careful consideration to the committee’s advice released over the weekend as part of our review of the threat management plan for Māui’s dolphin. In respect of the member’s “why” I note four points about the committee’s report. Firstly the committee commends the Government on its interim measures to protect Māui’s dolphin. Secondly it acknowledges a mistake in last year’s report which is not a criticism but notes that it is not foolproof. Thirdly it has dropped last year’s advice that the gill-netand trawl fisheries ban extend offshore to the 100-metre depth contour—a provision the member was insisting last month that we implement. And fourthly I note this is the committee’s recommendation to the International Whaling Commission which has not yet considered or adopted the report.Gareth Hughes: If so then will he implement the International Whaling Commission recommendation for “full closure of any fisheries within the range of Māui’s dolphins that are known to pose a risk of bycatch”; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key issue is about defining where that habitat is. At the moment we have an area of many thousands of square kilometres included in the trawl ban and also included in the set-net ban. The question is how wide out that should be. We do not want to be in the business of either banning trawling or set-netting where the Māui’s dolphin is not but we are also determined to make sure that we do all practical steps to ensure the survival of this pretty special species.Gareth Hughes: Given that both trawl nets and set nets can kill a Māui’s dolphin why is the Minister currently allowing lethal trawling in areas where set nets are already prohibited to protect Māui’s dolphins?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes by nature fishing is somewhat lethal; it catches fish. The question is that—Gareth Hughes: 55 left; 55 left.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well let us be clear about the numbers over the period of the last decade. Last year there was one dolphin caught. The Government immediately responded by banning set-netting in that area and extending the role of observers. Sometimes I wonder whether the only way to satisfy the Green Party would be to shut down the entire fishing industry.Gareth Hughes: It is a clear question. Will the Minister prohibit trawling in areas where set nets are currently prohibited to protect the last 55 Māui’s dolphins?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Currently we have prohibited set-net fishing in an area of 6000 square kilometres—that is 100 square kilometres per dolphin. In respect of the trawl ban we have banned trawling in 1700 square kilometres for 55 dolphins. So a huge area has been set aside for the very reason that we want to ensure the survival of this species.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a simple question: will he ban trawling in the areas where he has banned—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has very adequately addressed the question.Hon Ruth Dyson: Will the Minister be promoting a precautionary approach in the areas where Māui’s dolphins have been found rather than continuing the debate about whether they are found in those areas given that there are currently only 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left which is predicted to go to 10 within our lifetimes or will he put his name alongside the extinction of that species?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very easy to say precautionary; the question is how precautionary because if you want to be absolutely precautionary about protection of the Māui’s dolphin then you would ban fishing around New Zealand’s entire coast. That would be impractical. What I do say to the member is that this Government will take all practical steps to ensure the survival of the Māui’s dolphin but we are not going to ban fishing in areas where it is highly unlikely that there will be a Māui’s dolphin.Questions to MembersVote Social Development—2013-14 Estimates Review1.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: On which date and time if any did he receive the Minister for SocialDevelopment’s written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As yet the responses to pre-hearing questions for Vote Social Development have not been received by the Social Services Committee. However I am advised by the clerk that the responses will be provided this afternoon.Jacinda Ardern: On what date were the written responses to the pre-hearing questions for the 2013-14 estimates for Vote Social Development due and what explanation has he received as chair of the select committee for the delay?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The request was sent out on 30 May. The responses were expected by Tuesday 4 June given the hearing was scheduled for 5 June and in the interim period there was Queen’s Birthday on the Monday. The ministry has advised the clerk that the Minister’s office has asked to inform that the answers will be provided in one lot in due course.Vote Social Development—2013-14 Estimates Review2.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theChairperson of the Social Services Committee: On what date did the Minister for Social Development appear before the committee to answer questions regarding the 2013/14 Estimates review for Vote Social Development?PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee):The Minister appeared on 11 June 2013.Jacinda Ardern: Given the significant delay between the Minister’s appearance and the completion of what were meant to be pre-hearing questions has the chair approached the Minister or her staff about the potential for having her reappear before the committee as Minister Parata offered to do?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No I have not and that is not my role as chair of the committee.Vote Education—2013-14 Estimates Review3.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to theChairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Did he consider inviting the Minister to appear again to answer questions around responses to questions on the 2013/14 Estimates for Vote Education if so did he receive any advice about the Minister’s willingness to appear again?Dr CAM CALDER (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee):Kia ora te Kaihautū. No. The chairman is a servant of the committee. Following her lengthy appearance and her comprehensive answers to the wide variety of questions posed by members the committee resolved not to ask her to return.Dr Megan Woods: Has he received any briefings or advice as to whether the Minister of Education her staff or her officials contacted her Government colleagues on the committee to discuss her willingness—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Megan Woods: —to return—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you explain why the chairman of the committee receiving advice from the clerk of the committee is out of order to be the subject of questions in this House?Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not understand the question to be from the clerk of the committee. I understood it to be whether the member Cam Calder had been talking to the Minister’s office and staff.Chris Hipkins: It asked about advice.Mr SPEAKER: Let us be clear. We will have the question read again but it had better be in order this time.Dr Megan Woods: OK. Has he received any briefings or advice as to whether the Minister of Education her staff or her officials contacted her Government colleagues on the committee to discuss her willingness or otherwise to return to the committee at a later date to answer questions around the responses to the 2013-14 estimates review for Vote Education questions received by the committee; if so from whom and what was the nature of those briefings or advice?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That question is not in order. The chairperson as the chairperson of the committee is not responsible for the actions of the Minister. The question must relate to a matter that the member as the chair is responsible for. I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 175/7.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly in this House Ministers are asked about reports they have received or advice they have received. This question was very clearly and very carefully drafted to include advice that that member as chairman could have received from the clerk of the committee. If the member receives advice from the clerk of the committee that is about a matter that the clerk should not be advising on that does not exclude it from examination in this House.Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. If the member wants that particular question the member should frame it in such way that it is a question to the Minister.Urgent Debates DeclinedChristchurch City Council—Building Consent Authority AccreditationMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a local authority being stripped of its building consent authority accreditation while a range of Government agencies failed to address the need to intervene prior to accreditation being revoked. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to be debated. There is no direct ministerial responsibility for the Christchurch City Council’s failure to respond adequately to the concerns of International Accreditation New Zealand. The responsibility for the fact that accreditation is to be revoked lies with the Christchurch City Council. I acknowledge that the Government has a general power to revoke accreditation but that does not render this particular revocation a matter of direct Government responsibility. Further the absence of action on the part of the Government has long been held not to be a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised under Standing Order 386. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that might or might not occur as a result of meetings involving Government Ministers announced for later this week.Food BillReferral to Primary Production CommitteeHon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):I moveThat the order of the day for the second reading of the Food Bill be discharged and that the bill be re-referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration .Motion agreed to.UrgencyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I moveThat urgency be accorded the second reading of the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill the first reading of the Royal Succession Bill and its referral to a select committee the introduction and first reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill and its referral to a select committee the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) the second reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) the second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill the second reading of the Financial Reporting Bill the second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill the second reading of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill the second reading and Committee stage of the Psychoactive Substances Bill the Committee stage of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill the Committee stage of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill the Committee stage and third reading of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill and any bills into which it may be divided the Committee stage of the Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters Bill the Committee stage of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill the Committee stage of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill the Committee stage of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Medicines Amendment Bill . It is a long list that the Government has expressed a desire to make some progress with. Urgency is a very legitimate tool for a Government to be able to claim some extra time to get business on the Order Paper further progressed. I think it would probably come as some surprise to most New Zealanders that the House sits for only 31 weeks a year. It sits for only 3 days in each of those 31 weeks and each of those days accumulates to around about 13 hours of legislation in any given week. That adds up to twelve 40-hour weeks a year to progress the Government’s programme. That is a very very limited amount of time. Given that members of Parliament are elected primarily to be legislators it is not surprising that there should be strong support for more time taken on the legislative process.I asked the Business Committee to consider using the extended hours provision for some of these bills to make progress but there is one party New Zealand First that does not accept that that Standing Order should exist. The Labour Party has a view that only bills it agrees with should be progressed during those sessions or if there is a Wednesday morning session caused by the Government not the Thursday evening session as the Government proposed. Therefore I think the only option we have open to us to get on with the business of the Government is to in fact have this urgency at this time.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like you to confirm that as well as having a lecture on the shortness of time we have had a specific reason for the urgency for these bills.Mr SPEAKER: I am satisfied with the reasons that have been given by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.A party vote was called for on the questionThat urgency be accorded.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I moveThat the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill be now read a second time . I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its timely consideration of this bill. The committee considered 13 written submissions and heard from eight submitters. The bill brings together three strands of policy along with many other recent reforms in the financial markets sphere which aim to increase confidence and ensure that New Zealand remains a trusted place to do business. These are crucial objectives that we must promote in order to achieve long-term growth of our economy.The bill proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 which will strengthen the rules applying to governance registration and reconstruction of companies and the registration of limited partnerships. New Zealand continues to be the No. 1 place for starting a business in the World Bank’s Doing Business index of the world economies. It is unfortunate that that same situation of trust which supports the ease of doing business in New Zealand is to a few undesirable individuals also sadly viewed as the opportunity to easily register and operate New Zealand companies under the cloak of secrecy.The genesis of this bill was a response by my predecessor to the use of a New Zealand registered company to facilitate international arms trading. The ease of registration and the use of shell companies to undertake criminal activity is damaging to New Zealand’s international reputation. It is in the public’s interest to know who is behind any company or limited partnership they are dealing with. Likewise enforcement agencies need effective tools to monitor the market. A key aim of the bill is to increase the transparency of companies and limited partnerships to an appropriate level but to a level that will not impede the ease of doing business for the vast majority of companies that are legitimate.I would like to comment on some of the most significant changes in the Commerce Committee’s report on these provisions. In relation to registration some submitters raised concerns that the measures in the bill as introduced and to deal with shell companies were not strong enough and were easily able to be circumvented. The Commerce Committee has now recommended that every company and limited partnership must have an identifiable individual who is the point of contact in New Zealand and that this person must be a director of that company or a director of a company in a country where New Zealand has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of criminal sanctions. I support this amendment.Most companies already have a resident director. At most 4200 companies of the over 550000 companies registered will need to adjust their circumstances and there are a range of options available for them to do so. Those companies that this measure intends to target could have used the previous resident agent option as a loophole to prevent transparency and accountability. In addition the Commerce Committee recommended requiring the date and place of birth of those running companies and limited partnerships and the disclosure of a company’s ultimate holding company if it has one. Again this will increase transparency with minimal additional compliance costs for companies.I am pleased to note that the committee has also brought forward the commencement date for the new registration requirements to 6 months after the Act receives the Royal assent rather than 12 months. This will put the provisions in place sooner but still with sufficient time for any affected companies and limited partnerships to adjust their circumstances as required.I have taken on board the Commerce Committee’s support of a power for the Registrar of Companies to require information about the true owners and ultimate controllers of companies and limited partnerships. This is an important amendment that will further assist New Zealand in meeting the Financial Action Task Force recommendations about the transparency of legal persons.I have introduced Supplementary Order Paper 249 which picks up this recommendation. The Supplementary Order Paper firstly sets out the purpose the registrar must have regard to before exercising either of two new powers for the purpose of the enforcement of specific laws relating to detection investigation and prosecution of serious crimes including money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.The first power is that the registrar can ask about beneficial interests in shares of a company and the circumstances that give rise to those interests. This is called a control interest in the Supplementary Order Paper. Several new sections define the concept of a control interest and where it applies and whom it applies to. Secondly the registrar has the power to require a director to disclose control information about a company. This includes directions or instructions given to the directors or the board by that person or any management or administrative powers delegated by that person.Both of these powers are recursive and the information provided can in turn be followed up the chain of control and ownership. The registrar can specify deadlines in the form of information and whether the information needs to be verified. Finally the registrar can share this information with named Government agencies or their overseas counterparts. New offences for failing to comply are provided with a maximum fine of $10000.These changes will also be applied to limited partnerships with slight modifications to take into account the different structure of a limited partnership. Many submitters commented on the provisions in the bill that deal with breaches of two director’s duties. The Commerce Committee recommended only minor changes but also further consideration of the drafting to ensure the provisions would not have a chilling effect on legitimate business risk taking. Although the bill never intended to do this I have taken the committee’s recommendations on board and officials have consulted further with submitters in an effort to tune the provisions so that they more clearly capture only behaviour that crosses the appropriate criminal threshold.The Supplementary Order Paper that I have introduced contains these redrafted offences. The good-faith offence has been amended to clarify the behaviour intended to be caught and to set out the defences as are available for the existing civil offence. The offence of reckless trading has been removed as a stand-alone offence and has been included as a new offence under section 380 of the Companies Act. An important feature of this new offence is that if affected creditors agree companies that are close to insolvency can enter into arrangements with their creditors to save the company without the directors facing the risk of prosecution. The new provisions will more directly capture blameworthy behaviour related explicitly to breaches of directors’ duties and will more closely align New Zealand’s company law with other countries including Australia.The offences introduce a concept of serious loss. This is intended to encompass a loss that would be more than material to the creditors involved. Creating offences for serious breaches of directors’ duties will deter behaviour that is harmful to markets and will sharpen the focus of directors on decision making compliance and good governance. Competent directors will never need to worry about these provisions. This in turn will increase investor confidence in the financial markets and strengthen New Zealand’s reputation for honesty integrity and transparency.The last part of the select committee’s report deals with amalgamations and arrangements for code companies. The bill will require all arrangements and long-form amalgamations that affect the voting rights of a code company to follow a modified court process. This process will mean that code companies will need to seek greater participation from—and in particular—small minority shareholders when considering undertaking these transactions.This new process is internationally consistent and will promote increased confidence by investors in capital markets. The Takeovers Panel will be empowered to regulate these transactions by way of issuing a “no objection” statement for the consideration of the court if it is of the opinion that the arrangements will not adversely affect shareholders. The select committee has also taken the opportunity to align the definition of a “director” across the Takeovers Act and the Takeovers Code to include reference to limited partnerships as well as companies. I support these amendments. The Supplementary Order Paper that I have introduced makes further minor amendments to these reconstruction provisions.It is important that the governance of companies the registration of companies and limited partnerships and the reconstruction of code companies work together in a consistent manner to promote New Zealand and to ensure that New Zealand remains a trusted place to do business. I am confident that these reforms will not only do this but also impose the necessary costs on legitimate businesses. I commend this bill to the House.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):The Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill is the daily bread of the House. It is the kind of work that needs to be done and needs to be progressed to ensure that the systems we have in place in this country are fair and are seen to be fair. It goes along with the good governance principles of transparency of information of lines of accountability and of clear sanctions and rewards—those things that make for good management practices.There is no doubt that we need this kind of legislation. New Zealand’s reputation has been at risk recently with increasing media attention around the issue of potential tax havens and around the way in which some of our company structures have been used—often by malicious overseas players—to hide things that should not be hidden. So at the heart of this bill is a desire I believe to progress issues of honesty transparency and fairness. From my perspective I would say that these are important things for New Zealand’s international reputation—the fact that we get these things right matters when New Zealand turns up at the international trade table and wants to argue that it should have a place there. New Zealand’s reputation as a good and proper place to do business matters in that international context.So what does this bill do? Well in terms of transparency it gives new powers to the Registrar of Companies to investigate and deal with non-compliance with the Companies Act. We ask ourselves: what is the alternative? The alternative is that the Registrar of Companies does not have powers to investigate and deal with non-compliance with the Companies Act—it does not make sense so of course we want to support this kind of measure. This measure includes the power to flag companies on the register that are under investigation currently thereby signalling the registrar’s intention and signalling that he or she has suspicions. We would hope that that power is used appropriately and we have got no reason to suspect at this stage that it might not be.In terms of consequences for breaches this legislation allows the removal of companies from the register if they provide inaccurate information or persistently fail to comply with the Act. There can be no disagreement with that across the House I do not think. Companies that fail to comply with the Act clearly ought to be facingconsequences. The registrar will also be able to ban the directors of such companies from taking part in the management of any company for up to 5 years.In order to avoid other unintended consequences—when one tightens up the law in one area suddenly an opportunity for someone who is mischievous might appear in another—the bill will make similar changes to the Limited Partnerships Act so that those misusing New Zealand companies cannot avoid the new regime by registering limited partnerships instead. Further in terms of transparency and in the interests of better information the bill will better align the Companies Act with the Takeovers Code to ensure shareholders understand the effects that changes in company control will have on the value of their shares. Again there is little to disagree with here.Then there is the further consequence of introducing criminal offences for directors who commit a serious breach of their duties to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company. I expect that there will be nobody in the House who will want to disagree with that either. When we see criminal offences by directors who commit serious breaches—they have a duty to act in good faith—nobody would want to see them getting away with that. Directors who commit offences of a serious nature will be liable for imprisonment of up to 5 years or for fines of up to $200000. These consequences this transparency and this provision for avoiding further unintended consequences is all something that the Labour Party wants to support so we will be supporting this bill from here as it stands.As Mr Foss has said New Zealand has always had a reputation an international reputation as a trusted place to do business. As I said in my opening statement this is something we need to defend heartily. The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation have ranked New Zealand the easiest of 183 countries in which to start a business. We in the Labour Party have concerns about this reputation being undermined. We note from the recent International Institute for Management Development competitiveness survey that New Zealand went down from 15th place in 2009 to 24th place today. So it appears that New Zealand’s competitiveness in the business sphere is dropping and interestingly—and in line with the policies put forward by this side of the House—research and development was recognised as a driver of that poorer ranking. That is a concern.There are things in the business environment that severely concern the Labour Party. We on this side of the House are concerned about small business and about the fact that it is getting harder and harder for those hard-working New Zealanders to get ahead. They put everything into a business often mortgaging against their house in order to start a new business and introduce their new idea. They take risks themselves and this Government is introducing additional compliance costs. It is making New Zealand a less competitive place to do business relatively. Recently it put on to businesses the cost of retrieving child support for overdue payments. It has put on additional compliance in respect of collecting information and in respect of cleaners and paper boys in the Budget before last.This is a Government that does not seem to be terribly interested in small business generally but at least in this piece of legislation it is trying to preserve our reputation as a trusted place to do business and that is why we on this side of the House will be supporting it. This international—and local—media attention so far has focused on overseas interests exploiting New Zealand’s incorporation process by using New Zealand - registered shell companies to undertake illegal activities. The Government has been aware of this issue for some time—how could it not be; it has been in the media—and this bill it seems is finally part of addressing this issue.It is unfortunate I have to say that the Minister of Commerce has been dragging his feet on this matter. Day by day our reputation is in jeopardy as further incidents come tolight over time. Former Minister of Commerce Simon Power was in fact the one who originally introduced this bill to Parliament and yet it has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper for its first reading for some time and only now is it proceeding through its second reading and through the House. So our concern from this side of the House is for the time it is taking for this bill to pass through the House.We will also know if I can take a minute in light of the fact that it is Māori Language Week to note te ōhanga—excuse my Te Reo; I am going to start that again—te ōhanga ripoata koretake rawa i ngā tau e 50 [the worst economic record in 50 years ]. This Government has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years and so there are wider issues that we think need to be addressed. We think that issues such as pro-growth tax policy ought to be brought in. We think that universal savings ought to be brought in. We think that affordable housing is a necessity. John Key says that Kiwis are not paying too much for their power. He says that the power companies are on the right side of this argument.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is a second reading speech.Dr DAVID CLARK: These wider issues do affect New Zealand’s reputation as a place to do business and that cuts to the heart of this bill. We know that these policies and particularly the power policy if I may do introduce an element of competitiveness into business—a 5 to 7 percent reduction in costs for small business will make a serious impact on small business in New Zealand and that is Labour policy. Labour wishes to bring in New Zealand Power which will reduce the cost for small business.Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker’s time must be up. [Interruption ] Stick to the context.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I have indicated to the member that we are on a second reading speech and this is about a report back from a select committee. It is not about introducing new material. Dr David Clark 50 seconds remaining.Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you Mr Speaker and I do need all of those 50 seconds because the issue of New Zealand’s reputation is what I am getting to—its reputation as a place to do business—and I am sure that speaker will get his chance to put the case for New Zealand having a good reputation. We will not argue that that is not important but he will struggle to defend the economic record of his Government which genuinely is the worst of any Government in the last 50 years in this country.So despite the damage being done—the Minister of Commerce has dragged his feet—we in the Labour Party are glad to see this bill going through the House. We will support this bill because we value New Zealand’s reputation as a place to do business as a good place to do business as a fair and trusted place to do business. It is important for our country going forward and so we thank the Minister for the efforts he is now making to progress this through the House.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Well just in reply to the previous speaker David Clark a good 48 to 50 percent of New Zealanders think that the economic record of this Government is pretty good.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely the member’s time is nearly up.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is a debatable point but I am going to give it to Jonathan Young.JONATHAN YOUNG: Did you say that was a debatable point? Coming to the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill it is a bill that went through a very thorough select committee process and received a tremendous amount of comment and interaction particularly from directors in the country. This bill will strengthen therules that apply to the governance registration and reconstruction of companies and it also adds criminalisation of serious breaches of certain directors’ duties. We know that getting the balance right is very important because this country does have a good reputation of ease of doing business but sometimes that ease of doing business lets people through who do dishonest business and can tarnish this country’s reputation. So getting the balance right is important.Many submitters raised concerns about the bill having a chilling effect on legitimate business risk-taking and this was something that the Commerce Committee members from both sides of the House paid particular attention to. One thing that we do want to see is the entrepreneurial aspects of business encouraged. At the same time we want to not see lawbreaking take place which puts New Zealand incomes in unnecessary jeopardy and also we want to see our country safe from the antagonism and attacks from overseas that happen on occasion.We know that in Mr Brian Gaynor’sNew Zealand Heraldcolumn on anti - money-laundering he said: “In 2010 the Financial Intelligence Unit of the NZ Police estimated that approximately $1.5 billion was laundered through the country every year.” That is a huge amount; it shocked me to read of that amount. So we know that definitely we need to see some strengthening and some protections around that sort of behaviour. The column continues: “For example Geoffrey Taylor a Queensland resident registered over 1000 New Zealand shell companies many through Vanuatu. In December 2009 one of these companies SP Trading leased a plane that was caught transporting 35 tonnes of weapons and explosives from North Korea to Iran.” And that was based out of here in New Zealand. We would be horrified to think that this sort of activity takes place through the shell companies set up here in this country. So what this bill is to do is clamp down on that and bring certain controls in order to protect New Zealand.As I said it is important to find the appropriate balance. One of the areas that the committee worked on was this area of registration because this bill brings together three strands of policy to strengthen the rules applying to registration as well as governance in the reconstruction of companies. So when it comes to registration we require a director who lives in New Zealand to ensure that they are identifiable with a substantive connection with the company who can be questioned about the activities of the company and who can in certain circumstances be held to account. The option of appointing an agent who lives in New Zealand was intended to provide an alternative with lower compliance costs for overseas-based New Zealand companies but we considered that such agents would be of limited help to enforcement agencies. And in many cases they would not be accountable for the actions of the company. The Commerce Committee recommended that the requirements for an agent living in New Zealand be omitted and that a New Zealand - based director or a director who lives in Australia be the requirement as it was considered that resident agents risk becoming also criminally liable for actions of the company or its directors over which the agent had little or no control. So working through some of these issues and trying to find the place where these pieces of legislation would work was something that the committee did.There are 4200 registered companies out of a large total of over half a million companies that do not already have a compliant director. Of these 1200 were deemed high-risk by the registrar. So this bill will come into enactment and what we will see is that there will be a small group of high-risk companies that the registrar—who I understand is already working in these particular areas—will bring compliance to and that will be a good thing as we see this bill come to pass and bring some certainty and some protection to our companies and also bring accountability to directors. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):Here we are in the dead of the afternoon with the Leader of the House having thrown the House into urgency to debate the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. Somehow it seems to me emblematic of the sense of drift and listlessness of the Government that this is the best that it could throw up in order to justify this period of urgency.There is nothing wrong with this bill. Labour supports the bill. It will provide limited steps forward to help improve the transparency and the integrity of commercial markets and we think that that is a good thing. I think all New Zealanders would think that that is a good thing and we commend the Government for doing that. But here we are throwing the House into urgency to debate a bill that is relatively routine and on which the Commerce Committee has done a relatively good job to tidy up at the edges.So what does this bill do? This bill gives new powers to the Registrar of Companies to investigate and deal with non-compliance under the Companies Act. It includes the power to flag companies on the register that are under investigation. It allows the removal of companies from the register if they provide inaccurate information or persistently fail to comply with the Act. It gives the registrar the power to ban directors of such companies from taking part in the management of any company for up to 5 years. It makes changes that are of a similar nature to the Limited Partnerships Act so that those misusing New Zealand companies cannot avoid the new regime by registering limited partnerships instead which is very important because limited partnerships were exceptional structures that were allowed to deal particularly with professional services firms’ challenges and were not seen as an alternative to the regular company structure.The bill better aligns the Companies Act and the Takeovers Code to ensure shareholders understand the effects that changes in company control will have on the value of their shares—Allied Nationwide Finance springs to mind—and quite important it introduces criminal offences for directors who commit a serious breach of their duties to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company and more on the detail in a minute. But I think it is very important for us to reflect that New Zealand does already have an international reputation as a trusted place to do business. I think we all celebrate that. We are all proud of the rule of law.The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation have ranked New Zealand No. 1 as the easiest place in the world to do business. That is both a good thing and a challenging thought. The good thing is of course we want business to be able to flourish because it provides jobs and it provides incomes. It is a bad thing in the sense that if we are already No. 1 for the ease of doing business then what is holding the New Zealand economy back—because it cannot get out of first gear at the moment—cannot be the fact that we are over-regulated because it is already the easiest place in the world to do business. It cannot be a deregulation problem. I see the Minister of Conservation over there. He wants to gut the Department of Conservation because it gets in the way of commerce. Cutting the budget cutting the number of rangers—anybody would think we were No. 183 out of 183 countries in terms of the ease of doing business not No. 1.So if this is already the easiest place in the world to get a business started why is the Government on a further deregulation crusade laying waste to the Resource Management Act trampling over local democracy with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill making it illegal to protest against oil companies—because you could go to jail for exercising your democratic rights—and ensuring that if there are any little legal snags in the way of the surveillance agencies undertaking their work no problem we will just change the law to make it all legal? The Labour Opposition although it supports the bill is concerned at some of the subtext that lies around this. We are already an easy place in the world to do business. This bill actually strengthenssome of the requirements on companies in terms of integrity and transparency and strengthens the duties of directors and we think that that is appropriate. We think that it is a good thing. We commend the Government for doing that.Just turning for a second to the arrangements amalgamations and compromises of code companies under the current law companies that are subject to the Takeovers Code can use the provisions of the Companies Act 1993 relating to schemes of arrangements amalgamations and compromises to effect mergers with or acquisitions of other companies. Those provisions are being utilised by code companies to avoid the provisions of the Takeovers Code which protects shareholders in respect of transactions that result in a change of control to those companies. The bill provides a number of changes to ensure that shareholders of code companies will not be disadvantaged by changes to the company being effected under the Companies Act.I wish to turn briefly to the criminalisation of breaches of certain directors’ duties. The recent finance company collapses—and members opposite would not have any firsthand knowledge of that at all would they? None at all no none at all and the Minister would not have any firsthand knowledge of those issues I am sure. The recent finance company collapses in New Zealand have highlighted weaknesses in corporate governance and investor protection under New Zealand’s corporate law and the names are already legion: Bridgecorp Hanover Finance and the granddaddy of them all South Canterbury Finance.The bill in new section 138A in clause 4 provides for offences in relation to serious breaches of the following duties: “section 131 (duty of directors to act in good faith and in best interests of company)”; and in relation to section 135 the duty not to agree to or cause or allow company business to be carried out in a manner that is likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors. Well thank goodness! Here we are in 2013 passing a law that actually should have been there a little earlier because we all know that there is a generation of new poor: the senior poor. They are New Zealanders who worked hard played by the rules saved hard built up a bit of a nest egg put it in finance companies because they were told by some celebrity that it was as safe as houses with a return just a little better than a bank and then in hindsight we found out on their behalf that actually the business models that a lot of those finance companies were based on could never have worked. They were a one-way bet. They were securitised on equities and other leveraged instruments so that if markets kept rising they were fine but the moment that the underlying investment turned southwards the business model was—to use a technical financial term—stuffed and the investors were out of pocket. The directors often knowingly carried on with business models that could not have succeeded and in some cases that are a matter of court record now knowingly misled investors to disguise those problems until it was too late.I do want to mention South Canterbury Finance. I grew up in South Canterbury. It has always been kind of close to my heart. That was the biggest disaster on this Government’s watch—$1.7 billion of gross cost and $1.2 billion of net cost. That is about as much as the Government is flogging off in Mighty River Power. That is the power company for those watching whose shares are now worth less than they were when the Government privatised them so that those investors have taken a minor bath as well.What is really tragic for those viewing here is that of course the taxpayer could have been indemnified to a maximum loss of $500 million instead of the $1.2 billion it actually cost them because the Hon Craig Foss’ predecessor Mr Power and Mr English and Mr Key decided in their wisdom to veto the recapitalisation deal that South Canterbury Finance could have effected and—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Nobody believes this rubbish.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Oh yes they do. It is all well documented. You talk to the brokers—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No—trying to rewrite history.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No no. If you go and talk to the brokers you will understand the full extent of the Government’s failure. That failure has cost the taxpayer $700 million—give or take $10 million or $20 million perhaps—because the Government allowed this finance company to trade on and even renewed its licence. It issued further prospectuses and it took more investors’ money while the Government watched it and waved it through.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He is clearly going outside the scope of this bill and talking about another bill that had been passed—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening very carefully and his time is nearly up.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Sad but true time is nearly up. So let me conclude by saying thus: South Canterbury Finance could have been saved with a recapitalisation deal that limited the taxpayer’s exposure; it was not. Instead the Crown wore the full cost. The strengthened disciplines in this bill would have addressed some of the issues that we saw writ large in the South Canterbury Finance case. This is a useful little bill. It is a shame that the Government has thrown the House into urgency to get it through. The Commerce Committee has done a good job on it. We support the contents of the bill. We need to ensure that New Zealand’s reputation—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; his time has expired. I call Julie Anne Genter.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a point of order?Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: No I am taking a call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I have called Julie Anne Genter.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):E te Kaihautū o te Whare tēnā koe. E ngā mana e ngā reo e ngā mātāwaka e rarau mai nei tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.[Mr Assistant Speaker of the House greetings to you. To the authorities languages and ethnicities settled here salutations to you all. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker .]I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the second reading of the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. I would like to start by discussing some of the broader issues of companies and company regulation in our current globalised economy and then I will speak to the specifics in the bill before us.The Green Party is very interested in tools that we can use to get a clean green economy that works for all New Zealanders not just the few not just the mates of the National Government. Our global reputation as a clean green and fair place to live and do business is essential to this end and the Green Party believes that it is an important responsibility of government to make sure that the reality backs up and enhances our global reputation. This John Key - led National Government is doing just about everything it can to ensure that New Zealand does not live up to its global image as a clean green and fair place to do business and the Green Party—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I must remind the member that when we are on a second reading speeches must be related to the bill. You can comment on things related to the bill but you cannot make the substantive matter of your speech other than what is in the second reading. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 110/6 and Speaker’s ruling 112/2. I ask the member to come back to the contents of the bill.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was getting to the contents of the bill which ultimately is a consequence of this Government’s failure to manage the economy well. This Government knew about the problems related to company registrations in New Zealand and the large number of New Zealand - registered companies that were engaged in international illegal fraudulent activity—money-laundering—3 years ago and it has taken 3 years for the second reading of this bill to come before the House. It took over 2 years for this bill to get its first reading before the House. I think that it is an example of the Government’s failure to manage the economy well and its failure to put in place important regulatory frameworks that would protect those New Zealand businesses that want to do the right thing.Most business people and most citizens are honest and want to do the right thing but those who want to make an honest living and want to do business without ripping off people or the natural environment are disadvantaged by a lack of Government regulation that levels the playing field. They are disadvantaged in a number of ways. First of all they can be easily undercut by competitors that cut costs by cutting corners; or in the case of the problem addressed by this bill New Zealand businesses that trade overseas have had a layer of compliance cost and regulation foisted on to them by this Government’s failure to act on fraudulent and irresponsible companies for 3 years. This amendment bill finally addresses a serious problem that the Government has been extremely slow to act on which is the large number of New Zealand - registered companies that have been engaged in large-scale tax-laundering money-laundering and fraud internationally.In 2011 and again in 2012 my colleague Dr Russel Norman asked questions and called media attention precisely on this issue because the Government was taking so long to act. It had not prioritised the issue. It was back in July 2010 that Simon Power a former Minister of Commerce got Cabinet agreement to tighten up the rules and deal with the serious problem of money-laundering. We are now in July 2013. Why did this bill which is not even as tough as international best practice would have it be take 3 years to get to its second reading before the House?We are happy to see the minor moves towards tightening things up that are proposed in this bill. The criminalisation of serious breaches of certain directors’ duties is well overdue. We would like to see the same sort of tough-on-criminals stance that this Government likes to talk about all the time applied to white-collar criminals and company directors who have not been living up to their responsibilities.The requirement to have a director who lives in New Zealand has actually been watered down in the bill as it has come back to the House from the Commerce Committee. We did think that it was probably appropriate to at least have an agent who was in New Zealand to ensure that we had some identifiable individual who had some sort of substantive connection with the company who could be questioned about the activities of the company and who could in certain circumstances be held to account. Unfortunately that requirement was dropped during the select committee process.There is a question about whether or not the Government is actually living up to its responsibility to put in place the boundaries that will enable honest clean green businesses to thrive here in New Zealand when it is listening primarily to company directors. Is this Government sufficiently independent to put in place a serious regulatory regime that is going to enable those businesses that are doing the right thing to continue doing the right thing?Today in the House we have heard a lot from the Government from the Minister about the need for balance. We hear the word “balance” used quite a lot but we do not see a lot of actual balance. We see a lot of preferential treatment for some big companies. Actually it strikes me that the National Government is kind of like a parentwho gives in to every demand of an already spoilt child when it talks about being pro-business. Instead of putting in place the boundaries that will enable companies to thrive and enable new companies to be formed and instead of creating a truly competitive environment it tends to privilege the existing big businesses like Skycity like its mates.So it is not actually a pro-business environment that is being facilitated by this bill; it is a kind of knee-jerk anti-regulation approach which does not recognise the important role in the wake of the global financial crisis that the Government has to play in ensuring that consumers and investors have the appropriate information to make decisions. As the global financial crisis proved the neo-liberal consensus of the 1980s and 1990s—that the least-regulated economy was the one that functioned best—is not the case.As our economy becomes ever more complicated complex and globalised that asymmetry of information makes it easier for companies to make a quick buck and for international organisations with nefarious activities to set up shop and get some sort of registration in New Zealand which they can then use to ends that actually undermine the reputation of New Zealand business internationally.The Green Party will be supporting this bill even though we regret that it does not require registered companies to obtain Inland Revenue Department numbers it does not address the problems around nominee directors it has dropped the requirement for an appointed agent to be resident in New Zealand and ultimately it does not go very far. We are quite happy to support it because finally after 3 years we are seeing some action on this important problem which is a threat to our reputation globally. Thank you.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):It is a pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. I am glad that the last speaker Julie Anne Genter has stated that the Green Party is prepared to support this bill because the Green Party has become known in this country for opposing anything related to growth to jobs to opportunities and to promoting the prosperity of our families and our communities. So thank you to the Green Party for once in this House during this term supporting a bill that is promoting jobs and opportunities.What does this bill do? Well as all the other speakers have stated it requires each company registered in New Zealand to have an identifiable individual who is the point of contact in New Zealand. Transparency and accountability have been the catchcry of this Government and this bill supports the Business Growth Agenda that we have put on the table as part of our long-term plan to bring this country out of recession and put it forward in terms of prosperity and in terms of our desire to live the Kiwi life—the good Kiwi life—that we have become accustomed to. This bill also gives new powers to the Registrar of Companies to investigate and deal with non-compliance under the Companies Act. It will allow the removal of companies from the register if they provide inaccurate information or persistently fail to comply with this legislation. It really is about providing to the registrar tools to get after those companies that do not comply with the accountability and transparency provisions within this bill.This bill does not do everything. In response to some of the concerns around the transparency of companies the Companies Office has established the registries integrity and enforcement team which in the short time it has been in operation has seen the removal from the register of over 6000 companies—those that were not doing anything and those that had been covertly in operation and not transparent with their operations.The Commerce Committee received 13 written submissions and we heard eight of those submissions. In response the select committee has said companies must have a director who lives in New Zealand or who lives in and is a director of a company inNew Zealand. We have required the provision of date and place of birth information of company directors as well as requiring the name and details information of any company that ultimately controls a New Zealand company to be disclosed to the registrar. Supplementary Order Paper 249 allows the Registrar of Companies to bring about more transparency.Again I support this bill because what it does is bring more confidence and trust into the financial markets and more confidence and trust into the operations of the Registrar of Companies and it brings prosperity to this country. I support this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Andrew Williams.Hon Trevor Mallard: So do we.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am pleased about that Mr Mallard.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. Can I say that we are disappointed that the first reading of this bill was on 24 July 2012 and that we are now in July 2013 with this debate being done under urgency. One would wonder why it has taken 12 months for the bill to be back in the House when 12 months ago—and I am readingHansard from 12 months ago here—all parties were basically in agreement with the bill and saw this as being a requirement that should not be held up by the Parliament.The whole process including the select committee process has been very slow. That is somewhat disappointing because we also heard a year ago that as a result of New Zealand not taking action in these areas we had been dropped off the European Union white list. The white list is a list the European Union keeps basically to ensure that those countries on it keep up a certain level of corporate governance oversight. New Zealand was dropped off that white list.We were warned a year ago that this bill had already taken 2 years from first sight in Cabinet to come to the House. As a result that did affect our standing with the European Union. It is most disappointing that now 12 months on we are looking at the second reading and we still have some way to go. In actual fact the only good thing out of this would be to get the bill through in its entirety so that corporates operating in this country and also international corporates operating here are under stricter controls.We do note that the bill as reported from the Commerce Committee includes the recommendation to drop the requirement for a company to have a resident agent living in New Zealand although a director resident in New Zealand is required. We do wonder whether that is the right way to go. We feel that it still leaves loopholes and avenues for certain operators to perhaps flout the law. However certainly the requirement for a company to have a director resident in New Zealand does go some way in that regard.There have been activities with window companies and shell companies operating here and certainly as a result of that New Zealand has perhaps been taken for a bit of a ride on occasions and that has affected our integrity in terms of the way we operate here. We certainly do not want to be seen as some sort of cowboy market for unscrupulous operators from offshore.The bill gives the ability for the public to be warned about suspect entities by way of a note in the Companies Register. That again is a good thing. The public can be warned about anything that is perhaps of concern and a red flag can be raised in terms of some of the activities of an entity that might be operating here. In that regard in terms of criminalisation for breaches of certain directors’ duties this bill allows for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $200000. Thatsends the right message that if you are going to operate within this country you could face a significant term of imprisonment if you break the laws in this regard.This bill basically tidies up a lot of administrative errors in terms of some of the commerce matters under the Limited Partnerships Act and other similar Acts to do with commerce and commercial acts. It is a positive move. New Zealand First has said before that we will support good policy that helps to tighten up the laws in this country. We have always been the vanguard and the champion of good legislation that ensures that New Zealand operates at the highest level in terms of corporate integrity and that our Companies Act is at the highest level of company standards.New Zealand has a good reputation in terms of corruption. I think we are something like No. 2 after Finland in terms of a world ranking for perceived corruption in terms of both government and companies. It is a good thing that we keep that standard. We want to maintain the highest level. This bill certainly goes a long way to tidying up many areas and tightening up a lot of the loopholes. Therefore New Zealand First will certainly continue to support the bill as we did 12 months ago but again we urge the Government not to just sit on its hands with this for another 6 to 12 months. Every month that goes by—and the Minister would take cognisance of this—leaves a potential loophole for unscrupulous activities to take place in this country. The sooner we can close those loopholes the better and the safer it is for our country our sovereignty and the people of this country.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. The Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill proposes significant changes to both the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 to strengthen the rules applying to the governance and registration of companies and the registrations of limited partnerships. Of course the larger aim is to protect New Zealand’s interests and ensure that it remains a trusted place to conduct business. The bill will promote investors’ confidence and participation in our capital market.The Government is introducing measures to tighten the requirements around companies’ registration and resident directors such as ensuring that for every company and limited partnership there is at least one person who lives in New Zealand who is legally responsible for the entity and administration. This resident agent will be responsible for providing the Companies Office with accurate information. In the case accurate information is not provided then the agent stands liable for breaching the record-keeping and filing requirements under the Companies Act.This bill empowers the Registrar of Companies with investigative authority in order to deal with non-compliance with the Companies Act. The bill also introduces criminal offences for directors who commit a serious breach of their duties so as to lead to risk of significant losses to the company’s creditors. Directors who commit such offences are liable for imprisonment of up to 5 years and a fine of up to $200000. The registrar will be granted enhanced investigative and removal powers to take action where there is any concern that a company or a limited partnership is not being used for a legitimate business purpose. It is not surprising that such a law is being enacted by the National Government because it believes in providing such confidence to the financial sector. I commend this bill to the House.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):We rise to support this bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill and I intend to take the entire 10 minutes in traversing why this bill should be supported unlike the speaker who has just resumed his seat. For those of you who may have wondered that member was Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi an obscure backbencher from the National Party. He did not explain why this bill has been languishing yet he and a host of other speakers have accentuated that thebill represents us defending and maintaining in the eyes of international investigators and international regulators our high-quality reputation in terms of transparency.I am the first to agree that those of us who have had some experience in business should treasure the reputation we have—and confirmed by the World Bank—that we are one of the easiest if not the easiest of countries in which to start a business. Indeed last year as I listened to a Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority presentation about people going to Christchurch it was evident that Christchurch was having visitors from the Middle East Asia North America and Europe and one of the people at the authority told me that what they could not get over was that as these international analysts and investors came into New Zealand to look for opportunities in and around Christchurch they marvelled at the ease in which you could start a business in New Zealand.I think that is something we should treasure. I do not think that there is much disunity between the two major parties on that question and I would like to think that it is something we continue to uphold. It is disappointing to see nefarious interests perhaps tied up with the drug moneys perhaps tied up with moving around ill-gotten gains etc. in and out of New Zealand. An example of that is the case of an American promoter of a Ponzi scheme who is about to face 15 to 25 years of jail. That person exploited a loophole and was able to contribute in a degrading way to the erosion of our commercial reputation. That needs to be stamped out.I would like it said that at a broad and base level I am in agreeance I think with the majority of the members of the House. Ease of business is something that we should celebrate. Transparency is an ongoing hassle. I know a bit about transparency having suffered an Auditor-General report into an immigration decision I made. So I have been at the sharp end of what is expected of a public official in respect of transparency and adherence to process. That is why we do support this particular bill.But as is the wont of Opposition politicians there are aspects we can find that could be remedied not the least of which is why the bill has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper for so long. I am not suggesting that it is reflective of the pecking order that exists on that side of the House and the rather diminished status of Craig Foss. Craig Foss came into politics when I came in. He holds the seat of Tukituki which as I have told you in earlier times means “to beat”. I actually have got quite a lot of time for Craig Foss but I do think that his stewardship of this particular bill is perhaps reflective of the ebbing fortunes that Craig Foss is suffering and we need look no further than the languishing nature of the economy investors punters and garden-variety Kiwis in Hawke’s Bay.I would like to think that Mr Foss dedicates a small degree of his precious time to improving the fortunes in that area because they are bleak. If you have any doubt just look at the information that we amassed and the glorious number of new members when the newest parliamentarian from that part of the motu from Heretaunga via Ikaroa-Rāwhiti came to the House and unveiled the fact that there is a great deal of pain and a great deal of squandered talent and missed opportunities. Really like other parts of provincial New Zealand that area is the economic orphan child of the current Government.I am sure that the Minister responsible for this bill is not totally at fault in that regard. The other part of the fault is probably with Mr Tremain but unfortunately that would take me somewhat beyond the guts or the purview of this bill. But it should be said that on this side of the House we think it is good to give a prod now and again to the responsible Ministers to remind them that it is essential that they remain not aloof but directly engaged in promoting pieces of legislation of this nature.This bill amongst other things enables regulators to flag companies that could be under investigation. There could be a host of reasons as to why that might happen. In the context of improved trans-Tasman business relations and as investment opportunities grow over time—when this side of the House gets over to the other side I am sure they will grow exponentially—I think it is important that people have a high level of confidence that an institution they might be buying into an institution they might be forming a relationship with is regulated in such a way that there are limited opportunities for mischief-makers or people who might use companies to ruin the prospects of shareholders.The bill also extends this level of vigilance to the Limited Partnerships Act through a host of changes so that folk who are of a mind to misuse our companies do not also move into infecting that particular regime. It also seeks to better align the Companies Act with the Takeovers Code and it ensures that shareholders understand the effect that changes in company control will have on the value of their shares.So I only hope that the owners of Mighty River Power are apprised of what lies in front of that company. Anyone who owns a company or who is a shareholder in a company needs to maintain vigilance as to the statutory or regulatory framework within which a company is operating and that is one company that is going to have to learn to live with a new norm and that norm is the changes the policy reforms and the moderation and improvements that we will be bringing to the power sector. In that sense shareholders need to be confident that when they invest in these vessels when they invest in a company they are shareholders. But when the citizens of the nation require or demand an improvement in the behaviour of a company the interests of shareholders have to be measured against the interests of the citizenry.In a democracy we by and large rely on citizens to make conclusive decisions about the distribution or the exercise of power. We rely on shareholders to drive directors and the executive to generate wealth. There is a clear distinction between the interests of the citizenry and the interests of shareholders. This is designed to give more confidence to the interests of shareholders. But be under no doubt that any company operating in the area of the power sector needs to bear in mind that this party is there to ensure that consumers and the broader citizenry do not have their fortunes held to ransom by rapacious ill-informed or dangerously driven executives hoping to continue to grow their own personal wealth by dint of their remuneration at the cost of growing and gouging cost behaviour from such companies.That is slightly different from the range of duties that a director has to observe. They are well established in terms of good practice and good law but this is designed to enable the Registrar of Companies formerly in popular parlance known as the Companies Office to root out bad apples and ensure that companies being exploited or abused by overseas interests—and from to time there will potentially be New Zealand interests that fall into that trap although I dare say the ardour for bending companies’ rules etc. has been brought to heel with the large number of people facing jail time or time being virtually incarcerated in their houses. That is an improvement that is reflective of the greater awareness the resources amongst those regulators who have those punitive powers.We support this bill. Naturally we do not completely support the faltering stewardship that lies behind the bill but being parliamentarians upholding the qualities of democracy and the stature of the House on this occasion we will support the bill. Thank you very much.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss because he brought a veryimportant bill to this House. We have all seen as a country the amount of suffering and hurt that have been caused to Kiwis and Kiwi families through the poor and sometimes criminal behaviour of company directors. So this is a very very important bill.I would like to refer to just one of the provisions in this bill. It is a provision that requires each company registered in New Zealand to have an identifiable individual who is the one point of contact in New Zealand and that this person must be a director of the company or a director of a company in a country where New Zealand has a reciprocal arrangement for the enforcement of criminal sanctions. What this means is that if you do get a company director or directors who behave poorly who behave criminally actually there is nowhere to hide. I think that this is a very very good and a very very important provision in this bill. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I just advise members that this is a split call. I call the honourable member Clare Curran.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):In the second reading of this bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill I would like to just start off by saying that on 27 June 2012—so that is 27 June last year—an article appeared on interest.co.nz that said that “New Zealand’s removal from the White List means EU financial institutions and banks could undertake additional measures to ensure customers (including companies) from New Zealand are who they say they are”. New Zealand got dumped from that list a year ago and that dumping came amidst growing publicity around New Zealand - registered companies being linked to crime overseas. There was a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project on how Tormex Systems Ltd which is a New Zealand - registered company allegedly laundered $680 million through a Latvian bank account. But this was just one of many examples of the entities that were exploiting New Zealand’s simple company registration regime. I could go on to list more but I will not.The issue was that the question of whether there was a case for criminalising directors’ statutory duties first arose in the Ministry of Economic Development—as it was known then—2010 securities law review discussion paper and it was later approved by Cabinet in 2011 as part of its policy decisions on securities law reforms. There were two Cabinet papers as I understand it that related to this from 2011. It is now 2013. It took 18 months for a piece of legislation that was identified as being so important that had New Zealand struck off a white list to appear in the House for the first time—for the first time. I think its first reading was on 24 July last year and then it has taken another year for it to get to the second reading—another whole year.When you think about the fact that we were struck off this list and it was seen as part of our international reputation as being a good place to do business as being an easy place to do business but also as being a sound place to do business you would think that that would be a piece of legislation that this Government would treat as being important and urgent. Instead we have many other pieces of legislation that suit the Government’s agenda that get rushed though this House under urgency including something as important as this bill which had broad support in the Commerce Committee. There were serious discussions amongst all of the members involved but ultimately good work was done to produce a piece of legislation that is sound. No doubt it is not perfect but it is sound. Good work was done in order to do that but it has taken another year to get to this point.I want to talk about a couple of points in this legislation that particularly stood out for me sitting on the Commerce Committee and I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the officials for the work they have done and the good sound way in which the analysis was provided to the committee. This bill seeks to do a number ofthings but I will talk about a couple of them. One is the introduction of the criminal sanctions which is to be done in two ways really. Some of the existing conduct by directors that is not currently subject to criminal sanctions but is sufficiently blameworthy to warrant criminal punishment is seen as being one of the areas that needed attention. We also considered the new provisions in the bill that would allow in certain circumstances certain contact that was already subject to criminal sanctions to be prosecuted more directly. So there were new criminal sanctions and there were existing criminal sanctions that would perhaps have stronger criminal sanctions attached to them.The committee did take care though to ensure that directors and advisers in companies would not be inadvertently criminalised through this legislation and there was a lot of discussion on this issue. We went backwards and forwards on that. It is important to note in this House that this side of the House does not want to produce legislation before this House that creates a chilling effect on innovation and on companies being able to do what they do best. But what we do need to do is provide the sanctions that prevent and punish the behaviours that we do not want to produce and the behaviours for which New Zealand found itself struck off that white list in the European Union and for which we should feel ashamed in particular that we did not actually act faster on this piece of legislation.Just on that point it is a criminal offence for directors who commit a serious breach of their duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company and to not carry on their business in a way that risks serious loss to the company’s creditors. Directors who commit those offences will now be liable as I am sure you have heard today for a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to $200000. We listened carefully to the submissions on this. We heard that there were a number of submitters who were reluctant to increase those penalties and who expressed concern about that but ultimately I think the committee came down on the right side on this issue. We had to show that we took this issue seriously and that there would be serious penalties for directors who were not acting in good faith.Linked absolutely with this is the requirement for directors to ensure that there is a director of the company—which I know other speakers have spoken about—who lives in New Zealand. We thought absolutely that we had to address this issue because of the shelf companies that were being established in New Zealand where there was no person associated with them and they were effectively being used as money-laundering organisations. We have to have legislation in place that addresses that issue. We also had to ensure that there could be balance achieved by requiring a company to have either a director who lived in New Zealand or a director who is a director of a company with which New Zealand has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of low-level criminal fines. Again there was a lot of discussion on that point as well. The purpose of requiring a director who lives in New Zealand was to ensure that there was going to be an identifiable person somebody who actually existed not somebody who potentially existed or where there was just an address with no actual company behind it—an identifiable individual with a substantive connection with the company who could be questioned about the activities at that company and who could in certain circumstances be held to account.That was the important test that we in the select committee agreed upon. There was a lot of discussion and we also noted that again there were a lot of submissions that raised concerns about that particular point. But in the end the committee came down on the side of the advice that we were given which was that we disagreed that a resident director would not be effective in preventing the misuse of New Zealand’s company registration system. Of the companies that were identified as being involved in money-laundering fraud and tax evasion in overseas jurisdictions the vast majority do not or did not have a New Zealand - resident director. I think that is the important point here and that is the point in one of the key parts of this legislation. It is to ensure that if there is a company operating in this country there has to be somebody a person who is associated with it. The information that we received was that this was not going to create an enormous financial burden for companies because less than 1 percent of New Zealand - registered companies do not have a director who lives in either New Zealand or Australia. So we support this bill and look forward to further discussion in the Committee stage.Debate interrupted.Points of OrderRoyal Succession Bill—ProcedureBRENDAN HORAN (Independent):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I came at the earliest possible convenience but I would like to ask for your considered ruling in the time available before the conclusion of this debate as to whether the Royal Succession Bill the next bill on the Order Paper can properly be debated today. The reason I ask this is that this legislation is subject to judicial challenge through the courts. As you know in this House we are guarded by the principle of comity the mutual respect of Parliament and the courts for each other’s jurisdictions. We work in ways to maintain this respect and I am concerned that we may be about to breach these.What is unusual about the Royal Succession Bill is that changes are required in 16 nations where the Queen is head of State. Papers were filed several weeks ago—and I am happy to provide you with a copy now—in the Superior Court of Quebec by Professors Motard and Taillon. They are two of Canada’s pre-eminent constitutional experts. The motion for declaratory judgment is set down for hearing on 18 July. Normally I would not think that proceedings half a world away would give the House reason to pause but given the unique nature of this bill and the need for concurrent changes in multiple legislatures I suspect that it would be best for this House to wait until the Quebec proceedings are resolved. For that reason I ask for your considered ruling.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):This House is not subject to the courts of Quebec in whatever form they might be. This House has full jurisdiction to hear the Royal Succession Bill and to deliberate accordingly. The member should know that. He is supposed to be a member of this Parliament. He should know that we are not subject to the laws of Quebec.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All right well thinking about that I would have to take advice on that because it is another jurisdiction. I take on board what the Minister has said and I am inclined to agree with the Minister but I will seek some advice and I will come back.Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I commend the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Royal Succession BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The Royal Succession Bill will make three changes to modernise the historic rules of royal succession. The changes better reflect today’s values while still preserving the important traditions of the monarchy.Firstly the bill will ensure that royal succession is no longer dependent on a person’s gender. Secondly it will remove the bars that prevent a person married to a Roman Catholic from possessing or succeeding to the Crown. Thirdly the bill will remove the rule that all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry. Instead only the first six in line to the throne will need consent.The first change will mean that the rules of succession are gender-neutral. An elder daughter will be able to precede a younger son in the line of succession. This will update the rules of succession in a crucial aspect removing the outdated rule of male superiority in the line of succession. This change will apply to any children born after 28 October 2011. It will therefore apply to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge due to be born in July. This has been agreed by all of the 16 realms that share Her Majesty the Queen as head of State.The bill will also remove the current restrictions that prevent a person married to a Roman Catholic from succeeding to or possessing the Crown. The current restriction does not apply to other faiths. The heir to the throne may succeed to the throne if married to a person of any other faith or of no faith at all. This anomaly can no longer be justified. This change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is still alive. Some people will be reinstated into the line of succession as a result.Finally the current rule that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry will be removed. It will be replaced with a rule that this requirement applies to the first six in line to the throne. The current rule regarding consent to marry applies to many hundreds perhaps thousands of descendants. Many of them would not have been aware that they needed the king or queen’s permission to marry. Their marriages may be legally void as a result. This bill will correct this situation. These marriages will be validated for all purposes other than succession provided they meet certain criteria.I should note that the changes to the bill do not mean that a Roman Catholic will be able to accede to or hold the throne. The separate rule that the king or queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England will remain; so will the requirement that the Sovereign swear an oath to uphold the Protestant religion.Changes to the rule of royal succession require the agreement of each of the 16 realms as the Queen is head of State of each of them in their own right. In order to maintain this the rules of succession must be consistent across the realms. Most of the changes were agreed between the realms at a meeting coinciding with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011. Further changes were agreed through later discussions among the realms.New Zealand has played an essential role in coordination among the realms and the Government wants to thank the Clerk of the Executive Council who has been undertaking this role for her endeavours in this respect.A bill changing the laws of succession is currently proceeding through the UK Parliament. That bill will not however automatically apply to New Zealand. Separate legislation is needed in New Zealand to achieve the same changes to the rules ofsuccession in New Zealand law. Our Royal Succession Bill is consistent with the United Kingdom’s Succession to the Crown Act.In closing it is important that our constitutional institutions such as the monarchy retain and maintain their history and traditions. But it is also important that the rules that govern these institutions evolve to reflect the times in which we live and this bill will allow this to happen. New Zealand has a grand tradition of removing undue discrimination in its underpinning legal framework—most notably by being the first country in the world to give women the right to vote.This bill builds on this proud history and tradition as well as meeting our commitments to the other realms. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to talk on this bill the Royal Succession Bill and note that of the three things the bill does one of those is an act of validation. I have to say that it is a pleasure to be able to speak on a bill that validates past actions without upsetting the good citizens of Mangawhai and indeed of Tasman district. But that is kind of where the positive aspects of this bill stop and start.We are dealing in this bill with an anachronism and every citizen in this country who has their radio and television tuned to Parliament this afternoon will be wondering why it is that we are taking the very expensive time of this House and the people who work here on this piece of legislation about the Queen the Crown or the Sovereign of England. They will be wondering why it is that in this day and age in this little corner of the world in a nation that is reputed—and indeed this Government trades off it as indeed the last one did—to be a country that punches above its weight and that does extraordinary things all in its own name with its own identity and with its own culture we find ourselves on this wintry afternoon legislating for gender neutrality in the succession of the Sovereign. How on earth does that absurd situation arise?I might hasten to add that Labour will support this bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign because there are bigger issues at play when it comes to this nation’s relationship with—Hon Trevor Mallard: Soft on royalty.ANDREW LITTLE: Yes soft on the causes of royalty as well. There are bigger issues that come into play when it comes to the relationship between the nation State of New Zealand and the Queen of England.Who would have thought in this day and age that we would find ourselves legislating—Simon O’Connor: Hasn’t been a Queen of England for 500 years until this one.ANDREW LITTLE: There is the resident monarchist of the House. He has to chip in. He takes great offence because here we are having to legislate against primogeniture. Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would be having to pass legislation about that? Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would have to pass legislation to overcome prejudice against Catholics? Oh now Mr O’Connor is very silent on that point—very silent on that point. Mr O’Connor needs to be reminded that without this legislation he would have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near succession to the throne or any part of it and once upon a time he would have been deprived of public office in the home country. That is how bad it was.You have only to look at the old Bill of Rights of 1688 which is held up as such an important document around the Commonwealth. What a dreadful piece of legislation that was. Here it is: “Papists debarred the Crown.” That is not the bad thing actually. That is not the bad thing because we can overcome that. It is what they said about the papists. Here is what they said about the papists: “And whereas it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince”. That is what they thought of the Catholics in thatday and age. And here we are in the 21st century having to pass legislation to prevent discrimination against Roman Catholics by the Crown that is meant to be of this country. How patently ridiculous.The third thing we are doing is we are legislating to validate the marriages potentially hundreds of marriages that have not been personally consented to by the Crown. Of course there is still an issue in my humble opinion about why the Crown should be called upon to approve any adult marriage. What is wrong with the autonomy of the individual and the Queen’s or the King’s adult children being able to decide whom they marry? That has been the cause of constitutional crises as recently as last century but not so far this century. It was a cause of constitutional crisis. Poor old Princess Margaret was deprived of her beau and King Edward had to abdicate because of his favoured spouse. Thank goodness we have got past all that. We have got through the age of the charleston and we have not had the same problem ever since.These measures will at least give the appearance of modernising the succession arrangements for the royal family. But the reality is that there should never have been in the modern world at least any gender or religious discrimination or any discrimination at all. We should ask the question—and Mr Foster-Bell no doubt will be called upon to answer along with Mr O’Connor the self-professed monarchists of the National Party—why on earth it is we are being called upon to pass this legislation in this day and age. It highlights as I said a much bigger issue of New Zealand’s relationship with the monarch. The question is: how relevant is it? How relevant is it that the time of this House should be spent on this legislation for New Zealanders who simply want to go about their business. They want this Parliament to devote its time and attention to making sure that life in New Zealand is worth living and is bearable that the distribution of wealth is fair that job opportunities exist and that people can be cared for and looked after and can ultimately be happy.The constitutional arrangements that we now live under and thrive under in terms of this Parliament mean that we have to participate in this charade of passing this legislation along with 16 other sovereign nations—[Interruption ] I take the advice—Hon Trevor Mallard: She’s the Queen of New Zealand.ANDREW LITTLE: She is the Queen of New Zealand and that is the point. That is the issue. It is because of those constitutional arrangements that we have to participate in this charade. So we must now ask the question: is this really 21st century New Zealand? I do not want to cause offence to the royal family—never have done—and for that reason as I said we will support the bill. But it is not the New Zealand way that we support the idea of status and privilege as a birthright. That is not the Kiwi way. It never has been and never will be.The good people of the United Kingdom who came out here 180 years ago or 170-odd years ago to become the second peoples of this land the second set of settlers on this land came here to get away from exactly that cultural aspect. They came here to get away from privilege and status delivered as a birthright. They came here to forge a new way to pioneer a new country with new values and to pioneer a country built on freedom built on hard work built on reward for that hard work and built on getting ahead under your own steam. That is the New Zealand way not cuddling up to and seeking succour from those sorts of institutions that are outdated and outmoded—interesting as they may be—and producing good music occasionally as they may do although not the theme songs that we get from old has-been pop stars like Elton John and others and Cliff Richard. Of course that does not necessarily go with royalty but—Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s the member saying about Elton? What’s he promoting Elton for?ANDREW LITTLE: Well we are talking about queens this afternoon so why not? We are not talking just about the Crown. But the thing is—Hon Member: Shameful.ANDREW LITTLE: I do not think there is any offence caused there. He called it himself. The point is that he keeps on being rolled out in every royal gala performance they have. Can we have something slightly more modern?But this is the question that young New Zealanders are now asking. This legislation will give rise to that question in the minds of even more as to whether we should spend the time of this Parliament priced at what $350000 an hour to debate these important issues—Hon Trevor Mallard: No the marginal cost is almost nothing.ANDREW LITTLE: My learned friend Mr Mallard says that the marginal cost is almost nothing. But the truth is that we have now been compelled to consider this legislation under urgency as part of this urgency motion. It is a piece of legislation that will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders or for that matter any New Zealander even those living overseas and even those living in the United Kingdom. It will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders one single bit but we are corralled into it. We are driven by it by our constitutional arrangements and if this bill does anything let it be a clarion call. Let it draw attention to the arrangements that we now have and let it attract a real curiosity about whether this is the way we should go forward.We are a nation State. We are a bold proud nation State. We hold our heads up proudly around the world. We contribute our people to support our allied nations like the United Kingdom and many others in the Commonwealth and out of it but we do that in our own name and in our own right. We should not be drawn into or be required to spend the valuable time of this House on issues like this when there are more compelling issues to be dealing with and when we have our own history to celebrate.I would just conclude by saying that this week is an important week of course in labour history. It is the centenary of the second Unity Congress which led to the formation of the United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party the precursors to the Labour Party. That is the history that we should be celebrating. That is the real history that has touched New Zealanders’ lives—the lives of all New Zealanders—and has made a difference not this legislation.We will support the bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign today but it is time we reconsidered moved on and stood on our own two feet.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee to stand in support of the first reading of this Royal Succession Bill. I am very much looking forward to the deliberations that the committee will have on this bill. I am looking forward to the submissions that we will receive and hear because our constitutional monarchy is a rich and proud one. It has tradition and history on its side and I personally believe that it is a model that has served us well in the past and will continue to serve us well into the future.One of the hallmarks of our constitutional monarchy has been its ability to modify itself to modernise and to remain relevant over the centuries. For us here in New Zealand even though we are a young nation we have a proud tradition of our own in terms of being at the forefront of social change. It is not often that this House debates matters relating to the very core foundation stones of the monarchy that form the basis of our constitutional roots. As one of the 16 realms that have Her Majesty as Queen and Sovereign we are a member of an elite group of nations. This bill modernises royal succession by removing aspects relating to both gender and religious discrimination.New Zealand supports gender and religious freedom so as this bill has that as an outcome we will be in line with the principles we hold dear as a nation.Later this month New Zealanders will be amongst millions of others from around the Commonwealth and around the world who will welcome the birth of the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This bill will mean that for the first time in the entire history of the monarchy the child no matter its gender will succeed His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in due course. The bill implements changes to the rules of royal succession agreed to by all 16 Commonwealth realms. Most of the changes were approved in principle at a meeting held in October 2011 and the rest were agreed at subsequent meetings. All 16 realms will implement legislation to ensure concurrent and united change. No longer will royal succession be dependent on a person’s sex. The bill allows for an older daughter to precede a younger son for the first time ever. That is a good thing in terms of where we come from as a nation here in New Zealand.Another aspect of the bill relates to the removal of exclusions preventing people married to a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the throne. This change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is alive which means that it will reinstate some people into the line of succession who are currently excluded from it. The Minister of Justice in her introductory comments made an interesting point that was relative to how the ancient law of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which dates back to the time of King George II relates to the Sovereign approving all marriages of the direct descendants of King George II and the anomalous and slightly bizarre situation that now exists where clearly there could be hundreds if not thousands of people who technically have marriages that are not valid in terms of that law. This bill will change that.This is a bill that I think helps modernise the monarchy. It makes the monarchy relevant to the 16 realms and it is a model that has served us well. Our constitutional monarchy is one that we can be proud of. It supports us. We support them. It is a good process. It is a good model. I am very much looking forward to the progress of this bill through the committee stage and I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the Hon Trevor Mallard an issue was raised by a member of Parliament Mr Horan regarding the right of the House to legislate on this. I just wish to advise the House that under Standing Order 112(1) the House has the ultimate discretion to legislate on any matter including those under adjudication in a court. This is doubly the case of court proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. The Royal Succession Bill has been subject to considerable thought including our relationship with other Commonwealth countries prior to its introduction. The member’s point therefore is not valid and we will proceed in due course to the vote.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I rise to speak on this Royal Succession Bill as someone who thinks that at some stage we will move beyond having a monarchy. It is something that I think is important for our integrity as a country but it is something that I do not regard as urgent. I also think that there is something slightly unseemly about Parliament taking urgency on a royal succession bill. The idea that we are trying to get something quickly sorted out when there has been so long to have it sorted out is something that I do not think reflects well on us. If people in London look back if they have any consideration of what we are doing here—and I doubt that they are taking much interest in it at all—they will just ask the question about why this legislation could not have been dealt with properly in an ordinary time rather than as some urgent matter to be pushed through because of a current pregnancy. It does not look good and it reflects very badly on the Government’s organisation that we do it inwhat is an apparently hurried manner of this sort. This is especially true because it is now well over 18 months since there was an agreement made between Prime Ministers on the way forward on this.The next point that I want to make is that I am not one who believes absolutely that the King or Queen of England also has to be the King or Queen of New Zealand. I think that as an independent nation—a country with our own constitutional integrity—it is and should be open to us to choose to have a different set of rules for succession in New Zealand from those the people of the United Kingdom choose to have for themselves through their changes. That is why I think therefore it is important that this bill gets a full consideration at the Justice and Electoral Committee and I understand that that is to be the case; we are not going to have a shortened arrangement at the select committee.I think that does leave some questions as to what the hurry is all about. If the child is to be born before the legislation is passed then it is hardly going to be a matter of urgency for Parliament. Of course there is the terrible possibility of an accident or something that might involve three generations of the royal family and I can accept that it is important to get this sorted out as soon as possible but that is an argument for the bill being introduced and proceeded with at first reading earlier than now. So the first point is really a rejection of the need for absolute coordination between nations on the question of royal succession and the ability of New Zealand to assert its own rights in this matter.I do not think that any reasonable person will have an argument around the core part of this legislation and that is the abolition of precedence of younger brothers over older sisters. I think that it is something that was not appropriate in the past. It has been some time since it did actually apply in fact but I think that in the 21st century it is something that is just no longer appropriate. I think that whatever system we have the suggestion that males take precedence over females when it comes to succession is just wrong.It then comes to the next really fundamental question and that is the question of the relationship between the Queen of New Zealand and the Church of England. I just want to do a real underlining of those points. We are today discussing who should be the Queen of New Zealand but we are doing it in the context that that person is also the Defender of the Faith and the faith in this particular case is no church in New Zealand but is the Church of England. It is one of the points on which I think there should be reasonable debate—whether in fact New Zealanders could accept having someone who is a Catholic as their monarch. In this particular case we are talking now about the abolition of exclusions of people who marry Roman Catholics but I think it does open up the fundamental question about whether the King or Queen of New Zealand could be a Roman Catholic and whether we would automatically exclude someone on the basis of their religion. That is something that is quite serious.I know that in times past—not going back more than a generation or two—the antagonism was such that I am pretty sure that many New Zealanders would not think it was acceptable and I am pretty sure that most Catholics would not have been the slightest bit interested in being the King or Queen of England. Of course going further back—going further back—it was something that was common. So I just want to leave for the House on this particular issue the question of whether we want to tie our law so tightly that a person is automatically excluded from being the King or Queen of New Zealand because of that role also being the Defender of the Faith—i.e. the Church of England. In my view that goes too far.The next question is the abolition of the requirement of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 that all of the descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marriage. We know that this does not happen now. We know that actually it is a much more limited group. What the bill does is to tie it back to the first six people in line tothe throne and require those people to have the Sovereign’s consent. I think this is a clause that also needs to get very careful consideration. We have got some rules around the freedom for New Zealanders to marry. I have a sincere question as to whether or not there should be a special role for a Sovereign to deny his or her children or grandchildren the right to marry the person of their choice. This has occurred on occasion. We have seen it occur and we have seen disaster. We have seen in the generation of the current Sovereign’s children a number of relationships that have not worked as a result of the people not being able to marry the person with whom they had what might be considered their primary and first relationship. That has not been healthy for that family and my question is whether we want to continue that sort of arrangement.I will support this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to the submissions. It is going to be interesting to see whether Government members are prepared to have a country that stands up for itself.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):The bill before us the Royal Succession Bill proposes three changes to the rules of royal succession for the New Zealand monarchy. This emerges from a political agreement at head of Government level at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2 years ago. First it would abolish primogeniture—the precedence of younger brothers over elder sisters—thereby ensuring that succession is not dependent on a person’s gender. Second it would allow individuals within the royal line of succession to marry a Roman Catholic. Third it would restrict the requirement of royal consent for marriage to just the first six individuals in line to the throne.The bill raises issues of a deep constitutional nature and these are of course placed in a historical context. There is often a tendency to justify any shortcomings in universal human rights in the context of historical anomalies. There was a case not so long ago where the UK Supreme Court argued in asserting that particular electoral laws pertaining to a particular bailiwick were consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights with the quote that laws even anomalous laws have to be considered “in the round in light of historical and political factors relevant to” a particular place. Although if one were starting from scratch there could be few who would think that the law might be satisfactory it did not follow that human rights would be breached. So you have issues that are not simple and inevitably will occasion a penetrating discussion not only in this House but in the wider society. People can hold strong views on these issues.There are various points to consider both constitutional and political. First there is the right of primogeniture. There can be no opposition surely to abolishing the right of primogeniture. The only point to note is one of astonishment that it has taken so long to bring the British and Commonwealth law up to speed with universal human rights which reflect the Western values that we all delight in trumpeting. It was Scott Simpson just a moment ago who spoke about an elite group of nations moving to legislate. With great respect that is absolute rubbish. Our 16 jurisdictions are a group of nations; we are not an elite group of nations. There is no such thing as an elite group of nations within the universal context of human rights. He also was animated enough to say that we were bringing our law on this matter up to speed with universal human rights—not totally correct. We are inching along in that respect to bring it up to speed with universal human rights but we are stopping short of it.The second issue is the freedom of royal marriage. Allowing the British and Commonwealth monarch to marry a Roman Catholic is fine and indeed necessary. But as I understand it although the Act of Settlement states that a monarch may not marry a Roman Catholic it also states that the monarch “shall join in communion with theChurch of England”. That is the monarch must be an Anglican and must perform the duty of Defender of the Faith at least in England and Wales though not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. So the exclusion applies to all other faiths including any declaration of non-faith. As such it is an infringement of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which would accord the right of any human to have freedom of religion and occupy any position notwithstanding.Crown Law’s view is that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because “The rules that govern succession [in a shared hereditary monarchy] are historically and politically complex. They are inapt for detailed Bill of Rights Act scrutiny.” This seems with respect to be a weak argument. The current succession laws of the British monarchy including these proposed reforms undeniably infringe upon universal human rights even in the context of this draft bill. There is a strong argument for republicanism although let me emphasise that republicanism is not Green Party policy.The third change is restricting the requirement of royal consent. The requirement to seek consent from the monarch by the first six in line to the throne is also such an infringement.It is a minor point in terms of New Zealand domestic debate but it might be queried whether the New Zealand legislation will or will not apply to the Cook Islands Niue and even the Ross Dependency. Presumably the British legislation will “directly pass through” the New Zealand Governor-General acting in right in a different capacity in those jurisdictions. We would be interested to get an opinion from the Government on this point. The shared monarchy makes it required that all 15 realms outside the United Kingdom pass identical legislation. Agreement to that effect was given including by New Zealand at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. This requirement for collective legislation by 16 jurisdictions effectively circumscribes New Zealand’s freedom of constitutionality—another argument for republicanism.These constitutional considerations effectively rest on a set of broader considerations. This is probably another case of the New Zealand public needing to judge whether a reform goes far enough. There will be those who think it does and those who think it does not. For its part the Green Party regards the draft legislation as being useful in so far as it rectifies some serious shortcomings in the New Zealand constitutional system. But we also regard the bill as not going as far with the reforms as it should.In so far as the current New Zealand constitutional system precludes a Roman Catholic from being head of State—or a Hindu or a Muslim—then it breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whether that applies to the Governor-General representing the head of State is another issue. It may have been the case that previous Governors-General converted to Roman Catholicism and that would be an interesting point of fact.Does the bill go sufficiently far with reform as to warrant our support? Our answer is no yet we do not wish to oppose the bill since it does effect some positive change. The Green Party will therefore abstain on the bill. If it were a normal piece of domestic legislation we would work to strengthen its provisions and advance some amendments in the Committee of the whole House. But this is not a normal bill. It is a piece of the constitution that addresses the monarchy and that monarchy is shared across 16 sovereign jurisdictions. As such the rules have to be identical; you could not have rules for New Zealand choosing a shared monarch and different rules for Britain or Australia. Our rules no doubt would be regarded as null and void to the extent that they differed from those of the UK.It is a supreme irony that 16 so-called sovereign nation States are unable to make their separate sovereign determination of the rules choosing their own head of State. I note the intriguing judgment in a Canadian case that “One cannot accept the monarch but reject the legitimacy or legality of the rules by which this monarch is selected.”—true up to a point but this bill before us is altering the rules and thereby rejecting or casting out the previous rules. So the matter is relative though not so relative as to enable freedom of legislation over one’s own head of State. The Minister of Justice said just a moment ago that the rules have to be consistent across the realms and that a bill is proceeding through the UK Parliament but that this does not of course work for us; we must do our own legislation. So be it. We shall abstain on the bill while making it clear as appropriate what our views are on certain of its aspects.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I rise to speak to the Royal Succession Bill. I did not think I would be quoting Voltaire but to Dr Graham can I say: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Voltaire was quite correct—there are always ways that we can improve things and I encourage the Green Party to support democracy to support good constitutionalism and to support gender equality in this Parliament.It is interesting too that we have been talked to by people over 50 years of age who have been telling us that the youth are not interested in the monarchy whereas in fact the second biggest group of supporters in New Zealand are people my age and younger. We have heard from one speaker that the 1688 Bill of Rights was a bad bill. We heard that from Andrew Little. That was legislation that allowed Parliament to actually overrule the monarchy.We have heard people talking about the Queen of England. Well there has not been a Queen of England for hundreds of years. We have heard about the Church of England in New Zealand. Well strangely enough the Church of England is a problem for the English not for the strong independent mature bold country of New Zealand which freely chooses to engage with 15 other realms to share a head of State. You would think that the likes of the Labour Party and particularly the Greens would like that idea of cooperation—that we freely share a head of State with 15 other nations which have between themselves a remarkable record of democracy. Here is an interesting fact. For about 70 percent of New Zealand’s history since the Treaty we have had a woman as head of State. That is almost unrivalled in any other place in the world.I just want to sum up my position with a quote that I think sums up the importance of this bill—the importance of this bill in constitutionalism and the importance of this bill for democracy. Excuse me that this is gender-specific but we can always substitute: “A king is a king not because he is rich and powerful not because he is a successful politician not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of State to this most common denominator in the world—the accident of birth—[people] implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.”This bill comes down to the birth of a child. New Zealand’s democratic constitutional system rests on the birth of a child which this Parliament freely and democratically accepts to be our head of State a New Zealander a New Zealand head of State. I support this bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):This Royal Succession Bill is one of the most unusual bills before Parliament this year. We do not often get to debate the potential future chief of State of 16 different countries but this is an important change for the New Zealand constitution and it is good that New Zealand First has had a chance toconsider this constitutional change and debate it. It is very sad of course and utterly unacceptable that the consideration of other constitutional changes now being considered by the Government being those generated by the National - Māori Party confidence and supply agreement have excluded New Zealand First. New Zealand First will support the Royal Succession Bill but we have grave concerns about the constitutional changes being considered under the current process to implement the National - Māori Party agreement.Of great concern is the very biased make-up of the 12-member Constitutional Advisory Panel that is managing that process. There is also a cross-party reference group that does not include New Zealand First. The panel will make recommendations to Pita Sharples and Bill English who are the responsible Ministers and then to Cabinet in November this year. These parties may then try to ram another constitutional bill through Parliament and the issues to be discussed in that are much greater in weight than those we are currently considering this evening. They include a written constitution the size of Parliament the size and number of electorates the length of the parliamentary term Māori electorates including the Māori electoral option—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on a bill that does not cover those points so I will ask the member to concentrate on the bill. He can mention those things but it must relate to the substance of the bill.DENIS O’ROURKE: The reason I am mentioning them is simply this: we have much greater issues before us this year in terms of the New Zealand constitution than we are dealing with this evening and those constitutional changes are much greater in weight than the Royal Succession Bill we are talking about this evening. We in New Zealand First will be taking great note of those including flawed concepts such as incorporating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi whatever they are supposed to be—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption ] Order! The member will sit. I just mentioned that the member must concentrate on the bill. It has been 2½ minutes and the member must focus on what this bill is and I would ask the member to come back to it.DENIS O’ROURKE: Well Mr Assistant Speaker if you had given me a chance I was just about to move on to that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sit down. Do not challenge the ruling of the Chair or the Speaker. If one wants to do that I will terminate the speech. You have 7½ minutes going and I will ask the member to come back to the bill.DENIS O’ROURKE: I am very happy to come back to the bill because that is what I was about to do anyway.We will be supporting the Royal Succession Bill. It implements changes to the royal succession agreed by the 16 realms of which the Queen is sovereign. These changes do modernise historic royal succession rules firstly by ensuring that the royal succession is not dependent on a person’s sex and it also allows an older daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession. In other words it abolishes the archaic concept of primogeniture. Regardless of when the bill is enacted it will apply for all royal births after midnight on 28 October 2011.The bill also removes the current restrictions that bar from the throne people married to a Roman Catholic. These barriers can no longer be justified. The change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is alive thereby reinstating some people into the line of succession. But of course there is no change to the law under which the monarch must be a member of and the head of the Church of England. In this respect the law will remain discriminatory. That is not appropriate in this day and age and ought also to change. But we in New Zealand First accept that New Zealand alone cannotachieve this while we retain the constitutional monarchy which we share with 15 other countries.Lastly the bill abolishes the requirement of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. It also introduces a new requirement that the first six people in line to the throne must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. There are likely to be hundreds of descendants of King George II who were or are unaware of the marriage consent requirements of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and whose marriages are therefore technically invalid. The bill therefore also validates the relevant earlier marriages for purposes other than royal succession. So for that reason also New Zealand First is happy to support the bill.Although New Zealand First does support the bill it does so without approving the continuation of religious discrimination in the way the monarch is still required to adhere to under current arrangements. We also await with interest the more substantive changes to the New Zealand constitution which I suspect will be foisted upon us later this year.ALFRED NGARO (National):I rise and take a call on the Royal Succession Bill in its first reading. Its purpose is very clear and again it is heartening to hear that both New Zealand First and Labour are also supporting this going to the Justice and Electoral Committee where there will be robust debate. There are issues that do need to be discussed and talked about. This bill changes the restrictions around royal succession to make them better reflect today’s modern values while still preserving the important traditions. It is important that New Zealand’s constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions but it is also important that these rules that govern those institutions evolve with the times.There was some conversation around the constitution and there was also from the Green member Kennedy Graham some concern about the impact of this on the other nations of the realm. In fact recently I attended a meeting for constitutional consultation where three nations of the realm the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau did talk about this. Under this bill those countries do not have to make any legislative changes for themselves as they are under the realm of New Zealand and effectively share the same head of State. Therefore New Zealand law changes will flow through to them as well. There is also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade leading some consultation with those territories as well.This is a bill that again has three parts to it: the abolition of precedence for younger brothers over older sisters the abolition of exclusion from succession of people who marry a Roman Catholic and the abolition of the Sovereign’s consent to and the invalidity of certain royal marriages. This bill is a good bill. We look forward to it going to select committee. There is room for conversation consultation and debate. We commend this bill to the House.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):Tēnā tātou katoa. I join my colleagues on this side of the House in saying we will support this Royal Succession Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Hopefully while it is at the select committee we will hear some submitters remind Parliament why it is important that we emulate what this party sought to achieve by ruling out any further fresh challenges via our judicial system up to the Privy Council. This bill although it actually seeks congruence with other members of the Commonwealth that have as their Sovereign the current Queen of England Queen Elizabeth II is also a timely reminder that over time this set of institutional arrangements will not last just as the Privy Council has been replaced by the Supreme Court.But one of the great obstacles that stand in the way is ensuring as we move forward with addressing anomalies addressing anachronisms—which this bill does do not theleast of which is banning people who practise the Roman Catholic faith. I suppose that goes back to King Henry VIII who as you would recall became the supreme leader of the Church of England. I would like to say that my tribe was—I suppose “colonised” is the right word. It was evangelised by the Church Missionary Society so we are Anglicans although our relations in Hokianga fell under the spell of Bishop Pompallier when he turned up for the Treaty of Waitangi resplendent in all his vestments etc. But we have remained faithful to the Church of England.I should just recite a little history for the other side of the House. King Henry tired of Catherine and then had the misfortune to fall into the arms breasts and various other parts of the anatomy of Catherine’s lady-in-waiting. That was Anne Boleyn. Actually there is a play on in Auckland dealing with the wiles of Anne Boleyn. Of course at the end that sort of all went to her head and she lost it. That saw Jane Seymour rise to the occasion. Of course Jane Seymour then after a coupling—probably an illegal one if you look at it from the Roman Catholic Church’s point of view—led to Edward. Edward however was the youngest sibling of Elizabeth the Virgin Queen. Various racy histories say that that is not entirely correct but that is another matter. Of course the first-born was Mary and she sort of pined endlessly for her mother Catherine.Hon Trevor Mallard: Hell of a whakapapa this one.Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. So I just want to demonstrate as someone who is looking forward to an eventual republican evolution that it should never be said by those make-believe monarchists over there that we are kūware or that this Māori does not know the whakapapa of the Anglican Church. Knowing a thing or three about the dangers of wahines myself I cannot imagine what the hell possessed him to have six wives but that is another matter. I have no intention despite recent behaviour to emulate that.Naturally we will support this. It is a timely reminder that this is part of our heritage. Heritage is not static; it evolves. I cannot be quite as pointed as Mr Little was because I certainly have a little affection for the current Queen. But the notion that Camilla should arrive at Waitangi and be welcomed by Hone Harawira is probably quite suitable actually—probably quite suitable. But I just cannot imagine embracing Charlie and his hoa rangatira as the new King and Queen of Aotearoa. That may be an issue for the mokopunas and children. Of course then it will go down to the current poster girl but I will not be quoted in Kaitāia by my mother and her generation saying anything destructive about Kate or the one in the puku.Let me come back to the notion that a piece of legislation should validate or invalidate marriages. I just hope that there are no parliamentarians in the House requiring such statutory interventions. Perish the thought.Hon Trevor Mallard: There was a county clerk who slipped his own divorce into a local bill.Hon SHANE JONES: Ha ha! I only fear that that was not John Carter. David Lange told very sort of royal stories rude stories about that fellow Northlander of mine John Carter. But anyway let Rarotongans deal with him for the moment until the poor Ngāpuhis the hapless Ngāpuhis have to deal with him. I understand he is coming back to stand against my friend Mr Wayne Brown—brown in name red in disposition and blue in temper. But anyway that is for another day.We will support this bill. We do not actually support some of the sentiments on the other side of the House. There is a big Māori agenda in terms of where royalty actually goes; I will leave Tainui to talk about their own royal problems. I am a Ngāpuhi so we can never agree. We are probably born to be republicans through the ringa kaha. However this is necessary. It seems somewhat incongruous to the modern functioning of this House but we cannot allow this House or our institutions to be completely cutadrift from Queen Victoria her whakapapa the Treaty and the rights and responsibilities that we have inherited by dint of our Judaeo-Christian ethic and Westminster parliamentary democracy which we have received and must be proud and honest stewards of in our time.I do not know whether or not this bill will capture the imagination of the young people as an earlier National Government member referred to; he must have different young people in his area because the young people of Kaikohe are not talking about this. The young people of Kaitāia over the weekend were talking about grassroots rugby. Unfortunately the word “grass” has a different meaning the further north you go. So—Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a secret word.Hon SHANE JONES: I could not possibly comment—I could not possibly comment. John Carter has left the House. That would be something more appropriate to be delivered by my fellow Northlander and erstwhile colleague John Carter. I just feel that to suggest that the young people are somehow going to race forward and embrace these amendments is an exaggeration. We are doing it by dint of our responsibilities as parliamentarians and to support the Government of the day. After all we are Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.I have no doubt that it is important however that congruency be achieved because I am quite confident that before the next election the current Prime Minister will receive a knighthood and not lead that party. He will not want to lead that party into Opposition. Well it is kind of related because we call the Opposition “Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition”. OK I will take that hint. I cannot really say much about Roman Catholics and I do not want to for fear of alienating most of the Christchurch MPs so I do not want to say much in that regard.But as I said we will tautoko the bill. It does not represent where the imagination and the spirit of the rank and file Kiwi are today but it is a part of our parliamentary heritage. In that sense I hope not to sit on the select committee but look forward to hearing what might come to that select committee. Kia ora tātou katoa.KATRINA SHANKS (National):It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill the Royal Succession Bill especially after that great orator Shane Jones who was obviously filling in his 10 minutes with whatever he could think of at the time. This bill modernises the historic royal succession rules by removing aspects of both gender and religious discrimination. This is a really timely bill in terms of Kate and William expecting their first child coming up. What it will do is allow an older daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession if that need be—obviously maybe not so much in this case. I think the timing of this bill is really nice actually.New Zealand is a country that has a proud tradition of being the first country for positive social change. We led the world in women’s suffrage. We had the first women to occupy the highest levels of Government judiciary and business. And in fact an interesting fact is that we have had a female head of State for 70 percent of the time since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill is very timely and very relevant and I am proud to be part of the Government that is supporting this. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. I call Sue Moroney.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Yes it is. It is indeed a split call and I am very pleased that it is. I am not sure whether I have gone through the looking glass and ended up in Narnia or this is actually an episode ofBlackadder  but what a bizarre bill for us to be actually spending our time debating in this day and age in 2013 in our New Zealand Parliament. Yes Labour is supporting this bill the Royal Succession Bill because it would probably seem a bit churlish not to support something that actually is makingsomething that is so archaic a little less archaic. So we will support it on that basis. But for goodness’ sake I think nothing would show the New Zealand public how irrelevant and out of touch the current Government is getting with the core issues going on in this country than if they were to tune in to this debate this afternoon and hear us talking about this as if it were a piece of progressive legislation. I am sorry but the last speaker Katrina Shanks was trying to present this as if it were a progressive piece of legislation. It is making something that is extremely archaic a little less archaic. Let us be honest about that.I am not sure how exactly I ended up on the speaking list for this but I imagine that it is because I am supposed to be thrilled with the prospect that this is somehow bringing about something that is good for women.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s got racing in.SUE MORONEY: Oh it has got racing in it has it? Is that how I am on the speaking list for this bill? I was really unclear about that. I thought maybe I was supposed to say this is great for women. Well look it might be great for women who are members of the Windsor family but generally it makes no difference at all to any other women. Particularly it makes no difference to women in New Zealand. And is it not about time that that Government did something that was positive?Hon Trevor Mallard: The Mountbatten family.SUE MORONEY: The Mountbatten family? I do not know. Who are they—Windsors or Mountbattens?—whoever they are. But is it not time that that Government did something that was good for the women of this country? Last week we had a Minister of Women’s Affairs say that equal pay was nothing to do with her that she was not even interested in it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this bill.SUE MORONEY: I was inclined to bring the last speaker Katrina Shanks to order if she thought this was a progressive bill. I thought she might have been speaking to a different bill as well. I thought that maybe I ended up on the speaking list because I am in fact a Roman Catholic and perhaps this is good for Roman Catholics. But again it actually does say that someone ascending to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic but no we cannot have any Roman Catholic sit on the throne. Again it is not awfully progressive from that perspective either.I cannot see why we are taking up a lot of time in this Parliament debating something that really is archaic. I know that the Government members opposite have tried really hard to talk about how progressive this legislation is. Well look if this is as good as it gets under the National Government then its members really need to get out more. They need to get out more and talk to people about the issues that really matter because while this Government is going into urgency to debate issues like this and other matters that actually do not affect any New Zealanders at all at any level it is stopping from being debated tomorrow night a bill in my name on redundancy which actually does affect a lot of—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That has got nothing to do with this bill. I ask the member to come back to the bill.SUE MORONEY: I am trying to get the Government to focus on things that are relevant to New Zealanders instead of this irrelevant waffle that actually does not make any difference because yes I am a woman and I am a Roman Catholic but I am still not going to benefit from this bill and neither is anyone in New Zealand.Hon Trevor Mallard: How do you know?SUE MORONEY: Well I do not know. How could they? How could anyone in New Zealand actually benefit from this bill? I suppose if they were a Roman Catholic and they were to marry someone from the Mountbattens or the Windsors—that royalpart of the breeding—then perhaps they would. But basically in summary this bill is completely irrelevant to New Zealanders and the everyday issues that they face. Labour is supporting it simply because it makes something that is terribly archaic a little less archaic.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to acknowledge Te Reo week in New Zealand. I guess that is an iconic part of our culture about being New Zealand yet what we are debating today under urgency with this bill is something foreign. It is something distant—in fact it is something 16000 kilometres distant. It is a totally different part of the world. It is not about New Zealand. This bill is a relic of the monarchy in New Zealand—a dying institution I believe for New Zealand. So I welcome the ability to rise and take a call on this the Royal Succession Bill.I think it is fair to say I am not a monarchist; I am a republican and proud of it. I voted for Keith Locke’s bill last term. I support a discussion on a head of State. I believe that the monarchy is discriminatory. I think it goes against our Kiwi values. I think it goes against that spirit of a fair go for everyone not just for those of privileged birth.You know it was pretty galling to have to swear allegiance to the Queen to take my seat and speak in this Chamber. I think many members probably find it a disconcerting and an odd institution to have to go through for what is the Parliament of our country of all New Zealanders to have to swear allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the world and her heirs and successors. I find it troubling. Luckily I can just think about Freddie Mercury when I am swearing allegiance.The Greens will be abstaining from voting on this bill. We are not voting against it. We are not opposed to it. Likewise we are not supporting it. We do not support this institution which is discriminatory and the discrimination that is still contained in this bill. This bill is trying to bring about gender balance. It is trying on the fringes to impact on the bar on Roman Catholics and those of other religions from taking the throne and marrying successors but it is still discriminatory.First up we have got a terribly poor process. I mean this has been around for a long time. We have known about this discrimination for a long time. The agreement came in Perth with some of the Commonwealth countries coming together and agreeing it just had to be changed because it was just so embarrassing—so embarrassing to have the future monarch having a baby but there being problems with royal succession. I have not heard once why we have to have this bill debated under urgency. I think this is not a law we need to pass under urgency. I guess we question given the select committee process what the point is. Is the Government going to amend anything based on expert evidence based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet or based on submissions? Given that 16 other realms have to agree to this identical text my question is this: are we going to get a real select committee process there?The bill changes three main things: succession does not have to be dependent on a person’s sex it takes away the bar on people on the throne marrying a Roman Catholic—obviously the monarch still cannot be a Roman Catholic; they must be an Anglican—and it abolishes the requirement that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is a pretty good change but the monarch still gets a hand in arranged marriages for six people in the succession line. I do not like the idea of supporting the monarch still being able to pick arranged marriages. I do not think it is in keeping with our Kiwi culture or 2013 the year we are in right now.I personally believe this bill and the entire institution of the monarchy are a relic of the past. I think these changes come too late for this relic of the past for this discriminatory institution of the monarchy. I guess the catalyst has been the wedding ofWill and Kate and the baby. I wish them all the luck. I have got to admit I did actually watch the wedding on the telly. I wish them all the best. But although I welcome the ending of discriminatory practices against their first-born I think this is too little too late.Again of course it is discriminatory in the sense that in no way—or almost no way—can a New Zealander be the head of State of New Zealand. I want to have a New Zealander as my head of State. I want to be swearing allegiance to the people to the voters. I do not want to be swearing allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the planet and still arranges marriages for their children. I am against discriminating against Roman Catholics and that is why I will not be supporting this bill tonight. I am against arranged marriages.I agree with this quote from the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand: “This is a poor attempt at modernising an arcane and increasing irrelevant institution. It emphasises that the monarchy is a foreign remnant of our Colonial past—we’re only keeping the clause discriminating against Catholics because England has an established protestant church.” It is going to be interesting to see the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet being discussed at the Justice and Electoral Committee.Ultimately New Zealand coming under a monarchy is like the stereotypical 30 or 40-year-old still at home with their parents. We know they have got to move out but maybe it is a bit cruisy maybe they do not have to think for themselves or maybe there are some advantages. It is time for New Zealand to grow up get a real job move out of the home of its parents and make our own way in the world. I support a New Zealand head of State.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. There is eager anticipation here in New Zealand and all around the world about the imminent arrival of our Queen’s newest great-grandchild. Thanks to the provisions in this Royal Succession Bill backdated to 2011 for the first time this baby will become our monarch irrespective of its gender. This contrasts with the status quo where a first-born girl would become an heir presumptive but younger brothers could gazump their big sister upon arrival. Frankly I find it a little bit mystifying and somewhat disgraceful that any party would abstain on a measure that brings gender equality into the New Zealand law.We can be very proud of the role played by New Zealand at the vanguard of these reforms. The Prime Minister John Key was acknowledged by the British Minister of State for Justice Lord McNally as leading the discussion on modernising royal inheritance among the premiers of the Commonwealth realms. As a former vice-chair of Monarchy New Zealand I am delighted we are moving to a system that is more in tune with our modern values of everyone male or female being treated equally before the law while retaining all the advantages of a constitutional monarchy—its stability its surety and its strong sense of service to the nation. I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Holly Walker: Party vote called for.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When I put the vote the member must call for a party vote at the time not after we are moving on to the next piece of legislation. I do—Holly Walker: Point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I am on my feet. I do know that during the two speeches that were given by the Green Party we were told that it intended to cast a vote other than in the affirmative so I am prepared to allow it to dothat. But I am making it very clear that in the future when I put the vote that is it and we will have no exceptions. It was clearly indicated however by the two members of the Greens that they would not be supporting the bill in the affirmative.GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to explain the position previously I had advice from the Clerk—and this is something that needs to be fixed up at the Standing Orders review. We are not calling a No vote but we still have to cast a vote. When the Speaker calls for those in favour to say Aye and those against to say No we cannot say No and that is the only point we can actually call a division.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I accept that and that is why I am prepared to accept it.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to give a little bit of advice to my friends in the Greens the appropriate thing is that when the Speaker declares that the Ayes have it that is the point when you say: “Party vote called for.”Holly Walker: And that’s what I did.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well we did not hear it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to ask the Greens to cast a vote. The Green Party—if it would like to stand and cast its position.Hon Trevor Mallard: No everyone else has to.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry a party vote has been called for. We will start the process again.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a first time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Abstentions15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I moveThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 16 August and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House. I acknowledge and am thankful for the support and cooperation of parties across the House in facilitating the introduction of this bill and I look forward to their continued support and I offer my cooperation as it progresses through its various stages.The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for a period of 5 months from the date of the film’s first release to the public. A ban on parallel importing is necessary to enable cinemas to exclusively screen films for a limitedperiod before copies of films on formats such as DVD and Blu-ray are brought to the New Zealand market. Although many films are released in New Zealand cinemas at the same time as international releases many films are delayed for several weeks or months due to factors such as seasonality screen availability profitability assessments and competition with other films. Without a ban in place parallel-imported copies of films could potentially be sold in competition with screenings in cinemas. This could potentially affect the viability of cinemas.The bill reinstates the existing ban for a reduced period. The current 9-month ban which is due to expire on 31 October this year is now outdated as the gaps between international and New Zealand film releases have reduced considerably since the ban was first introduced. Although the ban is still necessary the ban needs to be shortened to reflect developments in film distribution and technology. A 5-month ban will continue to protect the cinemas for a limited period while enabling retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier than is currently the case. The ban will also have flow-on effects to New Zealand consumers. The ban will continue to give authorised distributors confidence to bring a wide variety of film into New Zealand.The film industry is in the middle of a large-scale makeover as cinemas across the country convert to digital technology. The conversion is well under way and is expected to be completed within the next 2 to 3 years. The ban will remain in force for 3 years to support the film industry through the conversion to digital technology. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I appreciate the engagement of the Minister of Broadcasting in recent weeks over this particular issue. It is fair to say that as the Minister has already pointed out Labour supports this bill and I will run through in the brief time that I have left available before the dinner break a bit of background about this bill—Hon Trevor Mallard: 5 minutes after it.JACINDA ARDERN: —and for the period afterwards of course.I did just want to say that although Labour supports this bill we have proactively engaged with the Minister to get to this point. We had some initial concerns that this might not have been the outcome and we were seeking this particular outcome for now. This process I think it is fair to say would have been smoother Minister if perhaps we were not debating this one in urgency. I know that that may not have been what you were necessarily seeking when you took it to your esteemed colleague the Leader of the House but given that we now have this in an urgency motion that will bring with it some complications just in terms of our continuing to make sure that we debate it in full as we are entitled to do with this process. But that does not lessen the degree to which we support the notion of what we are doing within this bill. A bit more time with the bill would have also been helpful and appreciated. Although as I have said we support the content we have not seen the content in writing till just now. I am literally just opening this bill as we speak but I take the Minister on his word that it is as discussed an extension of the Copyright Act 1994 to allow a temporary ban on parallel importing.Just to go back to the beginning in 2003 as I understand it Labour introduced a 5-year temporary ban that prohibited the commercial import of a film for a period of 9 months from the film first being made available to the public. There is a very explicit reason for this and it is very much based around the motion picture industry—in particular our small cinemas that many of us may have frequented over the years. I particularly want to highlight the ones in some of our smaller towns and provincial areas that really do rely on the ability to at least get a first foot in the door when itcomes to a release. The staging of releases is pretty important to remember: something that is released in the United States for instance that is timed around a school holiday period does not naturally coincide with that period within New Zealand. So having that little buffer period for that industry as it claims is the difference between 165 jobs existing or not. Let us be really clear on that. That is work that PricewaterhouseCoopers has done on behalf of the industry to demonstrate that a loss of that window would have that effect.Let us be clear though: the industry does have to move with the times. Things are changing and rapidly. So that is why as I understand this bill will put an expiry date of 2016. It also reduces the window from a period of 9 months which is what we currently have down to 5 months. That is a compromise that we feel very comfortable with. This is a message I guess to the industry that this is unlikely to be a tenable long-term way of maintaining its ability to stay in front of the game in a digital age. This is as it were extra time for the industry to try to develop where it goes next in the same way that the music industry is doing—and has started doing a very good job of it I must add. So too does this industry have to start looking at that and much more rapidly as well. This bill will allow it the time to do that. It will allow those jobs to be retained while the industry works on how it tries to ensure that it remains viable in the future.So that is the reason that Labour will be supporting this bill. We are pleased that the Minister has listened to the feedback of those who have an interest in it and we look forward to debating—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.Speaker’s StatementsChamber—Commemorative PlaquesMr SPEAKER: During the dinner break we have unveiled three commemorative plaques for Afghanistan Timor-Leste and missions in support of peace. These plaques acknowledge and honour our service personnel and are a reminder to us as members as we sit in this House of the magnitude of each decision to send our service personnel overseas on active operations.I will now read the names of those who have fallen during these operations. Captain Kelly Ross Banks Major Neil John McNutt Warrant Officer Class 2 Tony Michael Walser Staff Sergeant William Edward White Private Leonard William Manning Private Boyd Reagan Hēnare Atkins Private Dean Russell Johnston Lieutenant Timothy Andrew O’Donnell Private Kirifi Mila Corporal Douglas Grant Lance Corporal Leon Kristopher Smith Corporal Douglas Charles Hughes Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer Lance Corporal Rory Patrick Malone Corporal Luke Douglas Tamatea Lance Corporal Jacinda Francis Elyse Baker Private Richard Lee Harris. I thank members.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am very pleased to stand in support of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It was interesting to hear the preceding speeches as everybody talked about I guess theirhistory their memories and these sorts of things. I think that there is a very good case and cause for us to see the extension of this provision in the Copyright Act which ensures that we retain the opportunity for employment and incomes and provision of movie theatres in our communities in which many people find great enjoyment.I remember of course all those times as a kid as I am sure everybody else does as well when we enjoyed the latest and greatest movies—Tarzan The Terminator —as they came rolling through our communities. It was fantastic for kids. I remember 50c to get in and 10c for an iceblock. [Interruption ] Clare remembers the first talkies.I received correspondence from people in Taranaki who are involved in the cinema industry imploring me to speak about this to the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Commerce the Hon Craig Foss and it is great to see that he has supported the concerns of people in our communities. They say for example that fewer titles will be released to cinemas if we do not extend this provision meaning fewer movie choices for customers. Holiday titles will have to release on the same dates as in the US which means they will not release during New Zealand holiday periods at their peak earning time in New Zealand. All of this will affect the earning capability of these theatres. They went on to say that they need to maximise earnings during the peak holiday periods to survive between holiday periods. It is quite a seasonal industry as we know.Also cinemas are currently facing the prospect of having to make major investment to convert to digital projection technology. If they do not invest in the new technology they will have to close and they cannot afford the deterioration of their financial viability. So this bill goes a long way to bring reassurance to these people. In consideration of these submissions and engagement with the other parties the Government has agreed to introduce legislation as we have done tonight to amend the Copyright Act to extend the ban that was due to expire on 31 October 2013. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):This Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill aims to provide a window and one would hope that it is a window to the future and not to the past. Unfortunately there is some doubt as to whether that is the case but I want to talk about what the future could be and should be and where copyright does fit in.This bill provides a provision for an industry to adapt and I would argue that that adaptation should be happening faster than it currently is at this point. It is important that we allow our industries to adapt because our film industry in New Zealand is critical to our own economy. However this bill is not actually about our film industry in our economy; it is ultimately about the film industry in other economies. The reason for this bill is to take account of that need to adapt the need for it to have an expiry date until 2016 and to shorten that period where parallel imports are allowed to 5 months rather than 9 months which we support. But we do say and it is important to say this very firmly in this House that the world has moved on. I just want to quickly bring the House up to date as to why this bill is necessary and why it is necessary that we move on as a Parliament in considering copyright generally in our country.Before the widespread use of the digital exhibition technology as it is called the release of films in New Zealand was often delayed because of the limited availability of the cheaper second-hand film prints and the distributors that waited to see whether films were successful in overseas markets before bringing them to New Zealand. The ban was intended to give sufficient time for cinemas to screen films without the competition from DVDs and therefore to increase cinema and distributor revenue. Increased revenue of course enabled distributors to reinvest more into bringing films to New Zealand which provided consumers with greater access to a wide variety of films. As we know the internet has changed all of that.This ban was always intended to be a temporary measure. It was always going to be a temporary measure to allow the film industry to adapt. The ban was introduced in 2003 for a period of 5 years to give cinemas enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology. In 2008 that ban was extended for another 5 years which we are now up to because cinemas had not fully transitioned. Well they still have not transitioned so they are being given another 3 years to do that. Yes it is important but there are a couple of things to note. The first is that cinemas throughout the world and in New Zealand are not in decline. The number of cinema businesses has risen from 66 in 2005 to 87 in 2012 suggesting that the industry has financial flexibility to invest in new cinemas. Digital technology has enabled cinemas to screen films closer to first market cinematic release dates. About a third of films are now released in New Zealand within 1 month of the first market release date around 57 percent of cinemas have now converted to digital exhibition technology and it is expected—as we should expect—that 100 percent will convert within the next 2 years.This year 2013 was supposed to be the date that a copyright review would occur in New Zealand. Labour supported there being a copyright review in New Zealand and in fact our policy supported it. Labour said that we would undertake a full review of the Copyright Act with the aim of introducing a new copyright bill within 18 months that would update and extend the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand. The first phase of that review would have been to commission an independent analysis of the problems within the status quo from an eminent expert such as the review done by the independent UK reportDigital Opportunity  produced by Professor Ian Hargreaves which was created for the UK Government. We would then have undertaken a period of consultation. That was a really important piece of work to undertake and it has not occurred in New Zealand despite the Government actually saying that it would go ahead with that. I would be very interested to know from the Minister of Commerce why that has not occurred and I am sure that we will be trying to tease that out when we get to the select committee process.The US itself is actually undertaking a copyright review right now but there has been a suggestion—and I want to put it on the record in this House—that the copyright review that was agreed to by this Government has been suspended on account of New Zealand’s ongoing negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The United States has reportedly tabled terms during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that if implemented would require amendments to our current law. For example there are some leaked texts that show that New Zealand has been asked to extend the duration of copyright by 20 years to 70 years depending on the type of work and the date that it was published. It has been suggested that this could also result in the expansion of the regulatory regime under which internet service providers must assist rights holders in enforcing copyright online pulling New Zealand closer into line with the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We could also see a new criminal offence for the act of circumventing a technological protection measure or a digital lock even in the absence of copyright infringement. Another proposal might require New Zealand to afford rights holders an exclusive right over temporary electronic copies which could mean changing the provisions in our Copyright Act that carve out the liability for transient reproductions of copyright works as part of normal technological processes. These issues are all extremely important. They relate to New Zealand’s intellectual property laws our regime and also our intellectual property itself. We ask why that review is not occurring and why we cannot have a public conversation about these issues especially in light of the US having just announced its own copyright review.I have said in this House many times that we have to get our heads around the internet. The language of copyright policies in many regimes including our own likensa physical copy to a virtual one. This if actually recognised in law would become a problem for internet service providers of all kinds because internet traffic is transmitted from point A to point B by making temporary copies. Strictly applied this right would pretty much make the internet illegal. I think it is really important to have this public discussion in our country and I would like to refer to some of the work that has been done by InternetNZ which has recently said that we must take a principled approach on these issues. We must set down some principles upon which we are going to have this discussion.In the last year—last October—I spent 3 weeks travelling through the United States on a trip devoted to intellectual property. Despite the reality of counterfeiting and fraud in the physical world most of the discussion that I had in that period of time revolved around intellectual property in the digital environment. I would just like to say that the United States measures its intellectual property. Its intellectual property supports at least 40 million jobs and contributes more than US$5 trillion or nearly 35 percent to the United States GDP. I ask why we do not measure our intellectual property. We do not. I have asked the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment whether we do and we do not. We do not get the importance of our intellectual capital to our economic growth—either that or we remain in thrall to our trade partners. Our economic development the growth of our weightless economy depends on this and it is time we grew up.HOLLY WALKER (Green):E te Kaihautū o te Whare tēnā koe. E mihi ana ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou mō te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I rise to speak to the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The Green Party has been aware for some time that legislation of this nature would soon be coming before the House but I have to say that it is very disappointing to have it come to the House in the manner that it has today under urgency with only a few hours’ notice and no advance copy of the legislation.Under different circumstances it is likely that I would be thanking the Minister of Broadcasting for the open way in which he consulted with parties across the House about the need for this legislation. Indeed to give the Minister credit he did do that and he did proactively consult with parties about options for amending the Copyright Act to address the fact that the current ban on the parallel importation of films will lapse at the end of October. However unfortunately some of that goodwill has been undone by the decision to introduce this bill under urgency and without notice in the middle of the time during which the Minister had sought the views of other parties. There is no apparent need for such a high degree of urgency.We in the Green Party consider that we have not had sufficient time to consider this legislation and indeed for that reason we will abstain on the bill at its first reading but we will revise this position and either support or oppose the legislation at subsequent stages after a select committee has considered it. But with such an unjustifiably poor process as was followed today we are unable to take a firm position in the House tonight.I would like to take a step back and talk about the issue that this bill seeks to address and it has been covered by other speakers as well. Between 1998 and 2003 the parallel importation of films and DVDs was unrestricted in New Zealand but in 2003 the then Labour Government introduced a 5-year temporary ban to prohibit the commercial importation of films for a period of 9 months after the film’s first public release. The Green Party supported the introduction of this 5-year ban at the time. This restriction was renewed in 2008 but it is due to lapse as we have heard on 31 October of this year.The film industry contends that it would be detrimental to allow the restriction to lapse at this time and it has requested that it be continued in some form. As I understand it there are two main issues here. The first is the impact that unrestricted parallel imports of films and DVDs would have on local cinemas particularly smaller regional cinemas in provincial New Zealand and the people whom they employ.Secondly there is a risk that small independent local films which are a marginal proposition in terms of profitability as it is may not be made if there is not a guaranteed period during which they can be exclusively screened in cinemas. The example that I guess we could use would be the damage that was done to the filmSione’s Wedding when counterfeit copies of it were extensively distributed during its theatrical release. That was not an issue of parallel importation but it did illustrate the impact on a film’s profitability that the circulation of copies of a film can have during that early period of its release.We certainly would not want to see anything that would result in a constraining of the New Zealand film industry. In addition I understand that there are some questions about the future viability of both large and small film festivals because if there is no way to restrict the distribution of the same films by DVD before they are released at a film festival that could be problematic for securing films and audiences for film festivals. I am sure this will be close to the hearts of many members as they pore through the programme for the 2013 International Film Festival at the moment.There is of course a counterargument to all of this and it was expressed quite nicely by the previous speaker Clare Curran. She said that the world has moved on that we really should not be favouring one particular form of distribution of film content over another. In an era of increasingly digital distribution in which New Zealand does miss out currently often for months on high-profile international titles that have been released overseas and during which time people are given a perverse incentive to illegally download titles in frustration that they are not legally available in New Zealand there is an argument that it does not make much sense to continue to artificially hold parallel importation at bay.Indeed it effectively takes place at the moment because as Clare Curran said the internet has changed the situation dramatically. There is rapid circulation of unrestricted copies of films on the internet and in the light of this reality I think there really is a strong argument that we should explore how to facilitate legal file-sharing sooner rather than trying to cling on to the idea that we can limit films to release through cinemas only.No doubt these issues will be teased out by the select committee in the submission process and we will listen very carefully to these submissions because we think there is a lot of merit in these arguments as well as we come to a decision about whether to support or oppose the bill at future stages. However these concerns notwithstanding we do share the concern of the Minister that we need to retain regional cinemas and the jobs they create the employment they create in these communities and we do need to protect and maximise the opportunities for the New Zealand film industry.The particular legislation that the Minister has put before the House tonight would extend the current ban until 2016 but it would shorten the restricted period from 9 months to 6 months. It is not clear from this particular vantage point the rationale for that particular configuration of the extension of time and reducing the number of months. It will be interesting to hear from officials—and hopefully we will—at the select committee about why this particular combination of years and months was chosen.I note that it is in fact another temporary solution which may require Parliament to revisit it in 3 years’ time. I do wonder whether it might be better or possible toundertake a more comprehensive process at this time to effect a permanent solution to this issue rather than continuing to legislate for it in a rather ad hoc way every few years as has happened in 2003.Essentially that is our discomfort with the legislation and the reason that the Green Party is abstaining at this first reading—because it does all feel very ad hoc. It is beyond me why this bill needed to be introduced in such a rush today—in such a rush in fact that we were unable to obtain a copy this afternoon because it was still being written—when the Government has known since 2008 that the temporary restrictions would lapse at the end of October this year and it has had months if not years to figure out a policy response to the lapse of the ban.I know that the industry has been actively engaging with the Minister for several months so there has been plenty of time to take a decision and to bring it to the House in a timely manner. In fact there is still plenty of time because the provisions do not lapse until the end of October and it is only the beginning of July. There are still 4 months for Parliament to consider legislation on this matter so it is not at all clear why we are looking at it in such an urgent process tonight. It smacks of a very ad hoc poor process on the part of the Government in relation to this legislation.We think the Minister would have been better off to finish engaging with the other parties to seek a permanent solution rather than another temporary solution and to allow time for a fulsome select committee process to take place. But instead we are here in the House debating this bill with only a few hours’ notice and the Green Party cannot support it so for this reason we will abstain on the bill until future stages. Nō reira Mr Assistant Speaker kua tae mai au ki te mutunga o taku kōrero. Tēnā koutou katoa.[And so I have come to the end of my address Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all. ]Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker and good evening to you and my fellow colleagues here. Before I talk on the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films) Amendment Bill may I just acknowledge the service that we held tonight in this Chamber for the dedication and unveiling of commemorative plaques which are to my right in the Chamber for Afghanistan Timor-Leste and missions in support of peace; those who have given their lives so that we can stand in this Chamber and debate issues that matter to New Zealanders; and their families who are here tonight to commemorate the sacrifices of our armed forces overseas.But I will return to the bill. As has already been stated across this Chamber there is great support for this bill. I am glad that the Minister of Broadcasting is in the House to hear the deliberations and the oral submissions of members on the first reading of the bill. As has already been stated this bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes not personal use of films for 5 months from 31 October this year. Given the two 5-year periods under which the ban has already been imposed in previous legislation I think it is welcome given the consultative process that was conducted in February of this year that that period is reduced to 3 years and that the ban on importation from the first release of the films to the public has been reduced from 9 months to 5 months.It is a commendable bill and it is one that we will certainly debate rigorously in the select committee process. It provides for digital expansion and transition to occur in the next 3 or 3½ years and it is certainly to be accepted that in that period as Clare Curran and my other colleagues have stated we will see a convergence of technology such that hopefully we will not be requiring this bill after 2016. I commend this bill to the House and I thank the Minister for bringing it to this Chamber.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. The title of the bill on the Table is the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. The provisions it is altering were originally in an Act called the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Act 2003. I have some questions as to what has happened to the “Onus of Proof” part of the original legislation and how that will be addressed by this amendment. But perhaps that will be dealt with at a later time.New Zealand First supported this provision at its first introduction in 2003. New Zealand First supported the provision’s retention in 2008 just as we supported the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act which also includes a 9-month ban on copyright infringements. But times change and inside the world of digital technology times change very very quickly.If I can just make sure that we all understand what the original Act did that we are amending here this evening. The provisions of the original Act meant that no one other than the producers of a new film or their licensed distributors was able to import into New Zealand any copies of that new film for a period of time following its public release anywhere in the world. This law covers all commercial films regardless of their format. Private individuals were and are still able to buy these films from overseas in whatever form via the internet and bring them in for their own use. The restriction on parallel importation was and is directed essentially at commercial distributors.The original 9-month period—in this legislation there is a 5-month period suggested—for new films was selected as an appropriate period within which copyright owners and cinema operators could derive an economic return on the cinematic release of these films. New Zealand First wishes to acknowledge that it is recorded that film exhibitors employ approximately 10000 New Zealanders directly and indirectly another 21000 New Zealanders gain employment from contributing industries. We want to acknowledge that a major driver for the staggered protection was the viability of cinemas and perhaps more specifically the protection of rural cinema owners. New Zealand First most certainly supports all those in our very stressed rural economies.Much of this viability was based around the fact that the major film producers in the US—as has already been mentioned—release their new films in time for the US summer spring or Thanksgiving breaks. These do not directly align with the New Zealand school term breaks where the maximum audience participation happens. This is where historically cinemas have made the profits that sustain them over the quieter weeks of the year. It is during those quieter weeks that they show New Zealand films such asThis Way of Life  and have film festivals. It would be a concern if cinemas closed or chose not to show the sometimes less profitable New Zealand films as this would have a downstream effect on that section of our artistic community.The definition of films covered by these measures relates to those intended for commercial release having been specifically amended during the passage of the original legislation to exclude films intended for educational distribution. The 2003 legislation had a sunset clause provision that enacted in 2008. The Act was renewed by the Labour Government with another sunset clause of October 2013 hence we are here today.Coupled with the delay to parallel importation was a provision to protect against the imports of counterfeit films sound recordings and computer programs. Infringement would occur if the importer knew or ought to have reasonably known that the imported item was an infringing copy—a counterfeit copy. The onus of proof was reversed at the 2003 introduction with imported copies being presumed to infringe in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is up to the importer to prove that the parallel imports are not pirated copies. Where has that protection gone? Or is that protection being retained under the original Act even while this new one amends it? If we could have clarity onthat that would be really great. This is part unfortunately of the problem of only just seeing the legislation and not having an opportunity to discuss this deeper.This part of the legislation this protection around counterfeiting was essentially technology-driven. The ability to mass-produce identical perfect copies at the push of a button made it much harder to distinguish counterfeit copies from genuine copies that had been parallel imported.New Zealand First wants to recognise that both of the areas covered by the original Act still have merit. This was witnessed as I mentioned earlier by our clear support for this legislation in 2003 and 2008 but whether it is now necessary is the question. New Zealand First sees print media comments along the lines of: “Cinema attendance numbers have shown strong growth in recent years due to the explosion of multiplex venues …”. When we look at rural cinemas to gauge their survival we look at examples such the Matakana cinema complex which services my local community or the Te Awamutu Regent Theatre with its investment in a new screen which gives a sharper picture and 3-D format projection equipment. We see the innovative way that film exhibitors have risen to the challenge of DVD and Blu-ray remembering that the current Act has never stopped a New Zealander from going online to purchase copies of new release films from overseas for personal use and to view in their own homes.New Zealand First believes that through the initiatives such as Imax 3-D showings and exceptionally civilised introduction of premium showings where large comfortable chairs and outstanding glasses of New Zealand wine are available to an appropriately mature audience cinemas have created a sellable experience that may now be countering what were very real dangers to their viability back in 2003.As a mother of three teenagers I would also go so far as to say that it could be argued that it is the DVD manufacturers who now have to create a point of difference for this generation to compete with the cinema experience which is now to many of today’s younger generation just as it was to the generation of the 1950s and the 1960s the place to go with mates. In my research for this speech I spoke to students from the 1960s who told me of going along with a gaggle of mates and sitting through four movies in a row after a day of study at Auckland University. I recognise in that story the number of times that I have ferried my own 15-year-old son to the local cinema to meet up with his gaggle of school friends where they watch a Sunday movie and then adjourn to the neighbouring ice cream parlour until ready to call the mum and dad taxi to collect them.We will be interested—we will be very interested—if this bill passes this reading to see the select committee report and its conversations around these topics. Should this Act gain enough support to pass the first reading we would suggest that the select committee consider section 35(2)(b) of the Copyright Act. This section stipulates that courts must not require a defendant of copyright infringement charges to reveal its source of product in circumstances where it would be unreasonable for it to do so. In normal court proceedings for copyright infringement revealing the source of the product would be an expected outcome of the discovery process. For the conflicting reasons verbalised above New Zealand First will be abstaining from voting on this bill.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal Mr Speaker. First of all I would like to pay my tribute to the New Zealand Defence Force for its peacekeeping role around the world. Because of its sacrifices we are standing here today and debating freely in this Chamber.Talking about the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill this bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for 5 months from the date of the first release to the public. The ban applies only to the importing of films for commercial use and does not prevent consumers from importingfilms for their personal use. In February 2013 the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment undertook a public consultation in order to review the ban on the parallel importation of films. The ministry received submissions in support of both extending the ban and allowing the ban to lapse. In consideration of these submissions and in engagement with other parties the Government has agreed to introduce legislation to amend the Copyright Act to extend the ban which was due to expire on 31 October 2013.Before I conclude I would like to share that I am also a big fan of watching movies. I go to the theatre every month with my family to have some entertainment. In India the cheapest form of entertainment is watching films. They produce almost 1200 movies every year. So I have followed that same passion over here and I go to the theatre every month to watch movies. The cost of production is going up every day and we have to protect this industry. With these words I commend this bill to the House.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to join with the members who have acknowledged the ceremony that took place in the House during our dinner break commemorating the people who have fallen in the most recent campaigns. I think all of those campaigns have been in the time that I have been a member of Parliament and I know that Governments make very serious decisions to commit troops to them. We have done it in the knowledge that the chances were that we would lose people. We have but that does not make it any easier. As many of us know the families of people who have fallen it makes it harder still. One lives in the hope that we will not have to add to the names on our wall but in the end I think that the Governments of New Zealand will do what is right and that sometimes involves the deployment of our troops overseas.I would now like to move to the bill before the House the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister of Broadcasting for listening to the submissions but I have to say that I am very disappointed that the bill has come up under urgency. I think that even if frankly Michael Woodhouse was still a whip and had something to do with the organisation of the House this bill would not have come up under urgency. It could have come up on Thursday afternoon next week when we have an extended sitting. It is something where I think the policy is supported unanimously. It probably could have gone through the House in half an hour in an extending sitting and we would not have had an extended debate as we will have after this on the referral. But whether a bill is supported or not because it has come up under urgency it is the tradition—and really the only approach that an Opposition can take—to use its time in order to debate this.I would say that having read the regulatory impact statement it is a bill that is not supported by the Minister’s officials and it is good to see a Minister acting with some backbone to stare down the officials and to make decisions.For the owners of around 120 cinemas as there are in New Zealand—I will just say that I am surprised that there are only that many. Because of the way that they have been developing and redeveloping and opening around New Zealand in recent years I thought there would have been more. At this point I do want to acknowledge and pay tribute to Dick Werry who is a local Hutt Valley former regional councillor the son of a former mayor and someone who bought the old Labour Party hall which was built in 1926 I think and opened in 1927 by the then leader of the Labour Party Harry Holland. Over many years—I cannot remember all of them especially in the early stages—there were lots of Labour Party dances concerts meetings and film shows. But that is now very well preserved and commemorated in that hall.Dick Werry has got it pretty much right with light meals lots of food available wine high-quality ice creams and other things. He gets a regular clientele because thereis a good range of movies. He has sessions for young mothers and kids and sessions that are designed in particular for older people. Both of those are run during the daytime and it works well to build up the use of the cinema.It has changed a bit since the days when from memory I think I used to be given 1s 6d to go from Wainuiōmata to what I think was called the Empire Theatre which was on the corner of Whites Line East. [Interruption ] What was that?Kris Faafoi: Were they silent movies?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No no. They were not silent movies but one of the earlier ones that I can remember—I think I was 5—wasBen-Hur . I think it won an Academy Award.Kris Faafoi: It was an epic.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well it was. And I want to say to members that yes I did see it the first time round. It was not—Hon Member: Yes and it was in black and white wasn’t it?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: You cheeky young thing! It was not on a rerun. I think that it is fair to say that tastes have moved on and theatre styles have moved on a bit since that time.We have seen some unusual ones. I think that probably the most unusual theatre that I have been in is the wharekai at the—my friend Tau Henare might be able to remind me—main marae at Tikitiki where the van used to come around every month with the latest movies. There was one particular occasion just before we had been visiting up there—the van would back up to the door of the wharekai and the projector would go in and the screen would go up. All the locals would come mainly on horses because it was the early 1970s and that was the main method of transport around Tikitiki—[Interruption ] Yes around Tikitiki there were lots of hitching posts and people would come along. But as old KD—Koro Dewes—told me there was a cowboys and Indians movie going on and—Kris Faafoi: You can’t call them that these days.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What?Kris Faafoi: You can’t call it that these days.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Why can you not call it cowboys and Indians?Dr Rajen Prasad: Hang ‘em high.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh steady on Rajen steady on! Oh come on—oh come on.Dr Rajen Prasad: Who are you calling a cowboy?Darien Fenton: Ha ha!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Darien! The bad guy was lining up a shot at the good guy when from the back of the wharekai out rang a shot. One of the locals had put a hole in the temporary screen at the front and right out the back wall of the wharekai as well. So that was an unusual type of theatre and Koro Dewes did indicate to me that if I did not behave myself then he would call those people back.But times have moved on and I think all of us have our favourite movies. I am not ashamed to admit thatNotting Hill is mine. It is you know—[Interruption ] What?Notting Hill .Hon Members:Notting Hill !Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh come on! Can anything be more beautiful than Julia Roberts—you know Anna Scott. I have got some doubts about this. I mean I think we are unlikely to ever see another movie like it. Therefore waiting 5 months might not be the end of the world but back in the old days if I knew I had to wait 9 months forNotting Hill to come back I would have been very disappointed. That film of course had Hugh Grant who played William Thacker in it and Rhys Ifans whoplayed Spike. I think that that was an unforgettable character. I mean there is nothing like a decent romantic comedy.Hon Member: Ha ha!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I noticed some laughter over there from the member sitting next to—this was in the pre - Divine Brown days of Hugh Grant. It was when we had him in a different class. A lot of us are not quite sure what we think about Hugh Grant these days.But the thing that we are certain about is that this bill is an important window in a transition that is occurring. I think the one thing that we do know is that we do not know what is going to happen as far as movies IT and the convergence of television and the internet are concerned. I think that what this does is give us a bit of a transition period so that organisations and people can invest in theatres. They are good social opportunities for people. They are a good place for people to get out to and this will help their survival.I will repeat right at the end what I said at the beginning: this bill would not be being debated now if it was done in normal time or in an extended sitting. We could have got through it in 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. The fact that the Government has decided to take an hour and a half under urgency just seems to me to be disorganisation on its part. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): And watch silent movies.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):Could I also please just mention that it was a real honour to be a part of the commemorative service tonight for the servicemen and women of our New Zealand Defence Force and also our New Zealand Police Force for the service that they have given in Afghanistan and Timor-Leste and on missions in support of peace. Can I just acknowledge the families who were with us in this Chamber tonight and tell them that we cannot really feel or understand the pain and the suffering that you are going through but certainly I know that all my colleagues in this Chamber and New Zealand as a whole try to share and carry some of that burden with you.I would just like to speak very briefly in support of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It is another very good bill that Minister Foss has brought to the House. It makes perfect sense. It allows cinemas time to make the switch-over to digital and I know that I have spoken to the owners and operators of the two cinemas in my own electorate—in Matakana and Whangaparāoa—and obviously they are both very supportive. This is important for them in terms of their own business. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr David Clark. A split call.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I join all my colleagues in the House in acknowledging the servicemen who are remembered in the plaques at the back of this Chamber.In discussing this bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill I am a little disappointed that the previous speaker Mark Mitchell did not tell us a little about his favourite movie. Mr Mitchell is a man of much imagination and I am quite certain that we could have learnt a little more about his character. There is speculation over this.Hon Trevor Mallard: But why is he keeping it secret?Dr DAVID CLARK: Members on this side are wondering why he is keeping it secret and we will leave it to those at home to imagine or not why that might be. I am of course a fan of one of the earliest movies I saw which wasStar Wars: The EmpireStrikes Back  with Yoda on the big screen. Do colleagues remember R2-D2 and Obi-wan and many other characters?I have on occasion sat in this House and thought about who might fulfil those roles in a remake. I will not go into too much detail here because I think I will get myself in trouble but there are many members around this House who bear some of the characteristics and of course the Speaker and the other presiding officers all have Jedi characteristics of one nature or another in that parallel. There are obvious members for the Chewbacca link. We can all clearly see which side the Force is on at any given time but the Dark Side across the House are offering the kind of unhelpful speculation that will not take this conversation much further.I should put on record that it is a shame this bill is here under urgency. It surely is not a bill that needs to be here under urgency. In fact it probably could have been tucked away in an omnibus bill or a Statutes Amendment Bill. If what Mr Mitchell said is true—that it is a common-sense bill; and from my brief look at it it does appear to be that way—then surely it could have been dealt with behind the scenes.The bill could have been brought in essentially as a fait accompli to deal with through the processes of the House with consultation as is appropriate with other parties. But unfortunately this Government is a little bit disorganised it seems and so it is bringing us bills under urgency. As a consequence the bills will in fact take longer to deal with because when members do not have the bill more than an hour or so before it is to be debated—in fact in this case we had it for only 1 minute Ms Fenton tells me before it was due to be debated—it becomes a more challenging prospect.Members feel that they then have to work their way into the bill to make sure that it is really all that says it is and that we are not doing any disservice to the taxpayers who ensure that we are here to debate the issues on their behalf. Having put that on the record I would like to go back toStar Wars for a minute or two becauseStar Wars contains so many metaphors that are apt to this House.Alfred Ngaro: This member hasn’t even read the bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Ngaro opposite is claiming that I have not read the bill. I have Mr Ngaro. I can point to the many scribbles here and the underlinings. I know that the bill shifts the effective current ban of 9 months down to 5 months for a release of a parallel imported version of a film. I have read a little bit about the reasons for that. We have the regulatory impact statement supplied by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and we have a view expressed by officials that is different from the view taken by the Minister. We have all of that there. But I thinkStar Wars is the more interesting topic having had a look at the bill if we are all honest.I would like to take some nominations from around the House for some of those key roles: the Han Solo the Luke Skywalker the Princess Leia from around the House.Hon Members: Jabba the Hutt.Dr DAVID CLARK: Jabba the Hutt a colleague suggests. There may be no obvious candidates for some of these but we will let our minds wander. But Mr Assistant Speaker reminds me I have only half a minute left to wind up my speech on this bill. I do also want to make the comment that in some ways this is debating the issue of today and it does not take into account the issue of tomorrow when ultra-fast broadband finally gets here—probably under a Labour Government. We will have a much bigger issue to deal with and that is how we ensure New Zealand content is generated and protected. That is an issue for the future of our film industry.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I also would like to share my acknowledgment of the ceremony that was in the Chamber earlier tonight and the new plaque on the wall. It is a fitting addition to this Chamber—the fourth-oldest democracy in the world I understand. So I guess it is disappointing tohave to be debating another copyright law under urgency in Parliament. I do not know what it is about copyright laws and this Government but somehow for some reason they have got to be debated under urgency. The Greens will be abstaining on this bill. We want to hear the arguments.I think it is a ridiculous process that we are discussing an issue with such a heads-up. This ban on parallel imports on copyrighting films which this bill deals with was first implemented in 2003 and extended in 2008. It is not like we have not had a long amount of time leading up to this decision. There is no actual urgency. In fact the bill was tabled on the Table only when the Minister started speaking. That is unacceptable for a bill like this. In fact our caucus was discussing a letter from Minister Foss only today asking our opinion. Yet a few hours later we see this bill slammed down on the Table with no justification. I think it is a disappointing practice. There has been no urgency. In fact it turns out that they were literally writing it today and we still have not heard a reason why it had to be implemented under urgency.What we want to have is a good debate about copyright. This is vexing international legal experts all around the world. It has moved from arcane dusty rooms of law libraries and law professors discussing it to the front pages of our newspapers and literally the front lines of global treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the new Copyright Tribunal in New Zealand. Huge political movements around the world are debating these very issues and I do not think it serves this Parliament or this Government very well to be debating such an important issue under urgency.What we see under this bill is very much a temporary solution a band-aid over the ban that was extended in 2008. All this bill does and I note that it is only two pages is extend the temporary ban on parallel importing of films for another 3 years but it does reduce the length of the ban from 9 months to 5 months. It is very much a temporary measure. They call it a transitory measure but how many times can you keep extending a so-called transitory measure? Will we be back in another 3 years’ time extending it again because the movie industry has said it has not had enough time?It is important and it is good to see the regulatory impact statement. It says there were only 16 submissions during consultation so not exactly overwhelming public debate on this very issue. What we actually see is the Government officials advising against this legislation. It is clear: they are advising against this legislation for a number of reasons. The bill and the regulatory impact statement raise a number of very important issues and they need considered thought not this rushed botched little process. On one hand you get the arguments of people saying we need to protect the cinemas we have got to protect Kiwi films and this is the only way we are going to do it. People say we need a temporary monopoly of distribution rights favouring one technological distribution method. It is an idea that has its opponents and what you see is industries in New Zealand like Quickflix which wants to provide online content distribution channels raising some concerns. Obviously DVD providers are raising some concerns. I guess this is why the Greens do not have a position on it: we are going to hear the arguments from both sides.The legitimate question that has to be raised is why you would pick the cinema industry to protect vis-à-vis all the other industries they could be protecting or maybe just having a level playing field as the regulatory impact statement states. Why can we not have competition in the sector? Why would you pick this sector? I did not see the National members outside saving Video Ezy stores and trying to protect VHS. I did not see National members trying to protect the carbon arc projector and then the reel projectors. Why would you protect this one sector? I think if cinemas are going to be competitive it should be because of the atmosphere. There are some great Kiwi cinemasaround the country offering a service and not needing statutory protection to protect what some people would say is an old-fashioned business model.The bill is framed as a transition but we have got to ask whether we will be back here in 3 years. The officials say that lifting the ban would have only minor impacts on the sector. In fact it would encourage those legal distribution methods and all the international data and data from New Zealand shows that providing legal alternatives and different distribution methods legally and affordably is the best way to crack down on infringing piracy. This is what we see in the submissions.Actually what this bill is going to be doing is encouraging online infringement of copyrighted materials. We heave seen this punitive lobby-first approach from sectors involved in this debate and ultimately we need to embrace the modern. We should not be scared of it like the carbon arc projector. We should be looking to the future. But there are arguments on both sides. We will hear both sides in the select committee debate. We think it is an absolutely shocking process to receive this bill literally when it starts being debated. So that is why we are not voting for it and we are not voting against it. Kia ora.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I too was moved and considered it a privilege to be in this Chamber earlier this evening for the dedication and unveiling of the three commemorative plaques. I wish to acknowledge all those who served our nation in Afghanistan Timor-Leste and recent peacekeeping missions. In particular I acknowledge the sacrifice of those who fell. They will be for ever remembered in these plaques. It is a wonderful thing that they have been unveiled in this Chamber.I thank all who have contributed to the debate on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill and I am pleased to offer it my support.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes96New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes1Independent: Horan.Abstentions21Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Commerce Committee.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I moveThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 August and that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion—point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: No no. I am just going to make a speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well you have jumped up too soon Mr Mallard. I have not put the question yet.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well away you go.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will please say Aye—Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Assistant Speaker I am calling. I called. It is a debatable motion. Wakey-wakey!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh I am sorry. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is one of those evenings Mr Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. That was a shocking abuse of process which is coming very close to the approach from the Minister of Commerce. Can I say that the Labour Party will be opposing this motion not because we are opposed to the timing involved in it and the report back but because of the oppressive approach of requiring a select committee to sit during House sitting time and on a Friday in a week in which the House has been sitting.Can I say I have not heard anywhere in this House today any argument against this bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill—I think there are a few questions around the House and I think probably all sides have questions about the bill—but there are a lot of questions around the process. I say to the Minister of Commerce that if there is a bill around which someone expects agreement and it is coming in under urgency the practice is normally to supply to each of the parties a copy of the bill—a confidential draft—before the House goes into urgency so that members have an opportunity to study it so that they are prepared for the debate. Then when they come to the debate they will have a view and it is properly made up. The practice—I think generally last used under Muldoon—of dumping a bill having it introduced and going straight to the first reading is something that is not conducive to positive practice in the House or to support.I will reiterate a comment that I have made previously and that is that as this bill is one that is generally I think likely to be unanimously supported at its later stages it could well have been a very good candidate to come up on a Thursday morning in an extended sitting and go through in a quarter of an hour or half an hour rather than having an hour and a half debate on the first reading and another hour or an hour and a half on a referral motion. I think it is something that is generally not a good use of House time and it is an abuse of process.There is not much doubt now that this bill needs to get through by a date in October in order for there not to be a gap although I am not quite sure what the massive problem would be if there was a small gap between the current law and the new law. That is something that the Minister who has the ability to have a reply in this particular debate might want to explain when it comes to his reply. But I think I can accept that it is logical to have this bill when it becomes an Act coming into force at the time that its predecessor goes out. Therefore having a shortened select committee process is logical.But I say again to the Minister who has got the chair of the Commerce Committee I think sitting behind him—is Jonathan Young the chair of that committee? I say to the Minister that compared with a number of the chairs and certainly compared with one that I have experienced recently he is exceptionally competent. The member especially when he has got support of the major Opposition parties and I understand other parties as well could have called for submissions over a short period had hearings over a day or two and got the bill reported back inside the time that we are currently obliging the committee to have now. Jonathan Young knows that when one works in a cooperative manner things can go through pretty smoothly and especially where there is legislation that is widely supported within the House the process can be truncated. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that says that a bill has to take 6 months or 4 months or whatever to get back. If there is cooperation within the committee there is no reasonwhy it could not have been back in 5 6 or 8 weeks anyway with plenty of time to have it passed before the due date without this sort of oppressive motion.I must say that it is important that the bill is looked at pretty carefully. There are certainly some doubts from the people within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment as to whether the bill should be passed or not although I think it is fair to say given the current direction or on occasions lack of direction—the wild free-market approach of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—I am not sure that we should rely that heavily on a regulatory impact statement that it has made. But it will be an interesting part of the select committee process to have the officials interrogated on that and to see whether there is any deeper rationale behind what they are saying than what has come out in the regulatory impact statement. Frankly it sort of reeks a bit of ideology—the sort of ideology that permeated through Treasury in the 1980s and the 1990s and appears to have spread into parts of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment I think it is fair to say. It has not spread into all parts of the ministry but it was certainly the sort of free-market approach that has caused problems for our economy and problems across quite a wide range of areas.I hope that the select committee in its hearings has the good sense to call in the New Zealand Motion Picture Industry Council. It is an organisation that is an industry group of both the major and the independent exhibitors and distributors. It is fair to say that it is almost like we are back where we were when I was a kid when the local theatre was run by someone locally it was not part of a massive chain and it was not a big multiplex with 17 theatres most of them with uncomfortable seats. We are now getting back to the relatively small and local approach but there are still some of these big ones even though they are failing. [Interruption ] If I were that member I would just be quiet on this particular subject. I think it is not one that he should interject on. I think it is fair to say that most movie theatres the more modern ones are relatively small. In fact one that I have spent some time in in Taupō I think had only 11 seats in one of the theatres and one of them was on the other side of a pillar. So it is fair to say that there is a range. Bringing together these different groups in a group like the New Zealand Motion Picture Industry Council means that you can get a united voice and one that I am sure will be interested in talking to the committee.I think it is probably fair to say that it will tell the committee that this legislation does not go far enough that it would like the sunset period to be further away and that it would like the 5 months held at 6 months or 9 months or some figure closer to that. It will be interesting to hear the logic. But having said that I do accept that the Minister in bringing the bill to the House has worked a compromise. He has shown that he has been able to listen and I hope that the select committee process is such that that continues to be the case. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Tēnā koutou anō. Tēnā tātou e huihui mai ki roto i te Whare.[Greetings once again to you collectively. Acknowledgments to us assembled in the House .]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Tēnā koe.KEVIN HAGUE: It is a source of some regret for me that I was not able to speak in the first reading of this debate because I would have loved to reminisce aboutFlipper andDr Who —some of those films that I saw in my youth.Hon David Parker: Back when you had hair.KEVIN HAGUE: I did have hair at the time Mr Parker yes. I rise now to express some thoughts from my colleague Holly Walker on this debatable motion around the shortened period for select committee consideration. Our decision to abstain on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill itself notwithstanding theGreen Party will support this motion but not because we are happy with the 7-week select committee process on a piece of legislation like this. Rather we are supporting this motion because the alternative was for the Commerce Committee to have only 4 weeks to consider the bill—something we consider to be totally unacceptable. A 7-week process although far from ideal is better than a 4-week process which is why we requested that the Minister of Commerce extend that as much as possible. It is I guess a source of further regret that this bill has been introduced under urgency which is a further abuse of process in our view.As Holly Walker noted in her substantive contribution to the first reading we can see no reason why the select committee process needs to be this short given that we have until the end of October to pass the legislation required before the provisions of the current ban lapse. We certainly recognise the Minister’s concern that ensuring that something is passed before then is important because if the ban were to lapse in October followed by a period of unrestricted parallel importation it could be that that could give rise to problems that may be difficult to reverse. But I am mindful also of Trevor Mallard’s comments about that and I am not sure. I would like to know what those possible unforeseen consequences might be. I guess if we knew what they were they would not be unforeseen. It is likely that some form of shortened select committee process was always going to be necessary but we in the Green Party do not see why it should not be 2 or 3 months rather than a matter of weeks only.It is a good innovation in this current Parliament that we now have debatable motions when the process for select committee scrutiny is being curtailed. That greatly increases the transparency of parliamentary decision making and requires Ministers to actually justify their decisions to curtail the level of parliamentary scrutiny—or rather it should require Ministers to justify that curtailment of parliamentary scrutiny. On this occasion I notice that the Minister has not yet taken a call and I look forward to him doing so to explain the reason why that shortened scrutiny is necessary.It still seems to be increasingly common for members to be dealing with bills that have a curtailed process such as this one. Recent examples include the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill which was given an extremely short select committee process of only 2 weeks yet has then languished for months since the Government Administration Committee reported back; and the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which currently stands before the Social Services Committee.Very often the consequence of shortened select committee scrutiny is a worse bill that actually needs this House to go back and repair errors that were made and could have been avoided in the first place if proper process had been followed. What might not be so apparent to members when we make these rather arbitrary decisions to approve shortened select committee processes is that this puts the staff and officials who serve the select committee under incredible pressure. This includes select committee clerks report writers and administrators as well as the officials who are appointed to the committees as advisers and staff from the Parliamentary Counsel Office who are faced with the often mammoth task of producing revision-tracked versions of bills with substantial changes in a very short period of time sometimes only days. This is often invisible to members but very apparent to the staff affected. It is not appropriate unless vitally important which it does not appear to be in this case or indeed I would say in the other cases that I have mentioned already in this contribution.Shortened select committee processes of course also constrain the ability for members of the public and affected stakeholders to have their say on legislation that affects them. This should also be avoided wherever possible and should be used only as a last-resort measure. In this case it very clearly is not a last-resort situation. In this case7 weeks is too short but it is a lot better than 4 weeks so the Green Party will for that reason support the motion. We wish however to have our concerns about the whole process surrounding this bill noted for the record. Nō reira e te Whare e huihui mai nei kati au i konei tēnā koutou katoa.[And so to you the House who have gathered I end here and thank you all collectively .]Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):As the Hon Trevor Mallard has said we will be opposing the motion in part because the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill has been introduced under urgency. I just wanted to state some of the principles that lie behind why it is that we generally have longer select committee processes than will be provided for with regard to this bill if this motion is passed. The Standing Orders were changed in this Parliament because there is recognition across Parliament that one of the few protections that we have against unwise legislation lies in having a proper and fulsome select committee process—a select committee process that is long enough for the issues that are or might be of concern to be thought about properly by submitters who could have time to reflect on complexities and submit and then there should be time for select committees to properly consider the issues that are raised by submitters.Let us take this case in point. In this situation we are dealing with a conflict involving monopoly rights of copyright holders some of whom want to restrict the parallel importing of films and who say that that is in part because they want to protect the local cinemas. I for one am a believer in copyright. I believe that it is important that we protect the rights of the creators of creative content to get an economic return on their creativity for a period of time.If we did not have copyright we would be worse off as a society because the creative work of authors film makers painters and sculptors would be less. They would not be able to get as much of a return for their creative efforts because someone else would be able to just rip them off the next day and produce a copy that could be sold at a cheaper price and that would not enable the salary or the profit to be paid to those who produced the creative content. Therefore you would have less creative output in society.These things have to be founded on their underlying principles. The other side of that—and we see this issue coming up in the Trans-Pacific Partnership at the moment—is that if you extend the term of copyright beyond a fair period then the disadvantages that accrue to society of having conferred monopoly rights to a monopoly property right in respect of copyright are extended in a way—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Could I remind the member that when we are debating motions such as this it is a very restricted debate. It is not a debate on a much wider subject; it is actually restricted to the special powers on the instruction of the Committee of the whole House to have a truncated report-back period for the Commerce Committee. Standing Order 286(3) applies. I ask the member and other speakers to just be mindful of that. Although you can certainly canvass other things debate must be restricted to the special powers or instructions that this motion is about.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I am just about coming to the end of this point.The point I was trying to make is that some speakers have said that this is a simple bill that there is only a small number of clauses and that therefore there is no difficult principle involved and we can have a truncated period. I was trying to illustrate that this tension between length of copyright and the interests of protecting creative contentcompared with not extending copyright periods beyond the period that is necessary to generate or to encourage that creative content is where the policy tension arises. It is quite proper for other parties like the Green Party to say that they have not made up their mind on this yet and they are abstaining in the vote on this legislation at its first reading. They have not yet got to the position that they know whether this legislation should be supported or not and neither has New Zealand First. That shows that there are some complexities that surround this legislation which means that a fulsome select committee process could be necessary in order to tease out the issues.I do not actually understand properly where the tension lies here. Is it really the copyright holders who are saying that they want there to be a restricted period free from parallel importing? If that is the case then I am quite sympathetic to that view. Some of the parallel imports may actually be in breach of copyright because the right to copy and distribute DVDs might have been constrained in their agreement with the original copyright holder. I am not sure whether this is being driven by the copyright holder of the film or whether it is being driven by the cinematic industry and I think that that is a very relevant thing that the Commerce Committee should have time to explore.I thought that the comment made by the Hon Trevor Mallard in his contribution was valid too. Why is it that this legislation is so late as to be introduced now when according to the Government it has to be passed by 31 October 2013 to meet the expiry date of the existing legislation? Well the answer is that it is up to the Government to introduce legislation in sufficient time for it to be properly considered in advance of deadlines like this and I am surprised that it did not introduce the legislation earlier so that it could have a decent select committee process.The second point that follows is given the reality that the Government is now where it is—and if you had a normal sort of 6-month period from now you would go past 31 October. Well Trevor Mallard made two good points. Firstly with a relatively simple bill like this you would expect that the select committee would clear this off its agenda and bring it back to the House well within that 6-month period. The Government controls the majority on the Commerce Committee. It could ensure that there was a fair not overly prolonged period and that it could get the bill back pretty promptly. Would that be by 16 August in a way that enabled the new legislation to be passed by 31 October 2013? Well it would be then or thereabouts and if it were a bit late what would be the great harm caused by a hiatus? Does anyone really think that for a hiatus of a 1-month period the industry is going to change what it does and bring in parallel imports in respect of films that might be released overseas during that short window? I do not really think that would be likely to be a big problem.Hon Trevor Mallard: If so what’s the problem? And if so is the world going to fall apart?Hon DAVID PARKER: No that is right. If there were a slight detriment from that occurring in the occasional case the world is not going to end. As a consequence the more proper principle to be given primacy is to not override the normal select committee process which this Government has got into the habit of doing and is doing often. We have had it in respect of not only this bill but other bills. We have had it done under urgency. We have had bills pushed through all stages under urgency with no select committee process as was the case I think in respect of the ouster clause ousting the jurisdiction of the court in respect of family members who provide care for disabled members of their families. That was an even worse example of an abuse of power but this is somewhere in that spectrum. It is not nearly as bad but it is still bad.We have had other things done through poor process in respect of Supplementary Order Papers being introduced that did not go to a select committee but that introduced new concepts. We saw that in respect of the truncation of the right to protest at seawhich was done by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that did not even go to a select committee. So there is a habit forming with this Government which is abusing the proper processes of the New Zealand democracy.I commenced my contribution by saying that in New Zealand we have very few protections against hasty or ill-considered legislation because we have but one House of Parliament and as a consequence the protections that are to be found in select committee processes are all the more important. One of the most important processes is allowing time to enable people who might have a contrary view to that which is espoused in the legislation to understand the issues to get others who are in support to back them and to get the fourth estate on their side. Members of the fourth estate might have a view on this but they will not really have much time to get their heads around this bill because the report-back period is so short. What this effectively means is that to have a report-back period ending on 16 August the advertising period has to be much shorter than that so there will not be much time for the public to make submissions on this bill.Having said all of that I do not want to say that this is as bad as those other examples where we have had ouster clauses ousting the jurisdiction of the court or truncating civil liberties through a Supplementary Order Paper but I do think this is poor process. For that reason amongst the others that Mr Mallard has articulated we will be opposing this motion.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I moveThat the question be now put .KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Tēnā koe. I join other members of this House who have acknowledged the unveiling of the commemorative plaques that now adorn our Chamber. I acknowledge the service that the men and women of our Defence Force and our Police Force have had in those three theatres and obviously I pay tribute to those who paid the ultimate price in those areas and also to their families some of whom were here earlier tonight for the unveiling.As has been said by our two previous speakers to this motion the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon David Parker the Labour Party will not support this motion to truncate the select committee process. The process around this bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill actually started before it got to this House. The discussion document was put out to the industry by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and it is dated February 2013. There was a relatively good period of time when those who wanted to have their say got to have their say as part of the agreed document. The process went horribly wrong today when 1 minute before we started debating this piece of legislation we got to see the legislation.Then the process got even worse when the Minister in charge of the bill the Minister of Commerce said he wanted to truncate the period in which the public and members of this industry will have to give their submissions to the bill and also for parliamentarians to scrutinise the details of this bill. Another member on this side of the House—I think it was David Parker—said that this is a relatively simple bill. Reading it we certainly would agree with that and that is why we have agreed to support its referral to the select committee.We are not going to support this referral motion because although it might be a simple bill that does not mean that the process can be thrown to the wind. The process cannot be thrown to the wind so that you can start playing around with the time for the report back and also when the select committee can sit. At the moment the Minister would like this bill to be reported back on 16 August which is slightly shorter than the usual time but also he wants permission for the select committee to sit when the House is sitting and also to sit on Fridays.We questioned the need for such a simple bill—a bill that we have seen for only the last maybe 2 or 3 hours—to go through that select committee process and not receive the scrutiny that other bills would receive. This is becoming a growing trend with the Government. I understand that the Government asked to truncate the select committee process on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which is going through the Law and Order Committee. That is anti-democratic. It does not give the right amount of time to those people who want to come and give their submissions on those bills and have their say if parliamentarians have that extra scrutiny.They are two very different bills. One really does change the way that the Government can access telecommunications companies and the information that they have and this bill simply looks at changing the way that parallel imports and the ban of parallel imports are administered here in New Zealand. But the Government is using the same roughshod process to try to get things through quickly. Also I failed to mention that the House is under urgency and this bill has been introduced. The Hon Craig Foss is the Minister in charge of this bill. I thought he might have learnt his lesson with Novopay. Taihoa a little bit. Do not rush things too much. Do no rush things too much because if you rush things you can find that things get bungled and that certainly was the case of Mr Foss’ experience with Novopay. So we do not want that to be the experience with this bill. The Minister wants it to be reported back earlier than usual and also to change the way in which this bill is considered by the select committee.I would like to borrow some words from Gareth Hughes. What we have seen in the last 2 or 3 hours is a shocking process. This is a simple bill but we do not need to see it treated this way through what the Government hopes to do through the select committee process. I do hope that maybe some people who own the 120 cinemas around the country will be able to make some submissions during this shortened select committee process if the Government gets its way.Hon Trevor Mallard: Dick Werry.KRIS FAAFOI: Dick Werry the owner of the Light House Cinema inPētone and also the Light House Cinema inPāuatahanui and the Light House—Hon Trevor Mallard: Central Wellington.KRIS FAAFOI: —in Central Wellington would certainly be one of those people who would like to submit—Hon Trevor Mallard: Wigan Street.KRIS FAAFOI: —on this process. Thank you very much for those exact details. He certainly is someone who is showing movies and if there were parallel imports of those movies he would have an issue with that because of the competition. He does show a lot of arthouse movies to very specific audiences and if those movies were to come in pretty much straightaway from their introduction in other parts of the world that would certainly close down his window of availability to get those movies shown at his cinemas.Of course there are other big multiplex cinema operators around the country and most of them I am sure would love to have had a bit more time to consider this bill particularly the regulatory impact statement which is not redacted—a change for this Government. Around 57 percent I think it says of those operators have gone from the old film technology into the digital technology in showing their films which is a big change from the time when Trevor Mallard started going to the movies.I just want to go back to one part of the process which has been mentioned earlier during this debate and that is the fact that—and if people are watching Parliament TV tonight as a form of entertainment as opposed to watching a movie credit to you—we were given only 1 minute to have a look at this piece of legislation.Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s why you’ve got to be careful about the process later on.KRIS FAAFOI: That is why you do have to be careful about the process later on. Because we had such a short period of time to be able to mull over what we thought about this bill we should have the standard amount of time to look at this bill through the select committee process. Someone who wanted to come and submit to the select committee—who went to Parliament’s website and looked at theHansard to get some more information about what this bill is about—might not get as much information as they wanted to because on this side of the House we did not have enough time to think about the legislation. We got only 60 seconds to think about some of the ins and outs of it.Thankfully though we have had plenty of opportunities to talk about this bill through this referral motion. This bill could have been treated a different way. As has been mentioned there could have been a much better collaboration process if as per usual the Minister had given us a confidential copy of the bill much earlier and then this bill may not have been put through this urgency process. Then as many speakers on this side of the House said we would not have created such a fuss over this because it would have been what we understood to be a normal process where we would have the time to mull over the details of the bill and then give a considered approach to it. Also I do not think we would have had to have a change in the time that the select committee can give this scrutiny.As I said we hope that some of those local cinema operators can come along and give their opinions about this. Many people during this debate have given their first and favourite movie options. The first movie for me—it is unfortunate that this is to be put inHansard —wasThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute  and my favourite movie would beCrimson Tide .I would like to reiterate just to finish up that we do oppose this motion for the fact that the process has been dodgy from the beginning—since this legislation has been put forward to the House. The public and the industry should have the full time available to them to make submissions and if the Government can just take the warning from this side of the House that if it did it collaboratively then we would not be doing this through such a roughshod process. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):At the start of my contribution this time I want to just elaborate further. A member of the public has emailed in and pointed out that I must have misspoken when I mentioned only the servicemen and not the servicewomen who have given service and their lives previously and that is remembered in the plaques at the back of the House. I also wish to remember the police personnel.This bit of feedback from members of the public is important in and of itself but it is also important because this is what we are doing here. We are having a debate about this particular set of special powers—the instructions that the whole House can give or have or make for a truncated process—and I am hopeful that as we on this side of the House have given feedback to the Minister of Commerce he will consider whether the special power instructions he is trying to give are appropriate and he may even choose to withdraw in due course the motion that he has put forward to this House.We on this side of the House I think have put a fairly compelling argument as to why this bill the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill need not follow any kind of rushed hurried special process. It is a bill that has been able for a long time to be put before the House. The sudden urgency that perhaps saw it being written this afternoon and certainly it being tabled with only a minute for many of us to consider before we were making speeches here in the House need not have been thecase and it also need not be the case that we continue with a rushed process. A considered process is well worth doing.We have 120 cinemas we are told around the country including commercial independent and community cinemas that will be affected by this legislation. Many of these community cinemas are funded by local councils and trusts and they may have only one or two screens. They will not have a lot of resource to put in submissions. Often certainly in the case of a cinema I attend in Dunedin it is the same person who sets the film going who also serves the drinks in the intermission and takes the ticket fare at the beginning of the evening. That person I suspect—strongly in the case of the Metro Cinema in Dunedin—will probably also be the person writing the submission to the select committee if they so choose.These people who run these things often do it out of love out of a sense of the value that they are contributing to society through the telling of stories. Let us not forget that many people today get their life’s meaning their sense of purpose from experiences in the cinema. It is no longer the case that they head along to the local parish church on a Sunday in the same numbers that they once did. As a minister of religion I might say “More’s the pity!” but I actually think that film has a huge amount to contribute to our society and people do really interact and get a lot of value out of these screenings.So we do have an issue here that needs proper debate and we do have a sector of society that has a limited resource to contribute and to get the submissions in. It then follows that we should have a proper process to enable us to have—we have talked about the downside. Some of my colleagues have mentioned some of the potential downsides of the different options that were considered by officials and mentioned in the regulatory impact statement: that there will be a lapse where no regulation governs this and that there will be a short period where parallel importing could take place higgledy-piggledy as it were. My colleagues I think have argued quite reasonably that that is unlikely to have a huge effect if it is only a short time span.What seems to be far more important is that we actually have the debate properly about what the proper measure is to take in order to protect the industry suitably or to prepare it for a future transition to what is more likely to be an online environment where people access films either in groups or individually—and we are certainly seeing it individually as it happens. It will be pretty soon the case that Mr Faafoi will be able to look upThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute in the leisure of his own room probably through an online service dedicated to doing just that. But what we are dealing with here with the length of ban before a parallel import is the precursor to that new world.I suspect that when the Commerce Committee does come to consider these issues it will consider also the future. It will not limit itself to this ban right now and what the effect on the industry will be in the next 2 to 3 years; the members on that committee will be exercising their minds as to what the future consequences of it will be as will those submitters who will take time out of running the movies out of serving the drinks out of issuing the tickets. They will be thinking about what comes next. What impact will this legislation have not only now but also in the future? Should they wish to in a future time importThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute to show in their cinemas how is that going to line up with what people are able to access at home through a digital environment where there is ultra-fast broadband where this can be downloaded almost instantaneously?This really does come back to this issue of a truncated process which we are debating now and which we on this side of the House think is completely unnecessary and actually unhelpful because we do need to have a proper process—Hon Trevor Mallard: It might even slow the process up.Dr DAVID CLARK: It may even as my colleague says slow the process up if we go down this track because we may end up having a more—how shall we say—edgy debate as people feel that their voices have not been heard in a truncated process. They may feel that some issues have been ridden roughshod over in the debate because they have not been considered because members may or may not have had time to wade through the associated papers and to consider the issues at their leisure to have conversations over a cup of coffee or to debate across the House not just in the Chamber but actually in those conversations that often take place in the corridors of Parliament where often little insights are shared and often a consensus view is formed. So sometimes this hurried process can lead to not only poorer outcomes but a longer process when spanners are thrown in the works when unintended consequences come to light late in the piece. These can often be ironed out through a smoother and more normal process where there are the regular means for input and when officials are able to generate timely advice. These are the consequences of rushing down this path with the truncated process.As I said at the beginning of my contribution I am hopeful that the Minister who is pushing for this hurried process will take another call. I am not sure whether he is entitled in this debate to explain whether he thinks that for some reason this is deadly urgent—this bill that all of a sudden was popped in this afternoon which still has got 4 months to run and could even be run through a normal process probably if there were willing participants who could see that everything was in order when they had due time to consider it. If that Minister is not able to make another speech I would be keen for him perhaps to withdraw the motion if he thinks it is appropriate because there has certainly been a strong case put as to why hobnailed boots are not required for this particular piece of legislation.To pick up again the earlier point around the other processes available this could have been put through an omnibus bill a Statutes Amendment Bill which could have taken that usual longer process if indeed it is so simple as the Minister would have us believe. There are other means and methods that would take less time in the House but that would give the due process that is really required.To finish I do want to come back to that point of what happens in the future. We are dealing with not only how this ban affects the industry now but also the kind of capital expenditure they will make for their own business decisions as they invest in new equipment because there are still some cinemas that have not converted to the most modern equipment. Will they be investing in a certain type of equipment in a certain type of reality where parallel imports are delayed or are they likely to shift at a future time to a much more immediate availability of content? And how do we protect and advance New Zealand’s interests and the producers of New Zealand content so thatThe Smurfs and the Magic Flute  which Mr Faafoi might wish to watch today might becomeThe Kiwi and the Magic Flute of tomorrow? Thank you.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Abstentions7New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 August and that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).Ayes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes33New Zealand Labour 33.Abstentions7New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill(No 2)First ReadingDebate resumed from 25 June.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):What the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) does is amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. What that is going to do is enable local boards to delegate various functions and powers to committees of the local board or to a council officer so it is a further devolution of responsibilities that were there by regulation under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The transitional powers that were given under that Act will expire at the end of October this year. The provisions of this bill replace the current provisions and in fact do not add any new policy. What the bill does is replace regulation with new legislation—so it lifts the provisions if you like.The Auckland Council has stated that the power of the local boards to delegate really gives local boards the opportunity to operate efficiently and effectively. It really forms part of National’s Better Local Government reforms package with the intention very clearly of helping make local government more efficient. It is a large body now the Auckland Council. It is more efficient and more responsive to local needs. In particular it is well focused on the needs of its ratepayers—I was going to call them constituents; I guess they are but they are also ratepayers—in its local area.So what this Government is doing is recognising that it is important to empower local boards and to put the “local” back into local government. So with this briefcontribution I do look forward to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). Following on from my fellow Local Government and Environment Committee member Jacqui Dean I am a little bit confused after hearing what Mrs Dean has just commented. I think she perhaps is a little confused. She made the comment that this bill would allow the local boards to delegate powers and that this was an improvement in local democracy under the National Government. In actual fact all this is doing is allowing a continuation of the status quo that was provided for under the transitional powers of the Auckland Council set up by the Auckland Transition Agency. Really this is just rolling over something that otherwise on 31 October would lose its powers. It would lose its right to delegate those powers to other entities or to council staff or to a subcommittee of its own board or indeed to a member of its own board. So basically this is just a technical bill to ensure that what it is currently doing it will be able to do after 31 October 2013.But moving on from that fact one thing that we do want to ensure out of all this with local governance in Auckland having gone through a huge amount of upheaval in recent years—having merged the seven former local authorities plus the Auckland Regional Council into one entity and then having created these local boards and also at the same time created some seven or eight council-controlled organisations which are at arm’s length to the council and which are effectively boards with appointed directors who are not elected and who are not accountable to the general public. In many cases they are outside the arm of the Official Information Act in many respects. Their meetings can be held in private and are confidential and that is where much of the dealings of these council-controlled organisations go completely under the radar for most Aucklanders. Where 75 percent of the business of Auckland now comes under these council-controlled organisations and where effectively they are controlling a huge amount of what is going on in Auckland it is most important at this local board level that when they are delegating to these council-controlled organisations or to any of these other entities they still have the governance power to have control over them.One thing that we do not want to see is the situation that we have seen in the last year or two where even the councillors of the Auckland Council have been denied access to minutes to records and to official information of those council-controlled organisations. Indeed the likes of even the Deputy Mayor of Auckland Penny Hulse was asked to leave a meeting of one council-controlled organisation. It did not want her in attendance when it moved into a confidential subject. This sort of thing has got to stop. We cannot have a situation where the largest city in this country with 1.5 million people—which is effectively the state of Auckland; it is the equivalent of a state of Australia—is controlled by a group of people behind closed doors with very little accountability and where its governors the councillors of that council are themselves in many respects denied the very information that is being discussed by those entities.In this respect when it comes to the local boards you have to remember that for instance with Auckland Transport every road and street and avenue in Auckland and every verge and every footpath and every grass strip that is publicly owned by the council all come under Auckland Transport. It goes through all the suburbs and areas of Auckland through all these—is it 21—21 local board areas and effectively those local boards have no control over Auckland Transport whatsoever. It can just go through whole suburbs and whole urban areas and decide what it will do as Auckland Transport—Tracey Martin: What they won’t do.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —or what it will not do; exactly—and the local board has very little control over it. It has very little power over it and is basically just told: “Well this is how it’s going to be.” This is the sort of thing that if there is delegation from these local boards under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) and if they are delegating some of their powers out to some of these entities and some of these various organisations they need to still ensure that they have the right to get the information back from those very entities so that they can scrutinise it because at the end of the day they are the elected local boards. They are elected local representatives and they have every right having delegated the authority to then in turn receive the appropriate reports advising them of what is going on in their particular patch.So in this respect New Zealand First will be monitoring this very closely. We do not want to give carte blanche another 3 years’ approval to just roll on over and then just entrench a situation where some of the smoke-and-mirrors organisations that say that they are acting in the best interests of Auckland and Aucklanders are in actual fact in some instances not necessarily doing the best by the local communities at all. In that respect we would not want to see a situation where these local boards are kneecapped and are basically neutered and left powerless to control the very entities that they have given the powers to.Similarly there is always a worry—and in the case of the Auckland staff of the Auckland Council I was advised in the last week or so that the staff numbers that were there prior to the merging of the councils some 8000 to 8500 staff were significantly reduced by the Auckland Transition Agency down to 7000-odd or whatever it is. It was about a 1500 to 2000 staff reduction with the merger of the councils. I am advised that the Auckland Council is now back up to the same number of staff as before the merger. It is now back up to the same level. It has over 8000 staff again. This is incredible for the fact that we were promised savings and we were promised reductions and we were promised that the ratepayers would have reductions out of all this. The council bureaucracy is now ballooning. What you do not want to see out of this bill is a situation where council staff are also delegated powers and are given authority to do things outside of these local boards and then those very bureaucrats who are swelling in number as we speak take advantage of that situation to use those powers to their own advantage to simply swell the bureaucracy even further.We will support this bill because we do trust the local boards of the Auckland Council to have sufficient wisdom and governance abilities to determine how they will delegate their authorities but at the same time we will be keeping a very watchful eye on it.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):I rise to support the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Auckland Council itself has stated that the power of local boards to delegate enables them to operate efficiently and effectively. Legislation rather than regulation is required to give effect to this and to provide certainty for the Auckland Council and its local boards. The regulations were enacted to meet the time frame for the constitution of local boards on 1 November 2010 you will recall and this interim measure allowed time for better understanding of local board operations to develop which could then be developed into amending legislation.I think all members recall that reforming Auckland local government was recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. At that time of course the Labour Party called for the royal commission because it was not actually prepared to move on anything. Those were the heady days when the Labour Party would call committees and then it would call an inquiry and then it would get someone else to head up some sort of an investigation and then it would pass it on to the Auditor-General. Decisions just were not made. They were sort of kicked off to inquiries kicked off to committees and kicked off to judges and all sorts of eminent people but actually acting and doing something were not taken up. New Zealand sort of stagnated because decisions were not being made.Anyway the royal commission came back and thank goodness we were in Government. We took those recommendations and we put them into place. I think the Labour Party possibly would have had an inquiry into a committee to look at what the royal commission said. Rather than have another committee another inquiry and another investigation into the royal commission we decided to act and of course this legislation is a part of putting those recommendations into actual operation.Ratepayers need to know that their council is spending money wisely. These reforms are a part of that also to introduce transparency. I happily commend this bill to the House and I trust that New Zealanders prefer action rather than more inquiries more committees and more investigations which the Labour Party tends to have rather than decision making.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I rise to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2013 and to give Labour’s support to this bill. I do want to go through what the bill actually does and does not do and then talk about the context. It will be quite interesting to follow on from the comments across the House and talk about the rewriting of history around how the Auckland governance legislation was forced through under urgency and Rodney Hide trampling on democratic rights.But anyway first of all let us just talk about what this bill does do. It amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act and essentially as Mr Williams said puts into legislation the provisions that currently exist in regulation and that would otherwise expire on 31 October this year.What that does is really twofold. First of all it enables local boards to delegate responsibilities duties or powers conferred on or allocated to them under the Act and that means they could do that to committees to members of the local board or to an officer of the local council. It also provides that a local board to which the governing body has delegated a responsibility duty or power may without confirmation by the governing body exercise or perform the responsibility duty or power in the same manner and with the same effect as the governing body could itself have exercised or performed it. The bill provides for delegations by local boards without relieving them of the liability or legal responsibility to perform those duties or responsibilities.Essentially some of us were of course in the House during the urgency when some of this was pushed through and we will recall that one of the concerns that was raised at the time was that the powers of local boards were actually not outlined in legislation. They were left to be delegated to them by the Auckland Council governing body and that was seen as a real worry. As it has happened it is fair to say that that delegation has worked reasonably well but that is probably just as much to do with the leadership of the governing body and it would not have necessarily worked out that way with different leadership. So I think it is important that these are put into legislation. But as Mr Williams said this does not extend it or anything else. It merely codifies if you like into legislation what is currently happening.I also want to just say that I thought Mr Williams’ contribution was a very important one in relation to so-called council-controlled organisations. I have had some dealings over recent times with council-controlled organisations—so-called—and in particular with Auckland Council Investments and the appalling role that it played in the Ports of Auckland dispute where it was so-called responsible for Ports of Auckland Ltd. What became very obvious during that time was that Auckland Council Investments had verylimited control by council and certainly had no desire to involve the Auckland Council or to make sure that it was across the issues in that dispute. I do think that there are a number of issues like that that are going to need further work as we move forward in cementing in the changes in Auckland local government.But specifically back to this bill it is being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider. I think that that provides an opportunity to look at whether there are further changes needed because this bill itself is primarily technical. It is a short bill with only five clauses and essentially—as I have said—it continues existing arrangements. I am sure that Opposition members of that committee will be considering these matters quite carefully.I also want to just put on record that as a list MP working in the Maungakiekie electorate I work closely with the local board that primarily operates in the electorate and it is hard-working. It is seeking to represent our community to build and support the community and to ensure that we have good facilities available to the community. I think it is important to think about the role of local government and particularly for those listening now I would just say that local government is often something that passes many New Zealanders by. People do not think too much about what it is that local government does. But you think about the sorts of facilities the libraries the recreational facilities the local roading the parks and all sorts of things that actually day to day are very important in people’s lives. I would urge everybody in this House and those listening to this debate to do their utmost to ensure that we strengthen democracy in local government and in particular make sure that people are on the roll and make sure that people take the time to vote in the local government elections this year.Most of the local boards in Auckland are working effectively. In the area that I am working in the Maungakiekie electorate I also work with the Puketāpapa and Ōrākei local boards. I would say that they equally are working hard. It is an important role. It is a two-tier council with the governing body and the local boards. Only two of the 21 local boards have fewer than 45000 people.With that I will draw this contribution to a close but I say that it is important to note that this Government has severely attacked our local government and that is something that we will continue to challenge.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a split call and Eugenie Sage has 3½ minutes left.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koutou tēnā tātou e huihui mai nei ki roto i te Whare. Thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support this short relatively uncontroversial and technical bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)—in what will be a very short call—because it does allow the 21 local boards in Auckland to continue to delegate some of their powers duties and responsibilities that the principal Act the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 gives to them.The boards cover the area from Franklin to Rodney. These powers of delegation have been in place since the super-city was established in 2009. They are currently set out as other speakers have noted in transitional regulations but it is certainly preferable that the powers be in primary legislation which this House and the public through the select committee process can scrutinise. That is one reason to support the bill.It obviously needs to be supported too because if the boards are going to continue to operate effectively these powers of delegation need to continue whether it is the boards delegating to a member of the board a subcommittee or a staff member from the Auckland Council.It is worth looking at the purpose of the boards that was established under the 2009 Act and that is: “enabling democratic decision making by and on behalf of communities within the local board area;”—similar to local government—and at the time “better enabling the promotion of the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area in the present and for the future.” But of course that second purpose got stripped out when the Government changed the Local Government Act last year. So now the boards have a rather circular second purpose of “better enabling the purpose of local government to be given effect to within the local board area.” rather than that promotion of community well-being. It is interesting that the Auckland Council has asked for and drafted this bill. The Government has listened. But last year when councils were asking that the four well-beings stay in the Local Government Act the Government did not listen.But going back to the bill the boards can delegate any of their powers and responsibilities except for a number that are set out in clause 5 which inserts new section 31A into the principal Act. They are not allowed to delegate the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in their local board area in relation to the content of plans and strategies. That is quite an important restriction on the powers of delegation because the boards’ powers include preparing local board plans which set out the key projects and programmes that the board is proposing and the key spending priorities and of course these local board plans influence the development of Auckland Council’s long-term plan. This is quite a crucial area of engagement with the community so it is entirely appropriate that the powers not be delegated. I hope in my next call on the next reading we will get a bit more time. Thank you.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):It is my pleasure to speak in accord with this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which is allowing local boards to continue delegating responsibilities as they currently do under the Auckland Council arrangements. There is no question that we have had a massive change in Auckland’s governance since the rearrangement. It is important because it is a multibillion-dollar exercise that it is running its own affairs efficiently and that its regulating powers do not add costs making houses more expensive or making doing business more expensive and difficult.I think that overall the impression is that the Auckland arrangements at both the council level or the governing board level and the local board level are settling down reasonably well. I do commend the energy and enthusiasm of a number of the local boards. They are I think in terms of Desley Simpson over on Ōrākei Local Board where I am based doing great work in the community. But it will take years for the system to work itself into a stable state. I am not sure that the council has quite got the share of the rating burden right for example but we are making good progress on transport. I am sure the mayor has been singing “Pokare Kare Ana” a great deal over the last week because the Government and the council are working closely together to get Auckland moving. We see that the Auckland Unitary Plan which is such a vast task will take years to get right.There is no question that we will need to monitor and consider the arrangements in Auckland carefully over the next years but that is not really the task of this bill. The task of this bill is to make sure that we can continue with local boards delegating responsibility as they currently do. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.Building Amendment Bill (No 4)Second ReadingDebate resumed from 16 April.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):This Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is a piece of legislation that the Government is fully supporting and wanting to get through the process of Parliament and I commend the bill to the House.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):I join my other colleagues and do not support this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It is with a considerable level of disappointment because many of the reforms that Maurice Williamson has shepherded through were actually begun towards the final stages of our tenure under the leadership of Helen Clark. There remains a hang of a lot to be done in respect of the building sector. Really with the growth of activity in Ōtautahi/Christchurch with the inevitable increase in activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau/Auckland especially in 15 to 18 months’ time once we begin and embark on our ambitious programme—highly popular as well—of building 10000 houses a year and 100000 houses over the course of 10 years we need to ensure that the statutory framework that will be relied upon is capable of assuaging the concerns of homeowners and property investors.It might come to pass that there is a valuable lesson being learnt in the context of this debate in terms of how long the Government has allowed the situation in Christchurch to really spin out of control. I have no doubt in my mind that considerable damage has been done to the reputation of that place in terms of dealing with building consents. Although it is easy meat to blame the current mayor who in my view is a show pony—and the sooner he disappears as our colleague the favoured candidate moves into the boxing ring the better. But it is for the ratepayers and the voters of Ōtautahi to pension off the current mayor. But as much as one is tempted to lay a lot of the blame at his feet in terms of the stripping away more recently of the authority to deal with building consents really overall stewardship rests with Maurice Williamson. Overall stewardship rests with those members of the Executive Council who are charged by dint of the warrant they hold with ensuring that the building industry is suitably regulated not squashed to death. It is difficult to imagine what the current Minister for Building and Construction is trying to achieve.I was recently in Tai Tokerau and had I guess you could say the pleasure or misfortune depending on what end of the argument you are at in relation to our Mayor of the Far North Wayne Brown—but there is a new system that has been introduced by this Government that has put between $5000 to $7000 of additional costs on every section likely to be created by subdivisions in the north. It is an example of where the Government talks about freeing up opportunity for industry to build jobs but in actual fact this bill does nothing of the sort. In addition to that there is this additional $5000 to $7000 worth of dough that has been imposed on the purchasers of sections because of a new sort of bureaucratic freight that has been tossed on top of the subdividers. It deals with a policy that was conceived in isolation here in the bureaucracy about perceived hazards. The indiscriminate way in which that policy has been applied which unfortunately will not be simplified through this bill is to treat farms and orchards as if they are akin to old tips and requires an enormous level of analysis—in my view a waste of time—and petty bureaucracy to do with potential hazards.The entirety of the area that I come from at one stage probably was a farm or if it was not a farm it was land that was not involved in a tip but it was used for productive purposes. I think that is a small example where this current Minister talks the language that he wants to simplify process and expand opportunity for industry but when you get down to it I do not think that he is actually in charge of or he has not got enoughauthority over his own bureaucrats. That is unfortunate but the only happy thing about that is that within 15 months he will be out of that role. I thought he might have stood actually to contest his credentials. For a brief period of time they reached the sort of starry heights of sitcoms in America—that is Maurice Williamson I am talking about—but when he had the opportunity to step up to the plate and take on Mayor Len Brown despite keeping people dancing as if it was some sort of exercise of the seven veils dance he did not prove to be either confident or I suppose at the end of the day interested.We cannot support this because as earlier speakers have pointed out what is needed is a comprehensive set of changes not this piecemeal reactive bit by bit approach to the point that the majority of the submitters who came to this particular committee the Local Government and Environment Committee expressed a complete lack of confidence in terms of this particular bill. It is bill No. 4; there have been other bills which we supported. Indeed I held the spokesperson role on behalf of the Opposition—Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—in an earlier period of time in the last 5 or 6 years and I have to say they have passed rather tediously. In that period of time we did agree with some things but we will not be agreeing with this.We have received some very good advice from our member who is focusing on these issues Raymond Huo and without a doubt he understands the importance of ensuring that petty bureaucracy and inflexible rules do not actually frustrate the ambitions of young families wanting to own their own home whilst at the same time holding accountable those who are putting investment capital at risk and creating subdivisions and then going on to build houses. But house owners young families at the end of the day are consumers. They come to the task trusting in the quality of the craftsman or woman. They trust also in the robustness of the statutory allocation process. More recently over the last 10 to 15 years we have learnt that elements in the industry have let us all down. It may prove to be the case that our Government in 2002 and 2003 in the days of George Hawkins perhaps should have initiated and funded a class action against Fletcher’s and allied companies which did bring product to the market grossly unsuitable for the climate conditions etc. in New Zealand but that has come and gone. That is why many of us supported what Maurice Williamson sought to do in trying to get a compromise to enable people to escape from houses that have begun to resemble aquariums but this unfortunately does not capture our support.The licensed building practitioner regime which to a certain extent is covered in this piece of legislation was initiated by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove a person whose stature might rise in Christchurch; that remains to be seen. He was a very very knowledgable and competent Minister for Building and Construction at the time and what we sought to do was to build a regime so that builders could have a similar level of authority to a plumber and an electrician—i.e. to a certain level one did not need to require a statutory consent in order for them to do the job.When I was the Minister for Building and Construction for a lamentably short period of time what we sought to do was identify a range of building things that a qualified tradesperson could do that did not require a consent from the council. In order for that to be expanded so it emulates the powers enjoyed by plumbers and electricians they need to go through the licensed building practitioner regime and that has not worked. Not so much that it has not worked; the momentum has not been developed to the extent—we thought people would go through the process achieve a level of qualification and free themselves from bureaucracy underneath a certain level of building complexity. That was the theory. It is a theory I actually agree with. I think that if there are competent carpenters construction workers and supervisors who can build to a certain level one should not need to go to the council to get a permit; one shouldjust treat it like a plumber’s task or an engineer’s task but sadly this bill does not take this House or the country anywhere in that direction. Consequently we will not be supporting the bill.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):I congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson on his tireless efforts in bringing this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House. Nō reira mārama nui ngā mahi kei riro i a noho.[Let industry be rewarded lest idleness get the advantage .]Ka whakamihi ahau i tēnei pire ki to Whare. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.Families Commission Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 9 April.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I am not sure I am going to get through my speech before the bell goes tonight either. However just to go back to what I was saying before I was interrupted we were looking at the Families Commission the work that had been done before the changes that are in this Families Commission Amendment Bill and particularly the changes and their impact on evaluation and research.I am making a case that the changes under this bill will mean that there will be a loss of independence in the research that will be compiled around theFamily Status Report . This is particularly important when we look at how the committees are being set up—in particular the expert advisory committee. We do not believe that this bill will actually benefit families and children the way the commission has.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)