Volume 606 Week 15 - Wednesday 19 February 2003 
Volume 606 Week 15 - Wednesday 19 February 2003 
[Volume:606;Page:3551] 
Wednesday 19 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Treasurer Commonwealth of Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Peter Costello Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Hon Peter Costello accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Privilege—Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 11 February 2003 the Hon Ken Shirley raised with me a matter of privilege involving Mrs Donna Awatere Huata. The allegation is that Mrs Awatere Huata has solicited a bribe in return for her vote. This form of contempt is specifically recognised in Standing Order 397(f). If established it is difficult to conceive of an action that would be more inimical to the parliamentary system. So far as I can discover such a charge has not been made in New Zealand since 1912. I may add that no evidence sufficient to support the charge could be found on that occasion.  
I have determined that no question of privilege does arise in this case and I have advised the members concerned accordingly. However the matter has had considerable publicity and is of such importance that I have decided to inform the House in outline of my reasons. Given the seriousness of the allegation it seems to me that the standard of proof needed to make it out must be at least as high as that required to demonstrate that a member has misled the House—that is proof of a very high order. For the Speaker the evidence on which the allegation is based must in itself be strong and convincing. Only if it compels one to a view that impropriety may have occurred—and of course the Privileges Committee would determine whether it had actually occurred—does a question of privilege arise.  
Mrs Awatere Huata’s action that has brought about this complaint is a letter that she wrote to the then Treasurer on 19 February 1999 in which she sought funding for a remedial reading programme run by the Pipi Foundation. I am not going to rehearse that letter in detail. Suffice it to say that if there is a possibility that a contempt has occurred it can only have occurred as a result of that letter.  
I can say at once that I find there is reasonable evidence that could establish that Mrs Awatere Huata solicited public funds for the remedial reading programme run by the Pipi Foundation as the price of her support for Government legislation in the House. The United States has a particular term for this. It is known as “pork-barrel politics”. Whatever one may think about pork-barrel politics it is not a contempt merely to engage in it.  
But it is a contempt to seek a benefit for oneself or for other persons close to oneself as the price of one’s vote. To do so is to seek a bribe. My consideration of this complaint has been largely concerned with whether or not there is reasonable evidence that Mrs Awatere Huata may have sought a bribe. For this reason I have examined the Pipi Foundation’s trust deed—though I note that this was executed after the letter of 19 February 1999 was written—and the solicitor’s advice on that deed. I have concluded that I can find no reasonable evidence that Mrs Awatere Huata solicited the funding—which I remind members was specifically for the delivery of a remedial reading programme—for the benefit of herself or for other persons close to her such as her children.  
I know that there have been suggestions that funds of the Pipi Foundation may have been misapplied or misappropriated. These are matters for investigation by other agencies outside this House. They are not relevant to the contempt allegation that is before me. That turns on whether or not there is evidence that could reasonably lead to a conclusion that Mrs Awatere Huata could benefit in a corrupt way from public funding provided for a remedial reading programme. It is on that point that the allegation that a bribe is involved stands or falls. As I have said I can see no such evidence. If this funding has 
been misapplied that falls to be dealt with by others not by the House.  
I may add however that this case does illustrate that members must be particularly careful in the letters that they write asking for public funding for organisations with which they have any association. They inevitably bring suspicion on themselves if they do not take steps to make it clear that they stand to make no personal gain from the funding.  
I will ensure that a copy of this ruling is made available to anyone who requests it. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill to be extended to 14 March 2003 for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Masterton Trust Lands Bill to be extended to 21 March 2003 and for the time by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the 2001-02 financial review of the Teacher Registration Board to be extended to 12 May 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.  
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Bradford to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Consumer Credit Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Points of Order 
Prostitution Reform Bill 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House that when we come to members’ order of the day No. 2 the Prostitution Reform Bill be discharged and referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Immigrants—Statistics 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What were the total numbers of immigrants that came to New Zealand in the 2001 calendar year and the 2002 calendar year? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 During 2001 the New Zealand Immigration Service approved 54262 individuals for permanent residence. During 2002 there were 49928 people approved for permanent residence. Approximately 40 percent apply for residence while on shore and for offshore applicants a residence visa is valid for 1 year from approval. So it is not possible to state how many of those approved came to New Zealand in those years.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister has an LTD at taxpayers’ expense a residential home at taxpayers’ expense two ministerial cars at taxpayers’ expense and a highly inflated salary she—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to the question not the introductory comment. I want to hear the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given those events and her highly inflated salary when will she in her fourth year of being a Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] If you cannot take it go home. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I am defending the member. I said questions will be heard in silence and I mean that. I do not want to send people for an early shower but I will do so today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s lifestyle at the taxpayers’ largesse when will she do her job and tell us for example how many people immigrated to this country in the last 2 years or for example how many students were here from foreign shores in the last 2 years—another figure that she cannot seem to clarify in the public’s mind? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have already advised the House of the number of people who were approved for permanent residence and just like the member when he was previously the Deputy Prime Minister when he could not say how many of them were— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second week of this Parliament and I have no intention of going through the year listening to that sort of obfuscation and evasion from this Minister when I am asking for precise figures like those for every other Western democracy such as how many people immigrated. Yet all we are hearing here in her fourth year as Minister is all this delay and dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying. We want answers and I think we are entitled to them.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was raised as a point of order but it is a political point. The Minister addressed the question that was asked. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I can confirm that 54262 individuals were approved for permanent residence in 2001. I can state that 49928 people were approved for permanent residence in 2002. In each of those years 41 percent applied from on shore—they were already in New Zealand. I can hardly tell the member how many came to New Zealand. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister explain the distinction between residence approvals under the New Zealand Immigration Programme and the permanent and long-term arrival statistics contained in the Statistics New Zealand external migration monthly release? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is an excellent question. People approved for residence under the New Zealand Immigration Programme have the authority to live in New Zealand permanently and make New Zealand their home. Permanent and long-term arrival figures obviously include those new residents but they also include people who intend to remain in New Zealand for 12 months or more and they include Australians who do not require residence visas to live in New Zealand—and they are very welcome here indeed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Since the Minister has no idea how many people came into this country as immigrants in the years concerned how can this Parliament or this country be confident that the Government will not break the 45000 target that it has set this year particularly since we are now approaching 25000 permanent residence application grants in just 5 months of this year? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The New Zealand Immigration Programme does not contain a target. There used to be a target when National was in office. In fact when National was in coalition with the New Zealand First Party it established a net migration gain programme of 10000 which meant that 35000 to 45000 residence approvals were granted. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulties of getting an answer from this Minister have been canvassed previously by Mr Peters. You made the point that we should not make political points during points of order. That is difficult when a Minister gives an answer that clearly is not correct. Why did the Government bring in the English Language Testing System if it was not to cap a target? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is exactly what I said before. That is a political comment. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister have any plans to improve the reporting systems for immigration figures so as to give the public and this House some clarity about the issue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have written to the Minister of Statistics to ask whether it is possible for the permanent and long-term residence statistics to be disaggregated in order to remove the confusion that exists in the mind of only one person. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In an endeavour to remove the confusion that one member has—namely herself—can I ask the Minister why she answered on 12 February with a figure of 70500 but when I asked the same question today she gave the figure of 49928? If she cannot work out the difference between those figures why does she not resign? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do look forward to the day when the member does not ask me to resign. The answer I gave last week was in response to a question about permanent and long-term arrivals. The question today was about immigrants to New Zealand under the New Zealand Immigration Programme. They are two separate sets of statistics. In fact if the member had been listening to me last week he would have heard me quote from the statistics report which states: “Long-term arrivals include overseas migrants who arrive in New Zealand intending to stay for a period of 12 months or more.” I said last week that I could not make it clearer than that and I still cannot. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case can the Minister tell us why she is informing the media of certain figures saying that they include overseas students when she told the  
Listener 
 just a month ago that the overseas student figure was 82000? How does she fit 82000 into the 49928 figure? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The permanent and long-term residence statistics include people who say they are going to be in the country for 12 months or more. Not all students are going to be in the country for 12 months or more. 
Tertiary Education—Research Centres 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress has the Government made in establishing further centres of research excellence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce today that contracts establishing a further two centres of research excellence have been signed bringing the overall total to seven. The National Centre for Advanced Bio-Protection Technologies based at Lincoln University will receive $9.6 million and a one-off capital grant of $5.7 million. The National Research Centre for Growth and Development based at the University of Auckland will receive $13.1 million and a one-off grant of $5.2 million. Overall the Government has allocated $123 million in a mix of operating and capital funding for the seven centres. By contrast the National Party has no policy whatsoever on centres of research excellence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last sentence was out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table National’s research science and technology policy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dianne Yates 
: How are the new centres of research excellence contributing to the knowledge wave in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Both centres will be research leaders in their field and will thereby make that contribution. The National Centre for Advanced Bio-Protection Technologies is developing a New Zealand Biotron research facility. That will allow research in bio-protection to be carried out in a fully contained secure environment above and below ground level. The facility will be only the third of its kind in the world. The centre will also be investing in a gene discovery unit which may enable us to discover new antibiotics. The National Research Centre for Growth and Development is investing in a new screening system that allows the fast analysis of cells at a speed and accuracy that will place the centre at the forefront of that area in the world. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government is so committed to research excellence why has the proportion of the gross domestic product spent on research and science dropped over the last 3 years and why in last year’s Budget did the nominal figure—the raw figure without taking even inflation into account—for Vote Research Science and Technology get cut? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the figures with me but I am happy to send them to the member. However I can say to him that $123 million was not being spent last year on centres of research excellence. It is now being spent on those centres and I am still waiting for that member’s policy. 
Sovereign Yachts—Sales Forecasts 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he believe his advisers were misled by the “New Zealand-owned overseas-based super yacht building company” when it stated it had “contracts to build five super yachts in its next financial year estimated to generate approximately $US50 million in sales revenue”; if not what progress if any have his officials reported on this project? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The answer is no. The officials do not believe they were misled. The progress in the situation the member has asked about is the progress of a private company for which the officials have no responsibility whatever. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer where are the five boats that were promised and why was the only boat built “on spec” and not on contract as promised? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: According to Sovereign Yachts (Canada) when officials were approached about the possibility of facilitation for a marine cluster building on the foreshore of Hobsonville Sovereign Yachts had seven orders at the time. It currently has four superyachts under construction in Canada and one in New Zealand and I understand that a sixth boat is due to be shipped to New Zealand for completion shortly. Government officials are not in the business of running businesses in New Zealand nor do they have any responsibility for that. However if the ACT party wants to submit to me or to the Government any proposal for a yacht-building involvement on the part of the Government I will submit that to the Minister of Finance who I am sure will consider it for all of about 2 seconds. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister believe that the facilitating of Sovereign Yachts’ establishment by the selling to it of 10 acres of land at Hobsonville for some $500000 when it has an estimated market value today of in excess of $10 million has left the New Zealand taxpayer out of pocket? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The land the member refers to was disposed of under the process prescribed in the Public Works Act. It was followed by the Government and by local government to both the spirit and letter of the law. Not one cent of Government funding has gone to Sovereign Yachts. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he now regret his statement that he made on the Television One news on 4 February 2001 that launching the Sovereign Yachts project was “about as good as it gets on any one day in a politician’s life” or is his career such that launching the Sovereign Yachts fiasco was as good a day as he has had in politics? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Any day that any member of Parliament or of the Government can initiate and facilitate a facility that creates 40 to 60 jobs is a very good day and it will never happen in Mr Hide’s life. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as a point of clarification with regard to addressing the answer I point out that the question I asked was quite specific. I said it was as good a day as he has ever had not just a good day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is trying to be a little too smart for this place. 
Economy—Domestic Market 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does the Government support initiatives to stimulate the domestic economy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. The 2002-03 Budget allocated over $100 million on Vote Economic Industry and Regional Development as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in scientific research and development programmes through Crown research institutes and other Government agencies. This investment allows for the provision of independent policy advice to the Government from the Ministry of Economic Development on ways to facilitate regional economic and industry development. The money also funds the operationally independent Industry New Zealand. Industry New Zealand as the member knows delivers programmes and services to accelerate economic growth. It administers a number of advocacy coordination and assistance programmes to industry sectors regions and firms. Much of that work goes towards bringing companies into growth mode. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister in the light of the assurances from the Buy New Zealand Made campaign president that members are willing to match the Government’s contribution now proceed with the promised grant of $100000; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I was supportive of the application from Buy New Zealand Made for Government assistance when it was made but it was told to apply to the Ministry of Economic Development as it was before the official formation of Industry New Zealand and that application was not approved in the official way. Ministers do not approve specific allocations of money like that. The applications go through the agencies involved as I am sure the member knows and that is what happened in that case. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does the Minister reconcile the so-called success of his initiatives to grow the domestic economy with the latest Treasury estimates of economic growth falling to as low as 1.75 percent in the coming year after taking into account the recent increase in the exchange rate which is less than half the Government’s 4 percent growth objective and less than a third of the rate required to get New Zealand’s per capita gross domestic product back into the top half of the OECD? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I reconcile it in three ways: firstly the Government’s record on creating over 120000 jobs in 3 years; secondly in having a higher growth rate than most of our trading partners in the OECD; and thirdly on independent reports from the OECD itself. I quote from Sergio Arzeni the head of the OECD’s economic and development programme: “In the view of the OECD the economic development programmes and strategies of Industry New Zealand since its conception in 2000 are at the forefront of best international practice. Our work at the OECD has shown that the most successful economic development approaches are those that emphasise entrepreneurship innovation and competitiveness recognising the need for a differentiated approach between regions.” The approach of Industry New Zealand states the OECD is in line with best practice. I hope that is good enough for the member. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister believe that shipping could play a positive role in stimulating the economy; does he accept that thus far with regard to shipping this Government has done absolutely nothing; if he does accept those two assertions will he tell the House what he will do about it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Apart from some of the principles involved for maritime unions and New Zealand shipping owners which I recognise I say to the member that I have not had one single complaint in 3 years from any manufacturer about shipping policy or costs from New Zealand. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does he agree with Business New Zealand that since this Government has “established the world’s most business-friendly regulatory regime” the cost of Government regulation has increased for New Zealand’s small businesses; yes or no? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No. 
Rod Donald 
: If the Minister’s earlier answer about Business New Zealand’s Buy New Zealand Made campaign was true why did the Minister turn down a Budget bid from the Green Party and say that he was putting his own bid in to provide exactly that specific support for Business New Zealand why did he promise publicly to contribute $100000 to the Buy New Zealand Made campaign and why did he earlier this week say that it was because the campaign would not match the funding which it disputes? Was it because it would not hand over its brand to the Government which is what the campaign claims; or has it more to do with not wishing to support the domestic economy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were about five questions. Two may be answered. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a surprise to the member to find out one day that Ministers do not write out private cheques for applications for funding. They go through processes. The Budget process is one and another is the agencies that the Government sets up to approve such funding. That request failed on both counts. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can he give some recent examples of Industry New Zealand programmes that have helped in a practical way to transform the New Zealand economy for the better? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There are literally hundreds but let me just quote a few: a grant to Formway Furniture from both Industry New Zealand and Technology New Zealand for the design and development of what became the world’s best office furniture chair which is now on the world market and is being made here in Lower Hutt in a very sophisticated manufacturing operation; Mooring Systems Ltd in Christchurch for an automated mooring system that is the first of its kind in the world which has been recently trialled on the Interislander ferry in Picton and which has a world market awaiting it; the regional development programmes which are cementing in place centres of excellence in food production in the Hawke's Bay region and Rotorua and wine manufacturing in Marlborough and so on. Those examples are evidence of the Government’s success in those areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the real reason the Greens’ question is not in the affirmative is that at the time of the election or the post-election negotiations they at no time raised the issue but expect to come to the House now and have it addressed by the Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I do not think that is fair. I think the Green Party was supportive of a Buy New Zealand Made campaign but Industry New Zealand and the Minister for Economic Development carried out a research programme into the effectiveness of such a campaign. The findings were that it would not be effective and that the money would be best spent on other branding exercises which the Government of course has adopted and is working on now. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why did the Government attempt to acquire the Buy New Zealand Made brand through an arrangement that would have shut out private sector initiators from subsequent involvement? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have to say that my recollection is not of that order. There was a decision as a result of a research survey that was carried out that it would be better for a different kind of branding exercise to be gone through from New Zealand. Fundamentally it comes down to this: if we want our country to be recognised for excellence and that anything coming from New Zealand is known for its excellence we have to do more than stamp a fernleaf or a kiwi on a box. We have to produce excellent production across a wide range of commodities and manufactured goods and that is what Industry New Zealand the Ministry of Economic Development and all the other agencies of government are endeavouring to work in partnership with private enterprise to bring about. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made reference to a report from officials on the efficacy of a Buy New Zealand Made campaign. As he referred to the report could I ask for it to be tabled? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No problem. I will make sure that the member gets a personal copy and any other member who wants one is welcome to it as well. 
Document not tabled. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a media release from Buy New Zealand Made. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Operation Enduring Freedom—Maritime Interdiction Operation 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House that the Operation Enduring Freedom maritime interdiction operation “is an entirely separate operation with its own command structure”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because it is. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that all aspects of Operation Enduring Freedom including the maritime operation are under the command of General Tommy Franks the same General Tommy Franks in command of US operations in Iraq and recently described as “now the military man whose task it is to design fight and win President George Bush’s war”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are two points I need to make. The first is that under the Defence Act the New Zealand Chief of Defence Force has full command of all New Zealand Defence Force military personnel at all times. In this case that has been delegated to the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand. That command cannot be delegated to a foreign officer. Second in terms of the United States operations the central command is differentiated into two parts. Operation Enduring Freedom is managed separately from non - Operation Enduring Freedom planning. The United States has a very clear command structure in that respect and in part that is because there are a number of countries contributing to Operation Enduring Freedom that are not contributing to non - Operation Enduring Freedom planning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister not just being disingenuous given the fact that the real issue is one of control and in that sense we are not in command or control of our forces; would that mean for example that if the Americans were to come back from the Middle East we would just leave our frigate there thereby asserting the level of control and command she is talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The New Zealand frigate contingent operates directly under New Zealand command and cannot engage in duties under whatever control inconsistent with the rules under which it operates. Those rules are confined to Operation Enduring Freedom. The structures are quite clear in that respect. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm what was in a paper given to us last October showing that the headquarters of the maritime interdiction operation is on a US aircraft carrier in the area and does she really expect us to believe that details passed on by our frigate to that US aircraft carrier about Iraqi ships and what they are carrying will never be used in preparations for a war or in an actual war itself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot. The United States command is no longer on an aircraft carrier. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that it is Government policy that New Zealand forces will not strategically support operations against Iraq that are not sanctioned by the UN can the Prime Minister give an assurance that despite the fact there is ultimately a unified command of Iraqi and Afghanistan operations in the US military structure New Zealand forces will not be contravening Government policy by for instance freeing up US forces from maritime operations and Operation Enduring Freedom so they can take part in the Iraqi war? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I can. If the member cared to contact the US Embassy to discuss the matter he would learn that the United States has separated command under two quite separate three-star generals. 
Homicide—Non-parole 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are the longest non-parole terms which have been imposed on offenders in New Zealand sentenced to life imprisonment for murder? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The longest non-parole period imposed by a court in New Zealand’s legal history is a life sentence with 33 years before parole can even be considered. That was imposed last week by the High Court in the case of William Bell. The next-longest non-parole period is 28 years which was imposed late last year by the High Court on Bruce Howse. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government’s intent in passing the Sentencing Act last year has made a difference in sentencing by the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The key goal of the Sentencing Act was to impose tougher penalties on those who commit the worst offences. In both the Bell and Howse cases the court has clearly shown that it has taken on board the intent of Parliament and it has also reflected public concerns in this area. The Parole Act—the other part of that reform—will also serve to ensure that when a person is finally eligible for parole safety of the community and any undue risk posed by the offender is the paramount consideration in making decisions as to whether such offenders are ever released. 
Richard Worth 
: When the Minister gave his answer to the primary question why did he not also say that under his flagship parole legislation the Parole Board may overrule a judge’s determination and release an offender prior to his or her parole eligibility date allowing for the good work of the judges to be completely undone by the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The provision that the member refers to which was used in the Gay Oakes case has been a longstanding aspect of the law. It is used only very rarely in exceptional cases. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the public should make of the fact that his Government chose to release an absolutely appalling report on the probation system which showed that it was an abysmal failure and which was 5 months old on precisely the same day that the judgment was handed out to William Bell—can the public not rightly feel that that was done to hide the appalling statistics and probation report that it had a right to see 5 months earlier? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to the last point made by the member there was legal advice from Crown Law telling the Acting Minister of Corrections not to release that material until sentencing had taken place. Perhaps if the member is advocating that a Minister should ignore the advice to her from the Crown Law Office she might have done it differently but she did what she was told was legally appropriate to do. In relation to the report itself the Minister released the whole report. That report shows both that the specific problems in the Mangere office have been dealt with and that there is now a new system in place that will more effectively deal with those people on probation regarded as high risk. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister gloat over a new top murder tariff of 11 years per life snuffed out when no case could better deserve life meaning life; and does he draw any warning from the way people are now quoting the non-parole periods as the real sentences since his Sentencing Act locked in our “lies in sentencing” policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I should first remind that member that he told a panel of people just a few months ago that this legislation was a real advance on what went before it. Secondly I can tell the member— 
Stephen Franks 
: That life means life. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the member remembers making the comment I referred to. I can tell the member that the 33 years before Bell can even be considered for parole compares with the 7 years minimum that had to be imposed on Jules Mikus because that was what was under the legislation tolerated by the National Government for all of its term. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he consider that the 33 years handed down to William Bell might just be long enough for the probation service to get its act together so that it can actually supervise him when he eventually comes up for parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I remind that member that it is a life sentence and that it will be 33 years before that individual can even be considered for parole. Further the estimation of the Crown prosecutor was that he would never be released. 
Ron Mark 
: Reflecting on the Minister’s answer to my supplementary question I ask whether he will tell the House—and table whatever documents are necessary as evidence of what he has said—on what day advice was given by the Crown Law Office to withhold the probation report whether it was given in writing or orally or was it simply just very convenient to hold it over for 5 months until he had some good news that he could slip it out under? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes that advice was in writing. If the member wants the document and the date on which it was provided to her he should apply to the Minister for that. However I repeat this to the member: it would be a very foolish Minister who ignored the clear advice of Crown Law in these matters. 
Knowledge Wave—Business Friendly Regulatory Regime 
7.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What action has been taken by the Government to “establish the world’s most business friendly regulatory regime” the key objective from theme group four of the first Knowledge Wave Conference? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Lots and lots—ranging from an improved monetary policy targets agreement that is more growth-friendly and other associated changes that I think will also help in that respect through to improved competition law improved telecommunications legislation a tertiary education system designed to drive more relevant and higher-quality skills and changes in taxation in the research and development and administration areas which have been warmly welcomed. More good news will follow at both 3.30 p.m. and 4 o’clock this afternoon. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How did the Local Government Act the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act the Kyoto Protocol the proposed review of the Employment Relations Act to cover contracting out on the sale of a business the new Holidays Bill and the ongoing delay in reforming the Resource Management Act help to achieve the objective of establishing the world’s most business-friendly regulatory regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to take up some of those. Even Business New Zealand could not prevent a faint cheer emanating from it over the new Holidays Bill which it said simplified the provisions enormously compared with previous law in that area. The Resource Management Act will be improved and simplified— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very very soon. Since Dr Smith will be spending a lot more time in Opposition I am sure he will see many more Resource Management Amendment Bills from a Labour-led Government. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Government believe it has a role in the economy and how does that differ from previous administrations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We believe that we have a constructive role in the economy working in partnership with the private sector. We have implemented a wide range of programmes with the Ministry of Economic Development at regional sector enterprise level to assist new businesses to become established and established businesses to grow. The Inland Revenue Department and Treasury are working on a number of potential changes in the tax area to assist business development and growth. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How many of the 162 recommendations contained in the report of the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs delivered to the Government almost 2 years ago in July 2001 have been implemented? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the total is about half. Many more are being worked on and that is considerably more than the previous Government which introduced for example industrial relations legislation that might have reduced the number of strikes but enormously increased the amount of litigation in the industrial relations area. That litigation has dropped significantly under this Government.  
Benefits—Youth Eligibility 
8.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Are young people aged 16 and 17 who have no support from family or partners eligible for unemployment or sickness benefits; if not is he concerned that such people may be at risk of turning to activities such as prostitution to make ends meet? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 Young people aged 16 and 17 who have no support from their parents are able to receive the independent youth benefit. Unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds living with a partner and children can receive the unemployment benefit as appropriate. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister have any plans to improve access to the independent youth benefit so that situations like one in Auckland at the moment where a young girl is being refused the independent youth benefit after exiting the sex industry are not allowed to continue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may be worthwhile for the House’s sake to say that about 2600 young people between 16 and 17 years of age are on the independent youth benefit in New Zealand. The benefit is available only in the circumstance of a family breakdown such that the young person cannot go home and it requires the enlistment of specialist services to ensure that that is the case. I think that is the appropriate way to handle it.  
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged in appropriate education training or employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is the Government’s goal to ensure that young people of that age are engaged in education and we are committed by the year 2007 to having all 15 to 19-year-olds engaged in appropriate education training or work. We are doing a number of things but let me mention three: the expansion of what is called the Gateway programme which we are aiming to have in all decile 1 to 5 State schools by that time; the expanded Modern Apprenticeships scheme which will have at least 7500 young people engaged by 2006; and the encouragement of more Maori participation in trade training initiatives with the objective of having a vast increase in numbers by that time as well. In other words we want pathways for all those young people.  
Katherine Rich 
: If that young girl is involved in child prostitution and wants to get out but needs the help of the State while she prepares herself to do other work why does the Minister not go back to his office today and ask Work and Income New Zealand to review her case so that she is able to leave her life of prostitution as she wants to do and so that the welfare State can do what it is supposed to do—that is temporarily support those in need while they prepare to get back into other sorts of work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Good point! If the member who released the statement today tells me whom we are talking about we can do exactly that.  
Craig McNair 
: How are young people of 16 or 17 with no support from family or partners expected to know how to access the financial hardships scheme to pay for the exorbitant National Certificate of Educational Achievement fees of $150 which have risen from $80? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the Minister of Education made clear yesterday in relation to that and other questions this fund is available and he intends to make sure it is promoted more vigorously.  
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is the Minister aware that his own official statistics show that in 2002 the number of 16-year-old Maori girls receiving the independent youth benefit hit an all-time record high and given that he has been in power for 3 years does he accept any responsibility? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the figures for Maori here with me. I said before overall there are about 2600 young people on the independent youth benefit at the moment. That is definitely a reflection of the nature of the circumstances of young people in families around this country. I say again that they do not get on to that benefit without going through a process that ensures that independent people with expertise judge that the family situation is not appropriate for that young person. I can only assume that the young people the member is referring to are in those circumstances.  
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister have any national or regional figures from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services that indicate the numbers of under-age young people discovered to be working in the sex industry at present; if so what are they? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not have those figures with me. In fact I am not sure whether we collect the kinds of statistics that would give us a reliable picture of that issue. But if the member wishes to take it up with me we have a number of research projects going on at the moment that might well help. In relation to the independent youth benefit I would like to mention that the number on that benefit has been reduced by 22 percent in the last 12 months.  
Sue Bradford 
: The Minister’s latest point may indeed explain one of the reasons for the situation that has arisen given that most young people cannot access a member of Parliament to help them with their situation. What are young people—such as the 17-year-old I am referring to—supposed to do when they spend weeks if not months in a totally unsupported situation trying to exit the sex industry with no means of support and with the department absolutely refusing to give them the benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only say that if the member is aware of that individual and tells me who she is we will follow the case up. It is one of the problems is it not that young people in those situations are often very isolated. One of the things we can do is to encourage community-based groups in particular and groups perhaps like the Prostitutes Collective to ensure that young people seeking to exit the sex industry are guided in the right direction so that they can get help.  
South Canterbury District Health Board—Doctors' Strike 
9.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can she give an assurance that the ongoing senior doctors’ strikes at Timaru Hospital are not the result of the Government under-funding the South Canterbury District Health Board; if so on what basis can she give this assurance? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can assure the member that the strike is not a result of underfunding of the South Canterbury District Health Board. I am advised that the chief executive officer of the board also does not consider the board to be underfunded. Funding for the board for services provided within the South Canterbury district increased by $4.4 million or 7.46 percent in the current year. I also recently announced further increases of $2.8 million or 3.5 percent for the 2003-04 financial year. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the Minister aware that the doctors employed by the South Canterbury District Health Board believe that she and her office support the hard line taken by the board; if so is she willing to tell this House what she and her staff have in fact done? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The assumptions that the staff and the member have made are incorrect. It is an operational matter in the hands of the district health board as has been the case in wage negotiations for at least the past 20 years. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister been advised of the details of the latest offer by the district health board? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The details of the offer are public knowledge. The board’s latest offer to senior doctors is $8300 over a 15-month term. That amounts to a 5 percent increase over that time. It would see the average remuneration for senior doctors increase from $153000 to about $161000. The range however goes up to $190000. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Will a population-based funding formula put Timaru Hospital under even more pressure leading to chief executive Craig Climo saying that the board had no option but to bring down costs; and is the Minister proud that Labour has achieved another milestone in health—senior doctors continuing to strike for the first time in New Zealand’s history? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. Population-based funding obviously will not do that in South Canterbury. It is interesting to note that Ian Powell from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists put out a press statement yesterday stating that the South Canterbury District Health Board already had one of the best financial positions of all 21 boards in the country and now reports even better news with more expected additional funding. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned that the longer the dispute continues the greater the long-term damage to the South Canterbury District Health Board including an increasing difficulty with the recruitment of new staff and the retention of senior doctors; and what recommendations is she making to the district health board to resolve this dispute? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The resolution of the dispute is in the hands of the union and the district health board. It is up to them to resolve it. I hope they can resolve it as soon as possible. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the ongoing underfunding and deficit problems of various district health boards will the Minister consider a money-saving measure such as banning the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines which would save the Government about $10 million a year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all I take issue with the statement that the Government is underfunding this sector. The funding that has gone into the sector since we became the Government has gone from about 19 percent of total Government expenditure to 21 percent in 3 years. But I agree with the member that direct-to-consumer advertising is an issue that has to be looked at seriously. That is why I asked the three professors who came to see me to provide me with an evidence-based approach as to the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising and I will be releasing their report in the very near future. 
Land—Public Access 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: What has the Government done about investigating issues surrounding land access? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Late last month I set up the land access reference group a group of 11 wise and experienced community members to investigate issues around land access. There is confusion about the law as it stands—for example around the coverage of the Queen’s Chain—and there have been conflicts around the country about access. This Government thinks it is better to address the issue now rather than leave it to fester. 
David Parker 
: How can people have input into this reference group’s work? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The group welcomes submissions. People can write letters to the group and send them to my office and I will ensure they are passed on. 
Shane Ardern 
: Can the Minister reassure farmers that the increased access to their private property will not trap farmers into increased compliance costs as they try to mitigate legislation such as those related to occupational safety and health dog control and other Government-imposed laws; if not why not; and will the Minister given that he is in the mood for replying to letters respond to a North Island farmer Mr Koers who wrote to him about a month ago outlining some of the problems he has with marijuana cultivation the slaughter of two heifers and the theft of chainsaws and motorbikes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. Two may be answered. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Firstly I do not recall a letter from the alleged correspondent the member mentioned. Maybe he is one of those who forget to sign their name. As for the questions about people having increased rights to walk across farmers’ land the member is into his conspiracy theories again. There is no predetermined outcome for this consultation. It is by no means certain that increased access to private land will even be recommended. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Will the Minister assure this House that irrespective of the Prime Minister’s reference group’s recommendations he will not allow it to breach the exclusive use of private property guaranteed under the provisions of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member has read something in the Treaty of Waitangi that I have missed after reading it many many times. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What is the Government doing to address the problem of a landowner’s occupational safety and health liability for the safety of members of the public crossing private land in order to access public land when this occurs without the knowledge of the landowner? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The law was amended not long ago with the intention of clarifying landowners’ responsibilities in respect of people crossing their land. In so far as it may still not be clear that the land being crossed has to be the injured person’s place of work before there is any liability attaching to the landholder I think the Government would be prepared to contemplate further clarifying amendments. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Cardiac Surgery 
11.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When did she find out that the Capital and Coast District Health Board under spent its cardiac surgery budget by $1.7 million in 2001/02 and as she will not conduct an inquiry does she actually intend to do anything to ensure that the 181 patients nationally waiting over six months get surgery? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 As I advised the member yesterday I was informed 2 months ago of the underspend. The inquiry the member sought yesterday was into why the Capital and Coast District Health Board did not contract out cardiac operations to private providers. She claimed that eight people had died because of this. She called for her inquiry before I gave my answer to Parliament yesterday which showed that of the eight patients who had died in the past 3 years seven died when Capital and Coast District Health Board was contracting to private hospitals. There is nothing to inquire into. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why when 24 patients have died in the last 3 years in the North Island alone while on the cardiac waiting list has she allowed the number of patients waiting for more than 6 months for life-saving heart surgery to climb to 181 patients and what does she intend to do about this situation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The 181 that the member quotes is inaccurate; 116 people have waited longer than 6 months according to the latest data. This is not acceptable to the Government but I have to say it is a major improvement on the 468 patients who waited longer than 6 months in the last year of a National Government. What it does show is we are determined to reduce those waiting times. National was not. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What additional resources did the Minister provide the Canterbury-Otago cardiac service last year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: An additional $2 million in sustainable funding was allocated to the Otago and Canterbury District Health Boards to increase their heart operations from 550 to 650 each year. This funding was available from 1 July 2002. 
Heather Roy 
: What sanctions are available to her Government for failure by a district health board to comply with the waiting-list requirements of the New Zealand Health Strategy 2000 and why will she not use them against the Capital and Coast District Health Board for allowing patients to die while Wakefield Hospital surgeons were sitting idle and the money was available? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am sorry that the member did not hear my answer. From when the Capital and Coast District Health Board no longer subcontracted with Wakefield Hospital one person has died. But in the 2 years before that when it did subcontract with private hospitals seven people died. There are sanctions available in terms of contracts that we asked of the boards. We ensure that we do monitor those—that is a new innovation in health—and we ensure that they do deliver. Pressure is put on to deliver and that is exactly what is happening.  
Sue Kedgley 
: If the Capital and Coast District Health Board fails to provide surgery to the 160 patients on the cardiac surgery waiting list by August of this year which it has promised the Minister and all the patients on the waiting list that it will do what specific sanctions will the Minister take to hold the board to account? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are a number of actions I could take including the sacking of the board if I wanted to. However what I do see is that the Capital and Coast District Health Board has made huge improvements since the cardiac unit was gutted in the late 1990s when the intensive care cardiac unit was closed it was put in the intensive care unit and a lot of staff were lost. It has had to rebuild that. I feel there are some members in this House who have a huge conflict of interest when it comes to the public-private partnerships. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard the last comment from the Minister and I think it is not within the parliamentary Standing Orders or our past precedents for that allegation to be so widely dispersed—that there are members of Parliament with huge conflicts of interest where public-private health provisioning is concerned. Either we hear the allegation in terms of detail or we all fall under the cloud. Therefore I am asking that she either retracts that comment or backs it up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was the Minister making any reflection on any current member of Parliament? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No Mr Speaker. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: If seven heart patients died while on the waiting list when Wakefield Hospital was performing 15 cardiac procedures per month augmenting Wellington Hospital’s work was it not an extremely risky decision for the Capital and Coast District Health Board to stop these operations letting the number of people on the waiting list for over 6 months escalate from nine to 70 and why will the Minister not be holding someone accountable for that decision? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say that an “h” word comes to mind that I am not allowed to use because there was no mention of the 26 people who died the year before we became the Government because National had allowed far more people to wait on a waiting list. What the Capital and Coast Health District Health Board has done is to reduce reduce reduce that waiting list and ensure that it gets it under control. There was no 6-month benchmark when National was the Government. We brought that in. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I again wish to draw your attention to Standing Order 372(2): “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question”. I listened with great care to the quite fair and quite concise question asked by Dr Lynda Scott. The Minister made no attempt whatsoever to answer that member’s concise question and I believe that this House deserves a proper answer to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. The first clause she used was not in order but the rest of the answer was. 
Accident Compensation—Assessment Policy 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: In light of the 1997 pledges on behalf of ACC made by the current Chief Executive Mr Garry Wilson that: only people who have completed a vocational rehabilitation programme and have a clear capacity to work will be referred for assessment; claimants who have been severely disadvantaged by injury will not be referred for assessment; and highly skilled claimants will not be assessed as having a capacity to work in low skill positions; can she explain any changes to ACC policy since that time? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to respond to this question. Although the pledges made by Mr Wilson were I am sure well intentioned they could not have been delivered under the National Government policy of the time. However changes since we were elected as the Government in 1999 that are relevant to the vocational rehabilitation requirements and to Mr Garry Wilson’s pledges are sections 81 to 96 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. Changes include that incapacity must be determined separately for each job where a person had more than one job prior to the injury; that vocational rehabilitation must be completed before a person has an assessment for work and if that work assessment determines the person is fit to do his or her pre-injury job then 3 months’ weekly compensation entitlement is payable; and not least that claimants are now assessed on their total health status rather than just the effects of their injury. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that what she has just read out is actually honouring the pledges made by Mr Garry Wilson and is she telling this House that Mr Wilson did not know what he was talking about when he put those pledges in writing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No unfortunately I am not able to confirm that. I did answer the member’s question which was: “can she explain any changes to ACC policy since that time?”. My reply answered that question. I am not able to answer in response to any pledges that Mr Wilson made prior to our being elected as Government. 
Janet Mackey 
: Is the Accident Compensation Corporation taking any measures to ensure its claimants are treated fairly and receive service of the highest standard? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. Last month I launched the Accident Compensation Corporation code of claimants’ rights which spells out the Accident Compensation Corporation’s legal obligations to provide the highest standard of service and fairness when dealing with claimants. The Accident Compensation Corporation is also bringing together claimants advocates and representatives to develop a programme looking at legislation policy and operational improvements. Working together will enable the Accident Compensation Corporation from the corporate office right through the entire branch network structure to implement this programme of change. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister give members in this House a commitment that should we come to her with the cases of Accident Compensation Corporation claimants who are now being forced to exit the scheme and take lesser-skilled lower-paying jobs than the jobs in which the accident occurred she will allow them to go back on to the compensation that they should rightly be receiving? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given that many long-term accident compensation claimants are still having huge difficulties with vocational rehabilitation assessments and termination of entitlements will the Minister be doing more to encourage the corporation to at least part-fund the infrastructure of accident compensation claimant advocacy groups as allowed for in the most recent legislation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is one of two points I would like to make in response to the member’s question. I am sure it will be raised at the first claimant advocacy meeting with the Accident Compensation Corporation. I have a commitment to ensure that the funding and the operation of that group are provided by the Accident Compensation Corporation. Ongoing advocacy has yet to be determined. On the second point in relation to the rehabilitation and work-readiness of longer-term accident compensation claimants I can advise the House that prior to Christmas I convened a meeting between Work and Income New Zealand the Accident Compensation Corporation the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand to make sure that the services made available by those four organisations and agencies are better-coordinated to ensure that accident compensation claimants are not removed from accident compensation and put on to a benefit. That seems to me to be a fairly lose-lose situation. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that these pledges were made and that they are not currently being honoured and if she does accept that what is she going to do about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I deeply regret that I was not the Minister for ACC in 1997 but because of that fact I am not able to take any responsibility for any pledges the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation made at that time. That was the responsibility of the then chair of the board and that remains the case. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation written in 1997 outlining the claims and a second document where— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Question by leave postponed. 
General Debates 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Standing Orders are a very important part of this Parliament. Without them there would be chaos. I want to refer members to Standing Order 35 “Notification of party details”. It states: “(1) A party must inform the Speaker of—(a) the name by which it wishes to be known for parliamentary purposes (b) the identity of its leader and other office-holders such as deputy leader and whips and (c) its parliamentary membership.” 
At the beginning of this term the ACT party would have written to Mr Speaker advising that Richard Prebble was the leader and identifying nine people as its party constituents. When it said that it was going to have nine members it was claiming resources from Parliament resources from the taxpayer for nine members. It was going to take obligations for nine members and account for those nine members at approximately $110000 a head. 
There has been a dispute within ACT and Mr Speaker you have ruled on it. You have said that whilst Donna Awatere Huata is suspended from the ACT caucus she is to be included in the party vote totals cast for ACT unless she votes to the contrary. I was stunned and amazed yesterday to hear the ACT party cast eight votes. It is very interesting that yesterday we had three confidence resolutions. No confidence was expressed by the Greens and 119 votes were cast; no confidence was proposed by New Zealand First and 119 votes were cast; no confidence was proposed by National and 119 votes were cast. The only party whose vote was down was the ACT party; the ACT party cast eight votes. 
Mr Ken Shirley said that how the ACT party votes is entirely its business and that that is the end of the matter. I say that is not the case. The public voted by 145000 votes to give the ACT party 7.14 percent of the vote and nine seats in this House. The ACT party has to account to the public to those 145000 people as to why it cast only eight votes. It could be that it decided not to cast a vote for Donna Awatere Huata or it could be that in fact three of the ACT caucus were absent from this building. ACT is allowed to have two absent members but once the number goes beyond two its vote has to go down one. We have the prospect that a third of the ACT caucus was absent from this House at the time of a confidence vote. Two million voters want to hear from the ACT party as to why it is receiving funding for nine people and doing the work of eight. The ACT party has to account to this House for why it is taking funding for nine people and doing the work of eight. 
I want the ACT whip and its other members if they are doing the work of nine people to say where the other three members were. All members know that the most important resolution in this Chamber is a confidence resolution. Every party was here in full quota as the parties always are but the ACT party the lazy ACT party could put only six people in the Chamber—or else it simply did not vote on behalf of Donna Awatere Huata. I want to know what explanation Rodney Hide—the so-called perk–buster—has for why his party is taking the money for nine members but delivering for only eight. 
It seems to me to be an old-fashioned rort. ACT is taking money for something but not delivering on it. The ACT party has campaigned in the past about it being about values not politics. I want the ACT party to explain to us the values behind a party that receives money for nine members but delivers for only eight. I want to hear the values that are behind that. I do not want to hear the politics of it; I want to hear the values. 
I also want to hear from the ACT party which started off as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers—so-called to defend the rights of consumers and taxpayers—how it can justify pay for nine people going to the ACT party when it can deliver for only eight. How is that doing justice for taxpayers? I also want to hear from ACT members why they are deliberately distorting the proportionality of this Parliament. The ACT party by consistently voting down is distorting this Parliament. The public—2 million voters—did not vote for 119 members in this Parliament; they voted for 120 members. If the ACT party does not want all its members or all its votes it can give some to the Labour Party. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 What a mess the Government is in. It sent in the lightweight Rick Barker to have a go at the ACT party and he asked about the dopiest question that a Government member could ever ask. The answer to his question is simple: ACT’s situation arises because Helen Clark rewrote the rules to suit Jim Anderton. It is as simple as that.  
When a Government starts to get caught up by its own spin it is in the early stages of becoming terminal. Without a doubt this week is a turning point for this Government. Poor old Michael Cullen was in the House today firmly on his back foot trying to tell us that the 1200 military personnel in the Gulf have nothing to do with the US forces there. He tried to say that the air vice-marshal sitting over there in the Stout Street defence headquarters is giving those personnel their orders day by day. What a load of garbage that is! There are New Zealand troops in the Gulf under the command of an American general and when the balloon goes up if anyone in this House thinks that general will tell the New Zealanders to go and do a little exercise to pretend the US is not giving a hiding to Iraq and not to be involved in that then he or she is severely mistaken. The Minister of Defence needs to get his head out of the sand poke it up and say to the people of New Zealand exactly what the situation is.  
Later in the week we will see the Prime Minister at the knowledge wave conference. She was there last time it was on saying what a wonderful thing it was. She said to the gathering that the Government had a key role to play in leading the changes that have to happen in order to improve New Zealand’s prospects. Well what changes have happened? There were very very few changes. How much of the advice from that conference has been put in place? There has been practically nothing. In the Prime Minister’s statement—I was going to say in her Speech from the Throne; she called herself a powerful ruler when she spoke to the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists” the other day—she said that the Government was looking at some of the ideas advanced by Professor Michael Porter. He said we should lower taxes improve our infrastructure encourage competition and get the Government out of the economy. What did we get when the Prime Minister went to the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists”? She proudly proclaimed that the Government had increased taxes had stopped the privatisation of accident compensation had moved to regulate labour markets had imposed draconian health and safety laws would now impose paid parental leave and holiday pay at a much higher level than has been the case in the past and has prioritised improvements to workplace law. Goodness knows what that will mean for business.  
The question I have for the Prime Minister is this: what will she say at the knowledge wave conference this year? What will the spin be? One can bet one’s bottom dollar that there will be a line there that ignores the fact that we have had increased local taxes increased import taxes a 4c per litre tax increase on fuel increased accident compensation levies for motor vehicles increased employer levies for accident compensation power price rises of in excess of 10 percent the extraordinary cost of the Resource Management Act a hazardous substance levy on business and health and safety courses imposed as compulsory requirements on businesses. Those things will not get a mention. The Government will completely ignore the fact that New Zealand business people since the knowledge wave conference last time now face if they own an average-sized business extra costs of over $43000 a year in order to operate their businesses.  
This Government claims that it knows where it is going. Helen Clark stood up at the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists” and proudly proclaimed that New Zealand is an OECD star because we had growth of 3.9 percent. As Dr Brash said in the House today 3.9 percent does not move us one iota on the OECD’s lifestyle and well-being rankings. It would take over 10 years of growth of in excess of 4 percent for us to move from position 21 to position 10. The Government is saying that the best it can ever expect is 3.9 percent economic growth. It has given up and it is on its way out. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I cannot imagine that the House could have had a much better demonstration of just why the Opposition is so fragmented failing and flailing about. I do not know whether the member is aware of this yet but I have some not bad news for the previous speaker Mr Brownlee in the form of the www.stuff.co.nz website poll results published recently in answer to the question of who should be the National Party’s leader. Bill English came in with 56 percent and probably to Mr Brownlee’s surprise he followed closely behind rising quickly on 43 percent. That is quite a surprising result.  
First of all I would like to focus on the extraordinary charade that we have seen played out in this House over the last few days. Those self-appointed perk-busters the ACT party members suspended one of their members—not expelled—in quite a blatant cynical and obviously carefully considered manipulation of the Standing Orders. They made their decision so that they could hold on to $111000 of public funding. Not only did they ensure that that MP whom the Speaker ruled to be an ACT MP would keep her $90000 salary but ACT just happened not to lose—because of the decision made by that self-appointed master of the Standing Orders Richard Prebble—$111000 of public funding. What a party of principle that is—Richard Prebble pretending suspension is a great act of righteousness!  
Just as disgraceful is the extraordinary performance that we saw in the House last week from Dr Nick Smith. We heard the ridiculous allegations he made about apartheid in the Christchurch childcare centre—the result of playground requirements that were rules gazetted while that member was the Minister. Why would any member—even one who is known for making ridiculous reckless and unfounded claims such as his great Meridian rug scam and who as the then Minister banned Department of Conservation staff from talking to the then Leader of the Opposition—who is as unstable as that make such ridiculous and fanciful claims about apartheid? It is for the same reason that a 15-minute personal explanation was all typed up ready to go last week. It was all a smokescreen to try to divert public attention from that member’s involvement in the Huata - Pipi Foundation saga.  
Nick Smith and the National Party are up to their necks in that little scam. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member on his feet has just made an absolutely scurrilous allegation. There is no basis to that allegation. That matter has been dealt with appropriately. The member is right out of order in going down the line that he is. I will use the strong words of saying that we demand he withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. Under Standing Order 117 that was a personal reflection. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw and apologise. Clearly it was not just Alamein Kopu who was tucked up in her comfy office. I would like Mr Smith to come to this House to explain quite clearly where the Ministry of Education report was that recommended that funding. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last week I made a personal explanation and gave a response on that specific point. The answer was that Mr Trevor Mallard refuses me access to any of my files from that period. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A personal explanation cannot be questioned but different points about the issue raised in it can be. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mr David Benson-Pope challenged me to table the papers and the reports from the Ministry of Education. I seek leave of the House to table the letter from the Minister of Education Mr Trevor Mallard that denies me access to any of my files from that time. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It will be clear as this matter unfolds that the ministry made no recommendation to support funding for that reading programme and that that decision was made solely on the decision of the Minister at the time Mr Nick Smith. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Jill Pettis 
: They are sensitive! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No we are quite happy to have this matter debated but it would only be fair—since Mr Benson-Pope has now claimed in the House that he knows what is in those papers—that the papers are most certainly made available at least to Dr Smith and probably to the whole House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Why would that distinguished politician make such extraordinary statements about a fabrication of his own concerning apartheid in a childcare centre if it had not been anything other than an absolute smokescreen to detract attention from his own activities? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the context of this speech you need to explain to us the difference between the allegation of a fabrication and the allegation of a lie. This particular member is driving down a line that is difficult to deal with because the Minister is not prepared to release the papers that he rightly should. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that there is nothing wrong with full vigorous and passionate debate and that is what is going on at present. It is in order and I so rule. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The public will make its own judgment— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very specific point: is it appropriate for a member to say that I “fabricated”? “Fabrication” suggests that I misled the House. That is outside the Standing Orders and that was the specific allegation that Mr Benson-Pope made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Standing Order 117 which addresses situations where a member takes issue with what has been said and sees it as a personal reflection—and the Hon Nick Smith has done so. I ask the member to desist from making those remarks and to continue with his speech. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I will close by quoting the words— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of late there have been a number of rulings that constrain healthy debate in this Parliament. If you are to rule the word “fabrication” out then the building industry will find that very difficult for a start. It has been engaged in that for the last 100 years or more. In fact most educational institutions know about prefabrications later fabrications and defabrications. At the risk of breaking up Mr Benson-Pope’s speech at the end of the day it comes down to this: surely robust debate is acceptable. If you are to rule out sensible words that might have an ulterior construction I admit then you will constrain debate in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the right honourable member for his point of view. Under Standing Order 117 I am not actually ruling the words out but exception has been taken by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the use of those words. As the presiding officer I have to administer the Standing Orders as they have been crafted for well over 100 years in this Parliament. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would like to close with some recent comments made by former Cabinet Minister Max Bradford. He said: “The trouble with the National Party at the moment is that it’s all very well to talk about the principles and the values which we can agree with but when you pick up the newspaper or listen to the leader or a number of the spokespeople particularly the bratpack talking about the individual approaches to various things then there’s no connect. I mean you listen to Nick Smith talk about education and God forbid he sounds more like an Alliance member.” A further party insider is even blunter: “They are not going to get anywhere until they get rid of their leader their deputy and the bratpack and McCully. The media have got them typecast now. The message I am getting from people is that the National Party has largely become irrelevant and the senior people for example the leader and the deputy are still in denial.” For goodness’ sake National members should do themselves a favour and get it over with. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table my estimate of how much the Alliance was able to suck out of the taxpayer subsequent to its breakdown largely because Helen Clark changed the rules and gave an interpretation of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act that saw the absolute debacle and disgrace that existed last time round. I believe it was well in excess of $4 million or $5 million all because Helen Clark changed the rules. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave to table the www.stuff.co.nz website opinion poll that I referred to commenting on the question of who should be the National Party’s leader. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Earlier today I listened on the Internet to the meeting of the United Nations Security Council where the New Zealand representative has just delivered the Government’s very brief statement on Iraq to the United Nations General Assembly. It was very brief it was very middle of the road and it tried to have a bob each way. On the one hand it was very heartening to hear New Zealand’s representative say: “The inspection and disarmament process should continue. Force is not justified at this time. New Zealand strongly prefers a diplomatic solution. We do not support a United States attack without a UN mandate and a UN mandate is not justified at this time.” We have never been aligned with Blair and Howard on that issue and overall I compliment the Government on that. However on the other hand we have some real disappointment at what our representative did not say this morning.  
The Government urged Iraq to move rapidly to provide the information and cooperation requested so as to avert war. We would agree with that. But there is an assumption that war is the inevitable consequence of less than full cooperation. We have never attempted to apply that standard to any other country. Why should it be only Iraq that is invaded if it flouts United Nations resolutions? Even Resolution 1441 does not state that; it simply warns of serious consequences. Why does New Zealand in these debates not mention the 64 United Nations resolutions passed between 1955 and 1992 against Israel? Those resolutions repeatedly urged Israel to comply with previous resolutions deplored its lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces requested it to comply with the fourth Geneva convention and condemned various human rights abuses just to mention a few of them.  
The Security Council to its credit has never sanctioned the blanket bombing of Tel Aviv because of those non-compliance issues but neither have those issues been resolved. Nor has the UN taken any enforcement action against the permanent members of the Security Council for their non-compliance with disarmament resolutions. They are all known to possess weapons of mass destruction and the US has threatened to use them in a first strike. That is contrary to UN resolutions.  
There is no recognition in the New Zealand statement that Resolution 687 to which Resolution 1441 refers imposed an unprecedented level of intrusive inspections on a newly defeated nation in 1991. That nation has substantially cooperated—very belatedly and somewhat incompletely but it has allowed access and it has provided information. Even though suspicion remains no weapons have been found. Given the stated US intention to attack regardless of whether the UN mandates that it would not be unreasonable for Iraq to see the inspections as target location by the United States for a war it is determined to fight. In that context our Government is letting down all those who believe in the United Nations and who believe in collective action to preserve peace by stating that if the Security Council does mandate war we will uphold that decision. Normally that is what collective action should mean but we have to ask in the event of a Security Council resolution being contrary to the charter and purpose of the United Nations itself which should come first: loyalty to the charter and the spirit of the UN or loyalty to a rule that the Security Council speaks for everyone?  
Let me remind members that the charter states that the UN’s purposes include “maintaining international peace and security” and “the suppression of acts of aggression”. The preamble states a determination to ensure that “armed force shall not be used save in the common interest”. Article 33 states: “The parties to any dispute the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation enquiry mediation conciliation arbitration judicial settlement resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means”. Clearly armed attack especially by a superpower on an impoverished Third World country is contrary to the charter until all those means have been tried and have failed and even then there needs to be evidence that there is a threat to international peace and security.  
Those members of the UN who are committed to protecting its status as the only international body able to prevent war should state now that any resolution in support of a US attack would be illegal under the charter and that they would not feel obliged to uphold such a resolution. The future of the UN requires such a statement and it would be great to see our Government take a lead now in forming such a consensus. Instead it is having a bob each way with bland statements that are designed to upset no one but in fact please no one. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to pick up on a theme that I think was begun in this debate by Mr Barker by focusing on the ACT party and what I would call its disgraceful activity in the no-confidence vote. In that no-confidence vote some days ago the ACT party members cast eight votes when they have nine votes. It raises the question of why they did that. Did they do it in order to suspend the democratic right of a member of Parliament to represent a constituency or group of people by casting his or her vote? Did they do it to shut down Donna Awatere Huata? Or was it a dash for cash to grab $111000 of public money for the ACT party? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She was here. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Peters rightly points out that she was here but technically we do not know who failed to vote.  
Could it be that eight members of ACT voted no confidence in the Government but a fifth columnist somewhere in that party actually supported the Government by not voting on the motion? Could that be it? Could the fifth columnist be Richard Prebble? Or could it be that Rodney Hide has had secretly and deep down a couple of pangs of conscience and thinks that we are OK? Could the fifth columnist be Gerry Eckhoff who sits every day on the scampi inquiry where we are dealing with issues of alleged corruption but who fails to deal with a rat’s nest in the party he belongs to? Could it be Muriel Newman who maybe deep down supports the Government? Or could it be the future leader of ACT Deborah Coddington? We know she will make it and we know that every time we mention she will be the future leader of ACT that grates on spongy old Rodney Hide because he knows he will never get there.  
Every day that Donna Awatere Huata sits in this House and is denied a vote it is anti-democratic. I am not defending Ms Awatere Huata at all. I say to her what I said to her last week which is that though she crows about natural justice she and her kind in ACT did not show any natural justice when they tried to put the knife into Dover Samuels and John Tamihere. The ACT members did not bleat about natural justice then so they should wash their mouths out. Every day that the ACT members sit there Donna Awatere Huata is a reminder to the public of what that party stands for. She is a window into those members’ souls—if they have them—or the heart of that grotesque grouping called ACT. If members look at that party’s history they see that its members came in as the great scambusters. Rodney Hide gets up and down from his chair—I have never seen him get so much exercise in his life—talking about the problems he alleges there are in economic development putting the boot into business and trying to dig up any bit of perceived dirt. He even said I am told that he would manufacture some dirt on me before the election and drop it on my electorate. I say to him that he should roll the dice. Every day that Mrs Awatere Huata sits there it is a window into that party.  
We had Owen Jennings and the pyramid schemes. We had Mr Hide going off to Fiji to speak at a shonky investment conference and giving wonderful economic and tax avoidance advice to the people of Albania and Waiheke Island. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is casting aspersions on one former member of Parliament and one current member of Parliament that are totally unfounded. He should be ashamed to be doing so. I request that the member withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not need any help. This is a full and vigorous debate and the member is within the Standing Orders. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to the ACT party that its members should look deep within their own ranks because never again can Mr Eckhoff Mr Hide or any other ACT member throw mud at other members of Parliament. The ACT members should look deep into their own party.  
Ms Awatere Huata’s predicament reminds us that our system actually works. I was at an overseas conference recently where I had the privilege of talking to members of Parliament from developing democracies where they have huge problems with accountability and audit. In our country of 4 million-odd people the system works because if people put their fingers in the till they get found out. I ask Mr Hide where he was when the scam broke. I do not cast aspersions on him; I speak of facts. What has he done about the Fiji fiasco that he was part of? What has he done to help the hundreds of New Zealanders who lost millions of dollars through a scam investment conference that he attended? He has done nothing. When Rodney Hide’s feet are put to the fire in this Chamber like Mr Eckhoff’s Muriel Newman’s and Richard Prebble’s what does he do? Those members have nowhere to go and nowhere to hide.  
What has happened has one positive side to it: the people of New Zealand can now get a real look into the grotesque nature of the ACT party. The ACT members are here for one reason and one reason only—greed. They are impinging upon Ms Awatere Huata’s democratic right to vote. Why is that? It is because of their greed. There are 111000 reasons why those members want to prevent her voting and that is a disgrace. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Is it not noteworthy that we have heard from three Government speakers in this debate and every one of those speakers has chosen to attack personalities and to rub dirt. That is the standard the Government is setting in the House today. I say this Parliament should be focused on the issues that are important to New Zealand.  
I want to reflect on the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference that was held with so much fanfare just 18 months ago and what the Government has done with it. What we have in terms of the $10 million of public money that went into that conference 18 months ago is 44 recommendations. I have gone through those 44 recommendations. How many has this Government implemented? Four out of 44! Even under the “everybody passes National Certificate of Educational Achievement hold your hands politically correct” education system that this Government would like us to have I say to Mr Hughes that implementing four out of 44 recommendations has to be a failure.  
I ask Mr Hughes: what is the use of having a Catching the Knowledge Wave conference producing 44 recommendations and applying only four of them? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he has admitted the Government has failed. Well it has failed and if this Parliament is going to achieve its objectives of raising the living standards of New Zealanders we do need to focus on the issues from that conference. While the Prime Minister will wander around in Auckland this week with phase two we on this side of the House say: “Finish phase one stop the spin focus on the substance.”  
One of the recommendations from the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference is that New Zealand would create the most business-friendly environment of any in the country. I want to test members opposite—members like Mr Clayton Cosgrove who is good at spreading dirt rather than focusing on what might work for businesses in our part of the country and ask him: “How has the Government’s behaviour on the Resource Management Act helped?”. His Minister said that the Resource Management Act changes would be passed in October 2001. She said again in October 2002 that they would be passed in that month and still there has been absolutely no progress.  
Look at the occupational safety and health changes and this new idea that employers are responsible for stress in the workplace. Is that going to help us have the most business-friendly regulatory environment in New Zealand? Not a hope! The Government says: “We want to be leaders in biotechnology.” What has the Government done in biotechnology? Despite 3½ years there have been no changes except a moratorium on any biotechnology. What has been gained by 3 years of stalling? Not one iota. Even after the royal commission the Government said that the rules that were put in place by National were sound. How can we possibly claim to be part of a knowledge economy when we have stalled biotechnology in this country for over 3 years?  
I want to turn to my own passion the area of education. Education is the cradle of the knowledge wave economy. What sort of innovation are we allowed in the education system? In terms of taking away parental choice parents are not allowed to choose where their children will go to school. This Government is going to decide. What does that do for innovation? What does it do in terms of taking away the control that school boards have to innovate with their budgets? We are going backwards. Why has the Government put a ridiculous cap on independent school funding? How does that help innovation? It does not; it does the opposite. Why has the Government stopped schools integrating? What does the Government have against it? Why did it change the policy in that regard? I ask Mr Benson-Pope how that helps innovation in our economy. 
David Benson-Pope 
: A good State education for our young people. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How that statement contradicts! This is where we find out. Mr Benson-Pope thinks that innovation rests with the State. I wish! I would be happy and I am sure members on this side of the House would be happy to give Mr Benson-Pope the opportunity to go to the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference phase two and learn that innovation does not start with the bureaucracy and the State; it starts with the private sector. Everything that his Government is doing is contradicting that and making innovation in the private sector more difficult. I challenge members opposite to live up to the knowledge wave and to stop killing innovation in New Zealand. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address an education issue as well and in particular with regard to secondary teachers. I point out firstly that there is a shortage of secondary teachers and everyone knows that for this year it will not go away. Schools were short by 388 teachers in January of this year and now just 3 weeks into the school term there are still 199 actual vacancies and counting to be filled according to last week’s  
Education Gazette 
. However the current difficulties have a much longer gestation. On the one hand the current secondary school workforce is greying. The average age of secondary teachers is now 49 and I believe increasing each year. On the other hand the number of trainees coming through colleges of education does not make for encouraging reading either. From 1999 to 2001 which is the latest period for which data is available the number of secondary trainee enrolments at the Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin colleges of education declined by 10.5 percent. What is worse the proportion of those who graduate slid from 76 percent to 66 percent in that 3-year period. As yet we do not have any comparable figures for the last 2 years.  
In the meantime according to claims by the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and backed up by a separate survey by the Post Primary Teachers Association the upshot of the shortage is that schools have been forced to hire teachers of uncertain quality. One principal stated: “I have hired people I don’t feel entirely comfortable with. They might work out.” As reported in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 teachers and principals have grave concerns about the quality of teacher trainees. Some graduates who are applying for teaching positions are sending in CVs so badly written that pupils would be failed for presenting them.  
What is not clear is whether these are fresh graduates coming through the colleges of education or whether the quality issues relate to the large number of teachers being recruited from overseas. The problem of course with teachers trained overseas is that they are not sufficiently acculturated in terms of education in New Zealand. For example a couple of things I have just picked up is that teachers from the UK do not prepare their own resources as New Zealand teachers do and teachers from India leave all their marking to their deputy principal.  
The nature of the curriculum is another matter. For example one teacher from the United Kingdom taught a social studies class about the treaty of Wanganui for a whole term before anyone noticed. We need to ensure that teachers trained overseas are fully prepared for work in New Zealand.  
Even if we get enough quality trainees through the system there is still a major problem of retention particularly for new teachers. The figures show that after 3 years of teaching 38 percent of new teachers leave their profession. So where are the teachers going? A Post Primary Teachers Association survey released last December said that 27 percent of the teachers who resigned in term four last year went overseas and 39 percent went to non-teaching jobs. United Future believes that the problem of recruiting and retaining teachers goes far beyond the pay issue which has now been temporarily resolved. Indeed there are some concerns that graduates with bachelor degrees may perceive teaching to be a great option for an extra year’s training given the new pay scale and misperceptions about the holidays that teachers get without necessarily viewing it as a vocation. Instead United Future is committed to improving perceptions of the teaching profession enforcing standards rewarding excellence and building the mana of teachers in our community. I said last week that we need to restore education to its true dignity and restore to our teachers the honour due to them. They are our trustees who pass on our traditions and virtues from one generation to another. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have listened with complete and utter disdain to the hollow men—and that is the only way they can be described—of the Labour Party as they have criticised in this House the party that I am a member of and which I am very proud to stand and represent. We are the party that is totally upfront with the public. If there is a problem it is out in the open so that the public can determine for themselves what is not appropriate. In fact we have risen in the polls because we are upfront and honest with the public. But I have not come to this House to talk about the personality assassinations that are all that the Labour Party seems to indulge in. I want to talk about some issues.  
In question time today Jim Sutton stated that he does not know anything about the treaty. He said: “I can’t understand where property rights are involved in article 2 of the treaty.” Let me just read a short line for a Minister of the Crown. It states in article 2 of the treaty that the Queen of England confirms and guarantees full exclusive and undisturbed possession of lands estates and forests. What is it that the Minister does not understand about “exclusive and full use”? Perhaps the Attorney-General who is sitting in the House could inform that Minister as to exactly what it means.  
I really want to talk about an extremely serious issue regarding article 2 and the guarantee of property rights. Just prior to Christmas I received a reply from the Minister of Rural Affairs to a question of mine which asked whether this Government would introduce any legislation during this term that would allow public access to private land. The Minister replied no. Within 3 short weeks over the Christmas break we had an announcement from the Minister of Rural Affairs that a reference group was being set up to look into the issue of public access to private land—surprise surprise! I ask whether the Minister of Rural Affairs lied to me whether he was trying to mislead this House in his reply or whether he was totally honest in his reply.  
It seems to me that this Minister does not understand the difference. He wrote a reply to me stating: “No. This Government is not proposing any form of public access to private land.” Then hoping that nobody would notice he announced the reference group 3 weeks later during the Christmas break. Is Jim Sutton not the Minister of Rural Affairs? Is he not in this House to represent rural people?  
A recent poll done by one of the major websites—I think it was Fencepost.com—indicates that 91 percent of rural people are totally opposed to that concept. Yet the Minister of Rural Affairs is driving this issue—or is he? When one looks at the make-up of the reference group and at the names of its members one will see the sticky little fingers of the Prime Minister all over the project. The group has been cherry-picked; there is no question about that. Its members have not been picked for their expertise on the matter. If one really wanted an expert from the recreationists one would have picked somebody like Bruce Mason. If one wanted an expert on the issues surrounding public access to private land one would have involved people from the Magna Carta Society or a high-country farmer who would actually know and understand the issues for goodness’ sake! But no. The name of Gottlieb Braun-Elwart leapt out of the paper and who is that individual? Perhaps the House can correct me if I am wrong but is he not a mountain guide? Is he not the Prime Minister’s favourite tramping companion? Is he not a personal friend of the Prime Minister? Perhaps members can tell me whether I am wrong here. I think I am right. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I am pleased to hear the ACT member refer to “3 short weeks”. I take that as code that tonight as my member’s bill on 4 weeks’ annual leave comes up he will be crossing the floor and voting with us for that. If he likes I will give him the Labour Party briefing notes I have received in support of the bill which I am quite grateful for.  
A debate on economic and regional development is one that the Progressive party wants. We are proud to be part of a progressive Government using the resources of the State to work with the private sector and our communities for economic growth and regional development. Our party believes we are having a positive role in Government working step by step to implement policies that we went to the country on. ACT’s flea-bite attack on one economic development project is not the stuff of serious debate on the most serious issue for our people—economic development. The ACT party has been an Opposition party ever since it first entered Parliament. By the next election it will have had nearly a decade of opposition under its belt—and good luck to it! It is clear from its behaviour that it wants to remain a permanent Opposition party for ever which is an ideal position for a party that does not want to ever take responsibility for doing anything. It will just sit on the sidelines issuing ineffective press statements in an attempt to create scandal. The last tactic has its shortfalls of course as the scandal-busting party is swamped by scandals of its own making.  
Ever since their arrival here—and they hope for many years to come—ACT members will get well-paid taxpayer-funded jobs to be a party of endless whinging and complaining press statements. Yesterday ACT’s biggest contribution to Parliament was to highlight that this Government had facilitated the creation of jobs in west Auckland—not at any cost to the taxpayer but through our Minister’s actions. The ACT party is ecstatic that not as many jobs were created as we certainly had hoped to create and it claims that that is proof of some sort of systemic Government failure. I know that Dr Smith reads them all the time but I remind members of Michael Joseph Savage’s words in this House on 30 September 1937: “we might make mistakes but we would make other things too ... we have to stand our ground and do something worth doing”.  
However the failure in policy was actually made during the decade of the 1990s when the said land in west Auckland was not used to create any jobs at all. The land was idle. In the latter part of that decade a minority National-led Government sat on the sidelines and did not create jobs doing nothing with its “look—no hands’’ policy. The ACT party provided the National Party with the critical votes on Budget and confidence.  
Yesterday in this House we saw again the differences between the Labour - Progressive Government and the Opposition highlighted in sharp relief. One of the most significant defining characteristics between us is that on our side there is a commitment to policies creating employment. We are a Government committed to working with business regions with industries and with unions for jobs. We have an Opposition that does not want economic or regional development. It does not even want industry development; it wants the failed market experiments of the 1980s and 1990s and the high unemployment that went with them. It lacks commitment to New Zealand. It is scared of failure and would rather not try if it means that something might not work.  
However the failures are more than compensated for by our successes which outnumber failures by 100 to 1. We have booming industries 123000 new jobs and the lowest unemployment rates in 15 years at 4.9 percent. “Luck!” cry the Opposition parties but it is a pity they did not have some luck while they were in Government. The comments of Sergio Arzeni who is the head of the OECD’s local economic development and employment programmes are worth listening to. He endorsed our economic development approach saying: “The economic development programmes and strategies of Industry New Zealand since its conception in 2000 are in the forefront of best practice internationally.” He highlighted our focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and decentralised programmes and our innovation as important elements of the strategy. Nearly all New Zealanders want to see a growing economy creating more high-wage and high-skilled jobs. That is of course except National and ACT members.  
The Labour - Progressive Government’s programmes address market failures. Those are things such as access to capital access to information and advice facilitation of partnerships and growing networking so that businesses can work together in clusters to make the most of opportunities and efficiencies. Yesterday we saw National and ACT again attack the very concept of working with business. The debate over economic and regional development is a debate that Progressive wants to have. For nearly 30 years we have had Governments in this country that really did not want to get actively involved in partnership with our productive sectors. That has changed and this Government is here to help. We need to start more companies that depend on uniquely New Zealand skills and we need to take those companies that have five to 10 staff and lift them up to the next level where they are employing significant numbers of staff and exporting millions of dollars every year. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 This Labour-led Government is creating something of an art form out of saying one thing or creating the perception of one thing yet doing another. I guess the most compelling example of that in recent times is Helen Clark’s claim that she is not involved in any way in President Bush’s build-up against Iraq yet at the same time she has very significant proportions of New Zealand’s total Defence Force deployed in the Gulf in Operation Enduring Freedom under the same commander as the one preparing the build-up against Iraq. That is what I mean about creating the perception of one thing but on the other hand doing another.  
In the Speech from the Throne after the election last year and also in the Prime Minister’s statement at the opening of Parliament this year Helen Clark claims that growth and taking New Zealand back to the top half of the OECD is an absolute priority for this Government. She is saying one thing that seems pretty credible and really important to New Zealanders yet what is she doing at the same time? She has increased the tax burden on New Zealanders and all the research shows that that reduces growth. She has put through legislation that will enable local authorities to increase the tax burden and that will reduce growth. She has ignored the 162 recommendations of her Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs. She refused to put through amendments to the Resource Management Act that would have reduced the costs of that on business and permitted more growth in this country. She has passed health and safety in employment laws that make it harder for growth to be sustained in this country. She is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol when our major trading partners have not which will make it harder for businesses in this country to compete. This year she will pass continuity of employment laws that will add compliance costs for business holidays legislation that will add compliance costs for business and so it goes on—the rhetoric on the one hand supporting sustainable growth and on the other hand the policy actions all against business growth in this country.  
Today we have the Knowledge Wave 2003 conference and more rhetoric that tries to give the perception that this Government is supporting growth. This is the second knowledge wave conference. What happened after the first one? The first knowledge wave conference made 44 recommendations. How many has the Government implemented? Four. The rhetoric sounds great—on the one hand supporting sustainable growth yet on the other hand ignoring the recommendations of the knowledge wave conference.  
We have just heard about economic growth from Matt Robson of Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition. His mate Jim Anderton is the Minister for Economic Development. What do they do? They think economic growth is about bringing Sovereign Yachts to New Zealand. We heard Matt Robson defending it just now. They think that economic growth is about a photo opportunity for Jim Anderton when he hands out little bribes to business around New Zealand—welfare for business around New Zealand. I know that many members of Labour and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition—not to mention the Greens—have never been involved in business. They are former teachers academics and union officials. [ 
Interruption 
] I do know that Jim Anderton has been involved in failed business.  
I suppose they have this feel-good thing at the moment. As Matt Robson said unemployment is down. He did not talk about sickness benefits and invalids benefits being way up. They probably feel good because of that. They inherited an economy growing at 4 percent and things feel pretty good when an economy is growing that high. But what they do not seem to understand is the lag time of policy change. They have inherited the benefits of the policy reforms carried out by the former Labour Government in the late-1980s and the National Government in the 1990s. This Government is cruising along on those coat-tails. It has had record commodity prices and 2 years of good weather but it is about to get a dose of reality. Commodity prices are down big-time. Next year the dairy industry will earn more than a billion dollars less. Beef prices in this country are down a third and the weather has turned sour. The Government will get a dose of reality very soon. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is very ironic hearing from someone like the Hon. Dr Lockwood Smith who had the audacity to talk in this House about the rhetoric of the Government. I know that Dr Smith has been in Parliament for a long time but I am old enough to remember that he went around New Zealand with a lot of rhetoric. He went around this country with a bit of paper with his signature on it saying he would resign if tertiary fees were not removed in this country. That is what Dr Smith did. He signed a campaign— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members in this House must be careful to tell the truth. In fact the document I signed said that Government-imposed fees would be removed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debatable issue. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is being very— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a member of this House points out that something is factually incorrect and it involves him or her directly that is not a debatable matter. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: How about I say that when Dr Lockwood Smith became the Minister of Education in 1990 students paid $1250 in fees for their tertiary education? By the time he left that portfolio people were paying much much more for their education than he had promised at the time of the 1990 election. He might try to push the blame over to the universities and polytechs of the country and say it was their fault but he presided over rocketing student fees in this country. He has the cheek to come to Parliament today to talk about the rhetoric of the Labour Party on education and economic development in this country. His record shows exactly what he is like.  
Today in this House Labour and Progressive Coalition members have been focusing on the fact that yesterday in Parliament ACT cast only eight votes on the confidence motions on the Prime Minister’s statement. At the beginning of the year when Parliament starts and the Government talks about policy—as the Prime Minister did—one would have thought that when the time came to vote every party would want to be here to put on the record of the House its views in respect of confidence and the Government. Do members know what happened? ACT cast only eight of its nine votes even though the election sent it to Parliament with nine votes. The reason ACT will not tell us why the other vote was not counted is that there is $111000 at stake. When ACT came to Parliament it said it would be the perk-buster party that made sure that every dollar was accounted for yet it is prepared to sit in Parliament and collect $111000 while not casting one of its member’s votes. If I were that party I would be dialling 111 which is a very good number for that party because it is in trouble. There is an emergency in the ACT party but it keeps the cash to do that.  
Gerry Brownlee started off for the National Party. He told us that we might be looking at the beginning stages of what one might possibly call the terminal phase of the Government. That is almost as bad as Bill English saying that we are a three-term Government. Poor old Mr Brownlee did not quite have the courage of his convictions to say that Labour was on the way out. He said that we looked as though we might be starting a bad phase and I think that was an absolute disaster. 
However Gerry Brownlee deserves the job because on my way to Waitangi Day this year I read the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of the day before which stated that if invited to speak National Party leader Bill English planned to stand on Te Tii Marae at Waitangi and criticise his Ngapuhi hosts’ ban on non-Maori media staff. I thought to myself: “Mr English will stick it to the Ngapuhi because we are told that he is a man who is standing up for one standard of citizenship.” I was sitting on the plane and could not wait to arrive at Te Tii Marae with the Prime Minister to find out from the locals what had happened when the Leader of the Opposition got up. I ask Mr Donnelly what did he say? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: He was like a pussycat. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: He was like a pussycat on the marae—he said nothing. He started off with a very long mihi I am told which was very good on pronunciation. Bill English is a man who might be committed one might think to a bicultural New Zealand. He was very good at that phase but when he stopped his mihi he said something like: “Oh well thank you very much for having me here. It is a great privilege for us to be here. It is great to be a New Zealander. Tena koutou katoa.’’ and sat down. That was the great leadership stand from Bill English who had told the country how strong he would be on Maori. Yet he had been practising his te reo on the plane the whole way and he does not do that anywhere else around New Zealand. I bet National does not start its caucus meeting with a karakia. But when Bill English goes to Waitangi’s Te Tii Marae he says a beautiful mihi. Then when he speaks in English he says: “Thank you very much for having me. Is it time for the cup of tea?”. He was not going to take on Ngapuhi like he told the country he would do. Gerry Brownlee would. Gerry Brownlee wrote in the paper that he would make a stand on treaty issues and he is doing it in Parliament. I believe he is the man to take National forward and come a few weeks’ time I do not think we will see much more of Mr English.  
Can I speak in support of one of my constituents who is getting a very tough ride from members of the National Party at the moment? I refer to its deputy leader. I thought it absolutely shameful that after his incident on Sunday those members raced to the paper to say how outraged they were by it and to shed crocodile tears over it. It is outrageous that they cannot wait to sidle up to the media to tell them how unpopular he is in the caucus. It is terrible the way they are undermining the deputy leader of the National Party. I want no more unemployment in Otaki. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 When this Government took office in 1999 it was bequeathed the design of a new national qualifications system the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) which was the legacy of the New Zealand First - National coalition. The NCEA was designed to overcome inadequacies and tensions within the system that had been fiercely debated for over 20 years. That old system culled people out of education and was overly rewarding to those with a narrow skill set but the NCEA fitted that new Government’s agenda. All the intellectual work had been done for it; it was a gift all packaged up and ready to deliver. All the Government had to do to make the NCEA what Professor Black from the London School of Education described as “potentially the best assessment system in the world” was to implement it properly. Sadly the implementation process has been a saga of one botch-up after another. The Education and Science Committee exposed a few of those botch-ups late last year but of all the system’s failures the most serious by far is the appalling escalation of fees that this Government is making parents pay to participate in the NCEA. The implications of the callous disregard that this Government has shown for the day-to-day financial realities of middle to low-income families are horrendous. I use the term “callous disregard” because that is what it is.  
Members on the other side of the House spout forth sanctimonious rhetoric about how much they care about working-class and low-income people and how they will close the gaps. Yet the very students who were locked out from further educational participation under the old system—the ones NCEA offered so much in the way of educational access—are to be locked out again by this Government. If members on the other side really do care about the people they say they care about they will go to the Minister of Education and tell him to fix it. He has the power to fix it at this time.  
The facts are pretty clear. For the 2002 school year entry costs were increased dramatically. The effect of that was to put real pressure on middle to low-income families. A report by the Child Poverty Action Group late last year shows just how much of an impact that made on families. For example children were turning up at exams who had been too scared to tell their parents about the fees. The fees had not been paid; therefore they could not sit the exams. It is recorded in the documents. Here is another one from a teacher: “Students were coming to my office asking me to withdraw them from certain unit standards so that their bill would go down. In some cases the kids had got credits but they still wanted me to wipe them out.” Those are the experiences of 2002. The Minister claims that there is financial assistance for those on low incomes but that is only for people on benefits or incomes equivalent to benefits. The facts are clear—the level of costs in 2002 acted as a huge access barrier to those on low incomes.  
So what does this Government do in that circumstance? Already access is denied but it bumps up the cost for 2003 by 100 percent and in some cases by more than 100 percent. What did it think it was doing? How could it possibly believe that such draconian increases would not impact as educational disincentives? The total amount Government will achieve through this qualification tax—a parents’ tax—is $4 million. It spends more than $100 million on the Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement scheme now and $10 million on a knowledge wave conference and yet it is locking out some of the people it purports to support before they can even get anywhere near the wave. They cannot even get into the water because the Government is locking them out. The rich will not mind—it will be middle to low-income workers who will be hurt badly. The ones who will carry the wounds of this dumb tax grab will be the children whose abilities and capabilities will not be publicly recognised and that is a disgrace.  
What does the Minister say? He says that the principals did not tell the Government about any problems in 2002. Well the principals told him time and time again about a serious crisis in staffing and he pooh-poohed them so he cannot defend himself by saying that had the principal told him of problems different decisions would have been made. I have a letter here from a principal of a decile 2 school in Northland—Dover Samuels’ area—saying how the increased fees will monumentally impact upon his students. He has written asking the Government to revisit those fees. The Minister still has time to fix up this mess—he could revisit the fees and he could find the $4 million. 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill 
First Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill be now read a first time. 
 I introduce this bill as the member of Parliament for the Christchurch Central electorate. My electorate includes both the headquarters of the Christchurch City Council which is promoting this local bill and the location that this bill is all about. It deals with the Robert McDougall Art Gallery and the land on which it stands. For those members not familiar with Christchurch I will describe the gallery’s location. It is at the back of the Canterbury Museum it faces out on to the Botanic Gardens and it is one of the most glorious locations I would suggest of any building in this country. 
The art gallery was opened in June 1932. It was Christchurch City’s first dedicated art gallery for the city’s permanent art collections. The gallery has now been emptied and the collection that it held for the last three-quarters of a century—albeit only about 2 percent of the collection could be shown—is being recreated for the new Christchurch Art Gallery. Those members who have been in Christchurch recently will have seen this glorious building emerging on the corner of Montreal Street and Gloucester Street—one of the most stunning new buildings I have ever seen. It opens on 10 May. 
The issue with which that leaves the city is how to secure the best public use of that building and the land commensurate with the intention for which it was gifted. Fortunately an obvious solution is at hand. The Canterbury Museum already the second-most-visited museum in the country is about to undergo a fundamental internal redesign and expansion. The location of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery makes it a natural and integral part of those plans. In order to progress those pretty uncontroversial proposals the council needs this Parliament to amend the current law. 
There are a number of questions that Parliament reasonably needs to ask about these proposals. Question one is whether this bill is compatible with the original gifting of the land which led to the 1925 enactment by Parliament of section 54 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act and the Public Bodies Empowering Act which authorised the construction of the art gallery. I believe that it is compatible. 
Question two is whether the bill will protect the innate value of the art gallery building. The building has a category 1 listing under the Historic Places Act meaning that it is a place of special or outstanding historic or cultural significance or value. It is also listed as a group 1 heritage item in the Christchurch City district plan. I believe that the bill does protect those innate heritage values. 
Question three is whether the Christchurch community is onside with these proposals. Those members who know Christchurch will realise that every 10 years or so there is a significant public debate about the future of an existing building or the design of a new one. I have to say the debate on this building has not been as intense or emotive as those previous ones but last year the city council did initiate an extensive public consultation process to seek the views of the community on the future use of the building. There were 2 days of public hearings in May last year and this bill is a direct result of those hearings. Deliberations of the council subcommittee after that consultation decided that the bill was the appropriate way to proceed. 
So the purpose of the bill is to update and modernise the legislation by which the council holds the land and also to update the council’s powers to lease out the building which it is unable to do under the existing 1925 legislation. The only safe method of carrying out that modernisation of law is through the promotion of this local bill. 
The fourth question is whether the bill will secure appropriate use of—and absolutely secure that appropriate use—this highly sensitive site. The bill makes it clear that the land on which the art gallery is situated is vested in the council as a local purpose reserve under the Reserves Act and also makes it clear that the council is prohibited from selling the land. As a result of those public hearings and other consultation by the council the bill limits the purpose for which the building may be leased to the “display of art and decorative arts and crafts and ancillary purposes”—obviously use by the Canterbury Museum is appropriate. The bill also ensures that any lease of the land and the building cannot be for a term of longer than 50 years. 
An issue that arose during the public hearings was what should happen to the land and the building once they were no longer suitable for leasing out by the council. It was suggested by many of the public that the land and the building should return to the Christchurch Botanic Gardens which it is situated next to. In the council’s view that is a matter that should be decided by future councils; this Parliament and the current composition of the Christchurch City Council should not make decisions for a future community and a future Parliament. So a future Parliament would have to enact any change to the legislation to enable a more fundamental change of use. 
The council believes that as this land is situated on its own certificate of title it would also not be feasible to have it automatically included in the title of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens which is itself subject to another Act of Parliament the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act. And of course the Canterbury Museum is subject to a third Act of Parliament. 
These four questions are all important and I as the local member have already been lobbied by local people with views on these issues who are keen to submit and to appear before the select committee dealing with the bill. I am also aware there is a real need for the issue to be resolved quickly so that the museum redevelopment can commence. 
I would like to commend the bill to the House. I would like to thank parliamentary and city council staff for their work on the bill to date. I also note that the Standing Orders ensure that the bill will be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 In speaking to the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill I want to say at the outset that the National caucus will support this particular legislation going to the select committee—but with some serious concerns. 
As a local National Party member of Parliament I am surprised by the lack of communication that has occurred about this legislation. I think that shows either arrogance or incompetence by either the member in charge of it or the elected representatives on or the staff of the Christchurch City Council. This item came up for discussion at our caucus last Tuesday and most of us had no knowledge of this vesting bill. 
The important thing that needs to be ascertained during the select committee process is what the intentions were of that great benefactor to our city Robert McDougall. Earlier last century he left this wonderful facility to the city of Christchurch. I readily acknowledge that time has moved on and that a wonderful new facility is being established at huge cost but that still does not mean that the Christchurch City Council or anybody else should ignore what I presume were the very specific wishes of Robert McDougall. 
Mr Barnett in his address said that the Christchurch City Council is the promoter of this bill and also said that the Christchurch City Council had engaged in extensive consultation. Two National Members of Parliament live within the city of Christchurch—Gerry Brownlee and myself. Neither of us have had any approach at all from any member of staff of the Christchurch City Council. So I ask Mr Barnett to reflect on that during the select committee process because if he acknowledges that that is a process of extensive consultation then I seriously disagree with him. I say to Mr Barnett that if he is involved again in being in charge of a local bill he also should take the opportunity of making sure he consults colleagues. 
I give him an example of a bill that I was involved in in recent years. It was a similar local bill which has become the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. That bill was passed through this House with a tremendous amount of consultation. It was introduced into the House under my name but under the auspices of the Summit Road Society and on many occasions as it liaised with me I insisted that it also go and liaise with all members of Parliament in the Christchurch area. I think that is a policy we should follow. 
The Mayor of Christchurch Mr Garry Moore is without doubt a simple character and fiercely loyal to the Labour Party. Here we are talking about a facility for the display of art and I remember—I think it was last year—when the Prime Minister was on the mat for forging a piece of art. In fact a man here in Wellington—I think his name was Mr Sharpe—put his head above the parapet and laid a complaint with the police so that they would investigate whether our Prime Minister had committed an act of forgery. It was interesting that Mr Garry Moore the Mayor of Christchurch sprang to her aid but it was rather embarrassing for the mayor and for his wider extended family that the man who had laid the complaint was the mayor’s brother-in-law.  
Jill Pettis 
: Mr Moore is a chivalrous chap. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member can make a speech if she wants but I suggest that the Christmas party that Mr Moore then attended with his extended family was probably a frostier affair than it might well have been. 
I summarise by saying that we support the legislation going to a select committee and we will take the opportunity of examining very specifically the wishes of that great benefactor to our city Robert McDougall but I do ask that both the city council—the mayor and his councillors—and Tim Barnett the member for Christchurch Central who is in charge of the bill please take the opportunity in the future to make sure that they liaise with fellow members of Parliament in Christchurch. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Robert McDougall Art Gallery is an icon in Christchurch. It was a sad day when the doors finally closed but it was an inevitable one because the very success of the gallery meant it required a new facility. The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I will be interested to see whether there are submissions raising the concerns that Mr Carter referred to. I for one certainly received a letter from the Christchurch City Council about this bill and I am sure that other Christchurch members received the same. So I am surprised to hear that Mr Carter did not. I am also surprised to hear Mr Carter say that he lives in Christchurch City because I thought he lived in the Banks Peninsula District Council area. 
Notwithstanding that I look forward to a vibrant new future for the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. It is not for me to try to prescribe how the building is used. There are many possibilities. I would obviously like to see it continue in some way to be a place that facilitates artistic endeavour. The Sunday afternoon concerts in the atrium area were always a highlight particularly with their proximity to Hagley Park. I would like to see something like that continue but that is a matter for others to decide. I am a little concerned about the length of the lease being too long or the building becoming overly commercialised but other than that I think this is a very positive move. I look forward to the bill coming back to the House for its swift passage. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the member ever been there? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: No I have not been to the gallery. We have a wonderful gallery in Dunedin. Visiting a wonderful gallery is one of life’s great experiences I am sure and visiting the new gallery is something I can look forward to. As I read through this bill one thing strikes me as a member of the ACT party and as a taxpayer and a ratepayer: I would be extraordinarily reluctant if I were a member of the Christchurch community to vest anything in the Christchurch City Council. It is a city council that cannot even get right such basic requirements of its community as its sewerage scheme. Sewage still pours out into the estuary as I understand it yet in this bill we are saying that we think the council is a highly skilled property manager. That is essentially what this bill is about. It is about vesting property in that city council. That idea just does not seem to make any sense. 
If the city council in the “People’s Republic of Christchurch”—Mr Carter referred to Mr Moore as a well-known devotee of the Labour Party; a fact that I would have to say makes him pretty suspect from the start—cannot actually perform why would we want to vest anything in it? If the council cannot get right the fundamental requirements such as sewerage and rubbish collection—and Christchurch does have a major problem with its rubbish collection system—why would we want to vest anything in it let alone something that is obviously very valuable and very meaningful to the people of Christchurch? What is at stake here? 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Does the member live in Christchurch? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The building is a neoclassical perimetrical design and I am sure that Dover Samuels will enlighten the House and tell us all exactly what a neoclassical perimetrical design actually is. I am sure it is very important. It is appropriate that these historic buildings do receive adequate and full conservation by members of the community. 
But I cannot help but wonder why members of the Historic Places Trust for example do not actually step forward and say: “We do not want this building to be a cost to the people of Christchurch. We will pick it up. We will raise funds.”? Why do they not say that they will ensure that the building is treated in the way it should be treated—as a very important and historic part of Christchurch? Yet again we have the concept of “Let’s bung it all on the ratepayers or the taxpayers. They can pick up the tab.” 
Well I suspect there are a lot of people in Christchurch and indeed throughout New Zealand who have never visited an art gallery. They would actually struggle to pay for it. Is there a cost? I image that one needs a silver coin. 
Rod Donald 
: It’s free. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Oh it is free. I see. So in other words it will not cost the city council anything to maintain it. Is that what Mr Rod Donald is saying? [ 
Interruption 
] He says it is free so there is no cost. I say to Mr Donald that the reality is there is a cost to the people of Christchurch. There is a very significant cost. But that cost of course is being “redistributed” which is another favourite word of the Labour Party and the Green Party. They say: “Let’s redistribute this cost amongst everybody so that we the users can benefit and get it nice and cheaply and so that people who do not enjoy abstract art or whatever and who have other interests like going bowling or playing golf on Saturday still have to contribute.” The concept in this land-vesting bill is that the cost is spread amongst the entire Christchurch community for the benefit of a relatively exclusive few. 
Well if that is way the public really want it so be it but I am not at all sure it is. So it is important that submissions come from the people from ratepayer groups in Christchurch. It is important that people come before the Local Government and Environment Committee or at least inform the select committee of their views so that it can better decide whether this bill should progress in its current form. The ACT party will support this bill going to the select committee. 
Hn LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in this debate first of all to support my colleague Tim Barnett who has brought this bill to the House. I congratulate him on the work that he has done in ensuring that this important piece of legislation is able to be implemented in time for the opening of the new art gallery. Perhaps I am being a bit premature; I guess that the bill will not be passed by the time that the new art gallery opens. [ 
Interruption 
] But the museum redevelopment is what it is for. 
I remind the House that the local purpose reserve under which the council will hold the land is “for the display of art and decorative arts and crafts and ancillary purposes” and therefore I do not think there is anything that people need to get upset about in terms of the proposals. But I did hear David Carter speaking earlier on and I thought his contribution was—well pathetic was the word that sprang to mind. He commented on whether notice had been given in respect of the proposed changes. The Standing Orders of course require that such notice be given to constituency members of Parliament in respect of a local bill. Without pointing out the obvious fact that David Carter has now been beaten twice by Ruth Dyson and therefore is not a constituency member of Parliament I note that the city council despite that still gave him notice. It gave everybody notice. It sent notices to the Hon Jim Anderton Tim Barnett Gerry Brownlee Rod Donald Clayton Cosgrove Ruth Dyson myself David Carter Ron Mark Marc Alexander and Mahara Okeroa. That is a full list of all the MPs who either base themselves in or represent different parts of the Christchurch electorate. In fact David Carter does not live within the Christchurch City Council boundaries. 
Rod Donald 
: He told us that he did today. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well the last time I looked he lived within the Banks Peninsula District Council boundaries so unless he has moved in the last week I do not think he can even claim to be a member living in the area affected by this particular decision. 
I congratulate the city council on taking a very broad-brush approach. It not only has complied with Appendix C of the Standing Orders—the requirement that constituency members of Parliament be informed of a local bill—but has in fact gone a step further and given that information to other MPs from that area and surrounding areas. I have a copy of the letter that I received and that I know other members received as well. Perhaps Mr Carter does not read his correspondence. We were told that the city council had resolved to promote a local bill it was made clear what the objects of the bill were and a copy of the bill was attached for our information—details of what the bill was going to contain were attached for our information. Then there was this little bit at the end: “If you require any further information on this matter please contact the council’s legal services manager Mr Peter Mitchell phone 941-8549. Yours faithfully Peter Mitchell Legal Services Manager.” How much more notice and information do members require before they feel they have been given an opportunity to consider this matter before it even comes to the House? One of the protections around the local bill mechanism is that this kind of very direct notice is given to members of Parliament so that those concerns can be raised early in the piece. 
So it is a bit rich for Mr Carter to stand in the House and indicate that somehow members of Parliament had been left out—thinking of course that the Christchurch City Council might have something against them. That would be absolutely surprising because David Carter’s own brother was a member of that council until relatively recently and therefore David Carter has I would have thought a very good working relationship with council officers. I know that they not only went out of their way to make sure that the rules of the Standing Orders were complied with but went beyond the strict requirements and observed what lay behind the Standing Orders—and that is providing the ability for people to have a good look at this information before it comes to the House. 
That being said I would again like to congratulate my colleague Tim Barnett. I know he is looking forward to shepherding this bill through the House and I look forward to support on all sides of the House for what is a very sensible adjustment to the law. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I shall briefly exercise my right of reply. I know we have equally important business coming up in the House later tonight so I do not want to take up our time. First I reiterate Lianne Dalziel’s comments. I did ensure firstly that the city council undertook not just the minimal consultation it has to in terms of our Standing Orders but went further. Secondly as sponsor of the bill I ensured that it had undertaken some public consultation because the last thing we need is for what should be primary consultation between the city council and its public to happen through a select committee. So I ensured that happened and I think the concerns that remain in the community are limited. I do urge the select committee to organise a hearing in Christchurch assuming they get sufficient submissions so that they can hear about the issues first hand and visit the site.  
Second I will just respond to Mr Eckhoff’s comments. For long we have known that Mr Eckhoff has chosen to want to lay waste to our national bird but now he seems to be after our cultural icons as well. One of his political friends from the Business Roundtable once referred to Christchurch as the people’s republic and within 7 days the city council had printed a number of T-shirts reading “The People’s Republic of Christchurch”. I do not think those from outside the city always understand the very nature of the Christchurch version of public ownership of what is important. We have a higher level of services there because we kept control over strategic assets.  
Third I thought both Rod Donald and Lianne Dalziel illustrated in their comments the kind of affection and passion that those of us from Christchurch have for our icons. This new art gallery will be an icon and so is the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. We are all concerned to see that the legislation that Parliament can give to the city to protect that icon is up-to-date and in place. The art gallery the arts centre the botanic gardens and the museum comprise the southern hemisphere’s largest and most significant cultural precinct and the legislation before us today will help to ensure that that precinct is even better in the years to come. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee 
International Treaties Bill 
Second Reading 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the International Treaties Bill be now read a second time 
. I am disappointed that this bill will probably be voted down after the second reading debate although I should be optimistic that members will be convinced during this debate to change their minds just as I am optimistic that Team New Zealand will probably come back from three down. I am very pleased that the bill has received serious consideration by the House and by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Several proposals for improving parliamentary oversight of international treaties were contained in the first interim report on the International Treaties Bill which was discussed in Parliament late last year and there was a very constructive atmosphere in the select committee in producing these recommendations. The chairperson of the committee in the last Parliament Graham Kelly said the bill was ahead of its time—a comment I welcome because I think it recognises the moral and principled case underlying this bill.  
It is what one might call a democratic deficit when Parliament can debate and vote on everything else bar international treaties and agreements. This is strange when international treaties are so hugely important in our lives now. Who can doubt the importance of the Kyoto Protocol or treaties governing the World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? It is interesting that the bill has received its strongest support from what one could call the left and right of the political spectrum. The Greens are keen on treaties that implement global responsibility in citizenship peace human rights environmental and social justice areas while we strongly oppose those treaties and agreements that reinforce the power and wealth of rich companies and multinationals as with most of the so-called free-trade agreements. ACT is also keen on treaties although it commonly takes an opposite stance to the Greens.  
We have a democracy issue here that affects everyone. The opposition to this bill does not argue against its moral basis. Essentially its arguments are that it is not practical. So let us look at some of those arguments. They say there are so many treaties and amendments to treaties now that Parliament would get bogged down considering them. That is not true. Parliament is perfectly capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff and spending serious time on only those treaties where there are substantive controversial issues. Other Parliaments in Europe which have parliamentary approval processes are able to be selective about what treaties they discuss. In our legislative system we put a lot of routine non-controversial legislation through in Statute Amendment bills which go through in a flash.  
Another argument against my bill which allows for some parliamentary discussion of bilateral agreements or treaties when they are still under negotiation is that somehow this would disadvantage the Government in negotiations. Now nobody is objecting to confidentiality on some details of the Government’s position but it strengthens our Government’s hand in negotiations if there has been a discussion of the broad themes and the other Governments we are negotiating with know there is a popular mandate for the New Zealand Government’s stance. Too often secrecy is used as an excuse for the Government signing up to things that the people of New Zealand do not agree with. We saw this happening with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which was negotiated in the 1990s; once people around the world including New Zealand saw what sovereignty their Governments were giving away they torpedoed the whole agreement.  
That is why it is important that we know what the Government might be giving away in the current negotiations over our commitments to GATS. Already we are stymied on having compulsory local content quotas on television films and music because a past Government gave them away in GATS commitments without proper discussion. Yes treaties do involve us giving up for a time period some of our sovereignty but the Greens distinguish between giving up some sovereignty—that is working collectively to help such critical environmental problems as global warming as we see in the Kyoto Protocol agreement—and giving away sovereignty to multinational companies for their enrichment as is accomplished through GATS or the World Trade Organization.  
New Zealand as a world citizen needs to be involved in monitoring and reassessing treaties and agreements as we go down the track including those treaties associated with the operations of the World Trade Organization. We can do that through the select committee process now but it should be complemented by a parliamentary approval process for any proposals the select committee comes up with. For example it is important to monitor what is being done right or wrong by the new Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The Greens think this arrangement has given too much control to Australia to determine our food standards. Let us monitor it in a full parliamentary manner.  
There is another important democratic issue which explains why parliamentary approval processes for treaties are more common in countries with proportional representation. We have not yet had a majority Government under MMP so how can we say that a Government negotiating a treaty represents the majority of New Zealanders? Potentially we get into a terrible bind where a minority Government approves a treaty but has not got a majority in Parliament to get through the implementing legislation. We even had a situation over the Singapore free-trade agreement where one of the Government parties—the Alliance—was in disagreement with Labour so Labour felt obliged to go to a parliamentary debate and an indicative vote to prove it had the majority—and it got that through National Party support. In essence that debate was a concession to the validity of this bill.  
Any disjunction between the treaty and the legislation we put through this Parliament creates major dilemmas for our courts. Some treaties do not require implementing legislation but the courts still have to take them into account in determining cases. But they do not know how much to take them into account because they do not know how much support these treaties had in the House.  
There are well-known cases where judges have used treaties to overrule arguments based on our legislation. In the Tavita and Puli’uvea immigration cases for example the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child were used to allow families with children to stay in New Zealand. Some treaties do not require legislation to implement them so they do have quite an impact on law even though they might not have had a majority in the House. Some treaties are implemented through regulations proclaimed by the Government not Parliament although we do have a Regulations Review Committee to hopefully send the Government the message when these regulations are inappropriate or without adequate mandate.  
There has been an inquiry by that select committee effectively to put guidelines around when regulations flowing from treaties can be used. It would clearly be much better if the treaty from which the regulations flowed had parliamentary approval.  
I am appreciative of the recommendations in the select committee’s interim report on this bill. I hope the Standing Orders Committee will implement those recommendations concerned with such things as the right of committees to analyse bilateral agreements and not just multilateral treaties; expansion of national interest analyses hopefully to include the Treaty of Waitangi implications as in my bill as well as human rights local government and international implications; and a broader public consultation process before national interest analyses are produced. The Standing Orders Committee could also take on board a recommendation that treaties can be examined during the negotiation phase and one that there can be parliamentary debates on selected treaties.  
There are also suggestions from the select committee to the Government about more briefings for select committees on what treaties are coming up better information to the public on treaty development and more time for select committees to discuss treaties when they are in the process of formation. All these things are very good but they are not a substitute for a proper parliamentary approval process. We do live in a democracy and I am sure we will one day come to a situation where we do have parliamentary approval for treaties 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I welcome the report to the House of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and support its majority recommendation that the International Treaties Bill not proceed. At earlier stages of the House’s consideration of the bill I indicated that the subject-matter was important that the issues arising out of it merited scrutiny and discussion but that the Government would likely not support its proceeding beyond a second reading debate. The opportunity to examine thoroughly the international treaty examination process of Parliament has been a productive exercise. It followed the trialling of the current parliamentary treaty examination process which began in 1997 and which was formally adopted as a permanent part of the House procedure in 2000. The select committee has been able to reflect on the effectiveness of that process and also to discuss possible improvement to it.  
As a result of this exercise the Government has made a number of enhancements to the process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now provides the select committee with a 6-monthly list of international treaties both multilateral and bilateral which New Zealand is involved in negotiating. Briefings are offered to the select committee on the background to any of those negotiations that the select committee wishes to receive. The list of treaties is publicly available and that also allows wide input into the process. It means that the committee rather than having to go through the time-consuming process of examining every bilateral treaty can focus its examination on those that it believes to be important.  
As Minister I have provided to the select committee the criteria used to determine which bilateral treaties should be submitted to the parliamentary examination process; the criteria I believe are relevant and appropriate focusing on subjects that are likely to be of most interest to the public; treaties that represent major developments in bilateral relationships or have significant financial implications; and treaties that the select committee itself indicates it is interested in examining. The select committee acknowledges in its report to this House that these changes: “provide a substantial improvement in the transparency of the process and keeping Parliament informed of the executive’s treaty-making activities”.  
The Government has also responded to the request for strong national interest analyses of the treaties under consideration. The more relevant information that can be put into the national interest analyses the better members of Parliament can understand the implications of treaty actions. The analyses will now set out the pros and cons of a proposed treaty action; the social environmental and cultural effects of being party to the treaty; and the different views that might exist revealed in the process of consultation. The national interest analyses will be posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and we are also looking at putting on the website the text of all treaties to which New Zealand is a party.  
As well as scrutiny of treaties that New Zealand is proposing to ratify Parliament also has a key role—in that its assent is required for any legislation required to give domestic effect to a treaty undertaking. The Government cannot take binding treaty actions unless and until our domestic law is fully compliant with the provisions of the treaty concerns. So it is wrong to say there is a democratic deficit as the member who has resumed his seat has said. This process is inherently democratic. Constitutionally the power to negotiate and agree to treaties on behalf of New Zealand is the prerogative of the executive. That remains the case . This is fully consistent with democratic principles since the executive owes its existence to parliamentary support which in turn reflects electoral support.  
There are a number of clear reasons why this bill should not proceed. Significant changes have already been made to increase the role of Parliament in treaty making and this is continuing. This process should be allowed to bed in before more far-reaching constitutional change is considered. The proposal that all treaties and there are about 40 treaties that we sign up to each year go through the parliamentary process would have implications for parliamentary time which is a scarce resource. Where there have been important treaties—the Kyoto Protocol and the Singapore closer economic partnership were two examples used by Mr Locke—this House has found the time to debate them. The possibility exists—but to go through every one of the 40 simply would not be possible with the constraints of time in this House and in the select committee.  
There are also practical problems in what the bill proposes. In some instances the prerequisite of parliamentary approval may delay binding treaty action by the executive unnecessarily and have negative consequences for that reason.  
Least practical of the bill’s provisions is that the Government must disclose New Zealand’s negotiating position to the House while negotiations are still under way while also disclosing the position of our negotiating partner. That could damage or undermine New Zealand’s position in the course of the negotiations. It is simply unrealistic to do that and it would be a breach of the confidentiality normally expected by the negotiating partner. For all of these reasons the Government does not believe that the approach or the mechanisms proposed in this bill are appropriate.  
In conclusion the process of treaty making has evolved considerably in recent years. Changes have been made to strengthen Parliament’s ability to effectively scrutinise treaties that New Zealand enters into. The process has become more open and more transparent. I believe that it is working well New Zealand’s practice compares more than favourably with other democratic systems and further major change is not warranted at this time. The bill ought not to proceed. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Were this bill to be implemented it would require Parliament to give its approval to any treaty action prior to final ratification by our country. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee spent a lot of time on this bill of Mr Locke’s. It was the view of the majority of that select committee that it should not proceed and it should not be implemented. That decision was reached for a very good reason. This Parliament has wasted enough time on this rather foolish legislation. I do not think I have seen a member’s bill receive so much attention from this Parliament. The bill was first introduced in September 2000 and it received its first reading in November 2000 after which it was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. That select committee made an interim report in October 2001 and it made a second interim report in December 2001. Members of this House then had a debate on those interim reports. Finally the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee made a final report on this bill of Mr Locke’s. Now on 19 February 2003 we are debating it yet again.  
This Parliament has wasted enough time on what has essentially been a shabby little deal between Labour and the Greens. I shall explain what I mean by that. A moment ago I said that this bill was introduced into Parliament on 21 September 2000. Straight after that— 
Rod Donald 
: That’s what you said last time. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Rod Donald who is interjecting right now warned Labour that the Greens might not support them in a confidence vote if they went ahead with the free-trade agreement with Singapore. Rod Donald suggested that if the Labour-led Government would support Green MP Keith Locke’s member’s bill on international treaties then “that would certainly solve our dilemma and be good for the whole political process.” What a tawdry little deal! This is one of the smelly things about MMP. Here we have the Greens trying to get their own way by saying to the Labour-led Government that they will not support them on a vote of confidence unless they support this stupid little bill of Keith Locke’s. The Greens were grumpy over the Singapore free-trade agreement or the closer economic partnership as Labour members call it in their spin-doctor way.  
But that was not the end of the matter. That happened on 9 October. On 14 October 2000 it was announced that Labour had appeased the Greens by agreeing to send Keith Locke’s member’s bill to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Prime Minister Helen Clark said at the time that while Labour was prepared to support the bill going to the select committee there were no guarantees beyond that point. Just after that announcement by Labour we saw the first reading of the bill in November 2000 and its subsequent reference to a select committee.  
Then we had the whole charade of these interim reports back from the select committee. It was a tawdry carry-on by this Labour Government and its supporters the Greens. If Labour had been honest it would have simply said that this legislation was a no-goer it was ridiculous and that would have been the end of the matter. But no they would have lost the support of the Greens on votes of confidence and so they did this tawdry little deal.  
Let me explain briefly to members why this bill is in fact foolish. The reason is simple. If this Parliament—instead of the Government—had the ultimate say on international treaties we would see what happens in the United States. I have been involved and I know the system quite well. In the United States they have realised that if Congress—their equivalent of our Parliament—had the final say on international treaties which its constitution provides for there would be an absolute shambles. On trade treaties for example they realised that the problem would be that Congress—the House or the Senate; it does not matter much which one: take the House for example—would look through every paragraph and every line of a trade agreement.  
Some members of the House would say “Hang on my constituency back home produces this product we will not have that in this trade deal. We will take that line out.” Another representative would say “Oh no we will take that line out. That one is okay but we will take that line out.” There would be an absolute shambles as every line of a trade treaty was renegotiated by the hundreds of members of the House of Representatives in Washington. That shambles would have occurred in this Parliament if this legislation had gone through.  
In the United States they have developed a process whereby Congress—both the House and the Senate—pass legislation to give the Government the authority to negotiate these treaties. It may be thought that that would have solved the problem. In the United States the Government has not had authority to negotiate trade treaties during the entire Clinton administration. The Clinton administration never had negotiating authority from Congress during its entire administration. That was a long time; it was basically the entire decade of the 1990s. The United States was limited in what it could do on international treaties during that entire decade. On several occasions President Clinton asked for the authority from Congress to negotiate treaties. He offered a small fortune. When members know they have the Government over a barrel they extract every last bit of blood. Members were saying “Sure we will vote for you to have the authority to negotiate treaties Mr President but you know about that motorway that we require and that $250 million project required in my constituency? You approve that project Mr President and you will have my vote for having treaty negotiation authority.”  
It is believed that on his last attempt President Clinton offered billions of dollars to get the authority from Congress to negotiate international trade treaties. He failed even though billions of dollars were offered. He failed to get the members to grant him the power to negotiate international trade treaties. With the change of administration in the United States President Bush had the same dilemma. He finally got there by the slimmest of margins but a lot was promised to gain that trade treaty negotiation authority. 
We in New Zealand are so dependent on our Government being able to go ahead and sensibly negotiate international treaties. We should not hamstring the future of our country. We should not put such a mill wheel around the neck of our country by doing this to it. That is why Keith Locke’s legislation is so stupid. I do not know where Keith Locke has spent his life but it sure ain’t in the real world. Mind most of the Greens have never spent their lives in the real world. We know that they snuggle up to terrorists and we know some of the crazy things they believe in but if they cared at all about the future of our country they would not impose on this country’s future the kind of process and procedure that would so hog-tie a future Government in its ability to negotiate international treaties. Fortunately a majority of members in this Parliament still understand the importance of these matters and that is why this bill was rejected by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and will be rejected by this Parliament. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I found Dr Smith’s contribution strange. I must say that I find most of his contributions strange but his lecture on the American system was one of the strangest of all. He left out large chunks of what that system is. The American revolution which was the second of the great bourgeois revolutions—the English being the first that being the second and the French being the third—was not dedicated to allowing democracy to flourish. Those who led the American revolution with the support of the American colonists dedicated it to protecting the very system that the member upholds: private property including slaveholding. So an enormous number of checks were put into place on popular democracy and the American system is certainly not a system that people would want to emulate now if they wanted to go to the greatest and most advanced form of democracy.  
Let us deal with treaty making in terms of our parliamentary democracy and what we can do. The Progressives are not voting for this bill to go forward but as I have said in all the speeches I have given on this subject the aim of this bill and the philosophy behind it are what we must head towards. As a member of the Alliance I first put this bill into Parliament. Throughout the whole process of this bill I have seen an enormous and continuing change in the way that we handle international affairs. When the bill was put into the House in 1997 it was not drawn in the ballot until the next Parliament. I believe that Ken Shirley from ACT also had a bill in at the same time. Nevertheless there was pressure both from within Parliament and outside to change the process particularly in the light of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which National tried to shove through the Parliament most undemocratically and to the detriment of our people. I pay tribute to Don McKinnon—and I do not normally do that to Don McKinnon—who was then the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He set out adamantly opposed to change but then saw that the tide was for change on this issue and with his foreign affairs officials and all parties in this Parliament we took part in getting the sessional order that we have now. In essence that sessional order allows for all treaties to be tabled so that we have advance notice of them.  
But clearly that is not enough. Genuine concerns have been raised by all speakers and in particular by Keith Locke about what can happen if we do not subject treaty making to the scrutiny not only of Parliament but also of the people of New Zealand. It is in that direction that the Progressives and I particularly want to move but we caution that we need to take such a step in practical ways so that we carry Parliament and the population with us.  
I believe that the greatest step forward towards allowing us as a Parliament to be able to take part in an intelligent and informed way on the treaties before us is to set up a joint standing committee on treaties and in the report I stated that that was the position of the party I belong to. The argument against it—and I know this is an argument that Phil Goff subscribes to at the moment—is that our Parliament is not of sufficient size to be able to support another committee like that. I do not accept that. I believe that such a committee is necessary even now. Such a committee made up of all parties obviously and well-resourced would allow our Parliament to take a step towards being able to—independently of the executive—scrutinise the treaties before us.  
Not only did I find Dr Lockwood Smith’s speech strange—as I am sure I will find the succeeding National Party members’ speeches if we have them—but also I find it strange that those who are fervent advocates of globalisation do not and will not recognise that the logic of putting that position of living in an interconnected world means that more and more our legislation and our policies reflect that. Clearly members of Parliament are not confined just to so-called domestic issues. They must grapple with the larger international issues for the benefit of New Zealand.  
At present we do not have such a joint standing committee. One possible bridge towards that if we are not in agreement that we should allow for such a committee à la the way that the Australians do it is to better resource the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I advocate that we should think about that and I will certainly advocate that the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee be given greater resources. What does it need? At the very least it needs to be able to buy in independent advice in order to scrutinise the number of treaties and agreements that are either before us or that we are thinking of entering into.  
I must take issue with the Greens though in another area. As I say I support the direction of this bill. I ask for the right to be allowed to say that it is not the way forward on this issue. But there is a certain paranoia about what the Government does and does not do. I point to the fact that on the Singapore free-trade bill—the treaty—National and Labour voted for it. In Cabinet the then Alliance which the Progressive party in this Parliament is a successor to differentiated its view and made sure it went through the agreement with Singapore in fine detail. We came to the conclusion that we would not vote for it and we insisted that Parliament be able to debate it and similarly the Hong Kong bill. It does not do a case any good to promote myth and paranoia that behind-the-scenes deals are being done in order to put one over people. In the case of for instance the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the moment there is a need for that to come in front of the population. There is a need to have all the issues regarding GATS subjected to a national-interest test. [ 
Interruption 
] The GATS agreement is before us at the moment and members of Parliament should become conversant with it because it is extremely important to the development of New Zealand—detrimentally if one believes as I do or it could be for our betterment as conservative people believe. But in any case we need to be able to scrutinise those matters in an intelligent and informed way.  
In summary I have a great interest in this bill as it was originally introduced by me and I believe it has played an important role in forcing these international issues upon us. However I believe that we are at the stage in this Parliament and in the country where the most important step we could take at the moment is to set up a joint standing committee on treaties as the Australians have or at the very least to begin that process by better resourcing the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.  
At the moment the Australian committee does that. It has been appointed by the Commonwealth Parliament to review and report on all treaty actions proposed by the Government before any action is taken that binds Australia to the terms of a treaty. The committee is specifically resourced for that. Australia has one exception to the rule that treaties be tabled before a binding treaty action is taken. Where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade certifies that a treaty is particularly urgent or sensitive or involves significant commercial strategic or foreign policy interests then that is an exception. But that is also a danger. I expect that when we look at the issue we will see a need to make provision for emergency situations and for situations where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Government have to act quickly but we must not allow that to be something that enables the executive to escape scrutiny.  
In summary I say we will move towards taking the area of making treaties away from being the prerogative of the executive and bringing it under the control and suitable democratic scrutiny of the whole Parliament. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will not support the continuation of this bill. The Minister of Justice has set out a number of reasons for not supporting the bill. When one reads the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee one can see how clearly the committee looked at the bill and the reasons that it should not proceed. The bill obviously raises a major constitutional issue: the role of Parliament in the approval of treaties. The select committee reported that if implemented the bill would require Parliament to give its approval to any treaty action prior to final ratification of that treaty. Constitutionally speaking under current law the power to negotiate and agree to treaties on behalf of New Zealand is the prerogative of the executive. The majority of the select committee believed that fundamental constitutional position should not be altered.  
It seems to be a feature of the Westminster system that those countries that have devolved their constitutional rights from the United Kingdom share the view that parliamentary approval should not be given for certain types of treaties and that treaties should not be self-executing. I note that the United Kingdom’s Parliament shares the same view as New Zealand Australia and Canada. That seems to be a feature of the way in which we in New Zealand have developed. Other countries such as France the Netherlands Spain and the like take a different view. But that seems to work very well in the Westminster system—and as the previous speaker indicated the British system was probably one of the first modern democracies if we put aside what may have been the situation in ancient Greece.  
The National Party seems to have taken a dislike to Mr Locke as much as it has to the bill which seems to be very unfortunate. I do not know quite why that is. I will say to Mr Keith Locke that as we said in the earlier discussion in this House this bill is probably ahead of its time in so far as the New Zealand Parliament is concerned. I take the comment made by Mr Robson and his view that perhaps we should have a select committee that looks at all these matters but the essential problem facing the New Zealand Parliament is that just as the Parliament itself would not have enough time to consider all the treaties that would come the House neither would a select committee. We hardly have enough members of Parliament to sit on the present select committees and we all know the problems that took place in August and September last year without a two-member party suggesting that we should have yet another select committee. I am sure the major coalition partner in the Government would not be terribly happy with the Progressive party suggesting there should be yet another select committee.  
I was interested in the submission made by the New Zealand Law Society on this bill. The Law Society indicated it does not support such a revolutionary approach as that set out in the bill. Mr Locke will be pleased to think that his view was thought to be revolutionary because he might fancy himself to be something of a revolutionary type of person though that is not meant to be a criticism of him. However the Law Society does not support such a revolutionary approach to increasing Parliament’s role in treaty making. Rather it supports a more evolutionary approach consistent with recent changes to Parliament’s Standing Orders. The new parliamentary treaty examination process incorporated in Standing Orders 384 to 387 requires the Government to present and refer treaties to Parliament prior to ratification together with a national interest analysis and it provides for consideration of such treaties as has been mentioned by Mr Robson. It was very interesting to read the Law Society’s careful submission on this matter and I should mention in passing that Parliament always appreciates submissions from the Law Society which goes to the trouble of scrutinising legislation at great length and is of great service to Parliament in that way.  
The main reason that I oppose this bill is as much from the practicalities that are involved as from anything else. I have taken the trouble to look at just where we are in Parliament at the moment and to consider where we might perhaps be if we end up examining all the treaties that the Government may want to get into at any one time. Currently we have 33 bills before select committees. Some of those bills even go back to 1992. I see the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill has been sitting in a select committee since 31 July 1992. I just wonder what the local member is doing about it—that is whether the local member even knows he or she is the local member and just what is happening to that bill. All I can say is that in a past life when I was here if a bill had been before a select committee for more than 6 months in my role as either the local member or as the junior Government whip I would have been given hell by the Prime Minister of the day who would have been wondering what on earth was happening with regard to that legislation and why it was not back in the House. Yet that bill has been sitting before a select committee since 31 July 1992.  
We also have another bill—the Kerikeri National Trust Bill—that has been sitting before a select committee since 30 November 1995. It is quite incredible that Parliament has not been able to get on with its work and get those bills under way. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill has been before a select committee since 31 July 1997. We have a Conveyancers Bill and I know that all lawyers would like to know what the future of that bill would be. I have an interest in that area. The Conveyancers Bill is suffocating dying or whatever the expression is before the Justice and Electoral Committee where it has been since 13 February 1998. The Forests Amendment Bill has been before another committee since 10 August 1999. Those bills are stuck in select committees and have not even been reported back to the House. Those are just some examples of the 33 bills that are before select committees. In fact there might be one or two more but when we have 33 who is counting? I then had a look at the number of local bills and private members’ bills and saw we have 15 of those floating around. When I looked at the bills that were before the House at various stages—first reading second reading etc.—I saw there are 44 of those.  
So currently we have 92 pieces of legislation at various stages and we are well behind in what we are doing. To try to get this House to do even more select committee work and debate in this House would really bring this House to an end. There are important bills such as the Commissioner for Children Bill which has been languishing on the Order Paper awaiting a second reading since 5 April 2002. For example the dog control bill was reported back to this House in 1999 and has sat here for almost 4 years doing nothing. It took an unfortunate tragedy to have something done about that although that bill went backwards rather than forwards.  
This House has more than enough work on its hands at the moment. Clearly the administration of the Order Paper has not been handled well by the Labour Government. It is quite a disgrace that we have so many bills hanging fire around this House. We have television bills racing bills and so on. I would have thought that the use of weapons guns and suchlike would be important but the Arms Amendment was reported back on 22 February 2001 and nothing has happened to it since then. The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)—another law and order matter—is still sitting on the Order Paper where it has been sitting since 20 July 2001. The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) was reported back on 30 April 2001. The Order Paper is in complete disarray. It is an indication of how this minority Labour Government cannot run this House. How can we ever expect it to run the country when it cannot even run a simple Order Paper?  
The suggestion that more work should be given to this House when this minority Labour Government cannot currently run the Order Paper beggars imagination. New Zealand First cannot possibly support this legislation although in passing I would like to commend the member who introduced the bill for his courage in bringing it before the House. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This bill raises an issue of major constitutional significance: the respective roles of the executive and the legislative wings of Parliament. It is not surprising therefore that the bill has been before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade committee for a period of over 2 years has been given substantial consideration and has come back to the House for several debates during that time. There were no United Future members on the select committee that considered the bill and it is therefore appropriate that United Future commends the members of the select committee for the thorough work that they have done in looking at this bill with diligence and in looking at the broader issues it has raised. They did not just confine themselves to the limited provisions of the bill but also looked at the wider issues of the relationship between the executive and the legislative wings in so far as that relates to the approval of international treaties by New Zealand.  
Under the Westminster democratic system this legislation would constitute a radical departure from the longstanding constitutional convention that gives the executive the sole prerogative independent of the legislative wing of Parliament to approve international treaties. Against that is the MMP environment that has developed in New Zealand where we have become and are becoming accustomed to a greater scrutiny of treaties by Parliament both in general debate and through the select committee process. In my view that is a good move. In the MMP environment we recognise the breadth of views that the House now presents and that environment gives the opportunity for a breadth of view to be expressed even in respect of those matters that would normally have been the executive’s prerogative.  
We have also started to become part of the global village. That term has been used a lot. More and more we are becoming part of the international scene and international agreements play an increasingly large role in the lives of New Zealanders. That is another reason that New Zealanders perhaps have a greater interest in and express a greater diversity of views on both the relationships that we should have with different countries in the world and exactly how those relationships should be expressed. That move goes very much hand in hand with the MMP environment that this Parliament has inherited and again I welcome it. Prior to the introduction of this bill and afterwards there have been developments in the way that the executive has dealt with treaties—in particular the reforms that have been included in Standing Orders 384 to 387 which have provided a measure of involvement by Parliament in the issue of treaties. That has provided a significant measure of involvement by the reference of certain treaties—admittedly not all—to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.  
This bill would go further than that. Firstly it would extend such reference without exception to all treaties and particularly to bilateral treaties. Secondly it would require consideration of treaties during the course of their negotiation and prior to their finalisation and acceptance. The select committee noted that the bill had been introduced only a few months before the reform of the Standing Orders had really come into effect and that those reforms needed a chance to be evaluated. In its interim report in 2001 the select committee suggested a number of issues that could properly be addressed by the executive with regard to treaties and commended those suggestions for consideration by the House. I note that in the final report of the select committee it indicates that even though it is now over 2 years since the bill was introduced members of the committee still do not feel that enough time has elapsed. The number of treaties that have come before the committee has been small and the procedures set out in the Standing Orders have not really had a full test.  
In the view of United Future this bill has some significant problems. The first is the large number of treaties that would come before the House; we have been given the figure of 40 per year. Mr Locke indicated that he thought a number of those would be minor matters that could be dealt with fairly speedily but my experience in the House is that if 40 treaties have to be placed on the Order Paper and considered by Parliament we would have a gridlock situation that would leave the peak-hour traffic position in Auckland looking insignificant particularly with the propensity of members to filibuster and the Greens’ refusal to grant urgency in terms of the House’s time. The effect of considering 40 treaties on the Order Paper would demonstrably stop the House getting through its business efficiently.  
The second major problem is the speed issue. Although there is a provision for urgency and subsequent ratification of a treaty in the bill nevertheless it is important at times that treaty negotiations proceed to a conclusion with a degree of speed. Again the procedure of the House is not always conducive to that occurring. Personally I would prefer to see urgency and priority being given to Treaty of Waitangi resolution bills rather than to international treaties on the basis that we should be getting our own house in order more speedily than developing relationships overseas.  
The third problem is in the area of confidentiality. I notice again that Mr Locke suggested that a treaty in its general form could come before the House and that there could be a debate on the general issue rather than on the specifics in order to protect confidentiality. However the bill does not provide for that. It provides that a treaty must be before the House before it can be accepted. That presupposes that all the wording of treaties both confidential and non-confidential should appear here in the House before treaties are signed off. I see major problems with that particularly when dealing with bilateral treaties in situations where the negotiating positions and the points of view of both sides are publicly notified before there has been a sign-off on the part of the executive.  
In summary I believe the bill would be unduly restrictive on the power of the executive. I do not believe because of the problems that I have alluded to that the bill is appropriate. United Future does not consider it appropriate that this bill should be passed. In practice—and indeed the select committee considered it to be a constitutional convention—successive Governments of New Zealand have not become parties to treaties until after any domestic legislation necessary to implement them has been enacted. In so far as that has developed as a convention in itself that provides some protection along the lines that Mr Locke was looking for.  
Constitutional developments should evolve slowly. That is because of their importance in terms of change and also because the conventions and the positions that have developed have tended to stand the test of time and any changes should be considered slowly. In a sense the bill has defeated itself as many members’ bills do. Its very consideration has raised the issues and brought about the changes sought in a way that is somewhat more measured than the bill itself provides for. This bill has had lengthy consideration. It has resulted in a wide-ranging series of questions coming before the House for consideration in new procedures for things like briefings by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade more Maori consultation a more transparent process for the approval of treaties and a strengthening of the national interest analysis documentation. Mr Locke is to be commended in so far as he has achieved quite a bit of the bill’s intentions—even though the bill itself has not been passed—with regard to providing greater transparency in the process and greater awareness by Parliament and its select committee of what is going on.  
United Future will not support this bill at this point. We believe that the measures that have already been taken do go a long way towards achieving the intentions of the bill and should be allowed to develop before we reconsider the situation. In fact we believe the procedures that have been developed meet the intentions of this bill without the weaknesses to which I have previously alluded. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I have much pleasure in participating in this debate on the second reading of this bill. I also want to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their sterling hard work on this bill.  
The Government does not support this bill having its second reading for both practical and constitutional reasons. Labour believes that the process of entering into international treaties should have as much democratic participation as is practicable and desirable in an open society. However the solution proposed in the bill would seriously compromise the Government’s ability to carry out its international business in a timely manner. There are many treaties that would qualify under this bill. Potentially this bill could swamp Parliament with much more work than it could handle. Parliament would have as much time as was needed to examine a treaty—an open-ended veto on the process.  
Thanks to Mike Moore this Parliament already has great involvement in treaty making. It was Mike Moore as foreign affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party who campaigned for greater parliamentary involvement in treaty making back in 1996 and 1997. In large part because of his efforts Cabinet established a process in late 1997 by which Parliament is informed about the details of proposed treaties and has the opportunity to examine them in detail. In 2000 we made permanent the trial process for the examination of international treaties which increased Parliament’s involvement and the system is generally working well.  
As I mentioned earlier there are both practical and constitutional reasons that the Government does not support this bill having a second reading. The practical consequences are that this bill would require the Government to put before Parliament all treaties to which it proposes New Zealand should become a party. The bill also requires that before New Zealand becomes a party to any treaty there must be parliamentary approval. That has some practical consequences because on occasion we need to ratify trade treaties urgently. Putting those ratifications in the hands of the House could substantially delay their ratification with real and negative consequences.  
The constitutional consequence of the bill in respect of treaty making would be to take authority from the Government and give it to Parliament. With regard to Murray Smith’s comment that has not happened in any other Westminster system. It is not undemocratic for the executive to have the ultimate authority over treaty making. The executive comes from a majority in this Parliament and has the support of the largest single block of the electoral population in New Zealand. It is absolutely democratic that the executive should exercise that particular authority.  
Another practical consequence of the bill is that our Government would be required in the midst of a negotiating session with another country to disclose to the House both our negotiating position and that of the other negotiating party. As our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Hon Phil Goff has said that would put us into a terrible position and would make the situation a nonsense.  
I end by saying basically that the stronger national interest analysis that will be provided will ensure that all perspectives and views are taken into account and that Labour believes that the process of entering into international treaties should have as much democratic participation as is practicable and desirable in an open society. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We know what the outcome will be—this bill will be consumed in the fiery furnace just as Nebuchadnezzar’s guards were consumed. That is a reference of course to the story in the Book of Daniel but it is not really what I wish to talk about tonight. Instead I want to talk about three aspects relating to this bill. 
First of all I will pick up the theme that Dr Lockwood Smith spoke about. The reason is that I support his view that the process of this bill now in its second reading exemplifies the cynical abuse of power in the MMP environment. This bill was always going to fail but it came at a very critical point in the parliamentary cycle when the Greens were required by the Government to support its position. So on 8 November 2000 the bill was flicked to a select committee and the plan was simply for it to languish there. It was not a complex issue so some delaying strategies had to be developed. It was a bit like Quintus Fabius Maximus known as Cunctator who waged those highly successful battles against Hannibal utilising delaying tactics. As other members have said in the course of this debate we have seen how successful those delaying tactics were what with two interim reports and now a final report. That is the first issue I wish to identify because the Greens have been had. They were had in the last Parliament and that game has been played out by the Government in this Parliament where the Greens are now seen as more expendable.  
The second issue I wish to touch on is why in simple terms this bill was bound to fail. It was bound to fail because it cuts across a settled constitutional convention that it is for the executive to conclude treaties. Those arguments are well rehearsed in the report on the International Treaties Bill in the life of this Parliament. There are two very good reasons. The first is that the majority of the members of the committee believe that the impact of this treaty-approval legislation would be a substantial and inappropriate constraint on the executive in treaty-making arrangements. It is quite clear that the executive would find itself unable to proceed with some treaty actions on particular issues because the House would not approve those proposals. The second point is the practical consequence of the bill and the expressed concern that the Government would be required to disclose its negotiating position to the House. So the bill was bound to fail.  
The final point I would like to make has specific reference to the bill and its operative provisions. The particular point I wish to refer to in the bill is related to the extent to which clause 8 “National interest analysis” tracks the provision in the Standing Orders. What Mr Locke has basically done is plagiarise those provisions and insert them into his bill. There are only two subtle exceptions. The first I do not seek to deal with as it touches on clause 8(1)(a) but the second is more interesting. If one compares the relevant provisions of Standing Orders 384 to 387 and the national interest analysis provisions in those Standing Orders one sees that clause 8(1)(d) has an addition. If this bill were ever to pass the issue that Mr Locke would have us consider is that in the national interest analysis on any treaty proposal we should be looking to achieve consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi. We saw in that reference by him a vain and fortunately unsuccessful attempt at political correctness. 
I urge members of this House to accept that it is no longer appropriate not to talk in this global way about the Treaty of Waitangi and about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Where we decide as a Parliament to reflect the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in primary legislation we should do so with clarity so that it is absolutely plain to the readers of the statutory language what we intend to achieve. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is quite simply outrageous for this Parliament to retain the Crown prerogative for international treaties in the MMP era. Indeed the committee accepted that European countries with proportional representation have parliamentary involvement in the treaty-approval process. Yet despite that the majority view is to maintain the status quo. That was bad enough under first past the post; then at least Governments had the semblance of majority support because they held a majority of the seats if not a majority of the votes. Now we have a fair electoral system and it is transparent that this Labour Government is a minority one. It has only 52 votes guaranteed out of 120 plus another two that are likely but not always. That is not the majority of a mandate. The era of minority coalition Governments is the very reason that Parliament should take over control of the treaty ratification process because then decisions could be taken by real majorities in this House. However I am afraid that the first-past-the-post dinosaurs—and I have to cite both Mr Goff and Dr Lockwood Smith who were working hand in glove to defeat this bill—will not let go of the Crown prerogative.  
The process surrounding the Singapore free-trade agreement was mentioned by a number of speakers. It is actually an example of what is bad about the present system and what would be possible if Keith Locke’s bill were passed. The Singapore bill was debated in this House. It was a strong debate and passionately held positions were expressed. A vote was taken—which was a Clayton’s vote because it had no meaning though it was a vote all the same—and there was a solid majority in favour of the free-trade agreement because predictably National voted with the Labour Government. Equally predictably I guess the Greens opposed that bill as did the junior coalition partner to Labour at the time the Alliance—may it rest in peace. But the real decision took place in Cabinet and that exposes the current process as a sham. The Labour part of the Government had only 49 seats at the time yet it commanded absolute power.  
It is extraordinary to hear Matt Robson say that he would vote against this bill when it was originally drafted by him. One would have expected him to support something that he was the author of. I have to give him credit for standing apart from the majority report and for the fact that he has proposed his own halfway house—the special treaty select committee which would at least be a timely step forward. However as Mr Robson says himself: “In a globalised world treaties and conventions have a greater and greater impact on the ordinary citizen. Their representatives in Parliament require adequate information to be able to protect the interests of the electors.” That sounds to me like a compelling argument for supporting a democratic treaty ratification process. It is very sad that Mr Robson has decided to come down on the side of the status quo; at the very least he could have abstained on this bill.  
The current improved—to give Mr Goff some credit—select committee process is still inadequate. The Government can still ignore what the select committee has to say. It gives it only 15 days in which to do its work; there is no debate in Parliament and no vote. I hope the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee stands by its indication that it will make a special report to the House on the treaty examination process because there are issues that need to be dealt with. The Green Party has already made a submission to the Standing Orders Committee to improve public and parliamentary participation in this process but that is very much second best. Reform is long overdue not ahead of its time.  
It is not just the Greens who are calling for greater democracy in the treaty-making process. I need go no further than our eminent Clerk David McGee who is one of the strongest proponents of reform. I recommend to all members that before they cast a rash vote on this bill they read his paper  
Treaties: A Role for Parliament?  
which was published in the  
Public Sector Journal 
 of March 1997. There are one or two selected quotes I would like to make from that paper just to highlight the importance of the need for change. David McGee says the need for change can be illustrated by the treaty establishing the World Trade Organization in 1994: “This is one of the most important international agreements that New Zealand has ever entered into but Parliament was never asked to vote for or against membership of the WTO.” He continues: “The system whereby many treaties never come before Parliament for consideration and those that do are considered only indirectly for the legislative consequences is a deficiency in the parliamentary process.” Under the heading “Treaties and the Courts” he says: “What has turned a less than satisfactory parliamentary situation into a thoroughly unsatisfactory one are the related judicial developments illustrated by litigation.” He goes on to give some examples.  
When it comes to a parliamentary role Mr McGee poses the question: “It is where this leaves Parliament that demands a reconsideration of the treaty-making process. Is it justifiable any longer to leave this as an exclusively executive function?” He answers his own question by putting in detailed proposals for a regime requiring parliamentary endorsements of treaties to Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee. As he says “If these proposals are adopted parliamentary endorsement of a treaty would be required before the treaty could be ratified.” Of course he wrote that several years ago and we are no further ahead.  
I would like to hope that we could have made progress with this bill. Some might say that we don’t need it because of course the Singapore Free Trade agreement is faltering the trade deficit has gone up enormously since that came into effect the Hong Kong deal has failed to fly because of rules of origin and the one with the United States is seriously flawed. The Government was certainly floored by Philip Wall the US Embassy head of mission who said only last week: “I have to report that as of now the United States is not prepared to commit to bilateral trade negotiations.”  
But seriously despite the apparent stalling of the Government’s fixation on free trade we need this bill. To give members a couple of examples Food Standards Australia New Zealand is an agreement that should have come before this Parliament. It was set up by legislation in Australia and there is no parallel legislation in New Zealand. In the end we have one vote out of 10 on that council. If Parliament had had a say I doubt that we would have agreed to such a subservient position which is equivalent to that of an Australian state. Right at the moment Parliament should be debating what New Zealand will be offering under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Instead the Government has given the public 25 days to make submissions on what public services will be opened up to corporate control. Once the Government cuts deals under GATS there will be no come-back. The Government could agree to scrap the Overseas Investment Commission and all the rules it is meant to apply; and the kiwi share for Telecom and to open up water health education and local government to privatisation. Such decisions will bind future Governments which is why Parliament should make decisions that will affect our sovereignty as a nation. Instead Parliament will have to pick up the pieces of GATS by being forced to pass amending legislation to give it effect—whether or not we agreed to the decision in principle that the Government had taken in the first place—because of that last vestige of the old first-past-the-post system the Crown prerogative. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I stand to oppose the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which requires that the  treaty-making power of the New Zealand Government be made subject to clear democratic control. This bill is very similar to a bill that my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley prepared. Keith Locke and Ken Shirley’s bills sat in the member’s bill list waiting for the ballot for many many months. When Mr Locke’s bill was drawn the ACT party was delighted because our purposes in wanting to bring the treaty-making power under democratic parliamentary control are purposes that people from left and right can equally recognise. For example the Greens see current treaties like the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the globalisation moves typified by the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) as threatening and we might see a temporary advantage in not having to pass such things through the scrutiny of Parliament. We might think that there is reason to endorse the words of the Hon Lockwood Smith or the Hon Phil Goff who in effect have said that democratic scrutiny is awkward inconvenient time-consuming and potentially embarrassing and that they rather like it the way it is.  
What we heard from the National Party and Labour—assisted by Matt Robson of the Progressive party which was formerly the Alliance—was a set of pleas for privilege: the privilege of not having to explain oneself of not having to persuade people of not having to carry the country with one’s decisions of being able to be part of an elite group using the levers of the State and with other wielders of power covertly bringing into our law rules that New Zealanders would not approve of if they knew what was happening.  
We have a very good example of that. In 1989 New Zealand decided to formally abolish the death penalty. At that time there was significant debate about whether it could be entrenched. At the same time we were having a debate about whether we could in some way entrench our bill of rights. The Government decided after a lot of debate that it was not feasible to entrench in a politically acceptable way something as universal as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act though its terms included fundamental human rights. The Government passed the bill abolishing capital punishment but then subscribed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights knowing that that subscription—as far as legal theory goes—says that the New Zealand people can never reverse their decision on capital punishment.  
This is not a speech in favour of capital punishment. It is simply saying that cynical politicians like the Hon Douglas Graham who knew that he could not succeed in getting New Zealanders to say that there will never ever be an occasion for capital punishment used the treaty-making or treaty-accession power to try to put something beyond the people of New Zealand. Had that been debated in this House it would never have flown but he did it at the same time as we were adopting a bill of rights intended to entrench basic liberties. That is not unusual.  
The arguments raised by the Hon Phil Goff and endorsed by Lockwood Smith for not allowing Parliament the power to scrutinise were arguments to ensure just that outcome. For example we have the argument that disclosure of negotiating position is the problem. Does that really tell us that the United States does not manage to secure its negotiating position simply because it has to persuade the Senate before the President can ensure that a treaty will be binding? What about all of the other OECD countries with which we would like to be compared? It is really only a residue of the British Imperial system that has left us in a position where we can hear speeches saying—as Lockwood Smith did and as the Minister Phil Goff did with slightly less rancour—that it is stupid or foolish to attempt to ensure that New Zealanders cannot be bound by international documents.  
We have had a fair raft of foolish treaties and they are not something that Parliament should keep out of. We have had Prime Ministers with a rush of blood to the head who wanted to big-note it in international fora; Prime Ministers currying favour—possibly even for personal benefit—wanting to be known for things internationally once the little stage of New Zealand had become far too small for them. We have had treaties that have been promoted and brought into force with words that New Zealanders should not tolerate. In my time in this House I have seen the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Bill sign New Zealand up to words that in effect say that some of our war heroes were war criminals. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: They may not be war heroes if they are criminals. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Because of weasel words some of our war heroes are now war criminals. As the former Minister for Disarmament just interjected the bill makes them not war heroes but war criminals—people like General Freyberg and the men who managed to ensure that Malaysia was not Vietnam. They deliberately signed us up to words that very few New Zealanders had ever heard about—that declared in effect that we would rewrite history and make those men war criminals. Mr Robson was able to enjoy the plaudits of the representatives of countries that have absolutely no respect for our freedoms. He could go off to New York and be clapped for committing us to obligations that New Zealanders would not have stood for.  
My select committee has also seen the misuse being made of this issue. As President of the Court of Appeal in the Tavita case of 1994 Lord Cooke gave fair warning that the judiciary was salivating at the thought of being able to elevate international treaty obligations to a kind of superior law that could mean that it did not have to listen to Parliament. Lord Steyn who was here just late last year repeated that theme. He asked why the Court of Appeal had not used treaty obligations—international human rights law—to just forget about waiting for a Parliament that was not falling into line with his preferences. The Human Rights Commission appeared before our committee to tell us that its highest priority a year and a half ago was to turn housing into a fundamental human right—in effect creating in New Zealand the situation in the United Kingdom where 80000 Algerian and Iraqi so-called refugees are sitting in hotels at the ratepayers’ expense. That is a human right never voted on by the New Zealand Parliament but our Human Rights Commission thought it could use a vague reference to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights as justification for turning it into an obligation in New Zealand.  
We believe that Parliament should debate these matters. A sort of ruthlessness seems to accrue to National and Labour when they have held power and the Greens have done this House a service by bringing this bill forward. We will support it and it will come back. We hope that next time the attitude of the other parties to this bill will not be dictated by such a cynical hunger for power.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Treaties Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 16 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Noes 101 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Prostitution Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I enter into the debate I had suggested having slightly shorter times but I was told that that would be negated by when I took leave so we will just consider the question that the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a second time. I will endeavour to give all parties at least one speech. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. Many thought that this day would never come. Those who 20 years ago started to make the link between public law and public health and concluded that making criminals out of prostitutes was simply the wrong policy seemed out on the edge of debate. So did those in this House—Maurice Williamson Judith Tizard Katherine O’Regan Laila Harré Jenny Shipley Sue Bradford and many others—who championed law reform and did not get thanked by many for doing so. Those who fought against this bill even getting to a select committee certainly hoped that this day would never come. Those who thought that last year’s general election result had killed this bill hoped this day would never come but as we all know it takes much to stop a good idea whose time has come.  
This bill was last debated here over 2 years ago at its first reading on 8 November 2000. By 87 votes to 21 the House agreed to send it to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee took two messages from that vote: first there was something wrong with the current law that needed to be sorted; second the model of law reform proposed in the bill decriminalisation was a good starting point for rigorous committee examination. In summary the committee took that brief and in the report before us today has delivered on it handsomely.  
First we looked to the sex industry in New Zealand as it is now. Then we examined the current law its relevance to that industry and how the proposed law would improve or worsen things. We agreed that the current law was untenable. It is based on a nonsense rewarding the strong and punishing the weak. It inflates the risks of prostitution while punishing those who seek positive solutions. Thus only 2 months ago the police raided a brothel in Wellington and used the presence of condoms there to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in order to prove a brothel-keeping charge.  
The current law is also unacceptably liable to police discretion. The number of convictions under the current law especially for soliciting reduced by two-thirds while this bill has been before Parliament. What clearer indication could there be that the current law is a gesture not effective and not a law and order tool? 
The select committee then moved to look at the decriminalisation model. I must put on record that few words are as confusing as “decriminalisation” and “legalisation”. They are so readily open to misinterpretation.  
In the area of prostitution law designing a decriminalisation bill is a four-stage process. The first stage in decriminalisation is to identify the risks from the activity. Coercion sexually transmitted infections becoming trapped in the industry all are examples of the risks associated with prostitution.  
The second stage in decriminalisation involves identifying which of those risks can realistically be dealt with by law and which require public education improved services or whatever. For example people offended by brothel signage need at the end of the day to have a legal solution to their complaints. Whereas people who are trapped in the sex industry need community support a sympathetic benefit system and positive public attitudes in order to exit and to move on with their lives.  
The third stage in decriminalisation involves separating the risks that do not need a special legal solution from those that need special prostitution-focused law. Thus the issue of sex workers aged 16 to 18 is not dealt with by the general law whereas employment conditions are.  
The fourth stage in decriminalisation is to create that new prostitution law that is in essence the bill before members today. It directly addresses potential harm and risks unique to prostitution. If it were in force sex workers would work in an environment in which both brothel owners and individual workers would have a legal obligation to take all practical steps to promote the use of safer-sex devices. Sex workers would if aged between 16 and 18 be safe from prosecution but their clients and others managing them would be liable to a prison term of up to 7 years. Sex workers would be able to activate law with increased penalties for coercive behaviour by those in power over them. They would also have the right at any time to withdraw from a contract to provide a sexual service if they felt the situation was getting threatening.  
The select committee was made very aware of the blocks stopping people leaving the sex industry. We amended the bill to state that the refusal to work as a sex worker would not affect anyone’s entitlement to State benefits. We also added to the bill the establishment of a review committee to report in between 3 and 5 years. One of the jobs of that committee will be to examine how the Government and the community can best deter people from entering prostitution and make it easy for them to leave it if they choose.  
One of the problems faced by the select committee was when New South Wales reformed its prostitution law in 1995 to a similar decriminalisation model; it set up no evaluation system. The facts have been hard to come by but it has enabled bizarre lies to be told. New Zealand law reform must be and will be better than that. The ending of the effective criminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand would also expose the sex industry to the range of law including the Resource Management Act the Employment Relations Act the Summary Offences Act and the occupational health and safety legislation which governs the rest of society. Through changing the basic legal status of prostitution this bill strips away many of the barriers that prevent the benign effect of general law easing the risks in prostitution.  
Some members have claimed that the select committee substantially amended the bill away from that model. That is not the case. Many changes were made—most were to make sure the bill worked better. The significant changes without exception made the bill more attractive to the vast majority of members. We added a clear statement that the existence of the bill is not an endorsement or moral sanction for prostitution. We removed the defence of reasonableness for clients of under 18-year-old workers who might claim that they thought the sex worker was over 18. We widened the responsibilities for provision of safe-sex materials. We granted local bodies the right to ban offensive sex industry signage. Also we set up a review committee to monitor how the bill works and report on how best to stop people entering and help them to exit from the sex industry. At the Committee stage we will consider further amendments; some may float changes on limited licensing and zoning and depending on their details I think they could be supported.  
Analysis of significant public debates in New Zealand in the last quarter century unearths some remarkably repetitive patterns. Many law reforms such as stronger human rights law the provision of needle exchanges abortion the decriminalisation of homosexual activity have had a public health focus. All have been vociferously opposed by the same sorts of people using the same sorts of arguments and the same loose relationship with the truth. In spite of what they claimed on every one of those issues those reforms have not led to disaster. Indeed those measures and others have all enabled people to lead more complete less risky lives and have enhanced their individual freedom. The Prostitution Reform Bill does just that.  
Some speaking in this debate will make outrageous and utterly wrong claims about the impact of law change and prostitution in New South Wales. That evidence is a pack of lies. Fellow members of Parliament I believe that the select committee has done the job this House required of it on the bill. The current law is unacceptable. The proposed law before us tonight is workable and justifiable. Vote against the bill tonight and the current victims of prostitution the workers being coerced those needing the protection of our general workplace laws those looking for a way out of the industry will wait another generation for fair law. Their future is in members’ hands. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 First I would like to pay tribute to Katherine O’Regan who did much work to progress these issues during her terms in Parliament. Had it not been for her common sense and her practical and compassionate approach to this issue this bill would not have made it as far as this. I also want to recognise the work of Maurice Williamson Anne Tolley and Wayne Mapp who sat on the select committees who heard so many of the submissions. Finally I want to thank those whom I usually oppose—Sue Bradford and Tim Barnett—for the huge amount of work they have done in seeing this bill as far as this. I would also like to thank some of the staff of the Prostitutes Collective in Dunedin and some of the women’s and church groups that took the time to debate with me both sides of the argument.  
I intend to vote for this bill in the second reading for a number of reasons. For me it is not about endorsing prostitution. It is not. It is about giving some people the same rights as other New Zealand people. I believe it will reduce exploitation in the industry. It is about correcting an anachronistic anomaly that says it is OK for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to solicit. The double standard of morality that operates which allows a sex worker to be arrested for soliciting a man for the purposes of prostitution but protects him from the law should he be the one to approach her is totally indefensible in my view. I cannot accept that this sort of double standard exists in this century.  
I support the bill because it makes it illegal to coerce anyone into providing sexual services. This bill makes it illegal to provide or assist child prostitutes. This bill allows educational and health resources to be made available. It is unacceptable that the current laws inhibit the dissemination of safer-sex information and related products. I do not condone prostitution. I think people are entitled to a better life than one that can be provided by selling sex. I would be heartbroken if one of my children decided to enter the sex industry—prostitution plays no part in my dreams for them—but if they did I would want to know that they had the same rights as any other New Zealander.  
I would want to know that my daughter had the same rights as my son. I believe in one standard of citizenship and for me that extends to all aspects of New Zealand life. I would want to know that as far as possible the industry was as safe as it could be and above board. I would counsel sex workers to get other sorts of work as I have counselled other people who have come into my electorate office. But I would not dismiss them or pretend that they did not exist.  
To the Catholic action group who sent me a note today saying that I would burn in hell if I voted for this bill I say: “Do some self-evaluation. Whatever happened to the Christian principles of love tolerance compassion forgiveness equality and charity?”. At my old Sunday school in Mosgiel we were taught that those were important Christian principles. From memory I do not recall there being a book of bigotry and hatred but perhaps I skipped that chapter.  
The bill in its present form is a practical solution to the realities that exist outside these doors. It is not about endorsing prostitution; it is not about condoning prostitution. I hope members will look to their consciences and vote for a positive change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member—and it will be someone from the United Future party—I announce to members that if two members from a party want to halve their calls they will be entitled to do so. I presume there is no objection to that course. There is not. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I say at the beginning that the aims of this bill are commendable and I do not oppose it because of any lack of concern towards prostitutes or on any moral basis—though my conscience does guide me in this issue as it is supposed to—but I oppose this bill primarily as a legislator because I believe that it is bad law and it will not deliver the results that the supporters of this bill promise. In fact I do not believe it is possible to achieve the worthy aims of this bill by decriminalising or legalising prostitution in any form at all. I believe initially that it may be possible to convince one’s conscience that this bill should be supported because of a genuine desire to help those trapped in an awful lifestyle but I believe that many are beginning to have second thoughts as they realise the implications of this so-called reform bill.  
This is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”. It is designed to reform society’s attitude to prostitution not prostitutes’ attitude to society. The sponsor of the bill has said himself that decriminalisation simply changes the status of prostitution. It would remove the criminal-related stigma of prostitution and I do not believe that it is healthy for us to change the status of something that every one of us in this Chamber believes is unhealthy and would not want our children to be involved in.  
Members of such groups as the Catholic Women’s League which the sponsor claimed in his booklet was supporting the bill have changed their minds also. In their letter of 13 February they make it clear that they are opposed and deeply concerned about it as associated Catholic women also are. Those of us who are Christians deeply regret the bigoted remarks that were sent in an email today. We disassociate ourselves from them because they are not worthy of the Catholic or Christian name and we do apologise for them. Cardinal Williams would be in opposition to it also as he has expressed his opposition to this bill.  
My first point in opposing this bill is one I believe really emphasises the difficulty that supporters of this bill face. I agree with Tim Barnett—and he will be happy to know that—when he says that this bill is built on a decriminalisation model. That model implicitly rejects the position that prostitution per se needs to be or indeed can be controlled and instead focuses on controlling the genuine harm that can arise in association with prostitution. That is a true statement but let us be clear about it. The supporters of this bill do not argue for control in any way shape or form. In fact they categorically state that prostitution cannot be controlled. Their idea therefore is to give up trying to mitigate its bad effects by law and instead decriminalise and hope that everything will work out OK. I cannot submit to that philosophy.  
Again and I quote the sponsor’s own words of explanation in his briefing paper  
Delivering Decriminalisation 
 when he says: “Legalisation involves a licensing regime which would need to be developed administered and resourced. Experience worldwide”—and these are Tim Barnett’s own words—“is such that a regime inevitably generates an unlicensed sector.” Those are not my words though I do agree with them because that is the evidence we find all around the world. We try to decriminalise and legalise in order to get rid of the criminal element only to find that it springs up again in parallel and does more damage than we had in the very beginning.  
I hope the members of this House will remember these words when they are thinking about supporting the second reading of this bill and then moving amendments to introduce licensing and zoning because they will be changing this bill from a decriminalised model to a legalised model which the supporters of the bill themselves have said is a disaster. If members visit Victoria in Australia they will discover that its legislation of this type has not worked and I have not heard one prostitute or member of the Prostitutes Collective suggest that we should follow that example.  
Why does the law need to be reformed? Tim Barnett says that the present laws and the environment they create act as significant barriers for workers to exit the industry. I cannot accept that; it is an incredibly twisted argument to make. The sponsor is suggesting that the law is an impediment to anyone exiting the industry. First let us make it clear that the stated intention of this bill is supposed to be to discourage anyone from entering prostitution and to make it easier for workers to leave. If prostitution is so bad—I do not hear people saying that it is a worthy occupation—and I am in full agreement with the sponsor on this matter it would be normal in a democratic lawful society to express that by making the activity illegal and to send a message to anyone in our society that this is not the kind of employment we want to see encouraged.  
But no the supporters of this bill want us to believe that by decriminalising prostitution fewer people will be tempted to join the activity and more will leave. I think that that is absolute rubbish and that is why I shall oppose this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that decriminalisation will be seen by the vast majority of New Zealanders—especially the young people—as a legitimising of it. It will become easier to enter what supporters call “the industry” and it will be harder to leave. A young university student struggling with finances will become more vulnerable. After all we are talking in this bill of not just decriminalising individual prostitutes and their activities but of allowing pimping. So a man or woman can seek out a young attractive woman and encourage persuade and lure her to allow that man or woman to pimp on her life and have the opportunity to make money out of selling her body. It is a matter of the innocence purity health and future of such young people. I mean young people because if this law manages to keep the age limit at 18 years that age is still so young to be enduring the horrors of prostitution as a lifestyle.  
One of the scariest things I read in the sponsor’s booklet was his answer to the question of how the bill helps street workers. I quote: “Some sex workers are working to support a drug habit. These workers are often younger disadvantaged and work on the street rather than in brothels. Under the current system these out of all sex workers are the most dependent upon the goodwill of individual police officers.” So we are going to help them by making it OK for them to sell themselves on the street. Is that the kind of New Zealand we want for those poor young people who are disadvantaged? I do not think for a minute that that is what the sponsor of this bill wants but it is the logical conclusion. We are now trying to pass a law so that young drug addicts selling themselves for sex on the streets can have a good relationship with the police. Do we want these young people on the streets or do we want to help them to get a better life?  
The bill claims that it will protect young people—those under 18—from prostitution but the fact is that it is already illegal for someone under 18 to be involved in prostitution. It is illegal now. If we are concerned about under-age prostitution then let us strengthen the Crimes Act but this bill will not give greater protection for those under 18.  
I can explain it no better than by a letter that was sent to me by ECPAT New Zealand Inc. who have said: “One view being touted is that the proposed bill will better protect children. However section 149A of the Crimes Act 1961 already criminalises under-18-year-olds for prostitution. Despite almost weekly exposure in  
Truth 
 magazine of children believed to be in the 12 to 14-year age bracket on various New Zealand streets being picked up by so-called punters almost no action is taken by police to prosecute these abusers. If the police have so few resources to currently prosecute the exploiters of 12 to 14-year-old children it is naive to believe that the police will offer children greater protection in a deregulated and decriminalised environment.”  
There is simply no evidence anywhere in the world that decriminalising has led to a reduction in prostitution or has reduced child prostitution. The aims of the bill may be admirable but we must ask ourselves whether this legislation can achieve those aims. No fuzzy feelings no do-gooder motivation and no liberal wishful thinking: this is a conscience vote and I appeal to the members of this House to listen to their consciences. The society of New Zealand has a right to expect that this law will result in a healthier and better society not just for the 8000 prostitutes who are estimated to be trapped in that kind of work but also for the families across this nation who must raise their children in the environment that we create and legitimise by the laws we pass in this House. Again I say that this is not a “Prostitution Reform Bill”; it is a “Society Reform Bill”. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Whip—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a proxy vote to exercise for another member who rang me after realising that the vote might be a personal vote. I said I believed that I could exercise the proxy vote in the normal way but the member suggested that I find out whether he has to be here for a personal vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Clerk will give the member that information. I am happy to support the decision made by the Clerk. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not know whether this is a good or a bad claim to be able to make but I would suggest that nobody in this House with perhaps the exception of Georgina Beyer has had a closer association with prostitutes and prostitution than my good self. Everywhere that I have seen that activity it was a dreadful activity. That is the only conclusion I can reach. I have seen the sex industry across the world in my role as a ship’s officer. I should perhaps clarify in case my good lady is listening at home that I have never availed myself of the services of prostitutes. However I say to this House that I did not always look like I do now; at one time I had some appeal to the opposite sex!  
I agree in large measure with what the honourable Larry Baldock has just outlined. He has outlined what the proposer of this bill thinks the bill will and will not do. But let me tell the House what the bill will do if it becomes law. First of all it provides for the setting up and operation of brothels. OK—maybe some members say that that is no big deal. The bill allows for the procuring for financial gain of a woman or a young man for the selling of sex—for that person to have sexual intercourse with a third party. That in itself will give some incentive to the ratbags in this country to procure young women or to entice them for the purpose of selling sex. That is happening already but this legislation will give an incentive to encourage that.  
As a result of bringing in this legislation the activity and the problems associated with the activity of prostitution will become worse and far more serious. If this bill becomes law we can expect the sex industry to expand. I do not think that anybody would argue with that. Tim Barnett might say that it will increase the number of brothels but will not necessarily increase the number of sex workers. Who does he think he is kidding? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Where is your evidence? 
PETER BROWN 
: I will give the member my evidence. I tell the member that wherever prostitution has been liberalised anywhere in the world it has expanded. I ask the member to prove me wrong. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You prove yourself right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Prove myself right? Mr Goff has travelled the world. He should go and look for himself. He should put on his dark glasses and his hat and walk around the areas. When we liberalised the security regimes in the ports that opened the door for prostitution and the situation became worse.  
There will be more drug abuse. That occurs worldwide. There will be more child prostitution. There were people from Australia at the Justice and Electoral Committee and they told us that. Mr Barnett says they told us lies. I do not believe that; my research tells me that they told the truth. There will be more sexual activity which will lead to more sexually transmitted diseases and there will be more trafficking in women. I would suggest that in this country trafficking in women is fairly low-key. But in Europe where prostitution has been liberalised it is a big industry in itself. If members think it cannot happen here they should go and look at what has happened in Australia. By opening the industry up there will be more violence against prostitutes. There will also be more blatant advertising both of the services provided—and Mr Barnett knows this—and for the recruitment of prostitutes. A disproportionate number of young Maori women in particular will become involved in prostitution. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh God! 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes they will. The member should go down to the wharves where they sell their sexual services on ships. She will see that already a disproportionate number of young Maori women are involved now. As a result of this bill there will be more criminal activity. To say that we will legalise prostitution is like saying that although robbery is against the law now we should legalise robbery so that it is no longer a criminal activity. Everywhere in the world where prostitution has been liberalised criminals have become involved and the industry has expanded.  
It is generally accepted that prostitution cannot be abolished and I am not standing here tonight and saying that I want to bring in laws to abolish prostitution. I know that that will not occur; it is beyond the realms of possibility. But if we are to change the law we can change it in a positive way. We should look at what Sweden is doing with a considerable degree of success. New Zealand First has worked hard behind the scenes on the Swedish law and we have produced a bill. To this day a bill entitled the Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitutes Care) Bill sits in the name of my colleague Brent Catchpole. That bill is in the ballot right now and it would improve things no end. It has three principle aims. First that bill would make the client responsible so that he or she could be fined and treated in the same way that we currently treat prostitutes. Second it aims to encourage young prostitutes in particular to leave the industry and to fund a system so that they can leave the industry. The third aim is to restrict and control the advertising of sexual services. If members really want to do something for the people in the industry—and with those little noises they are saying they do—they should look seriously at supporting that bill.  
This bill refers to the age of 18 but we know that is a front. Tim Barnett wants the legislation to come in and to reduce the age to 16. I have here in the House a press release headed “Call for change to sex trade bill” about Tim Barnett and I have not heard him challenge it. 
I quote from that press release: “Labour MP Tim Barnett wants MPs to consider lowering the legal age for the sex trade proposed in his Prostitution Reform Bill. The bill which aims to protect sex workers from exploitation by decriminalising prostitutes applies only to workers over 18. Yesterday”—whatever day that was in September 2001—“Mr Barnett told a cross-party committee hearing submissions on the bill that it needed to reconsider the proposed age.” There is no doubt in my mind that that is his plan two. Mr Barnett wants to move to plan two.  
If we look at countries in the western world where prostitution has been liberalised we see that Sweden has tightened up its laws and that France is now looking at tightening up its laws. If that was not a liberal regime I do not know what was but France is looking at tightening up the laws on prostitution. Finland is also looking to tighten up its laws. [ 
Interruption 
] I missed that remark from Mr Carter but I do not think it was worth consideration. Both Norway and Denmark are looking at tightening up their laws. 
Government Member 
: What about Australia? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member asks me about Australia. Let me talk about Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should cease his interjections or else he will be leaving the Chamber. This is a serious debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: A senator in South Australia who supported this sort of regime went and looked at what had happened in Sydney. After having a first-hand look at the situation there he went back to South Australia and changed his mind. He said that that was not for him and he opposed the liberalisation of prostitution reform in South Australia. So members should not tell me that everybody buys into this measure for the good of the community.  
This bill is about promoting the prostitution industry. That is what it is totally about. Young women will be attracted into the profession—that is “profession” in inverted commas—and it will be to their detriment. If we pass this bill tonight we are doing a total disservice to young people in this country. We will open up the area of comfort hostessing for people from various parts of the world. Business people who come here to New Zealand will ask for comfort hostesses. We will open the doors for people to entice and encourage young people in particular into this industry. Katherine Rich is worried about her two daughters. I can tell her that if we pass this bill there is a greater risk that they will be involved in this industry. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I find myself in a strange position. As a radical feminist I am in the same camp as Sandra Coney in being opposed to this bill in its present form yet I am also in the same camp on this bill as many conservative people in this House. I do not believe that prostitution should be a legitimate occupation in this country and I say it does not need to be. This is a conscience vote and I very much value women and people generally. I believe that prostitution degrades women who are the majority of prostitutes.  
I believe we have come a long way since Jane Austen wrote her novels when marriage was basically legitimised prostitution and a way to earn a meal ticket. A high school teacher in Hamilton recently said to me that she had convinced her female students that they could be economically independent and this bill will put us back by decriminalising prostitution or strictly speaking soliciting. People say that prostitution is the oldest profession and that I am not facing reality. But stealing is an old profession and we are not looking at ways of decriminalising stealing murder or other crimes. It seems to me that when it is women’s bodies that are for sale that is OK. I have talked to many men and asked them about decriminalisation. When I asked whether they thought it is a good idea they said yes. Then when I asked whether it would be a good idea for their wife daughter sister or son to become a prostitute they said oh no. If it is not good enough for one’s wife daughter or son to be a prostitute then as a lawmaker and an MP I say that is not good enough for anybody else’s wife daughter son sister or brother.  
I have not had one letter phone call or email to me in my electorate office or here in Wellington from a Hamilton person asking me to vote for this bill and I have had very many communications from people against the bill. The local branches of the National Council of Women Business and Professional Women Zonta International Altrusa International and of other women’s groups in Hamilton have not petitioned me to vote for this bill but I have had very strong letters from researchers of the industry and from people such as ECPAT New Zealand urging me to vote against it. The people from the Prostitutes Collective who lobbied me came from Tauranga not from my electorate in Hamilton East.  
This legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes but I believe it will rather protect brothels brothel-keepers and their clients. It will mostly protect the clients by providing nice clean brothels so that clients can go home to their wives undetected as to where they have spent the night. The legislation is supposed to protect prostitutes’ health but I believe it is more likely the legislation will protect prostitutes’ clients. If a prostitute has HIV we can bet she is put out of the business and will probably be prosecuted if she knowingly continues to work. What job protection will she have? Will she receive accident compensation for work-related injuries if she contracts that disease?  
I wish to give notice that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that I wish to bring forward as an amendment if we get to the Committee stage. It will get rid of the anomalies and double standards in prostitution law. This Supplementary Order Paper is based on Swedish law and it will prosecute the client for soliciting. The present law prosecutes the prostitute. My Supplementary Order Paper based on the principle of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware which works in most other contracts—is the one that I believe should prevail. It will get rid of the anomalies and prosecute the clients. It will get rid of the double standards that exist. I have been told by the Swedish members of Parliament with whom I have been in contact that such a system works in Sweden. Critics say it works because prostitutes leave Sweden. I do not really mind if some people do want to leave New Zealand but I believe we should protect as has been said women young people and those who may be involved in the industry in this country. I do not wish New Zealand to become the Bangkok of the South Pacific. I believe that my amendment will do away with demand and in doing away with demand we do away with supply.  
There will be some other amendments that I would call Nimby amendments where people will be saying that as long as we have a law that means there is no soliciting in their backyard—in their neighbourhood near their local school or near their house—it will be OK. Those sorts of amendments come from people who are happy for something to go on if they can turn their back on it. As I said before I find myself really believing—this is a conscience vote and one has to lie straight in one’s bed at night—that I will vote against this bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is obvious to members of the House that I support the bill in its present form. That is no secret. I say to Mr Brown that it is true that I have been a prostitute. I became a prostitute before reaching the age of 18. I was about 16 going on 17 when I got involved in the industry somewhat against my will. I certainly support the 18-year-old age limit because I have a deep belief that any age that is lower than that—I notice there are people of a contrary view who want the age to be 16—is not good enough for me in trying to put protections in place.  
Prostitution is a reality of life; everybody in the House accepts that. It would be irresponsible of this Parliament if this bill did not proceed beyond the second reading because the status quo would remain. Albeit that we hear there is something in the ballot that may come up it would be years before we would see the like of this sort of legislation proposed in the House again and that would simply not be the correct thing to do. I believe the Justice and Electoral Committee and the sponsor of the bill Tim Barnett have endeavoured to advocate change on behalf of those members of the public who have wanted to see some sensible human rights regarding prostitution afforded to prostitutes and their clients. I do not believe the bill is just for prostitutes and their clients. There is a much wider community that can benefit from the good that this bill proposes.  
I respect the contrary views that people hold. Matters of this nature must be debated broadly and robustly and I am very pleased to say that the debate tonight has been considered and not unreasonable. We have respected each other’s point of view. I say that because even the mind of someone like me who would probably not be swayed to vote against this bill is open to what other people may propose as possible amendments. Although I will probably disagree with Dianne Yates’ amendment given her explanation of what she intends to do should the bill proceed beyond the second reading other people may have different amendments. Perhaps I will put up an amendment or two myself—who knows? The point is though that we must see this through—at least to the Committee stage I believe. So we should vote this bill through the second reading. Let us hear it all and make good positive judgments I hope either one way or the other.  
Prostitution is not a career choice that I believe people necessarily want to make but there are people out there in society who would want to exploit those who are vulnerable enough to be coerced into the industry. Those people must be regulated and controlled in some way and I believe that this legislation helps to some degree in addressing that issue. When it comes to young people under the age of 18 who may be coerced into the industry there should be the toughest of penalties for those who do that. Prostitution is easy to get into. It is easy to enter the industry but getting out—well one might never get out. One might get out of the industry but does it ever get out of one’s head? No it does not—certainly not in my experience. It is there. I have now taken my experiences to be valuable life experiences enabling me to know what I am for and against about the industry.  
I congratulate the members in this House all of those who have been involved with promoting this bill and all of those who have been involved with expressing the contrary view. This has been a very healthy public debate and I certainly hope it continues beyond this second reading. I support the bill.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I started on this process with something more than an open mind. I started with the presupposition that the law should have no place in the bedrooms of the nation; that it was a matter of private morality and that by endeavouring to regulate private morality we would be doing more harm than good. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee which heard the evidence or most of it. I reached the stage where I could not take any more and in the end for my sin—I ceased to come along—I became the chairman of the committee that had to bring it to the conclusion. I was pleased to hear Georgina Beyer’s comments about having an open mind. Unfortunately I still have an open mind. I propose to vote against the bill at this stage out of revulsion but not out of revulsion for prostitution; I believe that only those without sin should cast the first stone. My revulsion is at what appeared to me throughout this to be a kind of insincerity—I am not allowed in the Chamber to use the word that would describe it better. I came to feel revulsion for those who wanted to tap into looking fashionable who wanted to tap into a list of noble objectives but refused to look at the detail and refused to look at what we were actually doing and how the law would actually work.  
During the select committee’s consideration of the bill I tried to get someone to tell me which human rights of sex workers were presently not the same for them as for everyone else. I tried to get someone to tell me what in this bill actually safeguards a human right of a sex worker but I never got an answer. I tried to get someone to tell me what in this bill protects sex workers from exploitation when in fact we are abolishing the law against pimping and when around the world the activity of the pimps who enslave those who work for them in a variety of ways is the most exploitative element of prostitution. I tried to get someone to tell me how this bill promoted the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers when in fact the promoters of the bill actually admit there is a deliberate bias in what we have really done against brothels and in favour of what they seem to see as some kind of utopian worker cooperatives—small worker cooperatives probably not more than four that would have no boss. So what they have done is put health and safety obligations on brothel owners—the bosses the operators—then build a law that will encourage street-work and will increase the hurdles the potential liabilities for brothel owners. 
I considered that and I said that if these slogans meant something we would be working through this bill to try to see how it will actually be implemented. For example we prohibit the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age. Let us put aside for the moment the fact that that was already illegal under the Crimes Act. It is claimed as one of the benefits of the bill. When the police told us that to make it work they will need to know how old people are that they will need to be able to find out how old people are reasonably conveniently and that one way of doing that would be to require as at present brothel-keepers to have evidence of age the promoters of the bill said no. We have a prohibition on the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age and I suggested that there ought to be at least some responsibility or some culpability on a 17-year-old who deliberately uses false age identification but there was no prospect of that. So I came to the position where I had to go back to my caucus—and ACT will stand up for unpopular principle if necessary—and I had to say: “I’m finding it very hard to recommend that you vote for this bill which should have been a simple decriminalisation.”  
I proposed a test: a provision that stated in detail that nothing in the bill will prevent someone who believes prostitution is wrong from advocating strongly against it; a provision that would confirm that the legislation is intended to decriminalise but not to normalise. In other words the normal social pressures that Ms Rich mentioned—the pressures from parents schools other agencies against an activity that most will think is damaging—should be given free rein provided that there is no unlawful coercion. That provision was removed. In fact at one stage in the drafting we had something that was a little bit beefier than the pious reference that we now see in clause 3. So I became convinced that there was an agenda here that was about more than just taking away the impediments to public health. 
We had much evidence—none of it very compelling though in the sense of showing the link between cause and effect—from people who are active in the industry that the law presently discourages the use of condoms and other preventives and that there is some present discouragement to using health services. I accept that but what I do not accept is that the methods that one might use to ensure that those discouragements are removed without encouraging more stand-over tactics were not acceptable to the select committee. 
I spent a bit of time in Holland in October while this bill was being considered. I visited the chief of police in charge of the Amsterdam vice squad as we would call it. We talked for 2 or 3 hours about how they have been dealing with the various issues and at the end of it he said to me in very good English: “If I were in your position I would think we have heaven.” The big problem for them is trafficking drug use gangs and the control of this industry by criminals. What does this bill do? It wipes out the only real reason that I can see from the evidence given to us at the select committee that there is not significant criminal involvement in prostitution in New Zealand—that is the Massage Parlours Act.  
It was probably never intended as a way of keeping prostitution relatively clean but that has been the practical effect. Loathe though I am to see a situation where a law is effectively disregarded or un-enforced change may be worse. I am forced to think that there is some type of legislative Hipprocratic-type rule: “First do no harm.” I cannot be satisfied that here we are doing no harm. It is an on-balance conclusion. I would like to be persuaded if this bill gets to the Committee stage by amendments that show more sincerity than there has been to date. The real interest here is in public health and in removing some of the unpleasantness and the risks. Police corruption is just one of the real risks in this industry.  
The only positive thing that this bill does at the moment is that it sends the labour inspector into the brothel. It forgets about all those who will then run out the backdoor and will thereafter be working without the benefit of a labour inspector without the benefit of the current police register and without the benefit of the fact that the current threat—the threat to the pimps—at the moment does not affect the prostitute. Prostitution has not been illegal in New Zealand for 100 years. The current threats are all on the brothel keepers and the pimps. Yet somehow I am supposed to believe that removing the only sanctions or threats to the brothel keepers and the pimps will bring nirvana and a world of women and young men free of coercion.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I stand in this House to support this bill as a woman as a former unionist representing workers and as a mother. I sat on the select committee the Justice and Electoral Committee with an open mind. I had the privilege of meeting and hearing from many who work in the profession. These people work in a profession that is not highly regarded but as people I have tremendous respect for them. They cared about the people they worked with in the industry both now and for many generations before and they want to ensure that these people are safe and fairly treated. I also want to pay my respects to the many organisations that have written to me and spoken to me in support of this bill I refer to the National Council of Women of New Zealand the YMCA business women of New Zealand health organisations the Human Rights Commission and so many more. I do not mean to be unkind but I think that members who oppose this view are not speaking from a position of knowledge are not speaking from a position of understanding and are not speaking from a position of wisdom. They are influenced by their prejudice.  
I stand and support this bill and I refer back to what I said at the beginning. I support this bill as a woman because it is about the right to choose and to be safe and secure in that choice. I support the bill as a unionist representing workers because it is the right of every New Zealand worker to be covered by health and safety legislation that does the best to ensure they are safe at work. Most important to me I support the bill as a mother. Prostitution would not be the occupation of choice for my children but neither would selling tobacco and neither quite frankly would be sitting in the Opposition benches. However given that my children have that choice I would want them to be safe and secure and to have the best life possible in that choice. That is why I support this bill. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I support the intent of this bill to decriminalise prostitution. Prostitution is a reality in our society. It always has been. Efforts to eliminate it and make it illegal have served only to force it underground not remove it as a practice. Many people work in that industry out of choice. It is a choice I do not understand but I do not believe it is a choice that makes people into criminals. Indeed the people who are their clients have never been made criminals under our law which is a clear example of double standards. Some people are in the industry out of economic necessity often because they are drug addicts. We as a Parliament should probably look at doing more to help the people who come under that category to extract themselves from the industry. But again making them criminals does nothing to help their position.  
It is a fact that in practice we regard prostitution as a victimless offence. The police do not spend much of their valuable time enforcing the laws on prostitution and nor would anyone in this House say they should do so ahead of their other responsibilities in fighting crime. Neither the public nor anyone in this House demands that the police should be enforcing that law. Maintaining a law that we do not intend to enforce brings the law into contempt and frankly is an exercise in hypocrisy. Worse than that making soliciting a crime actually serves as an obstacle to ensuring that people are not subject to exploitation or coercion to eliminating unsafe sexual behaviour and to excluding the criminal organisations that are currently heavily involved in this area.  
In supporting this bill to enable society more effectively to rid itself of those evils I also believe that it is necessary to give greater protection to the community against problems that may continue or problems that may arise under decriminalisation. Tonight I want to foreshadow my intention in the Committee stage to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with what I see as the shortcomings in the bill as it currently stands. 
The first is the need for some form of licensing albeit light-handed that would give police the authority to act against criminals operating or seeking to operate businesses of prostitution. This is an industry that currently attracts such persons with gangs known to have prostitution alongside drug trafficking and general crime as a significant source of income. My Supplementary Order Paper would require every operator of a business of prostitution to hold a licence—not the sex workers themselves but those who manage and operate the businesses. Those with criminal records involving serious sexual violent drugs or arms offences would be prohibited from holding a licence as would those people who have committed gang-related offences. The goal of that provision clearly is to empower the police to exclude such persons. I doubt that anyone in this House believes that someone with a conviction for rape violence or drug trafficking should lawfully be able to manage and control a brothel. Yet as this bill currently stands that would be the case.  
The second major provision on my Supplementary Order Paper is to allow territorial authorities to make bylaws prohibiting brothels in certain areas. I believe that although most New Zealanders would agree that criminalisation of prostitution is futile and probably counter-productive most would also clearly desire in the event of decriminalisation some controls to prevent the establishment of places of prostitution where they are offensive or inappropriate. Most of us would not want to see brothels established in residential areas or adjacent to preschools or schools. My amendment would allow the local territorial authorities the councils to prohibit the establishment of or to order the removal of a brothel in an area where it would cause a nuisance or serious offence to ordinary members of the public. That would not enable territorial authorities to place a general ban on brothels. There are clearly commercial areas where the establishment of such a place of prostitution would not cause local offence.  
Finally I urge members in this House including members who have some doubts about the bill as it currently stands to vote for the second reading of this bill so that the House can examine ways in which necessary safeguards can be introduced into the legislation during the Committee stage. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The debate we are having tonight about whether we take the next stage in voting to decriminalise prostitution in Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the most significant I have participated in since coming to Parliament 3 years ago. This is an issue that arouses huge emotions in many of us. Before going any further I would like to say as others here have that I respect the right of every other MP and every member of the public to hold their own particular beliefs and personal feelings on this very difficult and sensitive issue. At the same time however I would like to make a plea to all MPs who have not yet made up their minds either way to consider casting a vote in favour of decriminalisation at the end of the debate tonight.  
I am one of a fairly small number of MPs still in Parliament who have sat through the entire select committee process on this bill from beginning to end. We heard submissions from a huge variety of perspectives from sex workers nuns and feminists to brothel owners church leaders women’s groups local government representatives and a myriad of other people.  
We spent months and months discussing and researching with the help of officials the myriad of tricky issues that this bill raises. I have to say that I do not think we left any stone no matter how murky unturned. In the end the Justice and Electoral Committee did not make major changes to Tim Barnett’s original Prostitution Reform Bill as some would have the House believe. We did pass some clarifying amendments and did things like widening the responsibility for the provision of safe sex materials and setting up a review committee to monitor how the bill works out in practice but none of this in any way significantly changed its original concept intent or scope.  
To those MPs who supported this bill at the end of the first reading I would like to say that there is no reason to change their vote now. There has been intense lobbying of all of us over the last few weeks and months. Many many issues have been raised and while I would love to talk about all of them time constraints will obviously not allow that and I will stick to a few key points.  
First I believe that this issue is at heart a moral one. All sorts of other arguments are used to cloak that reality but I think that underneath all the words we are using here tonight and all the emotions what we are doing when we vote today is making a moral judgment. New Zealand laws around prostitution find their ancestry in Victorian England and further back than that in the Christian Bible. While I accept totally people’s right to their belief that for example prostitution is a sin I cannot accept their right to maintain that Christian sin should be a law in 2003 in a country that is not a theocracy and has no State religion. I do not think that people of one faith or a stream within one faith have the right to impose their moral precepts through law unless there is acceptance by wider society that a crime is actually being committed. For example our society does accept the biblical sin of murder as a crime but we do not accept that people who commit the biblical sin of adultery should likewise be sent to jail.  
I fundamentally question the right of the State in this day and age to interfere with the rights of people 18 years and over to have consensual sex with each other. There is no way that sex workers—mainly women—should continue to be open to harassment and prosecution for a victimless crime. Nor should we turn to the Swedish model which prosecutes the men who pay for sex. The Swedish experience shows that all that does is drive prostitution underground. In the UK laws criminalising the client have been tried for 17 years and there is no sign whatsoever that prostitution is dying out even though that is the main rationale for that type of law. While on the select committee we heard evidence from a sex worker in Sweden who talked about the much greater physical dangers she and others now face as a result of the law change there. She reported that some of the worst consequences of the Swedish law have been that there is a lot more underage teenage prostitution that the mafia bosses have more control and that workers are too scared to get police help even when friends are murdered because if it gets out that they have called the cops they lose all their customers. I would like to ask those feminists and Christians in the House who are so fond of the Swedish model whether they really think it preferable that we should impose greater criminalisation on the industry with all that that entails rather than remove sanctions and create the protections that come when prostitutes feel able to call police and other services for help when they need it without fear of persecution or of loss of trade.  
There is a feminist strand of thought that opposes this bill. This seems to come from a perspective that says that because prostitution is fundamentally an unpleasant yucky kind of thing for most people even to think about and because some sex workers have had abuse in their earlier lives somehow that means that all prostitutes should continue to be criminalised for their profession. As a lifelong feminist myself I acknowledge the desire behind that line of thought to bring an end to something that its proponents see as degrading and exploitative but I come from another strand of feminist thinking that believes that it is our job to do everything we can to make life better for all women even those who are in this most vulnerable of occupations. Unless we truly believe that prostitution is going to disappear altogether and soon I believe that the best we can do as feminists is to maximise the conditions that will help to end the worst excesses of violence coercion and exploitation rather than allow prostitution to continue as a subset of the criminal world.  
Rape physical assault theft of wages the threat of murder and other extreme forms of violence and exploitation are what many New Zealand prostitutes live with right now. In dealing with this bill we are not talking about some kind of abstract theory but about the reality of people’s lives. It is no use waiting for some utopian future to come true. I would much rather do everything I can right now to help protect and empower those who for whatever reason have chosen to make prostitution their occupation. This bill is a worker’s issue too as my colleague Lynne Pillay has so eloquently pointed out. I hope that people with union consciousness will see the sense in making that particular work environment one in which employees will have much more power to organise if this bill goes through.  
I think it is instructive to consider for a moment some of the groups that have come out strongly in support of the bill. Those include organisations like the Prostitutes Collective the AIDS Foundation the Salvation Army a number of sexual health services several community law centres the Family Planning Association the Citizens Advice Bureaux Women’s Refuge and Wellington Independent Rape Crisis. The people from those groups are those who work with and for prostitutes at grass-roots level. They know what is going on. As lawmakers we often justifiably try to give precedence to the views of those groups that are most intimately connected with any particular piece of legislation whatever the topic. I think that we should apply that principle here too and give priority to the voices of sex workers themselves and of those who work most closely with them. They want us to decriminalise prostitution now.  
Finally I am pleased to advise the House that in line with our Green Party women’s policy all nine of our MPs will be voting in support of decriminalisation. I hope that others here tonight will have the moral courage to face down the outrageous and totally unnecessary moral panic that has been created around this bill and join us in making that vote too. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 This is not a bill that protects prostitutes. It is not a bill designed to encourage prostitution. It is not a bill setting a new moral climate. This is a bill that simply decriminalises prostitution and for that reason I support the bill. In doing so it is interesting to note that the person I contested the last general election with—a former Deputy Mayor of Napier and a former member of Parliament who described herself as representing Napier—also endorsed the bill. When I speak to my electorate I remind them of the fact that it is not emotion that should decide the outcome of this bill it is not anecdote personal experience or fear—it is cold analytical common sense.  
I want to start by reminding the House of clause 3 which is the purpose section. Those who are propagating arguments against the bill deliberately overlook clause 3. It reads: “The purpose of this Act is to decriminalise prostitution (while not endorsing or morally sanctioning prostitution or its use) and to create a framework that—(a) safeguards the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation: (b) promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers: (c) is conducive to public health: (d) prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age: (e) implements certain other related reforms.”  
Those reforms are not reforms legalising prostitution and they are not reforms setting up a regime of approval of the activity but are merely fundamental common-sense health and safety and non-exploitive reforms. But those who are fearful of the outcome of this bill or those who believe for some reason that prostitution is contagious and society will be hit with a wave of prostitutes and their clients can take refuge in clause 9N. This bill provides the first common-sense approach to the question of prostitution in this country.  
Clause 9N states that a prostitution law reform committee will be formed. As soon as practicable after the commencement of this legislation it will assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand and any prescribed matters that relate to sex workers or prostitution and report on its findings to the Minister of Justice. Clause 9N also states that no sooner than the expiry of 3 years but before the expiry of 5 years after the commencement there will be a thorough review of the operation of the Act. Therefore ladies and gentlemen those people bandying about figures of increases in the number of prostitutes child prostitution and the other fear-based scaremongering tactics taken by those who want to protect the present hypocritical ineffective law will be able to have figures on which to base their assessments.  
No countries had assessed the number of prostitutes before they made a change to their laws. So we cannot say there has been a multiplication by so many percentage because we do not have a starting point. With this bill we will have a starting point to assess the degree of problem if any in this country. By decriminalising prostitution we can get an even playing field but people should not forget that there are still protections for us and members of the public. There is the Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act which controls order and disorder on the streets the Resource Management Act the Employment Relations Act taxation legislation and GST laws. There are laws in this country that can answer all the concerns of those who want to build a framework of oppression already. All we are simply doing is taking away the ground of hypocrisy of ineffective laws dubious health standards and the influx of criminal gangs into an existing industry that is growing already before our very eyes.  
I endorse this bill totally because it decriminalises acts of prostitution. It goes one step further and lays a basis for us to assess how this country is placed in the moral climate and it gives us a chance to work rationally to decide whether any steps should be taken to attack some imagined evil. I say to those who are concerned that the country will become a barren climate of moral ne’er-do-wells that they should go to their faith and have faith in their fellow men. This is a good country and this is good bill. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I rise to join in this debate tonight. For the 6 years or so that I have been here this is one of the most important debates we could participate in as members of Parliament. I congratulate Tim Barnett and also Katherine O’Regan a former member of this Parliament who did a lot of the background work towards the introduction of this bill. When the bill was introduced I was one of those members who voted for it to be sent to select committee. I had an open mind about all the issues that this bill addresses. Again I congratulate Tim Barnett on bringing one of the hardest issues to this Parliament so that we can discuss openly the impact of the sex-trade industry and how we will address these issues in the future.  
Is this a bill that deals with the rights of prostitutes? Is this a bill that provides the greatest protection for those who are most vulnerable in this industry? I thought about that when I started listening to the submissions. It became something that shaped my opinion on the decriminalisation issue.  
I will not vote for this bill for a number of reasons. I do not think it will protect those who are most vulnerable in the industry. I say that from the base of knowledge of having listened to submissions having gone to Australia having listened to a lot of experiences of people in the industry and also having listened to a lot of contrary views and moral views from other groups. I believe that I have tried to cast the widest net possible to make my determinations and stand on my conscience today.  
This bill presents a number of anomalies that this House needs to consider. It is the impact of this legislation which forms what will happen in our communities that we need to be really mindful of. The issue of 18 as the age for sex workers is in the bill. I commend members for setting the age at 18 but when the legal consenting age is 16 it presents an anomaly that is unworkable. We should not bring bad law into this House. But more so what are the types of messages that we as members of Parliament are sending out into our communities? Do we accept that this is a profession that we want to encourage people to go into? I do not want to stand here as a member of Parliament in judgment—far from it. However I want to be part of a Parliament that says there are values in our society that all cultures and all nationalities will uphold to ensure the rights of women will be protected every step of the way. I cannot support this bill.  
It gives me great concern that members tonight have said that those who are opposed to the bill are taking some moral high ground. I do not believe that is it at all. When I look at the communities that I represent and when I talk to Maori women who are in the industry they bring up the issue of harassment when they engage in this type of activity. There is no protection and this bill will not provide it either. When they ask for payment first when they are out in a car somewhere or when they are down an alley the simple fact of the matter is that nothing in this bill will help them.  
How can I say that this is an opportunity to provide protection for those who are most vulnerable in the sex industry? Even if we were to move towards a licensing regime which is a step towards legalisation will that help those who are the most vulnerable? No it will not because the problems that are associated with sectors of people who participate in the unregulated part of the industry are most at risk.  
When we visited Australia we heard that there were a whole lot of other issues associated with activities around prostitution. It was prostitution and drugs and alcohol. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world because no country anywhere has been able to regulate protect or safeguard all the issues that surround prostitution.  
I would like to make one final point. Comparative studies on indigenous people and the impact of prostitution on indigenous communities whether they be male or female have shown that decriminalisation will not work and I will not support it. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to say that I will not support the bill and I will not support it for various reasons. In my opinion prostitution is rape accompanied by payment—if the prostitute is lucky. That is all it is. I will not vote against this bill just because of moral issues. I will vote against it because I believe that prostitution is a terrible thing for prostitutes. There are already supposedly 8000 prostitutes in this country. Members of the House who are worried about prostitutes being criminalised should read the first sentence of the introduction in the commentary on the bill: “Prostitution itself is not an illegal activity in New Zealand.” What is illegal is pimping soliciting on the streets and that sort of activity. Prostitution itself is not an illegal activity and it has not been for over 100 years. What makes anyone think that voting in favour of this bill will decriminalise prostitution? It will not because it cannot. What it does do is decriminalise the activities of people who will abuse people who happen to be prostitutes. 
In my years as a lawyer I dealt with several prostitutes. They were generally really good clients—they always paid in cash they never expected something for nothing and they always had a jolly good sense of humour. That is worth a lot in my book. I did take the opportunity to ask those women about their lives as prostitutes and it was not a very pretty tale. One woman showed me her diary which was basically her tally book of how many men she was servicing within a night. On a really good night—which was the way she described it—there were nine. I asked her what she thought about when that was happening to her and she said to me: “Judith what I do is I don’t see anything. I’m not there and all I can think about is a $100 bill and it’s flying in the air towards me and I’m about to catch it.” If anyone in this Parliament has ever dealt with rape victims as I have that is a similar tale—the disassociation of the mind from the body and the focusing on not being there because it is all over now. That is what we are talking about.  
We have been told that this bill will help the safety of prostitutes but we have just heard from the previous speaker that it will not help the safety of prostitutes. We have been told that it will be a crime to coerce someone into having commercial sex. Well gee whiz it already is a crime. That is what the Crimes Act is for. It is already a crime. For those who say that it will stop under-age prostitution I think I have just seen a pig fly through the air. That is absolute rubbish. We were told in a previous Parliament that lowering the drinking age to 18 would stop 16-year-olds from drinking and what has happened? Now 14-year-olds are drinking. That is what happens in this country when those kinds of laws are passed. [ 
Interruption 
] I remind Lianne Dalziel that this is a conscience vote and I have given her people some credit tonight. She should remember that.  
We have heard tonight from Georgina Beyer who in my opinion is the most capable member of the Labour caucus and is not a Minister only because of her transsexual background. That is the only reason because she is definitely the most capable. She has told us tonight about the psychological damage of being a prostitute. I have spoken with prostitutes myself and asked them what it is that they do and what the damage is to them. I asked one of them if there was a lot of drug use in massage parlours—which by the way I have to tell some members on the other side of the House are actually brothels—and she said to me: “Of course Judith there has to be drugs because how the hell else would you do the job?”. That sounds sensible to me and I see Georgina Beyer is agreeing. Do not tell me this legislation will help those people. It is already a very very bad industry. At the moment we have brothels. They are regulated. The police have access to them. There are controls over who can work in them. This bill will not help that situation at all. It will lead to legitimised pimping and soliciting on the streets. If members think that it will not they should go down King’s Cross in Sydney sometime and see the 14 year-olds prostituting themselves on the streets. Do not tell me this bill will not do that. Of course it will.  
I will not be supporting this bill. We have been told that if the vote on the second reading is lost tonight it will be another 20 years before this legislation comes back to Parliament. I say “Thank God for that.” 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive members in this Parliament—Jim Anderton and myself—have discussed this bill with our party leadership and we have decided that this is truly a conscience vote for us and not a party decision. That is unusual for us because we try in most cases to proceed on the basis of the policy that we put before the country. Why is this a conscience vote? It is because although prostitution is an area requiring social reform there is no simple answer and there are a number of personal decisions that only an individual can take.  
Opponents and proponents of the bill as far as I am aware all proclaim that they do not want punitive measures to be taken but to ensure that those in prostitution can move into healthy life choices. Success in the future whether this bill goes through or not would be just a first step towards that. Of course there is a need for Parliament to concentrate on the issues that have been brought up and a need for the Government to take responsibility for some of the issues that cannot be dealt with by the chance of a member’s bill being enacted. But to have those healthy life choices requires a social and economic programme that will provide alternatives to prostitution. Only the Government parties—Progressive or Labour—provide the alternative policies that lead to full employment the removal of barriers to education and social support allowing those in prostitution if they wish to make a fresh and productive life for themselves. Our policies should ensure that those in prostitution have full access to health care without discrimination to employment and to educational opportunities. Legislation alone cannot do that; it requires Government action and policy direction.  
Many parties rely on empty and vacuous moral phrase-mongery on the issue of prostitution. They preach and prate about their commitment to the family but do not have policies that allow family members to obtain the means to build a constructive life. When put to the test on for instance 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave for the lowest-paid New Zealanders they vote against that simple contribution to a better family life. They truly preach “pie in the sky when you die” rather than implementing social reforms for our life on earth. Good reforming legislation cures a mischief. How to cure that mischief has caused furious debate. That is why this has come down to a conscience vote. Conscience presupposes consciousness. If social being determines consciousness then it is necessary to look at our social structure in order to determine remedies. If parties vote against this bill en bloc as ACT and New Zealand First have indicated they will they need to put forward the social economic educational and employment policies that provide an alternative to prostitution.  
Tim Barnett has rightly highlighted the health concerns for prostitutes their exploitation by those who employ them and by the pimps and spivs who hang around and the related issues of drug addiction blackmail and deeply entrenched psychological problems. If members vote against this legislation they have to provide a better alternative to it. I am voting against it. I do not believe that the bill is totally wrong. I simply believe that it does not get to the core of the issues adds a nightmare of regulation elevates sex work to the position of healthy productive and fulfilling labour in our society and sets up a policing regime that in my view would drive providers and clients underground. My reference to that is taken from the experience of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands—a left-wing party in the Parliament of the Netherlands and one that is close to my heart—which voted for reform along the lines of Tim Barnett’s bill. In an article that its members sent to me and in discussions with them on the phone they told me they believed that they had made a mistake. They said that legalisation had led to a bigger industry to the driving underground of many people and to greater misery. I took notice of their experience. It is one view.  
I have no truck with the reactionary semi-religious prattling on the issue of prostitution that glorifies a model of the family that is actually oppressive and in a condescending way sees “fallen women” as needing redemption and to be preached at rather than to be given the tools needed to find employment proceed with study and end drug addiction. I say to those who have given me such views ad nauseum that they should read John 8:3-11: “He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone” or words to that effect.  
Jim Anderton and I while completely respecting the motives of Tim Barnett do not believe that for those involved in the industry this bill will cure the mischief of exploitation drug addiction severe health risks and child prostitution. We argue that attention must be turned to solving the underlying causes of the issue. The first step is to pay attention to poverty. At the last election the Progressives outlined the extent of poverty in New Zealand. We are advocating in this Budget round and in our policies for greater attention and a cohesive approach to be taken to ending poverty in New Zealand. There needs to be consistent and cohesive action to combat drug abuse particularly amongst the young. The Progressives in Government are part of the process of developing an action plan on alcohol abuse and illicit drugs. We are pushing for early intervention strategies to be better resourced and widened. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill and to maintain a consistent argument. As a mother a midwife and a health worker for many years I have seen how the law in its current form provides a very poor framework. This bill will help very much to clean up the sex industry. The current law simply inhibits the passing on of information on safe sex and that is the fundamental problem if we are to clean up the industry from a sexual health perspective. I want to speak from that perspective tonight. We have already had evidence of the police moving to use safe-sex materials as evidence in court of prostitution-related crimes and that has happened as recently as December of last year.  
The incentives in the current bill are really about changing the environment of fear that exists for workers in the sex industry to one of protection. The current law as we see it now is a blokes’ law. It is a condom law that protects the bloke and not the sex worker in a two-way transaction that is willingly entered into by two people. The law penalises a sex worker if he or she is found soliciting but lets off the paying customer who seeks that service and happily pays for it. I favour the decriminalisation model and it is for those reasons that I want the bill to go on to the Committee stage. The bill puts the right incentives in place and stops the nonsense of using evidence of safe-sex practices against the worker.  
I also want to mention that the United Nations has undertaken work here on the impact of HIV/AIDS in sex work and has done a report on the global impact of sex workers on HIV/AIDS. The report states that the legal status of sex work in a given region has a significant bearing on the effectiveness of AIDS programmes that target sex workers. Where sex work is illegal legislative frameworks are often orientated towards penalising individual sex workers. In such settings sex workers are less likely to seek health services and are more likely to conduct their services underground.  
I spent a night with the Prostitutes Collective in Rotorua and went to massage parlours and brothels. I did not see any evidence of coercion fear or abuse from the sex workers. I talked to the sex workers—this is a very responsible collective. Those workers want this law. They know that this law will give them the protections that will clean up the industry and will get people who are working on the street back into registered licensed premises. I think we need to listen to that attitude. I think more of my colleagues in the House need to go out with the Prostitutes Collective in order to see how the law as it currently applies is not working and how that collective is urging us with great responsibility as parliamentarians to support this bill.  
I also have the letter that all members have received from the Family Planning Association the AIDS Foundation the Public Health Association the Prostitutes Collective the National Council of Women the Maori Women’s Welfare League the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women and the Young Women’s Christian Association of Aotearoa - New Zealand. Those organisations state that they want this bill because it safeguards the human rights of sex workers protects workers from exploitation promotes the welfare and occupational safety and health of sex workers creates an environment that is conducive to public health and prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under the age of 18 years. I did not meet one sex worker—one prostitute—who supported the idea that young children should ever enter that profession. They themselves had entered through different means and different approaches and I as a mother do not want my children to take up that option. But the Prostitutes Collective is responsibly helping sex workers to leave the industry and that is what it is being set up to assist. It also says that fundamentally the law as it stands is an ass because it is used against sex workers.  
I support this bill going to its next stage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I might share that member’s view if this bill proposed to make it illegal for the police to use safe-sex things like condoms as evidence in prosecutions. I might support the member if the bill proposed to even up the law and make the client as guilty as the prostitute. But that is not what the bill does. The bill proposes to decriminalise prostitution in this country and I think that would be a mistake. I want to outline to the House why I hold those views.  
Not so long ago we had a very similar conscience vote in this Parliament on the drinking age. At the heart of that debate was the belief that people would be much more responsible under a liberalised law. Well how many people believe that today? It is my view that that legislation was an error. Parliament in reducing the drinking age has only increased the amount of under-age drinking and society is the poorer for it. I say the same thing will happen with regard to this bill.  
I am also interested that members have said that this bill would somehow make working in the sex industry safe. I say that is an oxymoron. I reflect on the wise comments of people like Nanaia Mahuta and Judith Collins and I say they are right to argue that there is no such thing as a safe sex worker.  
I want to go to the core of this debate. This will sound a bit unusual for a person who is proud to stand for a National Party that stands for enterprise and the market. But equally so I know the limits of the market. It has seemed quite ironic to me to listen to the left-wing speeches from members of the Greens and the Labour Party who say the Nats fail to understand that not everything is for sale. Well I do stand in this House and say some things are not for sale. I do not think we should have a market for the sale of kids. Adoptions should be outside the market. When it comes to organs for donation and human body parts like blood I say that there is no place for a market in them. Equally I say that sex is the same. It is too special just to be part of the market forces and for such an intimate relationship to be just had for a few bucks. I am happy to stand on those principles because principles matter.  
I would also be interested to know from those members who say that prostitution should be decriminalised what the limit of that means. I am not sure of that. If prostitution is to become a legitimate job—and I believe that if a job is on offer one should take it—does that mean if we apply that approach that a person would be declined a benefit if he or she did not take up a job as a prostitute? That would be wrong. Does it mean that we should be able to advertise prostitution freely in our communities with hoardings and with advertisements in the newspapers? I say no. I think that is wrong. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Hasn’t the member ever read the back page of the paper? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Goff who is happy to stand in this House and say that rape is a crime—and we had a hot debate about that; we wanted to lock rapists up for longer—just what the difference is between rape and prostitution. How is it that when it comes to rape we want to have penalties that will lock people up for 20 years but suddenly if there is an exchange of money it is all OK and it will become an OK activity?  
Then we come to those who say prostitution is the oldest profession so we should just allow it. I think that is a morally bankrupt guide. This Parliament makes murder illegal but does anybody in this House believe that that means there will not be a single murder? No we do not believe that but we still maintain that standard. We say that assault dishonesty and theft are wrong. We all know that humanity is fallible and that in those things men and women are fallible but we still set that standard. I say the same standard should apply when it comes to prostitution.  
I now come to the broader issue and this is the real key. The real crux is this: what sort of society do we want to have in New Zealand? Even for those who have honestly presented an argument for liberalisation of the law that is the crux. I respect their point of view that prostitution is not necessarily something they like but that they think we should be pragmatic. 
The question I ask members as they make their conscience vote is this: will this bill result in more acts of prostitution in New Zealand? The honest answer has to be yes. If the answer to that is yes why would this Parliament want there to be more of something that I am convinced is harmful and not a good thing? Even those whose speeches have been in favour of the bill agree on that. As a father I want my daughter to grow up in a society in which there are clear lines about what it is and is not proper to sell. I want her to grow up in a society where sex is one of those special things that are not up for auction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put the question I emphasise to members that there are two questions to be put. I will go over them before I put them. The first question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. Having voted on that issue the question then is that the bill be now read a second time. I intend to call a personal vote on both questions.  
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton (P) 
Ewen-Street  
King  
Smith L 
Barker  
Fairbrother  
Locke  
Sowry  
Barnett  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sutton (P)  
Benson-Pope  
Gallagher  
Mallard (P)  
Swain  
Beyer  
Goff  
Mapp (P) 
Tamihere (P)   
Bradford  
Gosche (P)  
McCully  
Tanczos (P) 
Brash (P)  
Hartley 
Okeroa (P) 
Tizard  
Burton  
Hawkins  
Parker  
Turei  
Carter C  
Hereora  
Peck  
Turia  
Chadwick  
Hide  
Pettis  
Ward  
Clark (P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay  
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P)  
Hodgson (P)  
Rich (P) 
Wilson (P)  
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui  
Wong (P) 
Cunliffe  
Hughes  
Robson  
Yates  
Dalziel  
Hunt (P) 
Roy (P)  
Donald  
Kedgley (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Key  
Simich  
Duncan 
Noes 52 
Adams  
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta  
Scott (P) 
Alexander  
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Smith M  
Ardern (P) 
Duynhoven (P)  
McNair  
Smith N 
Awatere Huata  
Eckhoff  
Newman  
Stewart 
Baldock  
English (P) 
O’Connor  
te Heuheu  
Brown  
Field (P) 
Ogilvy  
Tisch  
Brownlee  
Franks  
Paraone  
Turner 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie  
Perry (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Gudgeon  
Peters J 
Worth (P) 
Catchpole  
Heatley  
Peters W (P)   
Choudhary (P)  
Hutchison (P) 
Power (P) 
Connell (P)  
Jones  
Robertson  
Copeland  
Laban  
Ryall (P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove  
Mackey  
Samuels  
Collins 
Question agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Barker  
Ewen-Street  
King  
Smith L 
Barnett  
Fairbrother 
Locke  
Sowry  
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Beyer  
Goff 
Mallard (P) 
Swain 
Bradford  
Gosche (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Brash (P)  
Hartley  
McCully  
Tanczos (P) 
Burton 
Hawkins 
Okeroa  
Tizard 
Carter C  
Hereora 
Parker 
Turei 
Chadwick  
Hide  
Peck  
Turia 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs 
Pettis  
Ward 
Coddington (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Pillay 
Williamson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Rich  
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe  
Hughes 
Ririnui  
Wong (P) 
Dalziel 
Hunt (P) 
Roy (P) 
Donald  
Kedgley (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Key 
Simich  
Duncan 
Noes 56 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta  
Scott (P) 
Alexander 
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Smith M 
Anderton (P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
McNair 
Smith N 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff  
Newman 
Stewart 
Awatere Huata  
English (P) 
O’Connor 
te Heuheu  
Baldock 
Field (P) 
Ogilvy 
Tisch  
Brown  
Franks  
Paraone 
Turner 
Brownlee  
Gallagher  
Perry (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie 
Peters J 
Worth (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Gudgeon 
Peters W (P) 
Yates 
Catchpole 
Heatley  
Power (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Robertson  
Connell (P) 
Jones 
Robson  
Copeland 
Laban  
Ryall (P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove  
Mackey  
Samuels (P) 
Collins 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 9.52 p.m.