Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005(continued on Wednesday 13 April 2005) 
Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005(continued on Wednesday 13 April 2005) 
[Volume:625;Page:19819] 
Tuesday 12 April 2005 
( 
continued on Wednesday 13 April 2005 
) 
Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004 (  
continued 
)  
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National as members will be aware opposed the Building Act. We did so because as we said at the time it was very prescriptive legislation. We said that there were issues in it that were over the top. Although we acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the Building Act 1991 we also made it very clear that the cumbersome approach that was to be adopted would put huge compliance costs on how the industry worked. We also said that because of the change from inspecting properties to supervising properties we would see huge costs associated with any building but mainly with the building of residential homes. 
It is interesting that at that time we acknowledged there would be ongoing problems with this legislation and here we are 12 days after the Act came into effect—it came into effect on 1 April April Fool’s Day—making significant changes to legislation that one would have thought it having had the scrutiny of the committee at the time and submissions having been received on it the Government would get right. Supplementary Order Paper 361 which has been tabled really says that the Government got it wrong stuffed up and is bringing it back under urgency to fix it up. Well that is completely unacceptable. This is an $18 billion industry. The Government needed to spend the time hear the submissions and take into account all the points that were articulated at the select committee. National was well represented on that committee with Shane Ardern and myself. We said that the bill would not work. 
Now the Government is abusing the process dealing with this legislation under urgency. I want to know why this Supplementary Order Paper will not be referred to the select committee if it is so important. If it is so important that we should be debating it under urgency in order to fix up a mess that National members identified last year would be created then we believe that it is incumbent on the Government to say to the industry and everybody involved in it: “Let’s look at it again. Let’s get it right. Let’s hear submissions.” That is our position and it is the reason why we will not be supporting this legislation’s progress. 
Clause 3C on Supplementary Order Paper 361 is concerned with dams and section 14(2) in it states: “If a building includes a dam—(a) the regional authority is responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the dam; and (b) the building consent authority and territorial authority are responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the parts of the building that are not a dam.” When is a dam not a dam? When it is in a damned bill like this I guess! We visited a dam on the Waitaki River. What was in place there—the emergency procedures and the monitoring of construction and of safety aspects of the dam—required expertise that far outweighed anything that any regional council or local territorial authority would have. Those councils do not have the expertise but the people working on that dam do. Their stringent safety precautions the functions and policies they have in place would far outweigh any expertise that any regional council would have. So one would have to question why that sort of provision is included in the Supplementary Order Paper. National members are very clear in our minds that these things were tidied up at the time. 
Clause 3L on the same Supplementary Order Paper repeals and replaces section 116B of the principal Act. This is the point that my colleague Dr Nick Smith has been talking about specifically. Subsection (1) makes it an offence to use a building “for a use for which the building is not safe or not sanitary;” or if it has “inadequate means of escape from fire.” Subsection (3) creates a penalty: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $100000 and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding $10000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.” Who has the sort of money in their pockets to be able to pay the exorbitant fines that this bill envisages? The select committee heard from the Far North District Council that a lot of the houses in its region do not meet codes of compliance. The figure escapes me but there are thousands of properties that should not be occupied because they do not meet codes of compliance. Will we pull the plug on those property owners? Will we say that they should not be living in their houses because they do not meet a code of compliance? 
Those houses probably do not even have consents. That is the issue as we said earlier on in this debate. There will be a move from do-it-yourself operators not to go through the stringent provisions that the current Act allows and they will bypass the system. In fact there is an article in the  
National Business Review 
— 
Darren Hughes 
: A fine paper. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It has a very fine member’s photo in it as well. This issue is dated 16 July 2004. The point I made in this article is that the Government was putting another nail in home improvement. That is what it says and that is exactly the sort of issue— 
Darren Hughes 
: Good publicity. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: While the member carries on he should know that this is a serious issue. I suggest he takes a call to crystallise and articulate the Government’s position because at the moment this legislation is a sham. It is a complete and utter waste of time. The point is that if the Government had got the legislation right in the first place we would not be back here now under urgency trying to sort out the issue. It is so important in National’s view that the legislation should be back before the select committee to let the people who will be affected by the legislation have a say. 
I have another article entitled “The Building Bill”. It also has photos of members. The point was made in it very clearly that as New Zealanders we pride ourselves on our practical ability to do our own thing. We have that mentality. We can knock down a wall tile a bathroom strip a door build a deck—no worries. But this legislation means that those provisions will be taken away. This Supplementary Order Paper goes over the top in trying to correct some mistakes that have been made. 
As Dr Smith has said the provisions in the Act in its current form are not being carried through. Clause 3T substitutes section 363 of the principal Act with several new sections. This matter has been talked about in previous debates. The new section 363 is about “Protecting safety of members of public using premises open to public or intended for public use”. Dr Smith has said that if the law as it is written were being carried out we should not be using the Beehive because of the construction work that is going on at this time. So there is abuse of the system and that makes a mockery of the Act which we spent time on. National members articulated those issues at the time. Now a bill has come in under urgency 12 days after the principal Act was enacted to try to correct these issues. 
Well our position is very clear. We are opposing this bill. If Government members think the issue is so important that we need to look at it more closely why is there not a separate bill? Why do we not have a Building Amendment Bill to tidy it up? This bill is the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It is a means to slip through the back door a Supplementary Order Paper to tidy up the mess of the Building Act and that should not be happening. If these issues are so important why is there not an amendment to the Building Act which was passed last year? 
If we take it further than that we see the disarray that this Government is in. Over the last 5 years seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Seven? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is right; seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry. Where is the continuity? Where is the focus when there are different people in charge who do not understand the industry who have no idea what it is about and who have never been at the coalface? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation has got the building industry up in arms; it is very concerned about it. I was speaking to members of the industry last night because I had some concerns about the speed with which this legislation came in. They have already spotted errors and problems and so have we. I ask the Committee to consider new clause 3P inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361 which amends section 241 of the Building Act. There are numbers missing. Obviously it was rushed in so quickly that it is all out of order. There are things in the wrong place and there are numbers missing. Even new clause 5A amending section 438 of the Act has a number in the wrong place and a number missing. I quickly went through the Supplementary Order Paper and found that paragraphs have been missed out. New clause 3M has paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (i) in new section 165(1). What happened to paragraphs (f) and (g)? Obviously something has been taken out but nobody went through and checked it. The problem is that this legislation is being rushed through so quickly that errors are appearing again. 
New Zealand First believes that this legislation is needed but that we must get it right. The bill had to come before us because there were errors in the Act. The problems have carried on and all of a sudden we are rushing the Supplementary Order Paper through in urgency in order to correct errors including some major ones under section 363 of the Act that have created all sorts of problems in the industry. This Supplementary Order Paper will solve some of them but it will not solve them all. In fact it will create more problems because there will be confusion over the order of things. There are provisions missing and out of place. I ask the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson why we did not put the Supplementary Order Paper before a select committee. If it had gone before a select committee those issues would have been picked up by the members of the select committee and by the industry. They would have had a chance to take a closer look at the final product. 
This document in its final form has not been put out to the industry. Yes a discussion document went out but a final draft document has not been out to the industry so that it could have a close look at it. People in the industry will spot holes in this legislation in all sorts of directions and I am afraid that they have already spotted some. The industry has already expressed some concerns to me and I would like to raise them later on. However at this point in time I ask why the bill was not put out to a select committee. The select committee process is one where problems can be discovered and sorted out. Let us face it we had to introduce this legislation to correct section 409 in the Act because that section created a problem with regard to copyright. Now we are rushing another piece of legislation through the House a Supplementary Order Paper because there are so many errors in the Act. It is silly to put this legislation through in such urgency. The Supplementary Order Paper is quite an extensive document. It has a lot of implications and if we do not get it right that will create many more problems. 
I turn to new clause 3R inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361 which repeals sections 273(1)(b) 274(a)(ii) and 402(1)(t)(ii) of the principal Act. The question I have about this provision is to do with the register of building consent authorities. How on earth does the chief executive keep track of those authorities when a territorial authority has passed on its information or transferred its functions duties or powers to another territorial authority? He or she will have no idea about that until such time as errors start to appear and something starts to break down. I ask why the register of those territorial authority functions is not being kept by the chief executive. The chief executive does not have that record so he or she will not know whom to go to when he or she has a problem. The chief executive will have to go chasing around and asking people left right and centre in order to find out who has that information and who has been responsible for the duties that were passed on or transferred by the other territorial authority. 
To give members an example of how ridiculous the explanation of that measure is I tell them that it refers to doing away with the registers of all consent authorities. That includes any private consent authorities although I do not think there are very many of those left because the Act makes it virtually impossible for private certifiers to be in existence. The whole thing was so rushed that the Government did not realise it had put in a provision that would do away with the registers for all the building consent authorities. That is just one example of the errors in this legislation. I am sorry to come down so hard on the officials who were put under pressure to come up with this legislation at such short notice. But let us face it the first phase of the Act came into existence on 30 November 2004. Another very large segment of it came into existence on 31 March this year. From those dates a lot of these errors were known about; a lot of these things were discovered right in the very first stage. Why did it take so long for them to be actioned? It was simply because the Government was hoping the problems would not happen. 
I am afraid the biggest example of that is in sections 362 and 363 of the Act where if territorial authorities—and I can give examples from Wellington and Auckland—were to follow the literal interpretation of the Act we would have had to evacuate this building. The territorial authorities have been put in a very awkward situation. They could have set a precedent by ignoring the situation and saying that they would not take any action because everything was OK. But that would set a precedent and everybody would expect to have the same treatment. That is why the Government suddenly thought it had better get into action and do something about the situation and by rushing this legislation through it has put the officials under enormous pressure. They have come up with a lot of very good amendments but there are still some errors in it. 
New Zealand First says that the Supplementary Order Paper should be put to a select committee so that it can be sorted out in a proper fashion with all the issues brought up and discussed with the industry. The building industry really wants the issues to be sorted out. It wants to have certainty in the industry and it wants to make sure that everything is correct. When I see the number of errors that have occurred in this legislation already I am afraid that we will just be back in this Chamber again in the not too distant future to debate more of these issues and try to correct the errors we are about to inflict on the industry yet again. New Zealand First is not supportive of the process regarding this bill because of its rushed nature—pushing the legislation through in urgency—and because of the errors that are occurring. I will take another call later on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised by the industry already. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have a lot of sympathy for the last two speakers and I think that Brent Catchpole has probably enunciated the dilemma that exists with regard to these amendments fairly well. The difference between New Zealand First and United Future is that we have accepted that the changes that need to be made to the Building Act ought to come into force as quickly as possible. Given that the substantive part of the Act came into force on 31 March there is a degree of urgency in correcting the problems that have been diagnosed so that the industry knows where it stands and the ambiguities and confusions in the Act are dealt with. That means unfortunately that this bill needs to be rushed through in urgency and that it will not get the due consideration a select committee would give it. Quite simply the time delay in getting the legislation to a select committee in order for it to consider the bill thoroughly get submissions in and hear them and then pass it would only exacerbate the problems. From United Future’s point of view we have had some opportunity to look at this legislation over the last few days. We have made suggestions that have been adopted because changes needed to be made in order to improve the legislation and to correct further ambiguities or errors in it. I am grateful for the Government’s willingness to listen to that. 
There is a maxim that rushed legislation is bad legislation. I think we suffer when we rush things through and then find that we have to revisit them later on because we have not got them right or have made errors. I draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that I have placed on the Table. It demonstrates the problems there have been in terms of rushing the legislation in. It relates to new section 116B inserted by clause 3L of Supplementary Order Paper 361 regarding the use of a building or the giving of permission to use a building that is not safe or sanitary or that has inadequate means of escape from fire. That is a new offence. It has arisen because of situations whereby landlords have allowed people to use buildings for say residential occupation when the buildings were not in a condition to be used for that purpose. There was a recent example of that when a fire nearly resulted in the loss of life. It is important that there be a criminal sanction against people who allow buildings to be used for residential use in particular when they do not have sufficient means of escape from fire or are not safe and sanitary. That is what new section 116B is intended to provide. 
However my concern on looking at the wording of the provision—it states that no person may use a building or permit another person to use a building—is that the courts could well interpret “permit” in a fairly loose way. Even the fact that a building has been used could be enough for the courts to say that a person had permitted it to be used. The fact that a landlord may not have known what a building was being used for or may not have known it was being misused—for example if there were squatters in it—could leave the landlord liable. I was particularly fearful that a court could take that broad sort of approach on the basis that every other offence in the Act is a strict liability offence. Those offences are clearly cut and dried—one either has a building permit or has not either has a code of compliance certificate or has not and so on. Those matters are very much in the hands of the landlord. But there could be a situation whereby a landlord with no knowledge of the misuse of a building and no intention to misuse it had squatters. If there was a fire and loss of life it seems to me that the heavy penalties a building owner would face under the provision are such that there ought to be an element of what is called mens rea in legal language—some mental knowledge or awareness of what was happening. 
I have an amendment on the Table that would change the words: “(a) use a building or permit another person to use a building” to “… knowingly permit …” just to make it quite clear if somebody were charged with that offence that effectively that element of knowledge would be necessary. I discussed that with the Government yesterday morning when we were signing this legislation off. The Government had agreed to put that provision in but it had not quite made it to the drafting stage. I am pleased that the Government will support that change in order to make the situation quite clear. That is an example again of something that we may well have had to readdress in the future after a luckless landlord had been caught because of the strict interpretation that had been provided. 
One concern that I raised with officials is yet to be attended to. Because it has not been attended to I am giving some warning of a concern that could arise through a difference between sections 49 and 53 of the Act. The intention of those provisions is for a building levy not to be paid until after a building consent has been granted but to be paid before the building consent is issued. The difficulty is that section 53 has been amended to clarify that the levy is payable once the consent has been granted. However section 49 has not been changed. Section 49(2) states that a building consent authority is not required to grant a building consent until it receives the levy. That means a local authority could say that it wants the money upfront and will then grant the consent which is not what is intended—certainly not what is intended by section 53. We still have a little bit of an ambiguity there. We will have to wait and see whether in practice that turns out to be a real issue in terms of the way that local authorities deal with it. It may well be that they take the two sections together and recognise that they should grant consent before they collect the levy. In fact that would seem to me to be practical. Local authorities do not really want to collect money at the same time that applications go in and then be faced with the situation of having to refund it again if the application is not granted or of having to collect more money or to refund part of it if the application is changed so that the amount of levy to be paid alters. It seems to me that it is probably more practical from their point of view to grant consent before collecting the levy. That is another example of the teething problems we get with complex legislation like this. 
It is a pity given that the Act was passed 8 months ago that some of the issues were not picked up early enough to allow them to go through a select committee process in order for us to look at them more thoroughly and get views on them before the Act was implemented. Some of the issues in section 363 inserted by clause 3T of the bill that have been referred to seemed to arise only once the Act started to come into force. It is I suppose a fact of life in New Zealand that very often legislation is put in place but it is only once the rubber hits the road and we get to a position whereby somebody has to implement it—that is the date it comes into force—that suddenly people realise there are some holes in terms of the way it should be implemented and in particular some ambiguity. People find out about that only at the time of implementation. Maybe that is really part of the justification for the Government’s urgency on this legislation. Effectively some of these issues have only recently come to light. That is not something I am overly privy to but I can imagine that that is a problem. Mr Catchpole as well as me has alluded to that as being a possible explanation for the urgency on this legislation. 
There are some other provisions in this legislation. Most of the provisions as I have previously said are really matters of technical change and clarification. For example the issue of cable cars was one whereby under the provisions of the Act as it stood if a single resident had a cable car he or she had to get a compliance schedule. That was intended to be a compliance schedule for the cable car but the way the provision was written meant a resident with a cable car would have then had to get a compliance schedule for everything in his or her house when other residents did not have to get compliance schedules. There has been a clarification of that requirement in that a single resident who has a cable car will have to get a compliance schedule only in regard to the cable car. That of course is what was intended. Those sorts of minor changes have been necessary to avoid hardship—in that case to single residential owners—so that people would not be faced with the draconian problems that would arise through the unintended consequences of provisions in the Act. 
I note also that there has been a change to the carrying out of restricted work to make it clear that it is quite in order for somebody who is not a licensed building practitioner to carry out restricted work as long as that work is supervised. The Act made it an offence for someone to carry out restricted work without being licensed and it was not made clear that the supervision of restricted work by a person who is a licensed building practitioner is OK. That matter has been clarified in new clause 3G and as well there is clarification of an issue regarding design work in new clause 3A. There was a need to clarify that not all design work will need a building permit. Somebody picked up on an ambiguity whether real or imaginary by suggesting that anybody who carried out any design work first had to get a building permit. Some design work will come within the definition but that will be done by Order in Council. That is another important change. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I would like to thank the United Future member Murray Smith for his very helpful contribution in the last 10 minutes and also acknowledge the very helpful contributions that United Future has made in the process of dealing with some mistakes that were made in this bill. We have seen a lot of crocodile tears cried over the need to change legislation. It has been curious to hear members—in particular Nick Smith and Ken Shirley yesterday—carrying on and saying what a muck-up this bill has been. Of course there were some mistakes but I remind members that the Resource Management Act passed by National in the early 1990s has been changed 13 times. The Companies Act also passed by National has been changed numerous times. It happens with complex legislation that is being put into practice. It has to be adjusted to the realities of how things work. 
This legislation to be amended passed not so long ago has over 450 clauses and has a lot of practical effect on the building industry. In fact there were only two significant problems. The first is the copyright issue in section 410 which United Future has been extremely helpful in working through—and New Zealand First for that matter. The second is safety in a public building where construction is taking place in part of it in section 363. There has been a lot of legal debate about whether there was even really a problem there but I accept that greater guidance needed to be given. We had some silly comments made by Nick Smith saying that Parliament needed to be closed down because the Beehive was having renovations. Curiously the Wellington City Council the territorial authority that makes that decision said immediately that no such consideration was ever going to be given that there was no problem. But of course Nick Smith has continued to put out press releases claiming all sorts of nonsense about it. 
I want to comment on a few things that Murray Smith raised. He said he felt there was a contradiction between clauses 49 and 53. We have had legal advice from the department and there does not seem to be a problem but we will talk through that issue with the member. We do not think there is a problem. He has put forward an amendment to new clause 3L to insert the word “knowingly”. That gives greater clarity for landlords as the member explained in his presentation. I thank him for that contribution and we will certainly agree to that. 
We are here fixing up a bit of practical legislation. I am pleased we are able to do that. As I said there are only two significant problems and one of them we do not even think is a problem but we will just make sure that everyone is clear about that. We have an opportunity to go through a complex large piece of legislation and fix up all those little things that inevitably happen when one is drawing up a big document—such as grammatical errors; numbering problems which Dr Nick Smith spent an extraordinary amount of time talking about yesterday; and all those practical little things that happen inevitably in big drafting issues. We have that chance today. We are taking advantage of it. I am pleased and believe we will have better legislation at the end of this process. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I think the Committee and the country should be deeply alarmed by the comments we have just heard from the Minister. He is trying to sweep this major problem this very complex legislation under the carpet by saying that this is just about little wee things such as numerical problems and grammatical errors. I tell the Minister that that is why legislation should go to a select committee. That is why this Parliament before it rushes in to pass laws calls for public submissions to hear what people out in the community with experience such as he has not got might think about it. But no he is captured by his officials. He rushes to the Parliament with this legislation under urgency and rams it through. All he is doing is putting a sticking-plaster on a weeping sore because the situation is this: this Building Act was passed some 8 months ago; part of it became operative on 30 November last year; another significant part became operative on 31 March this year. That is just 13 days ago! Yet here we have another amending piece of legislation 13 days later. 
But here is the real catch: a Supplementary Order Paper has been cobbled together and it is 10 times the size of the amending bill but none of it is going to a select committee. That is arrogantly bypassing the proper processes of passing legislation. This Minister knows it. It is a disgrace and he tries to sweep it under the carpet as error after error is exposed here in the Committee. He has entered into a sort of back-scratching exercise a mutual admiration society; with the doormat party United Future. 
I shall comment on the speech made by Murray Smith from United Future prior to the Minister’s speech. He was proudly claiming credit—it was sort of the great achievement of United Future yet he shot himself down with his own words. I do not know whether any members have picked up off the table his amendment in hastily scrawled handwriting. Here he is in the Committee talking about legislation that is not going to a select committee making further amendments to legislation that he is proudly claiming he has had all this great input into. In other words he is acknowledging he has not got it right and it is legislation on the hoof. 
It is a very bad process and we are seeing far too much of that practice under this Government. It is panic legislation. It is a knee-jerk reaction and the building laws of this country are far too important to be fiddling with and changing on the hoof in the way this is being done. 
This Government has made an absolute mess of the building laws. On the one hand it has totally removed the longstanding tradition of the Kiwi do-it-yourselfer who is totally driven out of the industry and Government members might well say that the building industry supports that. Well of course they do! Has the Government not heard of restrictive trade practice? All employment groups love banning the do-it-yourselfer because then they get more work. Instead we have this great layer of registration upon registration. I know a lot of Kiwis who are quite competent in this work. I actually built my first house. I lived in it before it was completed. There were no problems. It is still standing does not leak and that was over 30 years ago. 
Brent Catchpole 
: A good tent! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: A very good house it was I might add. That is the point. That has all ended now. No one can do any work within the structural envelope of the building. It is a nonsense. For the Minister to try to sweep under the carpet the fiasco we had in the clause that clearly stated—he might try to argue that it was ambiguous but it was very clear—that someone cannot occupy any part of a public building that is subject to works whether or not they are maintenance restorative or whatever is a nonsense. It was very clear and the Minister tries to say: “No no the city council was prepared to go along with that.” Well I say: “Shame on the city council!” That is the problem with so many of our laws. We are not properly enforcing the many laws that we have passed and at the same time we try to bring in layers and layers of more restrictive and prescriptive laws. This is bad legislation and I urge the Parliament not to pass it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004 before the word “permit” the word “knowingly” 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004 before the word “permit” the word “knowingly”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2Amendments to Commerce Act 1986 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3Amendment to Copyright Act 1994 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 356 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification on the vote on Part 1. Can you please tell me what the vote on that part was? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I seek leave of the Committee to put that vote again because National wants to record a vote against. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The Clerk will conduct a party vote on Part 1 as amended. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If National just wants to change its vote the other parties do not need to vote again do they? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: My understanding is that Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices and therefore that we need to conduct a full vote. 
Part 1Amendments to Building Act 2004 ( 
recommitted 
) 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4Amendments to Health Act 1956 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to clarify a vote because the Clerk at the Table is not sure whether the vote was heard correctly. It is the vote on the Minister’s amendment to Part 3. I ask the Green Party to be so good as to repeat their votes on Part 3. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 We are for the Minister’s amendment and opposed to the part. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill  
divided into Building Amendment Bill (No 3) Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) Copyright Amendment Bill Health Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 355 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce: 
 I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time.  
This legislation corrects an unintended effect that resulted from the inclusion of an additional section in three Acts: the Building Act of 2004 the Commerce Act of 1986 and the Health Act of 1956. All those Acts require that when material has been incorporated by reference those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material free of charge on the Internet. 
In terms of the Building Act to avoid the potentially negative effects that these requirements have the legislation removes the obligation of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make available free of charge on the Internet material incorporated by reference. This provision is replaced with a requirement on the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge at all the department’s regional offices key material incorporated by reference in regulations and compliance documents including standards used by building practitioners in areas such as the use of timber and concrete in the construction of buildings the design of buildings using timber and concrete plumbing installation access for persons with disabilities and energy efficiency. In addition the chief executive must make available for inspection free of charge at the department’s Wellington office all material incorporated by reference. All material will also be available for purchase at all the department’s offices. By amending the Building Act in this way the Government has endeavoured to strike a balance between the facilitation of access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright in standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference. 
For the same reasons I have just outlined the legislation also amends the Health Act and the Commerce Act in order to remove the positive obligation on the Director-General of Health and the chairperson of the Commerce Commission to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. That obligation has been replaced with a provision that allows the director-general or chairperson to make material incorporated by reference available in any other way he or she may consider appropriate in the circumstances. Neither currently incorporates material by reference and neither has any plans to do so but the amendments in this legislation future-proof those Acts. In addition to the amendments I have just outlined the legislation also amends the Copyright Act to clarify that the non-Crown copyright is affected when material subject to copyright is incorporated by reference into legislation. All these amendments ensure that the standards development process in New Zealand can remain up to date with international best practice. In addition they ensure that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue by ensuring that domestic and international copyright is given appropriate protection. 
As implementation of the Building Act took effect some small anomalies and technical errors were identified. Most important there has been some debate around section 363 relating to the occupation of public buildings. These have been rectified by this legislation to make the Building Act more effective. I thank United Future for its support in this very worthwhile enterprise. 
I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Politics has been dominated for the last fortnight by a speech given by John Tamihere in which he made three particular references. The first of those was that we were verging on a dictatorship—that this Parliament was being treated with disrespect—and that the Leader of the House Michael Cullen was “sneaky” in the way in which he dealt with issues. We were also told with exquisite language about the features of this particular Minister Chris Carter who was referred to as one who tosses things. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I ruled out the use of that word last night and I would appreciate it if the member would come to order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point is that this legislation and the appalling way this Parliament has been treated have reinforced everything that John Tamihere said. Let me explain why. What we have seen is a sneaky little bill—the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill which makes only one change to the Building Act—being introduced into the House then a 20-page Supplementary Order Paper with 21 significant changes has been brought in over the top of it. That should concern you Mr Speaker because one of your duties is to protect this Parliament and this Parliament is being walked over like you would not believe. 
Only last week we saw the Government believing that it could simply walk all its Ministers out and shut down this House of Representatives. What we see with the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) is exactly the same sort of abuse and lack of respect for this democratic institution. What we really have here is the Government making an absolute botch of New Zealand’s building laws—and that matters because the building industry is worth $18 billion per year to the New Zealand economy. The industry employs 230000 people. Those people depend on a set of sensible building laws that are practical and workable and that ensure we have homes and buildings that will serve our nation well. What we have is an arrogant Government that under urgency rammed through a botched bill written by a bunch of Ministers who would not have the foggiest idea about the building industry. 
In this Government there have been six different Ministers for building issues. For a start we had Mark Burton. We then had George Hawkins. We then had Lianne Dalziel. We then had Margaret Wilson. We then had John Tamihere. Now we have Chris Carter and to make matters even worse this legislation is in the name of Pete Hodgson. It is little wonder that the building industry is crying out for some reasonable leadership and rules when that sort of game of musical chairs is occurring on the Government benches. No Minister in charge of this portfolio area has been in charge for a period in excess of 9 months so it is little wonder that it is the mess that it is. 
A fortnight ago during question time I raised with the Minister for Building Issues Chris Carter a series of concerns about the Building Act and I will quote what he said. He said: “There is no problem.” If there is no problem why are we ramming 21 changes to the Building Act through this Parliament under urgency? Was he being untruthful then or now? It must be one or the other. He cannot have said 2 weeks ago that there was no problem and now say: “Hang on we have to ram through 21 changes to the Building Act.” 
I will make a bet today. The Government botched it the first time. It ended up with a Building Act that was totally unworkable and that ended up with a Government breaking its own law. The officials in the Department of Building and Housing came before the Government Administration Committee and said: “Yeah sorry we are breaking the law.” Well that is becoming a habit with the Government—whether it be in terms of forging paintings or of going at 150 kilometres an hour while every other New Zealander doing that gets pinged. And now we now have it in respect of the building laws where the Government over both copyright issues and occupation of the Beehive has blatantly breached its own laws. That is the sorry state we have ended up with. 
I will make a bet that any one of these changes will create more errors. I have to make a comment about United Future. United Future members supported going into urgency so that the building legislation could be passed in a mad rush. When National expressed concern at the time they said: “No no it’s all right. It’s all OK. We have it absolutely right.” 
Murray Smith 
: I never said that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well why did the member support urgency? I say to Murray Smith that he has put us under urgency he voted for urgency he voted the legislation through the House and he said that it was all OK. Will he stake his reputation on these amendments being correct? If the Government has it wrong again will the member take responsibility? United Future members said that they would be the honest brokers for the Government yet they will allow the Government to treat this Parliament with the disrespect that sees 21 substantial amendments—20 pages of law—that were tabled only yesterday afternoon to be the law of the land by lunchtime today. United Future says that that is good lawmaking. United Future will be campaigning this year and saying: “Vote for us because we will ram 20 pages of law affecting one of New Zealand’s largest industries through Parliament within 24 hours.” and United Future says that that is good lawmaking. It is shonky lawmaking it is appalling lawmaking it is a mess it is causing great strife within the building industry and the problems are not finished. The wallies on the Government benches have decided that the good old— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: The only wallies are on that side. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would like Mr Samuels to explain this to me. Why are we banning ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes? There has never been any evidence presented to the select committee or anywhere else—in fact I have asked the Minister—on how many of the 2300 claims made over weathertightness resulted from do-it-yourself builders. The answer is none as far as we know. Why then is the Government prohibiting the New Zealand homeowner from doing building work on his or her own home? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh well we have David Cunliffe. He says it all. He has answered the question that I have been asking Ministers. He said it is because homeowners do a crap job. Well I have to say to David Cunliffe that generations of aspiring New Zealanders have done building work on their own homes and have improved those homes and as a consequence of doing that they have been able to get themselves ahead in life. 
I was one of those New Zealanders. I had a little old house in Riccarton. I built an extra room on to it knocked some walls out and upgraded it and that improved my equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to improve their lot and this Government is saying: “Nope. You will not be allowed to do that in future. We will abolish the ability for New Zealanders to be able to get themselves ahead.” That move would be so typical of the control freak approach taken by the Labour Government that has got it into so much trouble with this particular legislation. 
This process is an absolute disgrace. I remember being in Government and Labour members would be completely throwing their marbles in the House because we had law changed over weeks. This law has not seen the light of more than 1 day. In the Minister’s contribution we have just heard he made only passing reference to what he called a few minor and technical changes. Well is it minor and technical that all our architects designers and engineers are prohibited by law from doing design work because of the mad drafting and mad laws that the Government has imposed here? 
This will not be the last amendment to the Building Act. This is one of the worst reforms that I have seen in my 15 years in this Parliament. It is a diabolical mess. The Minister Chris Carter and the chair of the select committee Dianne Yates should be apologising to the building industry for making such a mess of the law for which they are responsible. We have a Building Act that has been written by control freaks who have no practical idea as to how the building industry in New Zealand functions. They do not know the practical dimensions of what it is to be able to provide good quality buildings. They have added hugely to the costs for no benefit. The industry will continue to pull its hair out but my response to the building industry is that help is on the way—a common-sense National Government will fix the Building Act later this year because the building industry knows from this bill that Labour cannot be trusted. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) which is the first part of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill has come about because the officials particularly the Legislation Advisory Committee added a clause into the original Building Bill that had not gone past the select committee. That clause resulted in documents having to be put up on to the website. An unexpected result—because the Government had not discussed it with the industry—was that a whole lot of documents referred to in those documents also had to go on the website. The particular section section 409 insisted that all documents had to be on the website. 
As a result a lot of copyrighted information had to be put on to the website free of charge. A lot of those items in particular the standards and other technical details of manufacturers’ products are confidential very highly prized and worth a lot of money to the individual manufacturers. That information had to be automatically put on to the website. Of course that left people in the industry out of pocket. One of the major examples is Standards New Zealand. It relies on the income from selling its standards to people who require them. That is a means of funding that organisation. So forcing it to put those things on a website free of charge meant that a funding stream was going to be cut off and that was going to make it very difficult for the organisation to continue to operate. 
The other aspect of this legislation that makes New Zealand First very disappointed in this Government is the Supplementary Order Paper that has gone through that makes changes to the Building Act. Yes a lot of those changes were needed particularly the one to section 363 which was worded in such a way as to leave a bit of confusion and doubt. If it was read one way then there was no problem but it could be interpreted to mean that all buildings that had not been issued with a code of compliance certificate were not allowed to be occupied. The reason for that goes back to the Cave Creek incident when a platform that had not been signed off as code compliant or inspected collapsed causing loss of life. 
We accept that safety is a major factor that needs to be taken into account when we look at the Building Act but unfortunately it was taken too far under section 363 and meant that the whole site had to be completed. Let me give an example of a situation where this becomes ridiculous. A multi-storey apartment block or a building that the public has access to is largely completed except for the white lines in the car-park. Under this particular section that building cannot be occupied until those white lines have been put in. However there is now a mechanism that allows the territorial authority to alter the consent and allow a certificate of public use so that the building can be used while those lines are still to be put in. 
There is also another mechanism that allows a notice—I cannot find the actual terminology—enabling the site to be used. The territorial authority can alter the consent to take that into account. Of course it makes a bit of a mockery of the process when a council is allowed to change the original consent and to actually take out a part of that consent. Why would anybody put the painting of the lines into a consent in the first place when that person could just apply later on to put them in later to prevent occupation of the whole building being halted. That particular example is one that was highlighted to me and I think it really needed to be looked at a bit further. 
That is why New Zealand First is opposing this legislation now—because there are errors. We have just had a whole raft of those errors highlighted in the House very quickly last night and this morning. The Building Bills were rushed through in such a hurry that errors were allowed to slip in. The original building legislation went through a select committee. A lot of errors were picked up during the drafting stage and we on the select committee picked up a lot of errors. However by putting through under urgency a Supplementary Order Paper—and as has been noted by other members it is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—without it going to a select committee we are making rushed alterations to the Act. Yes the Act has some errors and has some problems but we have already discovered that the legislation going through the House now is exaggerating some of those errors. Unfortunately by not sending the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee we are allowing errors to slip in. 
The industry will be confused—the confusion will continue—because it will find other big holes that could have been picked up if the legislation had gone to a select committee. The whole process of this Parliament involves select committees that invite the public and particularly those members of the industry who are affected to make submissions. Through that process we sort out most of the problems and get legislation that is right and is very close to what the industry requires and what the public expects. But we have rushed this legislation through the House over the last day and a half and I think we have made a huge error in not allowing the Supplementary Order Paper to go to a select committee so that the errors it contains could be corrected. 
It is unfortunate that the officials were put under so much pressure to get the legislation here in such a short time when they should have been given a lot more time. The first phase of the Building Act came into force on 30 November last year and the next major phase came into effect on 31 March this year. Some of the issues had already been discovered long before the second phase came into effect but it was as it came into effect that everybody started to panic. That of course put pressure on the officials to come up with corrections. I know they were working right up to the last minute to try to get the legislation right before it was sent out to several members of the House to have a look at but we did not have time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and put it out to very many people in the industry for their feedback. I managed to get some feedback last night. I discussed it with a few people and they picked holes in it straight away. 
I am afraid that as we have not put the legislation to a select committee those holes will reappear and will require another piece of legislation to come before this House very soon. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Just to recap we have a mess here. The Building Act was passed some 8 months ago. Part of it became operative on 30 November last year just a few months back. Another significant part of it became operative on 31 March only 13 days ago. If anyone needs to be given proof that this is legislation on the hoof here it is. We are making a significant amendment just 13 days after that part of the legislation became operative. Moreover we now have a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the amendment itself. It is the sticking plaster on top of the sticking plaster on top of the festering wound. 
United Future proudly claims credit for all this good work. The United Future members call it good work. They imply that it would not have happened if it had not been for their efforts and I suspect that that is right. But that is nothing to claim credit for; it is something to be deeply ashamed of and apologetic for. And in fact we even had an amendment tabled by Mr Smith of United Future this morning during the Committee stage—scribbled out in his handwriting—after he had proudly claimed that he had worked on the legislation. He was very proud of the legislation and implied that he had put it right. Yet here we have even today a handwritten further amendment. This legislation is a mess and the building laws are a mess. 
Perhaps what I found to be the most revealing comment came in this very third reading debate this morning in response to an interjection from I think Dr Smith who wanted to know why home handymen and women cannot continue to do the work that they have always done on their homes. Kiwis have great aptitude for building and great experience at it that has been passed down from father to son. What was the response from Mr Cunliffe the “junior Minister of Commerce” who actually has a responsibility associated with this bill? He said that oh no the Government could not allow Kiwis to do building at home because they do a crap job. That is what he said. What a gross generalisation that was! What arrogance it was! I have never heard such arrogance in this House but it typifies the thinking of this Labour Government which somehow believes that only nanny State can control and direct those sorts of things. We need another regulation and more prescriptive controls from nanny State to protect us all from ourselves—that is what the Labour Minister Cunliffe said here in the House today. 
I think a lot of New Zealanders will take deep offence at that. I am certainly offended by that statement as someone who built his own home over 30 years ago—a house that is still standing and does not leak. I know many of my friends did likewise. In fact most of the homes in the Hutt Valley were built by soldiers returning from the war who formed gangs and built each others’ homes. They reciprocated and then went down and built the house next door. A lot of Hutt Valley homes were built in that way. But this Labour Government is saying that no there is to be no more of that. We might have had 100 years in this society of good innovative Kiwis doing a good job yet the Government is saying that they cannot do that because they do a crap job. That is deeply insulting. 
Of course the building industry agrees with the Government. It says that yes it wants there to be more restrictions and more controls. Well of course it would want that. Has it not heard of restrictive trade practice? The bigger the building company the more the industry supports it. There are so many laws and controls here that one now needs to employ one’s own bureaucrats in order to get approvals through city hall and through the various Crown agencies. Of course that is economy-of-scale stuff. That gears things more—weights them more—in favour of the larger construction companies. So the home handyman is gone and the small construction guy is at a serious disadvantage with this type of legislation. It is all about more central control—more central control from the Labour Government. 
The United Future party members are proud. They are trying to say that this legislation is really their handiwork—that it is their work and they did it. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be hanging their heads low in deep shame. Perhaps what is even more disgraceful—and I think this underscores the arrogance of this Government—is that having messed up the original Act passed only 8 months ago and having brought an amendment to the House and then a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than that bill the Government is not even letting Supplementary Order Paper 361 go to a select committee. Government members are saying this legislation is so urgent that they have to ram it through under urgency without any select committee hearing or submissions from the public. 
We had the Minister in the chair earlier this morning try to excuse that by saying the amendments were just to correct minor numerical and grammatical errors. Well they are not; they are more substantive than that. We have things such as penalty clauses where one can be liable for a $100000 fine or $10000-a-day fines. Are those perhaps just numerical problems and do they have the decimal point in the wrong place a nought or two dropped off or a nought or two added? Who knows? Those sorts of errors impact hugely on Kiwis’ lives every day and the Government is ramming this legislation through under urgency. 
The Minister of course was tossed aside. The Minister for Building Issues Chris Carter was tossed aside and we had Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Peter Hodgson. We had a bit of a discussion last night about the Minister being tossed aside. Was he actually the “tossee” or the “tossor”? We could not actually decide on that. He is clearly one of those: either the “tossee” or the “tossor”. 
This is shameful legislation and the ACT party will be opposing it. I notice that the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the Greens are opposing it. The only reason this legislation is going through Parliament under urgency is that the United Future party somehow thinks the legislation is good. It has not been able to convince us of that or tell the House what is good about it. The United Future members proudly claim this legislation as their own handiwork. Every builder every home handyman or woman and everyone who has any involvement with building structures out there should know that this bad legislation is a direct result of the United Future party and should say: “Shame on United Future.” 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of this legislation which started life as the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It has now become four bills: the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill. 
I come to this speech with a particular interest in building issues that I brought to Parliament through my background of having been a lawyer for 26 years. During that time I acted for literally hundreds of home purchasers home vendors land developers owners who were contracting builders and builders—including one builder I fell out with because of substandard buildings that were being built and who actually fell foul of the leaky homes legislation. I have been involved in drawing up contracts to purchase buildings and to build buildings. I have acted for purchasers and for builders in disputes in mediations arbitrations and court proceedings and I have even acted for a tradesman in a disciplinary hearing. So I came with a particular interest in the building industry. 
For that reason I joined the Government Administration Committee in its consideration of the inquiry into weathertight homes and also joined it for consideration of the Building Bill. As part of that I was privileged to visit Australia and meet among other people the Australian Building Codes Board and I got a feel for what was happening both at an Australian-wide level and also at a state level in Australia in terms of the building industry and for furthering the way that it cooperates with New Zealand. I hope and think that through that and through the 26 years’ experience that I have had I understand a bit about New Zealand homeowners what their needs are and how they think and also understand a bit about the building industry in terms of its needs and the way that it thinks and works. My time in the House has enabled me also now to see the issues from a policy perspective from a nationwide perspective and from a perspective of the needs that we have as a nation as we move forward in terms of the building industry. 
Being privileged to be with United Future means that I have been able to be in a position of having some influence in terms of the direction of legislation—to provide support for the Government but also to provide restraint on the Government at times. That is the role we have. As a centre party we are in a position where we are able to prevent the excesses of the major parties and to promote good common-sense solutions. With only eight out of 120 MPs we are not always able to get our way and in particular where Labour has wanted to push extreme ideological issues it has been able to find the support of the Greens who specialise in extreme ideological issues in order to do things that we do not think make common sense. Our goal is with the help of the New Zealand public of course to have greater ability to be the party of restraint and to keep Labour and National on a centre course rather than their being pulled to the extremes that the Greens and ACT respectively would pull them or being reliant on the proven instability and unpredictability of the New Zealand First Party. 
In terms of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill in my first-reading speech I went into detail on the considerable input United Future had had in the development of that legislation and in particular the extent of the input we had had to make sure that as far as possible all information would be readily available free of charge to building practitioners. We required of the Government that the legislation be changed from the position that it had drafted which would have allowed the chief executive discretion in terms of how that information was to be made available to one that made it mandatory for the chief executive to make as much of that information available to building practitioners at a local level as was possible. So the restriction that was necessary in terms of the copyright issues that incorporation by reference documents give rise to was kept as narrowly as possible to the standards which were effectively the ones that needed to have copyright protected. Beyond that everything was readily available. 
I am delighted that we have reached that position—in particular with the amendment bill to the Building Act that has been agreed to. We are now in a position where effectively even compliance documents that are produced by the Government mandatorily have to be made available free of charge on the Internet. I am delighted that as of 2 weeks ago all compliance documents are now on the Internet available free of charge for building practitioners to access. That is making information more available than it has been in the past and indeed one of the changes that has been made by this legislation—in particular the change to the Copyright Act—removes the Crown’s hold on documents that it has copyright in so that those documents are freely available to be copied and used by the general public. So the Crown has abandoned its right to copyright and that too will further the ability of that information to be made available and put into public hands. 
So United Future members are pleased with the changes we brought about in the primary legislation in terms of incorporation by reference and the fact that we have now been able to achieve the goal we set out to achieve which was as I said before to make as much of this information as possible available free of charge at a local level for all New Zealanders in particular building practitioners to access. 
National speaks with a degree of righteous indignation about the amendments to the legislation and the way in which it has happened but it did exactly the same thing itself. It is inevitable that in legislation as comprehensive as the changes to the Building Act there will be mistakes and they will be picked up. It will not stop now. Even at the passing of the Building Act I made it clear in my speeches that I envisaged there would need to be amendments as the legislation settled down. As I said previously today it is not surprising that as the legislation starts to come into operation which it did on 31 March and the rubber hits the road suddenly issues come to light as local authorities and others have to start implementing it. Suddenly they find there is a hole that needs to be plugged or an ambiguity as in the case of section 363 that needs to be clarified. That is an inevitable result of legislation as complex as this that has changed the building regime from the laissez-faire regime we had in the 1990s to something that tries to provide a balance between the prescriptiveness that operated before 1990 and the looseness that operated after 1990. 
I remind National that at the end of the day it created the mess we had through the former Building Act and the changes made in 1990. That created a situation where there was complete free unrestrained ability of people to build what they wanted with scant inadequate policing through the Building Industry Authority and through local authorities which themselves were not held to account. Those huge problems resulted in the whole leaky homes problem that has arisen; it originated out of the National Government’s changes. The recent Building Act tightened the processes in a way that tried to provide some balance. Now we have the early teething problems and we need to make minor corrections to the direction of the Building Act in order to clear up some of those problems. 
It will not stop here. I have always said and I said previously that this will not be the last legislation amending the Building Act. It is absolutely inevitable that as it beds down other issues will arise and some clarifications and changes will need to be made. That will be simply as a matter of course. It happened with the National Government’s legislation with the Resource Management Act the Local Government Act and all those things; major changes need some bedding down. 
That shows that big parties need a centre party to second-guess them to provide some restraint and even to give an independent view so that Governments can do their job better. That is the sort of role that United Future can provide and will provide in terms of both Labour and National—both of them having said they want to work with us. That is the sort of role we can provide in Parliament. It is an absolutely vital role—to ensure that the big parties maintain a centre position and do not get pulled to their extremes. 
In terms of section 363 clearly there had to be some urgent change because of the ambiguity. That prompted the need to make these changes in a prompt manner and the Government has not surprisingly taken the opportunity to correct some of the technical and administrative problems that have arisen that are not matters of huge significance but nevertheless in being corrected bring the Building Act to what it was always intended to be. This legislation is not perfect. I am sure that faults will continue to be found in it—in both the original Building Act and even the legislation that is being passed. It is unfortunate that it has had to be done urgently. Nevertheless United Future supports the need for the changes so that we can get the Building Act under way in the best possible way now. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 One of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco which Parliament had an inquiry into was that builders and developers were not following the standards and rules that were in place. That was one of the main reasons we concluded that this fiasco of the leaky building syndrome came about. Therefore to try to ensure that all builders would have access to all the standards and would not have the excuse that they did not see them we made a provision under the Building Act that the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing must make all material incorporated by reference—and that includes all building standards—available free of charge on the Internet. Let us be under no illusion despite all the bland reassurances from Murray Smith a United Future member whose party is propping up this legislation that all documents would be available free of charge. I assure him and also any listeners that it is not true. Building standards will no longer be provided free of charge on the Internet. 
Just to confirm that—because Murray Smith was busily saying last night that that was not the case—this morning we tried to download a basic building standard. Instead we could not do so because it was blocked. Instead we would have to pay $232 plus GST to get a basic building standard that all builders in New Zealand would be expected to comply with. Murray Smith has just told us that that is not true. He has just told us that every compliance document and all of the rules will be available free. [ 
Interruption 
] He says that a building standard is not a compliance document but it is. The building standard is the standard. It is the rule that everyone must follow. It is the most important document—the building standard that builders must follow. Some builders do not have access to those standards. Already we have spoken to some builders who have said there is no way that they will spend $232 plus GST to download a basic standard. They will rely on old knowledge. 
That is completely contrary to the objectives of the Building Act and the reason why we said that important material like building standards should be available free of charge on the Internet. That is why in the debate on the Building Act we went to considerable lengths to say that we must make it an obligation on the chief executive to make documents such as standards freely available on the Internet. This bill removes the obligation on the chief executive to make building standards available free of charge; now they no longer are. It sets a precedent. It allows not only Standards New Zealand but others to start charging for information that should be freely available. The building standards in New Zealand are owned by Standards New Zealand. They are already owned by the Government so there is not a copyright issue. They are owned by the New Zealand Government and are standards that we require everyone to follow so that we hope we can avert another leaky building fiasco. But now builders are not allowed to download the standards for free from the Internet which was the purpose of the legislation. Not even the standards that are owned by Standards New Zealand will be published online. 
I can assure members that architects and builders are mystified. They are also angry about it. Why should they be required to pay for a standard that they must follow? What is the sense of that? With this silly little issue which is presumably all about allowing the Government to earn money by charging builders $232 plus GST for a basic standard are we putting the desire to make a little bit of money from selling a standard that is supposed to be free on the Internet ahead of the whole intention of our new Building Act? That intention was to try to prevent a leaky building fiasco from happening again. We are telling all the builders in New Zealand that they have to pay through the nose for the standards but there will be builders who do not do it. They will not spend the money and will instead rely on their old knowledge. We may very well find that we are contributing through this niggardly miserly provision to further examples of leaky buildings. 
As the Greens have stated before we have no problem acknowledging that international standards that are not owned by Standards New Zealand have copyright issues and therefore cannot be freely available unless the Government purchases them. To buy all the copyrights for all international standards is probably not realistic. But the standards owned by Standards New Zealand are owned by the Government. Every builder and developer in New Zealand is obliged to follow those standards. Now we are changing this legislation to say that builders and developers can no longer get the basic standards free of charge on the Internet; now they will have to pay $232 plus GST to download them. These standards are already blocked on the Internet. Murray Smith might like to check that he can no longer download from the Internet the basic standards that all builders are expected to comply with. The intention of the Building Act was to enable building standards to be freely available on the Internet—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you protect me from the constant interruptions from the member to my left. He is obviously agitated. I ask you to get him to contain himself. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The crosstalk does distract. I ask the member to desist. 
Murray Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have not been constantly barraging the member but when I hear so much drivel coming from the Green Party I cannot help but make some response. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I also remind Mr Power that I am ruling on the point of order; he is not. He should not call out: “That is not a point of order.” when a member is speaking to a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think we adequately resolved that issue. The member on her feet quite rightly called for the protection of the Chair from barraging from the cross benches. I am sitting between the members and the noise was deafening. It was a constant barrage of drivel. I think the member is entitled to protection from the Chair in that situation. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before Murray Smith rose to speak to the point of order I had indicated to him that the barraging across the cross benches was not acceptable. That had already been dealt with. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Thank you for your protection and intervention Madam Speaker. Some of the regulations legislation and compliance documents will be available for inspection only in Wellington. Will we have builders flying to Wellington from around New Zealand? Will people from Whangarei fly to Wellington to look at these regulations? Obviously they will not. The Government has said it is trying to reduce compliance costs in New Zealand. It has a mantra that it is reducing compliance costs and protecting small businesses. With this legislation it is increasing compliance costs. It is charging small businesses—as builders often are—around New Zealand for a basic standard that they have to comply with. They will have to pay $232. That increases compliance costs; it does not reduce them. It goes against the Government’s stated mantra about reducing compliance costs. 
It is also against the intention of the Building Act which was to ensure that materials such as standards were available free of charge on the Internet so that we could avoid a repetition of the leaky building syndrome. Evidence was presented to us that one of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco was that builders were not following standards. We wanted to make it absolutely easy and simple for all builders to follow standards so that they would have no excuse for not doing so. That is why we wanted to make the standards available free of charge on the Internet. It is ridiculous that we require builders to pay to look at basic standards on the Internet for which reason the Greens will be opposing this bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is not often that I agree with a Green Party member but in this instance I think she is absolutely right. The Government has produced this legislation in a hurry and as a consequence more compliance costs have been built into the day-to-day lives of average New Zealanders. 
I take issue with the United Future member Murray Smith who got to his feet and spent the last 5 minutes of his call speaking self-righteous drivel. He talked about why his party exists in this House. He did not even speak about the bill—he did not mention the bill for nearly 5 minutes. Instead he spoke about why it was important to have minor parties like United Future in the House to keep the major parties honest. The thing I found most appalling was his contention that he knew when he supported the passage of the Building Act that it had errors in it and that it would be coming back to the House soon thereafter for correction. He is taking some pride in the fact that we are now here under urgency speaking about the changes he forecast. He said that that was the way we did things in this House. 
I have news for him and his party—it is not the way the National Party does things at all. We believe very firmly that we should endeavour to write good legislation at the first pass. I accept that from time to time there will be errors but to set out to achieve error strikes me as an absolute nonsense. 
I want to talk a little about the press release that was put out by Minister Hodgson. I find it extraordinary that Pete Hodgson is the Minister in charge of this bill when the actual Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I do not know whether Chris Carter has been tossed out of that portfolio or whether to use the words of someone else in this House he is just a tosser. But that is not something I would want to dwell on. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind members that that word has been ruled out of order. I ask the member to withdraw it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I can be of assistance. I heard the member. He did not say “tosser” he said “tossor” as in a “tossee” or a “tossor”—one who is being tossed— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be seated. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It is an important point. It is language. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I heard the member previously. The context he used the word in and how he used it was OK then; this is different. I ask the member to withdraw that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw that if I have given offence. But the point I was making was about whether he has been tossed out or whether he was the “tossor”. I think the member is absolutely right; that is the point I was trying to make. However we dress it up the fact is that Chris Carter no longer has that responsibility. Given that he is the Minister for Building Issues I find that extraordinary. 
The real point I was trying to make was that Pete Hodgson wrote a press release which I thought was pretty sycophantic. In the press release he said that United Future wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards and design and that there would be no more compliance costs built into the lives of average Kiwis when it came to buildings. 
That is simply not the case. The Building Act has brought about an average increase in costs of around $7500 for the average person building a house in this country. That is a compliance cost and it is quite an extraordinary compliance cost. It is clearly not right for the member to stand up and say that that it is not happening. 
The other issue I want to mention is something that I believe has been an absolute abuse of process in this House. When one does things in a hurry one gets a mess. We were asked I think about 19 April to consider this legislation for the first time. A bill with one clause was introduced to the House with 12 working days for consideration. The bill went to a select committee where it had 2 hours of consideration before it was reported back to the House. That is an abuse of process. 
Then at the Committee stage we found there was a Supplementary Order Paper with 21 clauses in it which had not had any consideration by a select committee at all—and the Government with the help of the United Future party is trying to tell us that that is due process. Well it is simply not and it should not be acceptable to any right-thinking member of this House or anyone in the broader community across New Zealand. I am sure everyone would agree that that is not due process. 
Let us examine the legislation in the first instance. Why did it come before this House? It was a knee-jerk reaction to leaky homes. There had been a number of incidences in Auckland. The problem was confined to Auckland but it was not about the non-treatment of timber; it was about the poor design of homes. The Green member has already said that we had the law and regulations in place but that some builders were not following those regulations. 
What we got as a consequence was 400 pages—380-odd clauses—of bureaucratic nonsense that will not fix the problem at all. It does not concentrate on the heart of the problem; it does not concentrate on design; it concentrates on rules and regulations and an insistence on treating timber. We even got into the ridiculous position whereby the Government was insisting on treating timbers like Douglas fir. Anyone with an ounce of experience—and I note that Murray Smith is very quiet on this point—would have known that treating Douglas fir timber was totally unnecessary. 
So what we have now is legislation that by Murray Smiths’s own admission will come back to the House again and again because it is simply not right. 
Inherent in this bill is the death knell for one of New Zealand’s great icons the home handyman. This Government which purports to support average Kiwis has now ensured that home handymen will not be able to build their own homes without having extra compliance costs or inspectors looking over their shoulders saying they can or cannot do particular pieces of work. 
The other thing I find quite mystifying about this legislation is that nine ministers have lined up to take responsibility for it. Then suddenly they have all disappeared. No wonder it is in a mess because no one is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it. 
What we have now is an absolute nightmare of legislation which came to the House under the guise of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. The Opposition parties—with the exception of United Future that insisted it was good legislation—warned Government members that that bill was inappropriate. We warned them that if it were rushed through the House there would be problems. We warned the Government that if the bill went through the House under this type of abusive process it would come back with errors. Mark my words we have not seen the end of it yet. This legislation will come back to this House again and again because it is just bad legislation. 
Of nine ministers not one of them has stood up to take a call to try to justify why the legislation is good—because they know it is a dog’s breakfast. Nine ministers have circled through this legislation and out again and I am not certain even now who is responsible for it. Looking around the Chamber I cannot see a Minister who is putting his or her hand up and saying that he or she will take responsibility for it. That is simply because those Ministers know it is poor. 
United Future members should hang their heads in shame. The way they have supported this process is simply shocking. It is a disgrace and an abuse of the parliamentary process and the behaviour of members—particularly Murray Smith who has tried to justify it by tabling handwritten amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 361 today—typifies why it is such a mess. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to refer to some of the problems that have been highlighted which resulted in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill being introduced to the House. First of all when the original Building Bill was reported back there were problems caused by the inclusion of standard clauses—that is the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were followed in preparing the bill. It was highlighted at that stage that those clauses could possibly infringe the copyright interests of third parties. The Department of Building and Housing and the Ministry of Economic Development took legal advice. There was a divergence of views and in order to clear up that matter the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill came before the House which has been split into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill. 
This legislation assures us that we are complying with the copyright legislation and that eventually we will save New Zealand a good deal of money should there be cases under the previous situation of costly legal action for breach of copyright. I point out that the stakeholders and Standards New Zealand were consulted in the formation of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. When the Government Administration Committee called for submissions the stakeholders did not appear before it but they had said that they agreed with the bill. Standards New Zealand came and explained the legal implications around copyright. 
There was a good deal of grandstanding about the Building Act. I note that Nick Smith said in this House just a few minutes ago that we are crying out for rules in the building industry. He said that yet the previous National Government of which he was a member was responsible for the deregulation of the building industry which was responsible for the multiple problems around weathertightness. That was not the result of poor design builders or timber but of all those things that came about through deregulation and then a building boom. The member knows that his friend George Chapman who is president of the National Party was the chair of the Building Industry Authority in the late 1990s when the weathertightness issue was drawn to its attention—and what did he do? 
Georgina Beyer 
: Nothing! 
DIANNE YATES 
: Exactly. I have to thank the Labour Government for facing up to the crisis in the building industry and bringing in a better system. 
I will just point out too a couple of issues. One concerns the issue of not being able to build one’s own house. That is actually rubbish. In the present situation anybody can wire his or her own house. An electrician has to come in and sign off that the wiring is OK and that the house will not burn down. This legislation states that anybody can build his or her own house but that a registered builder has to come in and say that it has been done properly that it will not fall down and that it will still have some resale value. That is terribly important to anybody who builds his or her own house. During the inquiry on weathertightness we heard that in New Zealand at the moment anyone who has a ute a radio a hammer and a dog can build a house. It does not require anybody to have any building expertise. The legislation states that people can build their own houses but they just have to have someone sign off that they have done it properly. I just wanted to clear up that matter. 
In respect of this legislation Nick Smith and other speakers have been grandstanding for the National Party. Dr Richard Worth who chairs the Regulations Review Committee and members of that committee which consists largely of lawyers have said that in this case it is necessary to change the law in order to make sure that we do not infringe copyright. I thank Dr Worth and that select committee for their opinion on this legislation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bills read a third time. 
Gambling Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
This bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Under the Sale of Liquor Act licensing trust members are generally elected by their local communities. Some gaming-machine societies that operate their gaming machines on licensed trust premises have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to have input into their decisions. The Gambling Act prohibits that type of arrangement. It does this by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the machines on those premises. 
The bill exempts licensing trust members from this requirement to reflect their unique position as elected members. The exemption also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. 
The bill was introduced on 30 November 2004. It had its first reading on 14 December and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I thank members on that committee for considering this bill within a short time frame. The committee considered 14 submissions of which seven were supported by oral evidence. It reported the bill back to the House on 21 February and did not propose any substantive amendments. 
The committee in its commentary made particular note of the local knowledge and accountability of licensing trust members and the substantial contribution they make to the well-being of their local communities. The committee also noted that members cannot benefit financially from the trust. For those reasons the potential for conflict of interest that the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act are designed to prevent is much lower in the case of licensing trust members than for other people with a role in running commercial premises. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The genesis of this bill goes back to some time ago when the Government realised it had made a mistake—another mistake. We have just heard in earlier debates about how this Government is prone to making mistakes. At the eleventh hour the Government wanted to bring in in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the provision we are now talking about. National opposed that. We said that this was important legislation. This matter should have been corrected during the debate on the Gambling Bill in 2003. It was not therefore there needs to be an amendment to the Gambling Act specifically so those organisations affected by the key persons provision have the opportunity to have a say. Otherwise that opportunity would have been limited. 
In respect of the current provision in the Act I have a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs dated 19 December which went out to the trusts stating that it had great difficulty when wanting to make any changes. It stated that section 113(1)(b) of the Gambling Act prohibits a key person in relation to a venue from being involved in decisions about grants or in the management or distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That is what the department said at the time. It went on to state that there could be a conflict of interest and then suggested that one could get around that by having a new independent community society. 
We must remember that prior to 1 July 2004—that was the operative date—elected members of licensing trusts were able to distribute the proceeds. It was only from 1 July last year that suddenly they were not able to be involved in the distribution of grants from their machines. The Department of Internal Affairs’ position at the time was that it could fix that but that the community would have to set up new independent community societies. That was a way around it. It stated: “It is open to the community in which a licensing trust operates to establish a trust to apply for a licence to operate gaming machines and to distribute the proceeds from those machines for authorised purposes within the community.” 
So there is conflict between the advice the Department of Internal Affairs is giving and the Government’s measure. It says that cannot be done but under the Official Information Act I got all these papers—because they are considerable—about the arguments relating to the provision about the key persons. On one hand the Government has realised it has made a mistake—a big mistake in fact—and on the other hand its advisers through the Department of Internal Affairs are suggesting another means by which it could be remedied; that is that by setting up a separate independent operation. 
National does not subscribe to that. We believe elected members of the trusts are clearly elected from the community and they should not be disqualified by that. They hold both these positions they have an interest in the licensing trust as an outlet and they should be involved also in what goes on. They clearly have no financial or proprietary interest in the operations of a licensing trust so why should they not be involved in the distribution of those funds to the community? I have a list of licensing trusts and it is quite interesting to see that they are throughout the country. Northern Trusts Ltd which includes the Mt Wellington Otara and Papatoetoe licensing trusts. There is the Invercargill Licensing Trust Charitable Trust. We have the Trust House Charitable Trust which includes Masterton Rimutaka and Flaxmere licensing trusts— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Hear hear! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: —the member from those areas has acknowledged that. We have the Ashburton Trust Charitable Foundation; West Auckland Trust Services Ltd which includes the Portage Licensing Trust and Waitakere Licensing Trust; Mana Community Grants Foundation which is the Porirua Licensing Trust; and then we have the Trust Charitable Foundation which covers both the North and South Islands including the licensing trusts at Cheviot Clutha Geraldine Johnsonville Mataura Oamaru Papatoetoe Portage Te Kauwhata and Waitakere. So there is a wide spread of interests throughout the community. 
Our position is quite clear: those people who are elected are elected by the community; they should have an opportunity to be part of that. One must realise that licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming-machines under the Gambling Act. However some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate the machines in those premises. So it is not an argument about whether we agree at all with liquor licensing trusts and whether we should have them. They exist and we want to make sure they have the ability to perform their functions. Many charitable societies have allowed and want to continue to allow the elected licensing trust members to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming-machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier this was the position prior to 1 July 2004 and it is only since this Act came into being that that provision has been taken away. 
National is very happy that this bill has come forward in this form as a Gambling Amendment Bill not as a Statutes Amendment Bill because it is worthy of further debate. We are particularly interested that this be progressed now so that those people elected to licensing trusts throughout the country who do a good job and put back into the community the profits from the proceeds of gaming machines—about $25 million—should be able to exercise their best judgment and be part of the distributions committee. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker for his cooperation both in the Government Administration Committee and in the House on the Gambling Amendment Bill which is designed to allow elected members of licensing trusts and community trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to that community. The main concerns of the committee were that the distribution of the proceeds should be transparent and that there should be accountability from the elected members and we were assured of that. 
One organisation the committee was particularly impressed with was West Auckland Trust Services which presented us with its method of distribution and showed us that it also polled its community as to the community’s priorities in terms of where those funds should be distributed. We thought that was an excellent example to other trusts to poll their community as to whether they wanted the funding to be distributed to education arts sports and so on. The West Auckland Trust Services distribution chart was based on its polling which we thought was a very good example to other elected trusts in this regard. I wish to support this bill and look forward to its continued progress through the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was fascinated by the brevity of the speech made by the Minister who moved the second reading today because it brought to mind a recent announcement made by this Government about spending well over $40 million on problem gamblers. It was a press statement put out by one Damien O’Conner where he claimed alongside his bureaucrats that this bill was a world first. Well I remind the House and the country just who it was that brought the problem of gambling into stark reality for New Zealand and what we are dealing with now. Because all around this country we have huge problems with gambling particularly in the Maori community particularly in the Asian community and amongst people who can least afford it with disastrous results. 
New Zealand First did not support the Gambling Act of 2003 which was an attempt by this Government as John Tamihere would say with its bureaucrats working night and day with nothing else to do—no soccer on Saturday to watch or Sundays to spend with families—to ensure that the profits from gambling went out of local communities and straight into some centralised bureaucratic disbursement regime— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes they did and that is why every hotel around New Zealand opposed that legislation. The Labour Party can make these sorts of grand promises that it is dealing— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. This bill actually improves upon that and that is why we are supporting it. But it simply is the case of ignoring some of the realities. 
What we have in New Zealand today of course is that the people who are bleeding with the gambling problems are spending money in localities where even the profits from gambling do not go towards the community in which they live. That is a fact. Damien O’Connor can shake his head but the reality is that the Government decided to take full control off the local distribution agencies and claim that the local people could not be trusted and central government could. That is as blunt as it got. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes the Government did. More seriously though we got this: a disastrous failure to acknowledge what a disaster so much gambling is in this country. Then to claim a “world first” as some sort of innovative enlightened Government is the worst and what one might call the “H” offence. I cannot use the word but members will know what I mean. It is the very worst. 
New Zealand First has always been opposed to this and we want to remind New Zealanders who it was that changed the gambling society of this country—for the very worst. Can the House remember one Peter Tapsell when he was Minister? He brought in casino licensing in this country and then of course against huge objections all around New Zealand the Government imposed it upon Queenstown— 
David Parker 
: Twice! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —twice upon Queenstown—and then upon the people of Hamilton even though the mass majority of the local people were against it. The Government ignored all that. I remind the National Party that it was as responsible for that as well because it had members on that authority one of whom was challenged as to his behaviour—a former member of Parliament whose name I should not mention because it is just part of the sad history of the National Party. 
David Parker 
: Judith Collins was the chair too. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. That is a fact. But how quickly they forget! Well New Zealand First wants to say that at least this bill gives back some local control but it does not address the serious problem that should be addressed in this legislation as to what we are going to do with a society that Labour turned upside down and a society in which the very roots of that society that claimed once to be Labour supporters and that Labour once claimed to represent have been significantly—in the case of so many families and individuals—destroyed. I want to know which Minister opposite will get up and start talking about that as a key issue and do something about it. 
It is very very serious that we have in New Zealand today certain families whose lives have been destroyed—not just limited. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Brian Donnelly tells me that in the early days of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government we brought down a moratorium on new casinos so the issue could be resolved. That is what I call a responsible party. That is what I call an enlightened party that acknowledges the difficulties and unlike those who signed one and a half pages of “motherhood and apple pie” by way of an agreement we demanded things and got them done. 
Darren Hughes 
: Mrs Shipley claimed credit for it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know that Mrs Shipley— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Jack Elder put it through. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Jack Elder put it through as a Minister for New Zealand First and Mrs Shipley made many claims. That is why she is not here any more. She was of the reasons why the National Party is in the parlous state it is today and why after her little stint as Prime Minister she took the National Party to the worst vote it ever had since 1936 and its formation. 
But Labour is no different. The Labour Party and the National Party are no different on this issue. They believe in all sorts of gambling. Why they would have people betting on two flies going up a wall if they could. If that could be organised and they could get a tax cut and start getting their hands on the disbursement of the money and paying it out to all their pet little causes they would. 
Dianne Yates 
: No we can’t do that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I tell that member from Hamilton that all sorts of things are being done in the name of the gambling industry today. All sorts of favourite projects are being funded—some of the most weird we would ever see—whilst people out there the families and kids are starving and going bankrupt because of problem gambling encouraged by this administration. 
So how about the next Labour speaker getting up and acknowledging that because I know there are Maori members over there who know what I am talking about. They know what an abject disaster the industry is for Maoridom and the sooner we do something about that the better. 
Dianne Yates 
: I opposed the casino. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member said she opposed the casino but how worthy is that when she supported the casino legislation? She is a member whose left hand does not know what her right hand is doing. She could not wait to line up and stand for the Labour Party that brought casino legislation into this country. That legislation is working like a giant vacuum just sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Auckland killing the culture killing the society and killing all sorts of leisure activities. 
Government Member 
: No it’s not. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is. If we asked any restaurateur or bar owner in Auckland about what is happening to the leisure dollar he or she would tell us that the casino has had a profound effect. Is the money being spent in New Zealand? No. All the profits are being siphoned off overseas in the case of Auckland—and somehow the Labour Party thinks that is good. But then again for people who have sold $10 billion worth of State assets anything would be a worthy prescription for their behaviour. 
Anyway I was listening to this debate and thought I should come down to the House to remind a few people about who is guilty about who did what and about where and when. One party in this country is opposed to this sort of gambling because it is without merit without employment and without culture. It is the most base thing for somebody walking into a casino to say: “Here’s all my money. I hope I get a little bit back.” What industry in the whole world do members know of where people can walk into an establishment and say: “Here’s all my hard-earned savings. Whether or not my wife and kids can afford it I don’t care. But just in case I would like to know whether I can win a little bit back.” 
Dianne Yates 
: What about the horses? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do not talk about the horses. I will tell the member about the horses. The horses could be one of New Zealand’s most explosive export industries. The horse industry employs 32000 people in real jobs. 
Dianne Yates 
: What about the TAB? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The TAB is part of the horse industry. At least there is employment. At least there are exports. At least there is an international reputation. That industry does have some redeeming features but the industry that the member supports and that the Government is so pleased to support is in every way thoroughly bad for New Zealand. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Now that that member has resumed his seat the pigs can stop flying. He does not seem to be able to control his own shadow as far as I can see. The simple fact of the matter is that gambling problems are something that we ought to be seriously concerned about. But this legislation does not deal with that at all. The point to make with gambling problems is that a lot has to be taken on board as personal responsibility. In my opinion nobody has ever had a gun held to his head and been forced to go into a casino and put money into a slot machine. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is the “Family Party” speaking. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The “Family Party” actually wants choice. We want people to be able to decide for themselves what to do and we want less Government intervention. But that member from the “Winston Party” obviously wants to have more Government intervention in people’s lives and more restrictions placed on individuals and I think that is unconscionable. What did he do when we was in Government other than melt down the National Party to the point where it cannot even get back into the race for the next election? It is crazy. The kiss of death is what the “Winston Party” is all about. 
This bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust is reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act from the definition of “key person” in the Gambling Act in relation to a class 4 venue. The amendment has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the Gambling Act that require the separation of functions and it will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. 
Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Many of these societies allow or have allowed licensing trust members to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. This was permitted under previous gambling legislation. The Gambling Act prevents this type of arrangement by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the gaming machines at those venues. The separation of functions is designed to reduce the potential for conflict of interest. As licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust the risk of conflict of interest is considerably lower. 
Out of the Government Administration Committee came only one minor recommendation—that is to clarify that the definition of “key person” includes trustees of a community trust who hold office under section 219Q of the Sale of Liquor Act. This is eminently sensible and it is something that United Future will absolutely support. One thing that I would mention however is that again the previous speaker was utterly wrong because the Gambling Act specifically avoided centralisation of the proceeds from gambling. He was simply wrong. But that is what we expect from the “Winston Party” I suppose despite the fact that its members might vote for other than what they talk about. Nevertheless United Future will support this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt this member’s speech—the sooner he gets it over with the better—but the real fact is that he cannot talk about the “Winston Party”. We all know that the fastest rising party in this country is called New Zealand First and it should be addressed properly by that name at all times—particularly by the “Poodle Party”. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Parties should be addressed by their correct name. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Speaking to the point of order I apologise if there was any confusion in calling New Zealand First the “Winston Party” but in the minds of most the two are indistinguishable. I would just like to correct the member by saying that we are not the “Poodle Party”; we are in fact the guide dog of Parliament—the guide dog. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that they should refer to parties by their proper names. Those two names should not be used. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am taking over the debate on the Gambling Amendment Bill for two of my colleagues especially Heather Roy who has followed it all the way through and has provided quite a bit of cooperation with the Government on this. As she stated in her first reading contribution the attempt was actually made to put it through as a statutory amendment. 
Rod Donald 
: It should have been. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Maybe that is the case but that would have been an abuse of the power of Statutes Amendment bills which are meant for non-controversial issues. As we have already seen by the debate in the House this is not a non-controversial issue. Mr Peters actually had a good point when he asked—but did not answer—where else other than gambling can one say: “Here’s all my money. Take all my money and I’ll see what I get back from it.” 
The other example of that happening is with this Government in taxes. It takes more and more taxes from taxpayers every day. Every week new tax laws are passed and what do they get back from them? What are schools getting back from taxes at the moment? Schools are getting less and less back in terms of what the parents of the children pay in taxes; it is going into bigger and bigger bureaucracies. Schools are seriously underfunded. Paying one’s taxes in New Zealand now is a huge gamble because people never know what they will get back or whether they will get any money back. One reason that most people pay their taxes and are happy to pay their taxes is for the investment in the education of the future citizens of this country but that is just not happening. 
I also agree with some of what Marc Alexander said. I do not deny that there is a huge problem with gambling in this country. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ word that it is a huge problem in the Maori communities but there is an issue of personal responsibility here. People talk about gambling addiction. In what way is it a chemical that gets into one’s bloodstream or one’s system like drinking or smoking or other drugs that become an addiction? 
It is dangerous to blur the edges between addictions and problems. There are huge problems. There are families who go without because one or both parents are problem gamblers. But why does this happen when we see in the paper clients of casinos who are allowed to rack up huge debts credit to the extent of— 
Hon Member 
: $21 million. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I find that very difficult to believe. I would have absolutely no sympathy with gambling operators or the owners of gambling institutions if they lost every cent of that money because they are clearly stupid in allowing someone to rack up a debt as high as that. No one would be able to go down to his or her local hardware shop and rack up such a high debt. Clearly people have a problem with gambling if they run up a debt that is so high. 
The other area Mr Peters touched upon concerns horses and I totally agree with him on that. We had an internationally recognised world-class industry in New Zealand with the breeding training and export of thoroughbred racehorses. It would be beneath the elite people in the Labour Party today to go down to somewhere like the Matamata training track before dawn at 4 o’clock or even 2 o’clock in the morning and to see what goes on there in terms of the huge amounts of money going into the local economy from horses. But what do breeders trainers and owners get from that? They get hit with more and more taxes. Industry charges even accident compensation alone that some of them have to pay for taking on apprentice jockeys along with all the associated costs and compliance costs that go with being a trainer in the industry these days are greater than the income that people get back out of the industry. Why? Because no Government will ever equalise the taxes that are forced out of them on gambling issues. 
I support this Gambling Amendment Bill. I notice that its first reading was done under urgency. That is because of poorly drafted legislation—legislation this Government rushed through because it overlooked the fact that there are honourable people who are members of and can run a licensing trust and who can make decisions about where the proceeds from those gaming machines should go in the community. I find it highly ironic that this Government prides itself on supporting the arts and sport in New Zealand—but predominantly the arts—and that hardly a week goes by when we do not see another photo opportunity of the Prime Minister or her sidekick Judith Tizard being photographed at some arty-farty art opening yet much of the proceeds from gaming machines goes into local community arts projects whether at local theatres exhibitions or productions. 
All MPs in this House would have had letter after letter numerous letters from those local arts communities theatres and repertory groups that feared they would be forced to close because of this Government’s move against the distribution of the proceeds of gambling within the community. What New Zealand First has accused this Government of is absolutely right. The Government is always trying to wrest control from communities back to Wellington and to control them from Wellington. That is what this Government is all about so why does it not just admit that that is what it is proud of being: essentially a controlling Government with no interest in communities? 
It has no interest in communities being autonomous. Members can look at the way schools were closed down or at the way the Government treats boards of trustees. Nobody is allowed to be autonomous. We can look at what the Government is doing to universities. 
So ACT supports this amendment bill going through. It is a tragedy that the legislation has come back in this form yet again in urgency but we will vote for it. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to support this Gambling Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party and I am even delighted that the bill is being dealt with under urgency. We opposed the urgency motion but this piece of legislation is one that does need to be dealt with promptly. 
I cannot help but comment on the crocodile tears of the previous speaker who is from ACT because my recollection is that ACT was the only party to block this amendment being made by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. If ACT members had not been so bloody-minded last year this legislative change could have already gone through. [ 
Interruption 
] Did New Zealand First also block that? 
Dail Jones 
: You did too. 
ROD DONALD 
: I do not think we did. 
Dail Jones 
: You did. You said so on the first reading. 
ROD DONALD 
: I doubt it because the matter should have been dealt with. I will check the  
Hansard 
. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill and that is certainly what I lobbied the Government to do because there was a glaring mistake. The Act got it wrong in the first place. How can the principal gambling legislation give racing clubs and chartered clubs an exemption for key persons but not extend that provision to licensing trusts? That is exactly what this bill sets out to fix. 
It is good that it is being done promptly because of all those organisations licensing trusts actually have the most robust election processes. They are far more robust than chartered clubs or racing clubs because licensing clubs have to conduct their elections under the Local Electoral Act every 3 years. There is a proper process they have to follow. It is a very open process and every resident and those on the ratepayer roll in the territory of the licensing trust get to vote for the representatives on that trust. It would have become a ridiculous farce for the licensing trusts to have to set up parallel organisations to handle the distribution of profits from the trusts’ gaming activities. It is far better that one organisation addresses both the operation of the trusts and the distribution of the profits. I believe there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to make sure there is not a transfer of money from one part of a trust’s operation to another in order to subsidise internally those operations so I do not see any difficulty with the same people running the operation and distributing the profits. 
What I do see is the enormous benefit of those profits actually going back to the community and the licensing trusts during their lobbying activities made the very good point that they have returned the highest percentage of gaming monies to the community in New Zealand. For example in the 2003-04 year the Invercargill trust returned 57 percent compared with most other organisations returning under 40 percent. On behalf of the Green Party I say we would much rather that the profits from activities such as gambling and liquor sales went to the community than lined the pockets of the shareholders of casinos or big booze companies. 
Having said that I would like to conclude with a personal note which is that I have real difficulty with the invasive nature of gambling in our society. There are far too many pokie machines around the country. I make a personal point of not going on the premises of any casino for any purpose whatsoever because I believe that casinos are a scourge on society no matter what money is funnelled back through various trusts and charities. But if pokie machines are going to exist it is far better that they are under the control of a community trust or licensing trust where there is some sense of obligation to take account of the wider concerns of the local community rather than their being under the control of those totally motivated by profit. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to say that when this matter was first discussed with New Zealand First and other parties in this House the suggestion was made that the matter should be put in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). People were told that that would be quicker. New Zealand First had pressure put on it from licensing trusts that said every other party supported that action except for us. As we discovered during the course of discussions with the National Party and other parties and during the course of the debate at the first reading that particular line—that other political parties supported the legislation going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—was used with every political party. But it transpired that that was not the case as National and other parties proved during the first reading debate. 
In fact if this legislation had gone into that Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) it would still not be getting passed today because that bill is well down the Order Paper. So putting it as a separate bill has proved to be the best thing possible. I think that the stand taken by New Zealand First National and other parties to have this legislation as a separate bill works very much to the advantage of the Licensing Trusts Association. The attitude adopted by the trusts would have backfired on them if the legislation had been left in that Statutes Amendment Bill. 
We all want to make sure that when money is raised by gambling in west Auckland it can be spent in west Auckland if it is raised in Ashburton it can be spent in Ashburton and that that can be done in a similar way right around the country in places where there are licensing trusts. The people of Invercargill would like their money spent in Southland—on Southland rugby perhaps rather than supporting say North Harbour although North Harbour members would appreciate any extra funds that might be made available to the North Harbour Rugby Union which has an unfortunate habit of losing players to South Island cities. 
However New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is short legislation that rectifies a mistake made by the Labour Government when it rushed through earlier gambling legislation under urgency. The Government Administration Committee has looked at this legislation closely and has even made an amendment to it to take into account an error that cropped up. The amendment could not have been made if this were for example a statutes amendment bill but it was able to be made by way of the Gambling Amendment Bill in order to help key operators. 
I also make the point that the leader of New Zealand First considers the issue of gambling so important and so detrimental to family life that he has taken the trouble to come to the House to speak on the bill today. I see that no leader of any other political party in New Zealand is at all interested in the detrimental effect that gambling can have on family life. It goes to show that New Zealand First is very interested in what happens to struggling families poorer families Maori families or any families in which people think that the answer to everything may be found in a pokie machine or in some other form of gambling. That is not the case. We consider gambling to be a very serious issue. I touched on it during the first reading and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has expressed that view on it much better than I ever could. New Zealand First supports this bill which makes a minor change to the advantage of licensing trusts. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. The amendment also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. 
The Gambling Act prohibits licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. However some gaming-machine societies that are not licensing trusts operate machines on licensing trust premises. The Act also imposes a strict separation between the people who run the commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and the people who control the proceeds from gaming machines at those premises. That currently prevents licensing trust members from having any input into decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and on the operation of gambling machines when the societies concerned operate machines on licensing trust premises. 
The bill exempts licensing trust members and community trustees from that separation of functions in order to reflect their unique position as elected members who are accountable to their local communities. It continues to prohibit licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. 
Finally I would like to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is happy to support this bill for the reasons I mentioned during the second reading debate. I will just summarise. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of “key persons”. This will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine profits. As I said earlier that was the case prior to 1 July 2004 when the new legislation the Gambling Act came in. That involvement was stopped so we now have the issue that we are trying to rectify. 
I made the point which was also made by New Zealand First that we believed it was important that a separate amendment bill to the Gambling Act be invoked—which is what we are doing now—as opposed to including this provision in a Statutes Amendment Bill. So we are comfortable that there is no undue influence. A trustee would not receive any monetary gain by being involved in the process and being on the committee that would distribute gaming-machine proceeds. We understand that about $25 million goes back into the community from those licensing trusts and we are happy to support this proposition. 
Bill read a third time. 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a second time 
. On behalf of the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs I would like to introduce this bill back into the House. This is a very important bill. Fiordland National Park and Fiordland as an area is an icon for this country. Many millions of people throughout the world know the sight of Mitre Peak from postcards and this bill will go some way to protect that very iconic environment that the world enjoys. Through the tourism industry it is a very big part of New Zealand’s economy and the people who live in and around that area including some very good operators whom I had the pleasure to visit in Doubtful Sound are passionate about its protection. 
I commend the Minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House. I know that those people who have a genuine interest not only in conservation but also in economic development will support this bill and its speedy passage through the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We had a number of submissions to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. It was not a vast number because it is a bill that addresses issues in a particular part of our country although it is a part of our country that is significant to all of us—the Fiordland area. It is a beautiful area to visit. It is an area that all of us can rave about and promote as we travel around New Zealand and around the world. It is arguably one of the most scenic areas in New Zealand. Consequently those who live in Fiordland and in that area of the South Island are very proud very protective and very supportive of both conserving and utilising that environment for all those who care to visit and of course to fish there and of using its resources sustainably. 
There were some disappointments during the select committee process. When the Fiordland Marine Management Bill came into the House the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment—who have been working for well over a decade—had put together a package that suggested how best to manage this particular region. The Fiordland guardians were made up of people with a particular commitment to the environment to the fishing industry to recreational fishing to tourism and to the ecosystem generally. 
They got together as I say over a decade ago to put together a package to present to the Government of the day on how the area should be managed. I have to report that they were somewhat disappointed to find that the bill that reached the House for the first reading and was before us at the select committee stage did not precisely reflect what they felt were the needs of Fiordland. It did not reflect precisely what they had put forward as the best way to manage this beautiful area. 
One of the issues was of course management into the future and the team that would oversee that. They were concerned that in the future the guardians would not be drawn from a local pool with local thinking—by those who are on the ground and at the coalface who are out on the water in Fiordland on a daily or weekly basis. In fact the bureaucracy was going to stack the guardians quite heavily with the Wellington brigade rather than utilise those who actually live in the region. 
The group raised this concern with the select committee and the committee acknowledged that the appointment process for the guardians should better reflect not Wellington’s desires for this area but the Fiordland community’s desires for this area. We were glad to see some changes made to that aspect of the legislation. 
Another issue raised was that of access to the Fiordland area by not just water craft but also flight craft—that is helicopters and aeroplanes. There was a concern about aeroplanes landing on the water in a marine reserve. Members can appreciate that aeroplanes fly into the area not only on scenic air tours but also occasionally need to land on the water to drop off recreationalists—although that is rare—for all sorts of other reasons. There was some contention over the issue of aeroplanes landing in a marine reserve area. The argument was put to us that if commercial or recreational boats are allowed to cross over a marine reserve—and members will know that boats are not banned from marine reserves; they might be banned from fishing in marine reserves but they can motor over the water—surely aeroplanes should be able to land in those reserves as well. 
That argument seemed sensible to us. There is no reason why aeroplanes should not be able to land in those areas. What is more they should not be billed for doing so. If a craft makes some sort of commercial gain from dropping off divers who are pulling stocks out of the water—outside a marine reserve of course—perhaps a concession should be paid by the operator. But if a craft is simply landing spending half an hour on the water for some reason or another before taking off and not disturbing the marine life at all why should a concession be paid? The select committee basically smiled upon that argument and thought it was fair enough so we saw some changes to that aspect of the bill come about as well. 
Other issues were raised during the select committee stage. We decided not to take the time to travel down to Fiordland as a committee although some individual members did go down there and I am glad they did. We had select committee submissions in the South Island but we never did a site visit as a committee. The major reasons for that were the cost and the time it would have taken to do so and the fact that most submitters to the select committee—by far the majority—supported this bill in principle. The debate was around the details. We got a pretty good picture of what was happening down there because there was so much agreement on this legislation so we did not necessarily need to visit. But I do thank the chairman and Larry Baldock for taking the time to visit and reporting back to us. I acknowledge them for doing that. 
On the whole the National Party supports this legislation. We would like to acknowledge Bill English who in the initial stages of its coming to the House took the case to the National Party caucus. He did so because he had been involved with the guardians of Fiordland for some time as a local electorate MP—and as I say the guardians have been going for well over a decade—so he knew the ins and outs of this legislation knew the goals of the local people and wanted to see the National Party support them in their endeavour to conserve parts of Fiordland while also seeing large parts of it continue to be utilised. 
I thank him for reporting that to the caucus and for encouraging the caucus to support the legislation. We certainly agree with him. We are glad that the bill has been massaged by the select committee to make changes to better reflect the needs of the Fiordland guardians now and into the future and we wish them the very best with this bill. I commend the bill to the House on behalf of the National Party. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward but more particularly I thank Bill English for promoting this issue and for working hand in hand with the guardians through to today. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to thank my colleague Damien O’Connor for moving that the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be read a second time. This bill gives legislative effect to a strategy for the management of Fiordland’s marine development developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The bill as introduced was really a work of compromises among a number of Government departments also trying to fit in the vision of the guardians. I am really pleased that during the committee process the balance was corrected more again in favour of the guardians’ original strategy. 
It has been a very difficult job to do. The Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee received 21 submissions on the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the issues raised by submitters and for reporting back on the bill within such a short time frame. The committee reported to the House on 1 April recommending by majority that the bill be passed with amendments. The proposed amendments will align the bill more closely with the vision and objectives of the guardians and that is great. 
In response to the submissions of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu the committee recommends that the title of the bill be changed to “Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill”. Accordingly the area that is subject to the bill becomes the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. The committee recommends that the purpose of the bill be amended to recognise the local importance of Fiordland and the area’s distinctive biological diversity. These changes address some of the concerns of the Fiordland guardians and of environmental groups about the purpose of the bill. 
A key objective of the bill is to facilitate better integrated management of the Fiordland Marine Area. To strengthen the bill in this regard the committee recommends that a clause be included that “requires” the chief executives of the management agencies to enter into a protocol with the Fiordland marine guardians. They are really being lifted upwards in the air as regards official involvement. I envisage that through the protocol parties will make commitments on such issues as the exchange of information and the resourcing of and attendance at meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. With regard to the latter the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee recommends that a clause is included in the bill that states that employees of management agencies may attend meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. Some submitters were concerned about the status of the advice provided by the Fiordland marine guardians and the extent to which it could influence decision making. The committee therefore recommends that the requirement for Ministers and management agencies to “have regard” to any advice and recommendation of the guardians be changed to “take into account” which is a higher legal obligation. I would have to say that I was extremely happy to accept this recommendation from the select committee. It was more in line with my original thoughts. 
The committee received a number of submissions from environmental groups and individuals expressing concern that the area protected as marine reserve was insufficient and that it did not protect all ecosystem types. The select committee in its commentary has noted that the bill is not the final word on protection in the Fiordland Marine Area but that it is a very good start. I endorse this. As a result of the bill the number of marine reserves nationally will increase from 18 to 26. This is a significant increase. The Government acknowledges that some gaps remain in terms of ecosystem protection. But I expect that this is a matter that the guardians will turn their minds to when the current management measures are reviewed 5 years from the commencement of the legislation. 
The member from United Future Larry Baldock who sat on the select committee has raised a number of issues with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and with me regarding the change to the bag limits for recreational fishers. He supports the bill and the approach of the guardians for which I am grateful but he has requested that the ministerial advisory panel on recreational fishing soon to be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries consider the bag limits set in the guardians’ strategy which are to be implemented by this bill and the regulations made under it. I have discussed this with the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. He is happy for the advisory panel to consider the bag limits and to report to him and any recommendations of that panel will be fully discussed with the guardians advisory committee. 
While I accept this procedure of considering bag limits I am mindful that the particular beauty of this process is that of the gifts and gains made by the different local groups which included local recreational fishers as they set up the strategy. This is the same situation when the ecological groups argue that this is not as tight as they would say in the ecosystems. This piece of work is truly local decision-making at its very best with its inevitable compromises among parties. 
The committee received submissions from Ngai Tahu seeking an amendment to the provision in the bill relating to the take of pounamu within the marine reserves created by the bill. The bill exempts Ngai Tahu from the need to obtain an access arrangement under the Crown Minerals Act for the taking of pounamu by hand within those marine reserves. Ngai Tahu sought an extension of its exemption to allow it to remove discreet boulders by mechanical means. The committee considered that this was inappropriate given that the purpose of the marine reserve is to maintain areas as close as possible to an actual state. 
It was preferable that the removal of such boulders be dealt with on a case by case basis. This will enable access to be granted only where the effects on the marine reserve would be minor. However the committee recognised that the current provisions in the bill were somewhat anomalous and that the exception from the need for an access arrangement for hand-taking did not apply in parts of the Fiordland Marine Area outside the marine reserves. It also considered that outside of the marine reserves there would be no difficulty in applying an exemption relating to the mechanical removal of boulders. 
Because of concerns that this was potentially outside the scope of the bill the committee recommended that a Supplementary Order Paper be considered to provide for this. I subsequently arranged for further discussions with Ngai Tahu on the proposed Supplementary Order Paper and Ngai Tahu noted that Fiordland is likely to have only a small amount of pounamu relative to other areas. Its preference was not to proceed with the Supplementary Order Paper but rather to have discussions with the Government on access arrangements over all the areas within its takiwa where pounamu is found. Accordingly there will be no Supplementary Order Paper related to this. But to keep faith with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act clarification has been made in this bill that nothing will affect those two Acts. 
In order to address some technical drafting matters I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper making some minor amendments to the bill. The passing of this bill along with the fisheries regulations will implement the statutory component of the guardians’ strategy. Planning is well under way relating to a number of other measures recommended by the guardians relating to enforcement and compliance monitoring biosecurity information and education. With the commencement of the Act I will be appointing the new guardians group provided for in the bill and look forward to involving it in the implementation of these other measures. 
Again I take this opportunity to thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their hard work in developing the strategy and for their input into the bill through the select committee process. The guardians’ process has been innovative and forward thinking. It has demonstrated how different interests can work together to define a common vision for an area and work cooperatively to reach that vision. It also demonstrates the reality of using local knowledge to make positive and sustainable local decisions. I am hopeful that some components of the guardians’ approach will provide a model for future local management and problem solving. 
It is worth noting that yes the guardians have worked for 10 years but for the last 4 years at least they have worked with Ministry for the Environment funding and support. This was a real partnership with a group that came to us and said: “To do this successfully we need Government support; and more than just fine words we actually need the cash to do this.” and we have done this. I also thank the Southland Regional Council for its cooperation and assistance throughout the bill’s development. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and give our support to this bill. But in so doing I wish to commence my speech by referring to the Minister’s previous statements. I refer in particular to the issue she just referred to which is that representations have been made to the Minister of Fisheries and her with regard to catch by recreational fishers. That raises the whole issue of the Fiordland Marine Management Bill—an area-specific bill—against the backdrop of continued Government inaction and lack of planning with regard to the whole marine area. 
Some of us in this House would have made representations with regard to a so-called oceans policy which was meant to be an overarching policy to cover the total marine life on the near coast. None of that has been seen. When the request came to the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at this bill it seemed to me to be rather strange that we were being asked to look at a bill alongside the unfinished business of a marine reserves bill which has now been delayed further—it has been put to bed till after the election because it is too hard. In actual fact while we strongly support this bill—and I will give other reasons in the forthcoming few minutes—we deplore the fact that this specific legislation is before the House against no ability of the present Government to progress a progressive sequential policy with regard to the oceans of New Zealand. 
Therefore we last year in looking at these matters with regard to marine parks and reserves saw with regard to Mimiwhangata which is an area in Northland the need for a policy that began with consultation and led to understanding. Now in the Fiordland Marine Management Bill that took place. It did not begin by the way because of Government concerns. This bill had its genesis right back in the mid-1990s because recreational and commercial fishermen tourist operators and others knew and had a unique understanding of what had to be done if they were to preserve and have recognised what hitherto they had regarded as their natural right—the natural right of recreational fishermen and the acquired right of commercial fishermen to fish as they were able to under existing regulations in regard to the Fiordland area. That is where it began. Also the tourist operators were interested in being able to maintain their activities. So this did not begin because of some Government bureaucrat thinking it was a wise policy. It did not begin here in Wellington. It began out there in the regions. 
The first point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that one of the reasons we believe this is a very sound progressive bill is that this is a model that we were talking about last year in regard to Mimiwhangata Aotea—or Great Barrier Island—and shortly the Three Kings. 
This is a model that I believe should be adopted against the overarching final provisions of an oceans policy. So we applaud the fact that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment took up the challenge and then realised in the year 2000 that they alone needed to bring in wider community input including those traditional sectors of the community who have a precious regard for the community—and I mean that in the very best sense—so that all the so-called environmental issues were finally covered in the enlarged guardians committee. I acknowledge what the has Minister has said—that that was accomplished after the year 2000 by funding and support from Government agencies. As well I acknowledge the work of the Southland Regional Council which also realised that this was part if one likes of its marine and coastal management and I acknowledge the part that at least two officers played in the development of this programme. 
So we finish today with a sound bill before us; a bill that was changed by the select committee after its representations. The bill contains an acknowledgment that the gifting of what would have been acquired property rights by a segment of the community the long-term right of recreational fishers to have a certain take being reduced and also other areas of concession being made by the community all incorporated into a comprehensive plan. From that plan came an acknowledgment that those unique areas of marine biodiversity which we believe are the basis for a marine reserve fit quite naturally. That brings me to the second part as far as New Zealand First is concerned. 
We see in the wider marine park concept an understanding that if the process begins with consultation in the very first instance with all stakeholders in a cooperative understanding that they wish to achieve a harmonious end—the long-term management of the coast the seabed and foreshore resources in their community—only then will ministries such as the Ministry of Fisheries the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment be able to progress together a sustainable management plan and one that the local community considers to be theirs. Ownership thereby ensues as has happened in this bill. Therefore those measures of enforcement if needed will take place naturally because the local community or the regional community realise that that is to their long-term gain and benefit. 
The third issue about this bill is that in its revised form—after submissions to the select committee—it recognises more fully the fact that the guardians had a real role to play which in the first reading debate we did not see. So we are very pleased to support the select committee’s considerations. The guardians are still a fundamental part of the long-term management. There are issues of regret. The major issue of regret for New Zealand First is not just the fact that this should have been part of an overarching oceans policy and it is not just the fact that this has been taken out of its context and used as an area-specific example; it is the fact that in present Government legislation there is no capacity whatever to allow for integrated management at departmental or ministry level. That concept was one that the select committee wished to advance but we were told very strongly and cogently by officials that at the present time there is no ability in legislation for an integrated role for the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation with regard to aquaculture and the marine farming environment and no ability for there to be a cohesive coherent structure with regard to the matters inherent in this bill. That is just not possible and that is a disappointment to us. That should have been able to be incorporated and that view was apparent in the submissions made to the committee. 
The process this bill went through did include consultation—it was initiated first of all at a local level. The bill does not provide for integrated management. What it does do is almost recognise that the guardians—and this is very important for them—relinquish a variety of rights or so-called rights in the interests their interests of ensuring the quality and sustainable management of the environment and fisheries in the long term. So the bill incorporated a whole range of expectations benefits and activities that New Zealanders have always believed were theirs—and that is the case particularly with regard to recreational fishermen—being incorporated into an agreed understanding of how this can proceed over the next 7 years and with regard to a proper review. The guardians will be a major part of the review as to what had been accomplished and what should be the purpose of any further development in the area. 
We are very pleased to support this real advance in thinking on the part of the Government in accepting an area-specific bill that covers the very aspects of consultation cooperation and responsible thinking by Government ministries in regard to a local issue. I only wish that people at Aotea—Great Barrier Island—Mimiwhangata and the Three Kings could feel the same satisfaction in years to come that they could endorse such a model and that it could be part of their day-to-day thinking and activity. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In rising on behalf of United Future to address the Fiordland Marine Management Bill in its second reading I first express our appreciation of the initiative that has been taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. As we mentioned in our first speech it began a process of local decision-making in order to come up with an alternative to the approach currently being undertaken which seems to focus only around the marine reserve applications being put forward by the Department of Conservation. This alternative is something that gives a lot of people in New Zealand some hope of a way forward in terms of how our marine areas can be protected while still giving respect and consideration to those who enjoy the marine environment but do not particularly hold to the philosophy that the only way to protect it is to have large marine reserves all over the place. I congratulate the guardians on their process. It has been a major achievement for them to go through this process and arrive at a consensus and an agreement. As a result of listening to submitters to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on the bill I think the guardians do need to be commended further for the way that they have managed the process. 
It did however come as a surprise—and Phil Heatley mentioned this in his speech—to find that the guardians’ own submission had some quite serious concerns in it. The guardians felt that after they had completed their process the bill had been somewhat hijacked and diverted from its original intention which was really about a fisheries management issue in their area. I am pleased to see that the committee and the Minister have agreed to make changes so that the bill can be returned to much more of its original intent. I still have some concerns about the use of the word “preservation” in the bill because I do not think that that was the guardians’ intent. I think they are very practically minded people down there in Southland who understand that it is impossible to preserve anything. They simply want to do the best they can to manage and protect the area. The marine reserves that are being established are part of that goal but the idea that we can preserve things really takes matters a bit too far. In fact in my recent trip there seeing the damage done by recent earthquakes showed me that the environment is changing all the time. We have to be flexible in that situation and do our best to keep things in good order. But to go too far and try to keep everything locked up in order to maintain that pristine environment seems to me to be ideological nonsense. 
Fiordland is a beautiful area and in many ways it has a natural protection by virtue of its remoteness and its wild nature. I think that we could go over the top in trying to preserve it for future generations—it will preserve itself and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is a rugged and an amazing place. My recent visit was the first time I had been there and I really appreciated the assistance given to me by Ministry for the Environment officials and also by the Southland Regional Council. They facilitated an opportunity to look through the area and to talk with the guardians after we had completed the select committee deliberations on the bill. It certainly helped me to understand more of the complexity of the process. 
I am happy that the committee has addressed some of Ngai Tahu’s concerns about the extraction of pounamu. The final Supplementary Order Paper that we will discuss in the Committee stage is designed to finish that process. 
I had concerns about the recreational fishers’ submissions that came into the select committee and also about the submissions that they put into the guardians’ consultation process. I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the issue right because we are dealing with differences of opinion between local fishers people who go there on charter fishing trips and people who maybe travel there once a year from around New Zealand on their annual fishing holiday. It would be difficult to strike the right balance between those groups. I think there is a need to recognise the differences between charter boat operators and those who fish there in their own boats particularly with regard to the bag limits that have been recommended by the guardians. A cut from 30 blue cod to three with no right to accumulate numbers on a daily basis seems to me to be a very severe cut. It was agreed to none the less by the representatives amongst the guardians who were speaking on behalf of recreational fishers. 
My concern has been whether that cut was necessary. We heard from submitters who said that they did not mind accepting reductions in their bag limits or the non-accumulation provisions provided there was good science to back up the provisions. I think recreational fishers in New Zealand are good environmentalists. They are not there to plunder the resources of the sea; they want to see them remain there for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. But they were asking some fairly reasonable questions I thought. That is why I have raised the issue in the select committee with Minister Hobbs and also with the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. It is clear that it is difficult to make any changes to the “gifts and gains” process; it was the key part of the agreement. This bill does not even deal with the fishing regulations so United Future is happy to support the bill at its second reading through the Committee stage and into its third reading. We think it is a very good bill and one that will have very positive outcomes for the Fiordland area. But there were things that I thought could have been done to address some of the concerns of recreational fishers. I am very pleased to have had cooperation from the Hon Marian Hobbs and also from the Hon David Benson-Pope which has meant we were able to address those concerns in some way. 
The new advisory panel that the Minister of Fisheries is establishing to represent recreational fishers in New Zealand is a good forum for him to review the consultation process and to see what its members’ advice to him may be. There were 287 submissions during the guardians’ consultation process from all around New Zealand. Those submissions far outnumbered those from the other submitters in the process but they were treated as one submission because they all came from Option4 and were on a form submission which was somehow deemed to be less significant than other submissions. But I think those submitters still made very good points. In fact about 90 of them made personal comments on their submissions which still outnumbered the other submitters who had other concerns about the whole process. So I think it would be good if the newly established ministerial advisory group of recreational fishers could look at that and take up some of the issues. 
The other part of the recreational fishing issue had to do with the science behind the decision to make such drastic cuts in bag limits. I think there is a lot more that can be done to see whether the fish stocks particularly of blue cod are under any threat from fishing in the fiords. Perhaps some more scientific and investigative work could be done. Recreational fishers around New Zealand could then be reassured by the Minister giving an undertaking to conduct a review of the bag limits in a couple of years’ time if other scientific evidence comes to the fore that shows there is no real risk and no real danger to fish stocks. 
Perhaps there is also a way of treating the non-accumulation regulations differently for people on charter boats compared with those who are fishing on their own boats. I can understand the concerns about a charter boat that takes on 60 fishers who can each get three fish a day. When that tally is added up for a week a great tonnage of fish has been hauled out of the area. It may be wise not to allow for that accumulation on a charter boat. But for a family or for a fisher and a few of his or her mates who go out on their own boat and who suffer a few days of bad weather and therefore cannot catch any fish on those days it seems that it would pose no real danger to the environment if they could accumulate their bag limit over 3 or 4 days of that holiday and take a few fish home to give to their neighbours. That is very much a part of the Kiwi culture. We fish not only for ourselves; we give a bit to our neighbours when we get home. That is the way we all enjoy the bounty of the sea around us. 
United Future is keen to support the bill. We believe that it has been through a good process and we do not want to hold it up in any way. I really appreciate the consideration given to us but say that there will need to be some review of the catch provisions on behalf of recreational fishers. We look forward to further debate through the Committee stage in the House this week. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have supported this bill because we are passionate about marine reserves and are committed to seeing many more of them in place in our seas. We are committed to seeing the marine environment managed sustainably and the non-extractive values given much greater weight. Those values are inherent values—not just the services that the sea provides for communities but inherent values that the sea holds in its own integrity and on its own account. We are delighted that there are to be marine reserves in Fiordland National Park but we have many concerns about the level of protection for the marine reserves that are set out in the bill. 
Fiordland is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in our country and it has a very special interface between the land and the sea. Its national and international importance is so significant that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. Fiordland has ecological features that are absolutely unique in the true meaning of that word. Because the fresh water that runs on the top of the saltwater prevents the light from penetrating through we have extraordinary corals at very shallow depths that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot usually go. Those corals flourish in the fiords. In New Zealand terms and in international terms Fiordland is an ecological treasure. But this bill for all its attempts to protect that treasure also fails in many ways and it therefore puts that treasure at continued risk of damage. The Greens want to remedy those risks. We will be proposing amendments to this bill in order to do that. 
The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee heard a number of submissions about the process by which the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment had achieved its strategy document and about the extent of its consultation. The Greens applaud the guardians’ extraordinary efforts in achieving the level of agreement that they have achieved. But that does not make them perfect and it does not justify the risk that the marine reserves will continue to face. Much was made of the “gifts and gains” approach to the protection of the fiords taken by the guardians and there has been some discussion about that today. Much was also made of the fact that all stakeholders were involved in the discussions. But we know that that is not true. In terms of gifts and gains it is very clear that the marine environment itself has made the greatest contribution in that process and that it has gained only the most minor level of protection in return. Only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area will be protected by the reserves. That is a truly disappointing and minimal level of protection. All the reserve areas are to be within the inner fiords leaving the outer ecologically distinct areas unprotected. 
Many ecologically fragile areas for example those described as “china shops” have lost any protection that they had because the select committee decided to remove the restrictions on anchoring over them. Officials argued that because people did not anchor over those areas anyway no restrictions were necessary. But that is a ridiculous argument. It is unbelievable that that argument was supported by the select committee because now those very precious coral areas have absolutely no legal protection from damage. People will not even know that those areas are there and will not know they should avoid damaging them in that way. The Greens are putting up an amendment to reinstate the anchoring restrictions because it is absolutely critical that those areas have the maximum amount of protection. There is no justification for removing those restrictions from this bill. 
We are also very concerned that aircraft are allowed to land and take off within the marine reserves—within that 1 percent of the area—without any controls whatsoever. No concessions from the Department of Conservation are even needed. In national parks on land around this country tour bus operators need concessions just to drive into a national park and out again. But the Fiordland marine reserves do not even get that very minimal level of protection. It would take only one spill of aviation fuel to wreak havoc with the ecology of the marine reserve. If there is just one minor accident the whole of that reserve area will be irreparably damaged especially since water movement in and out of the inner fiords is very slow and it would be very difficult to mount clean-up responses within those areas. Yet we are placing them at risk by removing any controls whatsoever on the taking off and landing of aircraft. 
The Greens were very disappointed in the guardians’ approach to the bill at the select committee hearings. We acknowledge the guardians are the primary group that has driven this process and for that they should be congratulated. But it is not a question of the guardians owning this process. This area is nationally and internationally precious and we all have a stake in its preservation—preservation which as Mr Baldock mentioned previously is about maintaining the area’s integrity and enhancing the integral values of the area for their own sake. Mr Baldock said that the area would be able to preserve itself but that is simply not true. As we all know all those sorts of areas are very fragile and are subject to damage from human use. We need to have the maximum amount of protection. Given that we are talking about only 1 percent of the whole area being put into marine reserves surely that 1 percent deserves to be given the maximum amount of protection and preservation that we can provide. 
We recognise the guardians’ role but we also recognise that they are primarily a group of recreational and commercial users of the area and we are disappointed that they did not have more respect for the ecological values of the fiords. Their wish to have the bill not refer to the international and national importance of the fiords was particularly disappointing. I have already said that the fiords have world heritage status and that Fiordland is a national park. It is ridiculous to argue that the words “national” and “international” should be taken out of the bill. That request along with the submission that the word “preservation” be deleted from the bill—because the guardians said that it was insulting—clearly demonstrates that the intention behind the guardians’ strategy and hence this bill is to protect the interests of users to the greatest extent possible with the fewest possible measures put in place to protect and preserve the incredible biodiversity of this national ecological treasure. That is a very disappointing approach to take towards the marine reserves of such an important place. 
The Greens have supported a greater role for the guardians in the ongoing management and review of the marine reserve areas. It is absolutely imperative that local communities are involved in that but we argued very hard for a conservation representative to be a member of that group in order to ensure that there is an advocate for the marine environment itself not just the users of it. We are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that will seek support from the House to have one representative from the New Zealand Conservation Authority among the membership of the Fiordland Marine Guardians. That is sought to make sure that the guardians are a broad church and that they represent all the interests that the fiord areas contain. It is really critical that the marine environment has an advocate. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a very long history of involvement in marine reserves. It has extraordinary expertise yet this Government and other political parties in this House refused at the select committee deliberations to have a Conservation Authority member appointed to the Fiordland Marine Guardians for no other reason than that they did not want to. But that leaves that marine environment at incredible risk because no one is there to advocate for it on its own terms and for its own sake. 
The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill and I have discussed some of them. I sincerely hope the House supports those amendments. They are designed to restore to the bill much-needed advocacy of the inherent integrity of marine biodiversity which is sadly and obviously missing from the bill as it is now. We hope the House will give those amendments due consideration and support them if this bill is truly to meet its objectives of protecting preserving and assuring for future generations not just the management of the resources that the reserves will give to our people but the protection of the precious corals and all the biodiversity that lives within them for their own sake and for the sake of future generations. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Licensing Trusts: Letter from Rod Donald 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 During the debate on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill in the middle of my speech there were some interjections from New Zealand First members saying that the Green Party had not supported the licensing trusts problem being addressed by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I seek leave to table the letter I sent to the Hon George Hawkins supporting the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to address the licensing trusts problem. That should clarify the matter and I hope the New Zealand First members recognise that they made a mistake. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
. 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Preamble agreed to.  
Part 1 Preliminary Provisions 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 4 “Interpretation”. We want to ensure that the primary Minister responsible for the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act and for that area will be the Minister of Conservation not the Minister for the Environment—not that we have anything against the Minister for the Environment. In fact the whole reason why the Minister for the Environment is the primary Minister involved is simply that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment got funding from the Ministry for the Environment to do the work it did. 
All other marine reserves are the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation. The Department of Conservation and the Minister have the greatest level of expertise and existing responsibility and know best how the marine reserves process works. They can see the whole marine reserves structure throughout the country as a single whole. There is absolutely no reason why the Fiordland marine reserves should be treated differently from other marine reserves in this country in any way. So we strongly advocate that the Minister of Conservation be primarily responsible for ensuring that the reserves are treated the same afforded the same level of protection and given the same respect and position as other marine reserves. 
Of course these marine reserves ought to have that same level of protection and respect throughout the community and from Ministers and from this House because this area is incredibly precious and valuable to the whole of the community. It is absolutely unique so it is entitled to the same level of protection. That is one of our major concerns with this bill as a whole—that so many of the provisions in it treat the Fiordland marine reserves as if they are different from others but they simply are not. 
We urge the Committee to support the amendment. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Just very briefly with regard to Part 1—and in particular with regard to matters that have just been raised—I think it is one of the strengths of the bill that for the first time it recognises the need for an integrated management albeit at this very limited stage. When we read in clause 4 that the Department of Conservation the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Fisheries and the Southland Regional Council are all involved along with the Fiordland Marine Guardians we can see that this is an excellent model that we should be endeavouring to pursue. I know that the Fiordland Marine Guardians in particular welcome this model. In actual fact they favoured that the regional council should be the lead agency and I can quite understand why. A regional council should be a lead agency but for various reasons that was not to be. 
This is the first stage as I said earlier. There is a recognition that in legislative matters there is not yet the ability to go beyond this first cooperative stage. This bill takes into account existing arrangements statutes and facilities and New Zealand First strongly supports this first step in what we see as a development in years to come not only for the Fiordland area—as important as it is—but for any marine park reserve area in the rest of the country. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from the definition of “ 
Minister 
” in subclause (1) the words “for the environment” and substitute the words “of Conservation”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Marine Management Measures 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This debate includes debate on schedules 1 to 12. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I take a call on Part 2 to discuss the issue surrounding marine management measures and the establishment of the eight marine reserves set up under this bill. As the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee went through its process people from various sectors of the community came before it often with a different slant on what was being done. The environmental groups said that the bill was terrible and that eight marine reserves were not enough because the reserves represented the protection of only 1 percent of Fiordland’s marine area. We heard on several occasions from Metiria Turei this morning that they represent only 1 percent of the marine area. In actual fact those reserves represent 13 percent of the area contained within the fiords and therefore a significant chunk of the fiords area is going under protection. But of course the environmentalists do not tell us that—they always want to put a different spin on it. 
In respect of the 1 percent of the external area as I said earlier much of that coastline down there will protect itself. I think too that the Fiordland Marine Guardians and the people of Fiordland have made a huge contribution by giving up 13 percent of the inner fiord area to those marine reserves. 
The thing that came under quite a bit of challenge at the select committee was the agreement for a moratorium so that no further marine reserves would be established for a period of at least 5 or 6 years until the first review of the Act has taken place. Many submitters said that that was terrible and that they should have been able to start applications for more marine reserves the next day. Those submitters just never stop. They seem to think that the only way forward is to have the whole country locked up with marine reserves. The committee had to resist that pressure very strongly because there is a gifts and gains process. 
Yesterday we had some discussion in the House about marine reserves and today I see that theRoyal Forest and Bird Protection Society has put out a press release overnight stating that United Future is anti-conservation because we are trying to stop the Marine Reserves Bill from going through the House. We are pleased to be able to stop that legislation this term because it is an ill-conceived bill and still allows for the Department of Conservation to take too many heavy-handed measures in providing marine reserves all over the country. 
The press release also said that Australia is a great country because 6 percent of its marine area is in protection as marine reserves but that ignores the fact that the major part of Australia’s protection relates to the Great Barrier Reef which is an enormous reserve. If we took that out of the equation Australia would not be much further ahead than we are in New Zealand. Australia has only a few other little spots on its map under marine protection. 
That is what concerns United Future. Unless we allow locals to be in charge of the process as this bill sets up we will constantly have the Department of Conservation pressured by lobby groups such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other environmental groups pushing for more and more marine reserves. Ultimately they seem to win the battle and get those things established without the real consent and consultation processes that are necessary at a local level. 
I had a long discussion with people from Environment Southland and they said that they could have established protection even without marine reserves. There are sufficient avenues under the Resource Management Act process to give some protection and that may have been a better way to have approached it. But in the end marine reserve lobby groups seem to have won out so eight new marine reserves are being established under this bill. 
United Future will support this bill. We are pleased that only eight marine reserves are being established and that the moratorium is in place. That gives people a chance to take a deep breath now that the major consultation process is over and not to have to face more and more applications coming in each year. Every application just opens up a whole can of worms again in a community. 
It is nice to see peace descend in Fiordland. With the passage of this bill this week I believe there will be a great deal of rejoicing—probably some cod will be eaten some rock lobster will be cooked on a few barbeques and even a few bottles of local wine will be opened to celebrate. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I say just very briefly that indeed as we were told the protected area within the proposed marine reserves equates to 13 percent of the area enclosed by the recommended habitat lines—in other words a significant increase. Secondly with regard to this legislation although the marine reserves in this case were marked out along habitat lines and others would have wished them to be marked out along other lines that was seen by the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee as a start. 
Most important although there is not the protection that some submitters would have wished for almost all of the fiords are being looked after and the “china shops” themselves are the subject of special provisions within the bill. I believe that that incorporates the other aspect—that is all this area we are looking at here which Ngai Tahu refer to as Te Moana o Atawhenua has been arrived at by natural development from the earlier conceptual thinking developed by the guardians. 
Lastly that takes into account the fact that concessions which are an integral part of the tourist industry will have a longer-term life than submitters believed they would have had at the start and above all that the Southland Regional Council having been part of the process will have no problems with the incorporation of the changes into its coastal plan. That is exactly as it should be. 
As we said earlier this is the beginning of what we hope is the model not only for Fiordland but also for other like developments for our marine life up and down our coastline. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 10(2) to omit paragraph (d). That provision states that the amendments to the Southland Regional Coastal Plan indicated in schedule 12 will not require the approval of the Minister of Conservation. We do not believe there is any justification for taking out the Minister’s role in this respect. The amendments will be made to the plan and will come into force when the plan is operative. The other parts of the plan as they become operative will require the Minister to give consideration to them and there is no reason why these particular provisions should not also require that consideration. 
These kinds of deviations from existing process are at the root of the Greens’ concern about this bill. There are continual layers of deviations from process deviations from existing protections for marine reserves that simply cannot be justified except perhaps as some kind of sop to the guardians. Certainly we have an enormous amount of respect for the guardians for the work they have done but in the end this measure is about protecting the marine ecology of that area. 
Mr Baldock’s claims about the marine reserves lobby are not only unfounded but also completely unreal when we consider the fact that only 1 percent of this area is to be protected by marine reserves and that on the entire east coast of the South Island there is only one marine reserve and it is a very small one indeed. There are very very few marine reserves in this country. They are difficult to establish both because of the process and because communities need to be involved and consulted. It is very good that the Fiordland community has lobbied around and worked to achieve some kind of marine reserve in this area but that does not justify the claims that there is such a thing as a marine reserves lobby that is turning the whole of our seas into marine reserves because that simply is not true. United Future on this point is absolutely wrong. In fact we have very few marine reserves and the Greens are trying very hard to ensure that the marine reserves we do have in place are well protected—are given the maximum possible protection—to ensure they are there for the future as a valuable part of the New Zealand culture. 
We are asking the Committee to support our amendment to clause 10 because the Southland Regional Coastal Plan will play a critical part in the further protections of Fiordland’s marine reserves. For example I have mentioned briefly the taking off and landing of aircraft and how that will not require a concession under this bill. The Southland coastal plan currently does not require any form of consent for the taking off and landing of aircraft. That plan is under appeal there is a process going ahead about that particular provision and the communities are working very hard together to come to some resolution. We look forward to that resolution but that issue does show that the Southland coastal plan along with this bill are two critical protection measures that need to work together and be considered together when looking at the full scale of protections that can be afforded the marine reserves area. 
If this bill allows for more and more concessions more and more deviations from process and from the protections that other reserves are accorded then more and more dependence and reliance are placed on the Southland coastal plan to provide those protections for the recreational users and for the marine reserves themselves. Then it becomes very critical that that plan has strong provisions to make sure those areas are protected. If as is set out in this bill there are further deviations from the usual coastal plan process—that is the Resource Management Act process—then those protections become less and less available. More and more the marine reserves will become subject to interference or decisions made by this House that are not relevant and do not take into account the full impact of the resource management considerations and the full extent of protection that the marine reserves require. 
So we are very strongly asking the Committee to support this amendment to ensure that the Minister of Conservation is required to give approval to the plan’s provisions including the provisions that are incorporated into this bill. It is also a very important point because the Minister of Conservation is not the primary Minister responsible for this bill; the Minister for the Environment is responsible. Therefore the role of the Minister of Conservation in this bill is very very minor. It is really really important that the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation have a strong role to play in the management of these marine reserves. Ensuring that the Minister of Conservation keeps his role of at least being required to give approval to the Southland coastal plan is ensuring the Minister is playing a part. If the Committee does not want that Minister to be the primary Minister responsible that is the decision of the Committee but if my amendment could be supported then at least the Minister of Conservation will have a role in helping to ensure and maintain protections through the Southland coastal plan. This will make sure that the marine reserves as critical unique fragile areas of our ecology are given the maximum amount of protection they deserve. This is something this House and the Government can provide for them. Again there is absolutely no justification for affording these areas less protection than any other area. As we are talking about only 1 percent of the fiords—only a very tiny proportion of the sea area around the South Island—it is absolutely essential we do the best we can. 
If this Government wants to go out and tell people that it is doing something for the environment it needs to demonstrate that very very clearly and specifically. Supporting the Green Party amendments is one very easy way to do that and to show that it is more interested in maintaining the value of these precious areas than it is in taking the path of least resistance. Because in effect that is what this bill is about. It has in large part taken the guardians’ strategy which is fine—they worked very hard to get and negotiate a strategy around these areas. But what was missing from that strategy and what continues to be missing is an advocate for the marine environment itself. 
Supporting this amendment and supporting in future the other amendments the Green Party is putting forward is one way that this Government can demonstrate that the marine environment deserves an advocate of its own. It deserves to be protected for its own integrity and its own value and therefore these amendments that the Greens are putting forward which try to restore that approach back into the bill should be supported by this Government. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) of subclause (2); and 
to omit subclause (4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments not agreed to and Part 2 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Questions to Ministers 
Passenger Clearance Service Costs—Funding Formula 
1.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
 (Labour—Waimakariri) on behalf of  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What principles led the new funding formula for passenger clearance service costs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The principle of fairness is based on the allocation of costs to the primary beneficiary so the Government will pay the full cost for biosecurity and customs and the airlines for aviation security. This leads to a rough 50-50 split between the two. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How will the industry costs be allocated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: They will be allocated through a uniform per passenger charge of $8.31 which will be collected by the airlines rather than the airports. This is in addition to the $1 Civil Aviation Authority fee and represents a total increase of $4.31 over current charges. New international airports will move to the uniform charge at the end of their first year of operation provided they have achieved a level of 9000 departing passengers a year. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that Rotorua is one of our tourism-centre jewels and that if it developed its airport to international standards it should not charge any more per passenger than our current international airports; if he does not accept that will he please explain why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have provided for initial costs in relation to new airports because when airports are starting up with small numbers of passengers the per-passenger cost is extremely high indeed. The Mayor of Rotorua has expressed his appreciation that the Government has listened to the submissions from him and other supportive mayors around the country. 
Prime Minister—John Tamihere 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did she mean when she said in relation to John Tamihere that she is “capable of infinite forgiveness”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister meant what she said which is that she is capable of infinite forgiveness but she does like to see reciprocation. 
Rodney Hide 
: In making that statement had John Tamihere disclosed to her his involvement in the scam that has seen his former chief financial officer and electorate chairman Mike Tolich admit to the Serious Fraud Office that he had paid kickbacks to obtain pokie-machine moneys; and has she sought from John Tamihere a full disclosure of the scam for which the Serious Fraud Office is laying charges? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That matter has been the subject of an investigation which decided that no charges were to lie against Mr Tamihere. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked whether Mr Tamihere had disclosed information to the Prime Minister. I cannot see how saying what everyone knows answers that question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What happened between Monday night when the Prime Minister was indicating that John Tamihere’s political career was all but over and Tuesday morning when he suddenly became a well-liked valuable political asset who puts in 150 percent on a good day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere came to the caucus and apologised for his statements. 
John Carter 
: Does the infinite forgiveness mean that the new standard she has set for her Government allows an alleged rapist a convicted forger a habitual drink-driver and a self-confessed liar to be tolerated in her caucus; if so how low a standard will she set in her naked desperation to retain office? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister indicated that much depends upon Mr Tamihere’s future actions but I thought that member would have learnt that sometimes forgiveness in a leader can be quite important. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen know anything at all about the kickbacks that were paid to obtain money from pokie machines and how John Tamihere might have advantaged in that way trusts for which he was associated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has read the report on those matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did those reports explain John Tamihere’s involvement in those schemes and what were those reports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member is aware charges have been laid against one person in relation to those matters. It would be inappropriate to— 
Rodney Hide 
: No two. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. It would be inappropriate to comment further which might influence the outcome of the court hearings on those matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Again I beg your indulgence for the sake of question time. I asked a specific question. The Minister said he has seen some reports and I asked him what the reports were. He did not address that in his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He referred specifically to the reports. 
Pharmac—Sole-supply Agreements 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that Pharmac’s practice of entering sole-supply agreements ensures that New Zealanders get the medicines they need; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the main yes I am. Since sole supply began in 1996 savings of over $200 million have been achieved and as well it has enabled New Zealanders to have better access to a wider range of subsidised medicines than previously. For example over the last 5 years 53 new chemical entities have been added to the subsidised lists including new treatments for diabetes severe pain and chronic obstructive lung disease. I note that sole supply was introduced when the honourable member was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Why did Pharmac enter into a sole-supply agreement regarding the product Salamol when it knew at the time that there had been problems with inhalers clogging in Britain which has now been the experience here or is it simply a case of cost saving at all counts and the New Zealand asthmatic sufferer having to pay the consequences of that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last part of the answer no and Pharmac has been notified of a small number of complaints regarding Salamol. Those complaints have been taken seriously and Pharmac is working with the supplier of Salamol and with Medsafe. However Pharmac has been informed by Air Flow Products the supplier of Salamol that clogging can be addressed by simply cleaning the inhaler. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has sole supply been an effective way of managing access to medicines in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. In addition to achieving savings on prescription medicines sole supply has led to an increase in the number of pharmaceutical companies present in New Zealand. Generic companies have increased from only three main ones in 1996 to more than eight now resulting in greater price competition when Pharmac runs its annual tender. New Zealand is a small market and sole supply helps to ensure that medicines that might otherwise be hard to obtain are secured for New Zealand patients. Sole-supply agreements are widely used internationally. For example in the United States one of the largest health management organisations Kaiser Permanente uses sole-supply agreements. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is she aware of comments made by Diabetes New Zealand’s president that Pharmac’s limitation of the access of 40000 people with type 2 diabetes to self-monitoring products will serve only to drive up the cost of managing diabetes in coming years; if so does she find the trade-off of short-term gain against long-term pain acceptable? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will always be debate about which products ought to be used and which ones ought to be subsidised. I am happy and confident that the supply of drugs for diabetes in New Zealand is a good supply and I am quite happy with the work that has been done in that respect. We look at new drugs when they come on the market and we subsidise them as soon as is practicable and when their efficacy ensures we ought to do that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What does the Minister say to those asthma sufferers who either are alcohol-intolerant or have a cultural or religious objection to the use of alcohol and who are now being forced to use Salamol which is an ethanol-based product as an alternative to Ventolin which will be going off the market in a month or so? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Where there is a difficulty in terms of a person being intolerant to a particular drug we have the ability for that person because of special circumstances to receive another drug. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did New Zealand purchase 200000 treatments of antiviral drugs to fight bird flu—the drugs being the only possible protection against bird flu—which had passed their use-by date; and is it standard practice for Pharmac to buy outdated second-hand drugs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is totally wrong. She has been told that the doses we are receiving of the antiviral drug—which does not cure bird flu; the member is in fact wrong in that respect—have been made especially for New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked why the Minister bought the drugs last year. I am aware that new supplies are not second-hand but that the ones purchased last year had passed their use-by date. Furthermore I did not say that they cured bird flu; I said the drugs offered some protection against bird flu. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the 20000 doses purchased last year I can say that they have been certified by Medsafe as being able to continue to be used. That particular antiviral supply that we have is able to be used. The out-of-stock date was looked at. We checked to see whether the drugs could be used and it was found by an expert committee that they could be. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am a bit unsure about just what occurred there. Sue Kedgley raised a point of order and then the Hon Annette King made a contribution that seemed to be by way of an answer to an oral question. It seems to me that we have a sort of conversation by way of points of order occurring between members who are not satisfied with answers and Ministers who are taking the opportunity to spin their line a bit further. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I thought that clarification was being sought. I had not heard what the member had said about the 20000 doses so I took it from the look on Madame Speaker’s face when her eyebrows shot up that she was giving me the opportunity to expand my answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly the points of order were for not addressing the question. The Minister was prepared to expand on her answer because she had not heard the question. We aim to please and normally the Opposition does like full answers as I understand it—as full as they can get from the Government. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How many more cases of the failure of the sole-supply policy will it take before either the Minister or Pharmac decides that change is necessary; or do New Zealand’s suffering patients simply have to continue to put up with what is going on at the moment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no overwhelming evidence that we ought to change what we are doing now and I would caution the member to try to get some of his accusations correct. He has received a letter from Pharmac very recently in which it is shown that he made at least 16 errors of statement in this House or in press releases around things that had happened with regard to Pharmac and particular stocks. I am happy to table the letter so that everyone can read the response to what the member has said. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister noted the passion with which the Hon Peter Dunne has been putting his questions and is she aware that this is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back and that if the Labour Government does not agree with the Hon Peter Dunne he may withdraw his party’s support on supply and confidence; if so has she had any indication of that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not had any indication. I would say of the United Future party and the Hon Peter Dunne that it probably takes a lot more than a few questions on Pharmac to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back—unlike probably the one too many glasses of whisky that broke the camel’s back under the previous Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that last comment. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take that as a slight because I do enjoy a glass of whisky a day and people tell me that it is good for my health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Minister did withdraw. 
Prime Minister—John Tamihere 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her response to question for oral answer No. 1 yesterday that “Leadership is about judgment and I have exercised mine in the interests of the Labour Party.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes she has exercised her judgment in the interests of the Labour Party and indeed of the country as a whole. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister realise that many New Zealanders consider Mr Tamihere’s censure to be meaningless especially considering that he has been sent home on holiday—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Which members interjected during that question? Who interjected? 
Hon Annette King 
: I will own up to an interchange between the honourable member for Tauranga and myself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Then will you both please leave the Chamber. You know the rules on this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First of all you should do us the courtesy of asking both parties. It was not an interjection; it was simply a statement to the Minister who has just resumed her seat as to what that sort of allegation will bring in the future in respect of her party. It was not an interjection; I was just telling her that if she ever did that again she would know what came next. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask both members please to leave the Chamber. I am conscious of the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is to ask a question. He may come back for that question then leave again. 
Hon Annette King 
: I have a question too. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And there is a question for the Minister of Health. She may come back to answer that then leave the Chamber straight afterwards. 
Hon Annette King withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister realise that many New Zealanders consider Mr Tamihere’s censure to be meaningless especially as he has been sent home on holiday without giving a public apology for his deeply offensive remarks about women and the Holocaust? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that if the member had been present in the Labour caucus he would have realised that it was not exactly the proverbial slapping with a wet bus ticket at all. Indeed I think if he had actually seen Mr Tamihere’s body language immediately afterwards he would have realised how shaken Mr Tamihere was by what the Prime Minister said. 
Judith Collins 
: Whose interests were better served by the exercise of her judgment in favour of Mr Tamihere: the Labour Party’s or those of the New Zealand women whom he referred to as “front-bums”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere apologised to the Labour caucus for those comments. He accepted that they were completely inappropriate. As the Prime Minister has said we shall move on from here in the light of Mr Tamihere’s subsequent behaviour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When exercising her judgment on John Tamihere what made acceptable his comments on the Holocaust—comments from which he has refused to resile publicly? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister dissociated herself and the Government from those comments on Sunday well before the Labour caucus met. They are not acceptable comments. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Was it good leadership and good judgment to place her need for the Labour Government to retain office ahead of the needs of the many New Zealanders insulted by Mr Tamihere and how bad will it get before she takes some action on their behalf; is this just a case of mind over matter—she does not mind and they do not matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Mr Tamihere’s remarks were deeply offensive and the Prime Minister made that clear. It is also clear that he has been under enormous pressure over recent months and his behaviour over the next few months will determine what happens going forward. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has Mr Tamihere failed to apologise because the censure motion was drawn up by Dr Michael Cullen and there is a possibility that there was just one word in it that made it completely meaningless? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The censure motion was not drawn up by Dr Michael Cullen. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the Prime Minister ever envisage in her wildest dreams that she would be using her judgment to defend someone who holds the views on women gays trade unionists and his own caucus colleagues that Mr Tamihere holds by saying that almost everyone likes him and that he is a valuable political colleague who gives 150 percent on a good day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the Prime Minister says she is capable of infinite forgiveness in these matters but I would remind that member that a number of his colleagues unburdened themselves of a whole string of homophobic and anti-women remarks during a number of recent debates in this House. 
Rodney Hide 
: What sort of judgment has she been exercising when she has not bothered to find out just how John Tamihere benefited from the kickbacks that Mike Tolich has admitted to and is being charged for? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That member has made many accusations under privilege that have been the subject of Serious Fraud Office and other inquiries and have been found not to have substance. 
Dioxin Exposure—New Plymouth 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Will the Government offer free medical checks and free medical treatment to people who lived near the former Ivon Watkins-Dow plant in New Plymouth between 1962 and 1987 and therefore have elevated levels of potentially cancer-causing dioxin in their bodies; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Free hospital services are available to all New Zealanders already as the member knows. If the member is referring to primary health services free visits were offered to about 30 local residents in February. To date only four have taken up the offer. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why when Viet Nam veterans are given free medical treatment for health problems caused by their exposure to dioxin are residents in New Plymouth who have been similarly exposed to elevated levels of dioxin over many years not offered the same medical treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be aware that our history is littered with programmes that give thanks to veterans for their active service—this being one of them. But I remind the member that when we did give 30 people who knew they had higher than normal levels of exposure to dioxin access to free medical primary care only four of the 30 took up the offer and the other 26 did not. 
Mark Peck 
: What were the steps taken when releasing the Paritutu serum dioxin study to ensure that people were well informed and supported? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Everyone in the study was contacted and individually briefed. Briefings were also given to district health boards general practitioners medical officers of health the Paritutu community health liaison committee and other stakeholders. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that two reports written by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research have found that people who lived near the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant between 1962 and 1987 have levels of dioxin in their bodies that are as high as the levels in some Vietnamese who were sprayed with Agent Orange and comparable with levels in people from Seveso in Italy the site of a disastrous incident; if so when will he admit that this must be one of the worst examples of dioxin contamination anywhere in the world at any time ever? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot off the top of my head confirm either the figures or the comparative figures. My best guess is that the Seveso event was somewhat more serious but there is no doubt that the New Plymouth event is a matter of great concern and a matter of ongoing research. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 30 people he referred to who were offered medical treatment were those who had their blood serum levels tested and that there are in fact many thousands of people whom the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report confirms were living within a radius of 2 kilometres of the plant and are likely to have significantly elevated levels of dioxin in their bodies; why is he not offering all of those thousands of people free medical treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that the number of New Zealanders with raised serum dioxin levels will be far higher than the few people who were part of the most recent study. I myself am almost certainly one of them having gotten through veterinary school in part by spraying 245-T to control gorse. The really important thing to remember about dioxin exposure is that dioxin exposure and various subsequent cancers for example are very loosely linked and that the science—the epidemiological activity to try to get a closer linkage or not—is still continuing. We simply have very very few links between certain levels of dioxin exposure and certain types of cancer. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report found that dioxin levels in the blood serum of the exposed group were in fact higher than those of a similar group in Seveso and does he agree therefore that it was premature for the Minister of Health to state in a letter sent to residents in New Plymouth in 2000 that a comparison of the levels around the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant with those in Seveso would clearly demonstrate that the levels released at the plant were very low and will he therefore be correcting that information sent to the people of New Plymouth? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not able to confirm comparisons between Italy and New Zealand off the top of my head. I certainly can confirm that the levels of dioxin amongst workers at the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant exceed the levels of dioxin amongst residents living around the plant and my best guess is that the dioxin levels currently in the blood of the President of the Ukraine would be far higher still. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What other evidence does this Government need before it honours a promise that was made by the public health director Don Matheson to residents in a community group meeting 2 years ago—namely that if there is proof that Ivon Watkins-Dow caused the problem the Government would seek recompense and sue it? Now that the report has confirmed that there is evidence will the Government be suing Ivon Watkins-Dow? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The case for suing Ivon Watkins-Dow is a very modest case indeed and therefore would almost certainly fail. I think it is more important to work out not what is happening to dioxin levels but what is happening with birth defects in New Plymouth compared with the rest of New Zealand and with cancer levels in New Plymouth compared with the rest of New Zealand. Both of those reports are likely to come to us and to be made public mid-year. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that if the Government does not sue Ivon Watkins-Dow it will send a terrible message to multinational corporations that they can come to New Zealand pollute our local environment poison our local residents and get away scot-free—indeed with the assistance of the Government of the day? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Can I say to the member a little more directly that we have advice that the chances of success if we were to sue Ivon Watkins-Dow would be slight indeed. We operate by the rule of law and if a court case will not succeed there seems to be little case for undertaking it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is one of the reasons why the Government is reluctant to sue Ivon Watkins-Dow the fact that Governments in the 1960s and 1970s spent millions of dollars subsidising the chemical 245-T which of course has given rise to this problem; and is the Government concerned that it could end up as a co-defendant in any legal action? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No and no. 
Meningococcal B Vaccine—Reports 
6.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has she received on the meningococcal B vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There are regular updates on many aspects of the meningococcal B immunisation programme. The most recent advice relates to the safety of the group B meningococcal vaccine. The chair of the Independent Safety Monitoring Board set up by the Health Research Council and made up of international experts in epidemiology paediatrics and immunisation Professor Terry Nolan has said publicly that there are no safety concerns around the vaccine after analysing data based on the first 525000 doses delivered to 210573 children. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the latest report the Minister has seen on the progress of the roll-out of the $200 million meningococcal B vaccine programme nation wide? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Last week the Ministry of Health reported that the meningococcal B vaccine is now available to half of all under-20-year-olds in New Zealand and that nearly 160000 young New Zealanders have completed the three-dose vaccination programme. This has involved a huge amount of work and dedication from parents and health professionals but as programme director Dr Jane O’Hallahan said our children deserve it. The aim is to vaccinate 1.15 million New Zealanders under the age of 20. They are the people most at risk of being disabled maimed or killed by this disease. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What practical help will the Minister provide to overworked general practitioners who totally refute her suggestion that the meningococcal vaccine roll-out will make it easier for them to administer the flu vaccine when it finally arrives 1½ months late after all her bungling? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I totally reject the comment that the vaccine was late because of my “bungling”. The member has already apologised to me personally for comments that he had made that were wrong. He may want to apologise for that one as well. As everybody knows this vaccine did not arrive on time because of a manufacturing error. I do not know of many health Ministers who do the manufacturing of vaccines. I can say to general practitioners that for the meningococcal B vaccine programme we have undertaken to employ—and district health boards have employed—a large number of nurses. It is mainly nurses who carry out the vaccination programme. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister satisfied that parents have been given sufficient ongoing education about the limitations of the immunisation programme and the fact that they need to watch their children for signs of the disease given that the vaccine does not protect them from all strains and given that radio advertisements playing today do not give parents sufficient advice of this risk? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the member that we need to ensure that parents remain vigilant about all strains of meningococcal disease. Meningococcal B is a particularly nasty strain but we do also have meningococcal C in New Zealand. We are aware of that and certainly efforts are being made by our public health physicians and others to ensure that parents are mindful of the need to be careful with any of these sorts of problems and to go straight to the hospital if they detect symptoms. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can we afford to relax our efforts to vaccinate our children against this terrible disease? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No we certainly cannot. So far this year there have been 53 cases of meningococcal disease and three deaths. Recent well-publicised cases of the disease highlight the point that this epidemic will not go away on its own. We do not know when it will strike and the vaccine is the best way to protect against this particular strain of the disease. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a document from the  
Manawatu Standard 
 entitled “Double-up a problem” which points out just how difficult the delayed roll-out of the flu vaccine is to general practitioners. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am raising this point of order at the first available opportunity. I think that your ruling with respect to having me ejected from the House was grossly wrong particularly as there was no attempt to feel for the circumstance in which the event happened. The plain fact is that the Minister was not insulted by my colleague Peter Brown but she sought to fling an insult back to this side of the House. Naturally that sort of reaction would occur in any such circumstance. Not to take that into consideration and not to treat her the same as me with respect to that was I think wrong and unfair. I want to make it very clear that if people—including you—want cooperation in this House they will get it but not when I get a ruling like that. I want to make it very clear that I do not think Jonathan Hunt or any other past Speaker would have done anything like that. 
It was simply not an interjection. I did not interrupt the questioner. I did not interrupt the Speaker or the Minister. I was speaking to someone else as many people have been doing in the last 10 minutes in this House. None of them have been ejected from this House at all. I heard colleagues speaking to each other as I walked back into the Chamber. I think that that sort of ruling might be attempting to set some sort of standard but it is not a standard we will tolerate or live with. We want fairness in this House and I think that that ruling was grossly unfair given that the Minister made that allegation which was a lie in itself—not true—and you almost allowed her to get away with it. I want to make it very clear that if you want disorder in this House let that happen one more time and then some members will find out how rough the game can get when it comes to things that are personal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows well that this House has sought to have the rules enforced rigidly. I have been attempting to do that but obviously with a modicum of common sense. We know that when people are asking questions there are to be no interjections or chipping across the House. It was on that basis that I gave my ruling. The member also knows that members cannot argue with a ruling on a point of order. I have heard what he said. Now I ask him to ask his question. 
Superannuation—Married Rate 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the percentage of the net average wage used to calculate superannuation payments for married couples in April 2000 and April 2001 and why was it set at this percentage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In 2000 the rate was around 67.8 percent of the net average wage delivering an increase of $21.42 a week for a married couple. That reflected the anticipated increase based on raising the floor back to 65 percent before the Government Statistician rebased the net average ordinary-time weekly wage index which could have been used of course to justify a lesser increase. Following the normal annual adjustment the married couple rate rose to 68.3 percent of the average wage in April 2001. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister of Finance this curiosity: if the rate of New Zealand superannuation was set at 67.8 percent and then 68.5 percent respectively in April 2000 and April 2001 to compensate for the drop in net average wages which Grey Power estimated at the time to cost superannuitants $21 per week why did he then allow the rates to drop back to 65 percent and below as evidenced by this chart I have? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On 27 January 2000 I issued a press statement announcing the changed rates and explained the technicality around the change in the index. I said in that press statement that the rate at which the pension drifted to 65 percent of the average wage would depend on the relative movements of wages and prices over the next few years. For as long as it is over 65 percent it will be adjusted for inflation only but it will never be allowed to sink below 65 percent again in terms of the 1 April figure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it OK for the Labour Government to have the rate above 68 percent but grossly wrong for New Zealand First to suggest it in 2006 and what does he mean when he says he put out a press statement to set the new rate at a figure not to go below 65 percent when his colleague Rick Barker has released the actual figures for March 2004 at 64.88 percent and for June 2004 at 64.83 percent; and what on earth is he talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Facts and law. In this particular case it has been pretty much the same since 1976 when New Zealand superannuation was set at 80 percent of the average wage—that was at 1 April before the next adjustment occurred then normally the figure would have drifted below 80 percent and then be restored to 80 percent. That has also been the case with the 65 percent floor. The reason for it being above the floor in the year 2000 I just explained was that we had based the anticipated level of payment on the net average ordinary-time weekly wage index as it was at the time we became the Government. Shortly thereafter the Government Statistician announced a rebasing of the index which could have been used to justify a lower rate of increase. That would have been seen in our view as a betrayal of the promise we gave people at the election only a few short weeks earlier. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is he trying to allow Treasury to be politicised with respect to the figures on these calculations that he released the other day claiming that the total cost would be $1.68 billion 10 years from now; and on what fictional borrowing and drawings figures earnings figures and consumer price index figures was Treasury doing that calculation or what clairvoyant did he use to make that statement to the media? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In this year’s Budget as in every Budget the Government makes certain predictions around the rate of inflation and the rate of wage growth over the coming period—normally set at a 2 percent inflation rate and 3 percent average wage rate over the long term. It is always Treasury practice and I am sure the member may recall from his intimate close detailed involvement in budgetary provisions in 1997 and 1998 that when a major costing item is included in Government spending it is assumed that it will be paid for by additional borrowings so in the long term the cost of additional financing also has to be included. That is the case in the spending proposals in this year’s Budget from the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was 68 percent OK for his Government in 2001 when it was trying to keep its promise but wrong in 2006 when New Zealand First will be back in the administration making sure that the promise is kept? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the 68 percent was seen as the level in 2000. As I said in the press statement it was anticipated it would drift back to the floor of 65 percent over time. The member is proposing a new floor of 68 percent rising to a new floor of 72.5 percent. That is over a 10 percent increase in the cost of New Zealand superannuation and throws into question any long-term fiscal forecast. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a document setting out the 67 percent and 68 percent rates of 2000 and 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an answer from Rick Barker in which he sets out that this Government has fallen below 65 percent on a number of occasions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rates—Rebate Scheme Changes 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What changes is the Government proposing to the rates rebate scheme? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: The Government is proposing major changes to the scheme which will provide significant benefits to ratepayers on low incomes. The Government has listened very carefully to these ratepayers. The maximum rates for rebate will increase from $200 to $500—a 150 percent increase. The income abatement threshold will increase from $7400 to $20000—a 170 percent increase. 
David Parker 
: How many people will be eligible for a rebate under the revised scheme? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Up to 300000 ratepayers could be eligible for the rebate. This will include many superannuitants. I wish to pay tribute to Grey Power for drawing the need for such an upgrade on rebates to the Government’s attention. The House will be very pleased to know that we will be able to meet the needs of low-income superannuitants and other low-income ratepayers by injecting a budgeted $50 million into their incomes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government is so concerned about rates why is his Government in clause 9 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill making ratepayers responsible for remediation of contaminated sites at a cost that has been estimated by the Ministry for the Environment as $1 billion and given that the Prime Minister is so keen to talk about the $50 million gift why did she not also mention that the Government is proposing to dump on ratepayers this additional $1 billion cost? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government is talking very closely with local government and has a funding project under way to address a variety of issues about funding to ensure that local government is adequately funded. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite specifically about the $1 billion cost that the Government is going to pass to local government and ratepayers in respect of contaminated sites. I did not hear any response at all from the Minister to that quite specific issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that increasing the income abatement threshold and the amount of the rebate has been something that United Future has raised with him on a number of occasions over the past year and would he also acknowledge that another United Future proposal to remove GST on rates would reduce even further the financial burden on superannuitants and all ratepayers in this country? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am happy to confirm that United Future members have been in dialogue with the Government over this very issue and it has been a very successful policy outcome. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the report of the Ministry for the Environment for August of last year that estimates the liability of cleaning up contaminated sites at $1 billion. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table clause 9 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill that makes councils responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Confidence 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What persuasion did she use on Mr Maharey to get him to change from his Monday night position stated in the  
Evening Standard 
 that he was not accepting an apology from Mr Tamihere to his position on Tuesday morning when he said he was drawing a line under the issue and moving on because the Prime Minister had told him to do so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere came to caucus and made a humble apology. My colleague Mr Maharey is a very generous man. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Has John Tamihere retracted his description of Steve Maharey as “smarmy”; if not what is the basis for her statement: “Everybody likes John.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere has humbly apologised for the statements that he has made. Indeed it is true that Mr Tamihere can be a very likeable person. As the Prime Minister said he can also stumble in a big way. Unlike some people in this place he does know when he stumbles as well. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically used the word “retracted” not “apologised”. The Minister might have addressed the question if I had asked whether Mr Tamihere had apologised. He did not address the question given that I asked whether Mr Tamihere had retracted the statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When was the last time the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey and was her experience one that left her walking away with screeds of paper none the wiser from his very clever and smarmy dialogue and knowing that the whole conversation was of no substance at all? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that the last occasion the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey would have been on Monday morning at Cabinet. She would have come away as she has come away on a number of occasions recently knowing that Mr Maharey has contributed to a drop in the number of people on the unemployment benefit from 164000 to 60000 that he has introduced the first major benefit reform package since 1938 and that he has helped to drive unemployment down to the lowest level in the OECD. He is not only hard-working and conscientious but highly successful. 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Enrolments and Courses 
10.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What action if any is he taking to investigate the validity of enrolments and courses completed at Te Wananga o Aotearoa which received some $239 million of taxpayers’ money last year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to investigate all allegations of dubious enrolments as they have emerged. As I have already said I am not satisfied that that wananga has operated either ethically or appropriately and action will be taken to address that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did the report of Graeme McNally the Crown’s former representative on the council of Te Wananga o Aotearoa—reported to the Minister last year—raise the issue of fraudulent enrolments and why is the Minister refusing to release that report following my request under the Official Information Act? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The reports of the Crown observers and Crown managers are not generally released for reasons of commercial confidentiality. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What steps is he taking to address other concerns relating to Te Wananga o Aotearoa? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Heaps and even more will happen. A Crown manager has taken control of the finances. The Tertiary Education Commission is renegotiating its charter to ensure that it focuses on its core role. I have appointed new members to the council including Wira Gardiner. And the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry into conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of taxpayers’ funds. 
Simon Power 
: Is he satisfied that the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority processes for checking any falsified enrolments at the wananga are satisfactory; if not what further action does he intend to take to ensure that any such failures are rectified? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority do not do a student by student check on enrolment forms. That would take the bureaucracy to a level that I think would be inappropriate. Where there are complaints and things are drawn to their attention investigations do occur. I know that in at least one case Mr Shirley has drawn some things to our attention. The National Party has tended to defend Rongo Wetere but this Government is determined when each case is brought to— 
Judith Collins 
: That’s ridiculous. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is not ridiculous. The leader spent the day at Ratana wandering around with Rongo Wetere. I do not know why those members do that but they are pretty stupid. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Did the report of the financial review of Te Wananga o Aotearoa by the Education and Science Committee tabled in December 2004 contain a minority report by the ACT party expressing its concerns about financial mismanagement at the institution; if it did not how does the Minister interpret that omission? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Having looked at that report as part of my official duties I cannot remember seeing such a—I am checking with the member; I did not miss it on the way through. All we can say is that it they are continuing to be slack. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Minister claim that the Auditor-General’s investigation will uncover inappropriate use of taxpayers’ moneys when investigation into the validity or otherwise of enrolments is specifically excluded from his terms of reference? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because I understand that the Auditor-General consulted with the Tertiary Education Commission and satisfied himself that it was an inappropriate way to deal with that matter. If there has been fraud in the end it will not be a matter for the Auditor-General; it will be a matter for the police. 
War Memorial Park—Plans 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Does she have any plans to create a national war memorial park where all theatres of war in which New Zealanders served can be represented; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: The Prime Minister said at the time of the interment of the Unknown Warrior that the Government has begun the process of negotiations towards acquiring land for a national memorial park. These negotiations are continuing and we are confident that they will be successful. 
Ron Mark 
: Why do the plans outlined by the Prime Minister not include an undertaking to build a memorial of the type and scale of those found in the United States and Australia to honour all men and women who served New Zealand during the Viet Nam War? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Every country decides what is appropriate in terms of war memorials to commemorate the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in battles across time. New Zealand has the National War Memorial in Buckle Street that recognises the service of people from the Boer War to the Viet Nam War. There are many other war memorials around New Zealand. I do not think it is particularly useful to compare what happens in Australia and the United States which are of course much bigger countries. However this Government has paid extensive notice. We have for example published a series of oral histories commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Second World War. We are progressing plans to have a memorial to New Zealanders in Hyde Park in London. I believe that the service of people across New Zealand and across the services is very well attended to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That answer was a little long. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Government not think about the fact that 37 New Zealanders lost their lives in Viet Nam that more were wounded that many more survived but had their health and the health of their children seriously affected by exposure to defoliants and that for over 30 years these servicemen and women were stigmatised and denigrated for their service in that war; and does she not consider that those are very good reasons why the construction of such a memorial is the right and proper thing to do? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am delighted to have the support of that member for the actions that this Government is taking particularly the setting up of the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs and our proposal to work towards a peace park in Buckle Street. 
Police—Resources Counties-Manukau 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many sworn officers—full-time equivalents—were there in Counties-Manukau Police District on 30 June 2004 and how many are there today? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that in July 2004 there was a restructuring of police operations across the Auckland region that reclassified police from three districts to three districts plus one support group without affecting the number of police on the ground. Prior to the restructuring on 30 June 2004 there were 795 sworn police officers designated as Counties-Manukau staff. Under the new structure some of those police were re-designated as Auckland metropolitan crime and operations service group staff even though they continue to sit at the same desk and do the same jobs— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just tell us the number. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I simply interjected that the member asked a very simple question—how many officers were there then and how many are there now? We got a whole lot of garbage that the Minister mumbles into the microphone when all that members want to hear is the answer to the question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I for one am interested in the facts of the matter. The member may not be but I would like to hear the answer. If members opposite are not interested in the facts that is revealing to members of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let us proceed. I do not need any more help with this. Would the Minister proceed with his answer. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Under the new structure 633 sworn staff are currently designated Counties-Manukau district staff. Police coverage in the district has not been affected by the new structure. In fact police numbers across the Auckland region are up. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think in the interchange that followed the Minister’s statement and the interjection by the Hon Nick Smith the Minister gave us the pre-restructuring figure of 795. That was correct according to official documents. He did not give us the number after the restructuring that appears in nine official documents that I have on my desk which is 683. Did he read that out? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yes the Minister gave the figure at the end of his answer. It would so help if people listened. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No he gave the figure 633 which is the figure at the moment. He did not give the figure that followed the restructuring in June. He gave the pre-restructuring figure—and I accept what he is saying—but he did not give the post-restructuring figure. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am trying to work out exactly what the point of order is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He was not actually asking a question. To get down to that level of detail in a point of order is irrelevant to the question. The Minister gave an answer that completely answered the question asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that is correct. The Minister did address the question. It may not have been the answer that the member wanted but there is a supplementary question he could ask. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: He gave an explanation about the change of restructuring but he never gave the figures. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ask a supplementary question please. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the Minister’s explanation for the number of sworn officers in Counties-Manukau being run down in the past few months from 683 to 633—a reduction of 50 front-line staff—while there are over 1000 unallocated cases in Counties-Manukau? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Restructuring took place. There are now more police in the Auckland area than there were at the time of restructuring. There are now 2088. There were then 2072. 
Stephen Franks 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Northern Communications Centre has enough staff who are properly trained to do their duties; if so on what basis? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have conducted a review—they have had that done—and will make some announcements about that shortly. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How has the reorganisation of some staff into the Auckland metropolitan crime and operations service group affected police service delivery in the Counties-Manukau Police District? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Under the new structure in addition to Counties-Manukau staff North Shore - Waitakere has 622 sworn staff Auckland has 637 and the Auckland metropolitan crime and operations group has 196. Although the same staff are sitting at the same desks in the same stations the new structure is proving highly effective. I am advised that in North Shore - Waitakere crime was down by 7.4 percent last year in Auckland it was down by 11.9 percent last year and in Counties-Manukau it was down by 11.3 percent. I hope most people would rejoice in that. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister comfortable with our low police-to-population ratio in comparison with other jurisdictions such as Australia Britain and the US or is he simply unable to obtain resources from the Minister of Finance to ensure the public’s safety? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We compare apples with apples. We look at what results were and we look at them now. New Zealand’s police are doing a very good job. Crime has dropped down by 8.2 percent which is the best it has been for more than 20 years and the police are getting more and more resources. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Minister not simply confess to the House that front-line police numbers in Counties-Manukau have been run down deliberately in the last 9 months to meet the Government’s funding constraints? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: This Government has given the police more money. That member was going to take it away. He sat in Cabinet as Minister of Justice when his Government was reducing police numbers by 540 and cutting $40 million to $50 million out of the budget. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister put in a bid for more resources to fund additional front-line staff; if so is he confident of receiving it; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member will have to wait until 19 May when I will be smiling. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an official police document—the New Zealand Police monthly human resources scorecard 
— 
which shows 50 fewer— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document may not be tabled. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to ask the Minister why his coalition partners do not know the details of the police budget that is about to be announced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: It is a point of order. I am seeking leave to ask the question why the coalition partner to the Government does not know the details of the police budget. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is. The question will not be asked. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to correct that member. We are not a coalition partner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that point of clarification. 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 3 Fiordland Marine Guardians 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system by statute at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised particularly in regard to the review process. 
Firstly changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation who will in turn consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly and probably most importantly of all the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members rather than two who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party in the name of Metiria Turei has moved some amendments to this part all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch. 
The final form of the plan on which this bill is based recognised in a modest way the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited being completed within a year of its start. 
In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas. 
Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6 7 and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Does that not include the schedules? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is schedule 13 only. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill and welcome the recommendation by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to change clause 14 so that when the Minister appoints the Fiordland Marine Guardians he or she needs to ensure that at least five members are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions whereas the original bill required only two. It is important that the focus is on the local area and I think the change will strengthen those provisions. 
Initially I think the Minister appointing the guardians is the necessary way forward. It is a process that began in the local area and those who first became involved were those who were willing to put up their hands and volunteer their time for what was going to be quite a long process—one that would require a considerable amount of self-sacrifice in terms of their time and energy to see it through. 
So we are comfortable for the Minister to continue with an appointment process after this bill is enacted but in the long term United Future would like to see communities choosing representatives in their area similar to the process we now have with our district health boards where we have elections for a number of the board members then the Minister can appoint a few others perhaps to fill in a few gaps where he or she sees that the board does not have representation. That would be a good step forward and perhaps with the implementation of clause 21 “Ministerial reviews” that recommendation may be made in the future as the guardians bed in and settle down. Perhaps in the years ahead communities will have an opportunity to elect their guardians’ representatives. We in United Future believe that would work very well for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the 13 conservancies around the country that are at this stage ministerial appointments. We think there could be a balance between elections and ministerial appointments to fill in some gaps where there might be a lack in experience or representation of community interests. However at this stage United Future is comfortable with the appointment process and we will look forward to that review occurring in 15 years’ time. 
We also welcome clause 22A “Protocol between management agencies and Guardians” which we think will strengthen the important role of the guardians so that the process continues to be a locally-managed one that Government agencies must take account of work with and take note of the advice the guardians give. That was the whole genesis of this project anyway—working together with Government agencies but not being led by them and allowing local residents to take care of their own marine environment. We believe most residents are capable of doing so. We want to see it not just applied in Fiordland but also adopted in other regions around the country. I think that New Zealanders are conservation minded. They know how to take care of the environment and when engaged properly there can be a win-win situation both for Government agencies and for the community. United Future wishes to commend this part to the Committee and we will be supporting it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (e) of subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (2) the expression “Minister of Conservation”; 
to omit from paragraph (d) of subclause (2) the expression “.” and substitute the expression “: and”; and 
to add after paragraph (d) of subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(e)ensure that one member is nominated by the New Zealand Conservation Authority. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the word “at” and substitute the words “not earlier than 3 years and not later than 5 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add after the words “section 7(1)” the words “subject to obtaining a concession in accordance with Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987; and the said Part IIIB shall apply as if references in that Part to conservation areas were references to the marine reserves established by section 7(1) and with any other necessary modifications”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.  
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 6 be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 3 the following clauses: 
4Activities prohibited in Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve described in  
clause 5 
. 
5Area of Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in  
clause 4 
 is prohibited is described in  
subclause (2) 
. 
(2)All of that part of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 07’18.3808’S and 167º 08’08.8363’E (being at the southern end of section 3 of map SO 344884); and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 07’28.7038’S and 167º 08’29.3518’E; then 
(ii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides to the seacoast in a generally southerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’03.0454’S and 167º 08’34.5196’E; then 
(iii)in a generally south-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’05.1081’S and 167º 08’15.5893’E; then 
(iv)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 6 agreed to. 
Schedule 7 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 7 be agreed to: 
to add after clause 1 the following clauses: 
Activities prohibited in Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve described in clause 3. 
Area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2). 
(2)All of that part of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commending at the seacoast at a point 45°19’08.0172’S and 167º 10’10.4736’E; and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)in a generally northerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 18’50.1402’S and 167º 10’22.1454’E; then 
(ii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides around Shoal Cove in a generally easterly direction; then 
(iii)across the mouth of the Camelot River; then 
(iv)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally westerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
4Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum 
The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 7 agreed to. 
Schedule 8 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 8 be agreed to: 
to add after clause 1 the following clauses: 
2Activities prohibited in Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve described in clause 3. 
3Area of Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2). 
(2)All of that part of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 26’19.6158’S and 167º 06’54.6080’E marked “DB14” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to a point 45° 25’44.2680’S and 167º06’40.3333’E; then 
(ii)in a generally north-easterly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’30.8977’S and 167º 07’14.5776’E; then 
(iii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly then northerly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’28.3879’S and 167º 07’30.5427’E; then 
(iv)in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 25’29.3402’S and 167º 07’40.4304’E; then 
(v)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’26.2960’S and 167º 9’31.6229’E marked “DB18” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(vi)in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’00.9921’S and 167º 08’43.1654’E marked “DB17” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(vii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 26’40.0269’S and 167º 07’53.6795’E marked “DB13” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(viii)in a generally north-westerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
4Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum 
The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 8 agreed to. 
Schedules 9 to 11 agreed to.  
Schedule 12 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 12 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule 12 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 13 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill be now read a third time 
. One of the main features of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves in Fiordland—a total area of nearly 10000 hectares. Although the bill creates reserves they are to be managed under the Marine Reserves Act. Special conditions apply to those reserves. For example within the reserves Ngai Tahu will be able to take dead marine mammals and remove pounamu by hand and fishers will be able to store rock lobster pots and live rock lobster within designated areas. Also anchoring will be prohibited in particularly fragile areas within some of the reserves. 
Those conditions are a result of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment’s “gifts and gains” process whereby stakeholders gave up certain benefits in the interests of achieving the overall protection and sustainable management of Fiordland. That the guardians secured the support of recreational fishers commercial fishers and iwi for those marine reserves is a remarkable achievement. A key aspect to achieving that support was that there would be a moratorium on the creation of new marine reserves in the Fiordland marine area for 7 years or until a ministerial review of the management of the Fiordland marine area as required by the legislation is completed. 
The legislation also creates a new body—the Fiordland Marine Guardians—to provide advice and make recommendations to management agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland marine area. Ministers and agencies must take into account any such advice. In total there will be between five and eight members. I assure Mr Baldock and Mr Jim Peters that to maintain the local flavour of the initiative five of the members must be resident in either Otago or Southland which is great and one member must also be nominated by Ngai Tahu. 
In addition to this legislation the Government is committed to several Fiordland-specific work programmes to give effect to other aspects of the guardian strategy. The work programmes will cover monitoring compliance and enforcement; information and education; and biosecurity. They will involve the guardians and key agencies with management responsibilities in the Fiordland marine area including the Southland Regional Council. I am pleased to announce that the Government is providing the necessary budgetary funding for those programmes so that they can now get under way. Along with the legislation they will contribute to achieving better integrated management of Fiordland’s marine environment. 
I give particular thanks for the work that has gone into this legislation. Firstly I thank the House and in particular the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee for honouring the work done by the Fiordland guardians by reviewing the bill with efficiency attention to detail and speed. I also give thanks to the officials in Wellington from the Ministry for the Environment Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries for their work in converting a local and brilliant plan into legislation. That has involved compromises not only among the different ministries but between central agencies and the guardians. In fact the notion of “gifts and gains” has spread not only from inside Fiordland but between Fiordland Wellington and central government. 
My thanks also go to the officials from those departments who worked at the local level with the Fiordland guardians. In particular—and I know that one is not necessarily meant to do this all the time—I pay tribute to Alisdair Hutchison from the Ministry for the Environment. He was the officer who worked so well. In fact one of my first trips as Minister for the Environment occurred because Alisdair Hutchison asked me to go down with him to Te Anau to meet the people involved who had been working there so that we could set up the funding necessary to get this project under way. He was a committed regional member of the Ministry for the Environment who wanted to support what he saw was really good work. So I pay tribute to the work that Alisdair Hutchison has done in that area. Those from the South Island will be able to recognise that particular official. 
My thanks also go to the local member Bill English because I found out very early on that he worked very closely with the chair of the guardians John Steffans in order to keep abreast of the progress. When I checked with him he would say that he had met frequently with John Steffans and I appreciated that. I think it is really timely to note that we have a new member in the House from that area Lesley Soper who also will recognise Mr Steffans and continue to work with the guardians on these issues. 
My very special thanks go to the Hon Pete Hodgson who was at that time the Minister of Fisheries. Pete Hodgson and I attended at least two gatherings of the guardians and friends in Te Anau. Together we made a public commitment when the guardians handed over their plan to us to have this work of the guardians turned into special Government legislation and also to give the financial support to back that up. It was really good to have a person from the south who understood the issues involved and the particular processes and who was able to instruct his officials on how important this legislation is. Of course that was continued by another member of the south my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
But my greatest vote of appreciation is to John Steffans the chair of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment and to Laurel Tierney the coordinator because this legislation represents the culmination of years of hard work by the guardians. The chair John Steffans is present I think to witness this third reading and I acknowledge that this legislation is testament to his and the other guardians’ vision and tenacity. The select committee is aware of their tenacity and their deep commitment to Fiordland’s marine environment. 
At this stage I say to some of the members from one particular party in this House who thought that this was just a bill about fisheries that that really casts a slur on people who I have seen stand in Te Anau and say that they want that environment. They live and work in that environment more than any other people in this House and they really honour it. They want it for their children grandchildren and grandchildren’s children. They are absolutely dedicated to that environment. They do not want it “fished out” and they do not want it destroyed—they certainly do not want that special underwater coral destroyed. So they are absolutely careful about it. But they understand the meaning of sustainability and I love them for it. It is about sustainability. It is three legs absolutely in action in terms of economic growth social development in a remote area of New Zealand and care and protection for the environment. Those people have shown how different interests within one community can work together to define and achieve a common vision. 
Through this legislation Fiordland’s marine environment will be better protected and more sustainably managed. It will also ensure that the local community in Fiordland will have an ongoing role in the management of the area’s marine environment. This is not about locals doing it against the world; this is about locals who know and love the area and who know it far better than I think any other people in this House know it. The local people know every corner of those particular fiords. Ministers and officials alike have learnt a great deal from the guardians’ process and we are excited about exploring whether similar models can be used. I commend the bill to the House. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 At the first meeting of the committee Mr White from the Ministry for the Environment laid out for us the values of Fiordland. I think it is worthwhile at this point to go quickly through what those were. He spoke about the unique marine environment and we have heard that aspect being developed in the course of this debate. He talked about exceptional biodiversity and we in New Zealand First sympathise with the issues that were raised by the Green Party. We recognise that that is something to be prized and is precious. The value of marine resources was covered in that opening meeting; also the knowledge that has been gained and developed by the extensive tourism operators in their operations over some time. Very important as well were the commercial and recreational fisheries that have been a core part of that—albeit that at times those who fished in the area came from other places. In both the Maori and Pakeha sense the significant historical and cultural values were covered—in this case enshrined in legislation—as was Ngai Tahu’s role in regard to Southland and Stewart Island. 
We then looked at elements of the bill and picked up on the huge and considerable difference under which the proposal was developed—one that we in New Zealand First find so commendable particularly as some of us have had over 25 years’ experience in dealing with these matters along the coast and we have not found I must say to the Minister the exciting thoughts that she enunciated with regard to at least one ministry. 
May I pause and say as an aside that this will mark an exciting new development in the sustainability of our marine life and coast. We look forward to that happening more and more. But in this case we have the guardians who picked up—originally from a fishing viewpoint we understand but secondly with environmentalists scientists and community representatives and not least the Southland Regional Council—the whole process that has resulted in us being here today. 
We in New Zealand First are very very pleased to be able to support the third reading of this bill. We understand where the reserves sit in the national biological picture. We understand that some people may not have been satisfied and they told us so in submissions. They said that the protections with regard to the ecosystems were not as they would have wanted and particularly that although this proposal concerned habitats they were looking at whole communities and ecosystems. They said that this region was unique not only nationally but also internationally with regard to those matters and that therefore the bill when it is enacted will at the beginning be only part of a long-term understanding and process. 
So we commend the bill to the House at its third reading. We commend particularly the developmental role the present role and the role that the committee has now enabled the guardians to have in the future—not to be just a committee of advice but a committee to which “regard must be given”. We look forward to the eight marine reserves being part of a representative coastal marine picture and not something specially set aside. We will therefore be anxious to see as will other members of the House after the 5 years what will be the impact of science and a proper review upon this whole development of a marine park and reserve developed in this sense. 
We recognise that the Southland Regional Council has to make some changes and that it would have wished—and I repeat what I said in my first reading debate—that this opportunity had been extended to allow the whole of its coast to enjoy the same protection and preservation and also use that this legislation will allow the people of Fiordland in the defined area to have. So in these respects we look forward to the future. We hope that the close working relationships that have been developed in recent years will be maintained that there will be goodwill and cooperation and most of all that we will come to realise more and more the uniqueness and real diversity of our coastline—one in which both man and other creatures have a place. So to the new board New Zealand First says kia ora and expresses its good wishes for the future. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is very pleased to support this legislation. We recognise that this is a particularly good example of bottom-up decisions from a number of interested and affected parties on the ground rather than being some sort of centralised bureaucratic answer to what is a very important area for us all. We note that eight new marine reserves 10000 hectares are involved. I was very pleased to serve on the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. I actually urged that the committee travel to look at all those nooks and crannies down there and I am still very disappointed that my other colleagues on the committee were not so keen. I would have been very pleased to look at the area closely on the ground. I think it is important for a member of Parliament to do that especially when it involves such a special part of our heritage. 
It is great that the stakeholders have had such an influence in this proposal and as the point has been made a new phrase has come into the lexicon—“gifts and gains”. It is a very good concept. It acknowledges that there is a place for compromise. Nobody got all that was wanted but it is something everyone can live with and it is a pretty good framework in any open democracy. 
Certainly the fishing industry was rather terrified as to what might happen if exclusive reserves were put right across Fiordland. It now has special areas in which to operate its important industry and to put its crayfish pots. At the other end of the scale one could say that we have very good protection for what are called the “china shops”—these special unique areas. I am reluctant to call anything unique in an ecology but the area certainly has a very special ecology with its black corals and other areas that are very vulnerable to disturbance by anchors chains fishing gear or whatever. They now have the protection they need. It is quite nice in this House to have a bill that seems to have the support of the whole House. I certainly commend it to others. It is a very good framework for a bright future in managing Fiordland. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future on the third reading of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill soon to become an Act. First I echo the comments made by the Hon Marian Hobbs in appreciating all the players who have been involved in bringing the legislation to this point. They include some outstanding people who are real pioneers really in a new concept of the way we may deal with the management of our inshore areas and the precious parts of our New Zealand coastline. I commend them for the work they have done. 
This bill establishes eight new marine reserves—approximately 10000 hectares. It is not an inconsiderable amount of marine area. But it is disappointing that instead of hearing all members in this House celebrating this achievement there is one party that continually whinges about there not being enough in the way of protection. I refer of course to the Green Party. King Solomon many many years ago when he was writing his proverbs said that there were six things that could never be satisfied—and I am sure that if the Green Party had been around in those days he would have said there were seven. We have a Green Party that is never satisfied no matter how many marine reserves are established. 
Many people said that it covers only 1 percent of the area but they did not acknowledge that it covers actually 13 percent of the inner fiords area which is a significant amount to go into marine reserve protection. People often go on about there not being enough marine protection and a press release issued yesterday by Mr Weeber of the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand bemoaned the fact that we are well behind Australia when it comes to marine protection and that Australia has over 6 percent of its marine area in no-take reserves. Now of the two things that are not taken into account in that statement the first is that nearly all of that 6 percent would be in the Great Barrier Reef reserve— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s multi-use. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes and it does not fully exclude fishing in all parts of it anyway. Secondly although in New Zealand we may not have as much area in marine reserves we have a quota management system that is a form of marine protection and extends out to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. If that were not some form of protection I would wonder why we even had the quota management system. So it is not always good to make comparisons of ourselves with our neighbours. 
Mr Weeber identified an opinion poll showing that 95 percent of New Zealanders wanted marine reserves. Therefore we can be sure as we pass this bill today that a great number of New Zealanders will be happy. But that poll brings on for me an inspiration for perhaps another Tui billboard message which would say: “95 % of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their favourite fishing spot—Yeah right”; or “95% of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their backyard—Yeah right”. Of course when we have polls that ask questions about that we have to make sure they ask the right questions. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes but they like them there when they want to sell their property. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes everybody wants a marine reserve somewhere else but if we were to ask whether they wanted one in their area I think we would get a much lower percentage than 95 percent. I think that the very process the guardians have been through which has been a very lengthy process is confirmation of the fact that we may all want marine reserves around our coastline but when it comes to saying where they will be a great deal of consultation is required as well as the “gifts and gains” process that has been part of this whole initiative. We also need always to take into account that concept of “not in my backyard thank you very much”. 
So I again commend the guardians for having guided their local residents and stakeholders through this process and for having been able to decide where the marine reserves would be. Some complained that not a whole sound or fiord was in marine reserve protection but some arms of the sounds—almost complete arms—are in marine protection. I was sorry that Mr Shirley was not able to make it down there but after my having been down there and having a look I think significantly large areas are protected in order to preserve the areas that people are concerned about. 
United Future welcomes the strengthening of the guardians’ position in the bill as it is now nearing completion and going to its third reading vote in a short while. We believe that the guardians are integral to the success of the legislation and we also look forward to the Minister’s review in 5 years’ time. Perhaps as I mentioned earlier we may see a recommendation there that some more democratic process may creep into the future appointment of guardians in the area which we think would be an improvement. 
I welcome the commitment from the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope who has acknowledged through the Hon Marian Hobbs in this debate in the House that he will consult with the ministerial advisory panel of recreational fishermen regarding the regulations to be changed in relation to recreational fishing bag limits prior to making those decisions because normally those regulations would have another consultation period. In relation to his statement that there was no need for that consultation because there had already been consultation I think it is helpful to hear him say that he will at least take some advice from that new panel he is establishing. I hope that further studies to be carried out in the area will give better science on the fish stocks and the habits of fish species there and perhaps will lead to a review of the regulations in due time. 
This bill is a good example of why United Future’s proposals to restructure the Department of Conservation are a good idea. Local people are capable of making good agreements to preserve their marine areas without the department initiating and driving the process. It would be a vast improvement in New Zealand I believe if the Department of Conservation were relieved of its advocacy role to concentrate on managing the conservation estate and marine areas once established through a community process that everyone could own from the very beginning. That is the hallmark of this whole bill and we commend it to the House. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to be in the House for the third reading of this important bill for my region and to hear such cross-party support for it. The bill implements a positive and sustainable local solution created using local knowledge. The Fiordland Marine Guardians to their credit have spent 8 years developing the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy and have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals which will ensure the preservation protection and sustainable management of Fiordland’s marine environment. This bill recognises that Fiordland is a globally unique environment with valuable marine resources and exceptional biodiversity. It is therefore worthy of special protection. 
The bill will contribute positively not only to Fiordland but also to the standing of New Zealand’s entire environmental protection and it is a credit to all those involved. All New Zealand wins from this bill. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I want to make a very brief contribution in my capacity as Minister of Tourism to congratulate the Hon Marian Hobbs and all those involved. As the gallery is full of media which we would expect when this degree of cooperation is being witnessed in the House I just note that this Parliament can from time to time find agreement on a matter that is of huge long-term interest and importance to our nation and to future generations. So I really do want to congratulate Marian Hobbs and all those who have worked with her on this achievement. 
Bill read a third time. 
Railways Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Railways Bill be now read a second time 
. Last year the Government rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation and pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of New Zealand’s transport infrastructure. In addition the Government’s funding assistance for passenger rail services in Auckland and Wellington—rolling stock stations and track—will have extra investment. The aim is to encourage patronage so that access is improved and road congestion and environmental impacts are reduced. A national rail strategy is currently being developed. It is intended to provide a framework for the development of rail in New Zealand. Its focus will primarily be on improving rail freight and urban passenger transport in order to support economic growth and to contribute to the well-being of individuals and their communities. 
This bill is aimed at promoting the safe operation of the rail industry. It recognises the changes in rail ownership and operational activities and reflects the strong commitment made by the Government to recognise the recommendations made in the Ministerial Inquiry into Tranz Rail Occupational Safety and Heath 2000 also known as the Wilson report. The bill introduces a more integrated and robust regime that is based squarely on safety risk management principles. Under the current legislation rail operators are accountable for safety through their approved safety management systems. There are now a growing number of participants in the rail sector whose activities are fundamental to the safe delivery of a rail service but who will not be covered by a safety management system. The bill extends the licensing regime to cover a greater proportion of those that are termed “rail participants” under this legislation. It requires a clear and visible chain of responsibility between licence holders and subsidiary organisations. 
The bill takes a co-regulatory approach to safety. Responsibility for safety is placed squarely on the separate licence holders and their associated rail participants to provide assurance to the Government that the safety policies and operational systems they have in place mean that they are operating safely and that they will continue to do so. The bill consolidates existing legislation relating to rail safety and expands on that legislation to address a number of deficiencies in the current rail safety legislative framework. 
The bill introduces a wider-ranging process of safety assessment to improve safety assurance. It also broadens the range of enforcement powers available to enforce safety. Currently rail operators submit a safety management system to be approved by Land Transport New Zealand. The Wilson and Halliburton reports criticised Tranz Rail’s safety management system as being “voluminous and unwieldy”. The bill addresses this issue by splitting the safety management system into a high-level safety case and a separate but linked safety system. The safety case contains overarching safety risk management documentation that is designed to ensure that the rail participant can properly assess control and manage its safety risk and provide safety assurance to the director of Land Transport New Zealand. The safety system is a documented record of the detailed management and operational policies and practices that relate to the safe conduct of all business activities. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has examined the bill thoroughly and has recommended that it be passed with amendments. I support the amendments—as does the Minister—that are proposed by the committee as they strengthen the bill. The committee has done a commendable job. Supplementary Order Paper 353 recognises the new authority Land Transport New Zealand and ensures the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy are reflected in the rule-making provisions. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses level crossing safety following recommendations from the coroner concerning a fatality at the Silverstream pedestrian level crossing. These provisions ensure that all parties involved in the operation or management of the crossing will agree in writing on the warning devices to be installed and operated. 
The relationship between the bill and the Health and Safety in Employment Act is now a great deal clearer. The role of safety manager with its high level of personal responsibility has been removed. This is consistent with the principle that safety is everyone’s responsibility. The committee has refined the hierarchy of interventions the director may take where action is deemed necessary to ensure safe rail operations. Each intervention is more appropriately targeted to the safety risk involved. To clarify safety roles in the new rail environment a mandatory obligation has been introduced for rail operators and their personnel to obey all instructions from the network controller. The safety case—the key risk management documentation—is now more comprehensive. New aspects require policies to ensure that rail personnel are fit for duty and in particular that they are not impaired by drugs or alcohol. There also needs to be a policy for consultation with unions and other representatives of rail personnel in the development of safety systems that affect rail personnel. 
The revised Railways Bill will assist in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to rail by improving rail safety performance. It reinforces the rail safety framework and supports other rail initiatives such as the repurchase of the rail network the investment in rail infrastructure and the development of a national rail strategy. I commend the Railways Bill to the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in the second reading of the Railways Bill and I want to make a few points about it. First of all the National Party is prepared to support this legislation as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because I think a process was finally followed that this House would be pleased with but I do not think that members can be pleased with how it started out. The House and the select committee were presented with an initial bill that I think had had an appalling level of consultation with the various industry players. 
As everyone in this House knows the very semantics of the wording we use can often make a big difference. I know that Dr Michael Cullen knows that changing just one word can alter the meaning of an entire agreement or bill. Dr Cullen knows that; he is an expert at the changing of one word. 
We ended up in this case with a bill that operators such as Toll Holdings were really quite outraged about. Its representatives said to the select committee: “If only we had been able to be consulted with and been able to have our side of things heard and with just a small amount of change to some of the semantics and some of the wording—where you have ‘all reasonable steps’ and ‘all practicable steps taken’—we could have lived with a lot of this. But in the way it is currently worded it will just be an absolute bunfight.” I have to say that all sorts of things about safety in the workplace had to be adhered to which in some cases as far as I could tell were contradictory to the actual Health and Safety in Employment Act. 
It seemed to the select committee that there was a way around that and that the officials should have gone away and talked because we had a very good basis for the bill. That was the Wilson report. I am very happy to say that I think the Wilson report was of substance. It had some value and we were hoping that we could turn the Wilson report into a legislative vehicle. That is what I think we have ended up with. As the Minister who just spoke in the second reading said there is a high-level safety case in relation to all the operators who work on a railway line. 
We need to understand what the big difference is with railways now. Instead of there being just the former one operator that both ran the carriages and trains and owned the line and so on—likeNew Zealand Rail as it used to be for years or like Tranz Rail as it then called itself—we have split up the railway line. I guess the best analogy for that is the situation with the roads where a particular body owns the roads. In the case of the State highways it is Transit on behalf of the Government and all the players that want to operate on those roads like trucking companies and private motorists pay for specific access to use those roads. With rail we will see a range of different operators from the big Toll Holdings which is the biggest operator to Connex which is running trains in Auckland to smaller companies and to the hobbyist railways where trains run for only a few kilometres on a little spur somewhere. So the legislation is required. 
I make the case again that the National Party was very happy about the legislation but as the Minister has said there is a Supplementary Order Paper to come. I have just been able to look at it. We were not aware of this Supplementary Order Paper even though this legislation was introduced back in 2003 and the select committee I repeat reported back to the House on 9 August 2004. There has been plenty of time if the Government had wanted to have some cooperation on the Supplementary Order Paper to let members of the Opposition see it before today before we suddenly bring this bill in and bang it through under urgency. 
I have looked at this Supplementary Order Paper and as with some Supplementary Order Papers I see that it is reasonably trivial. There is some stuff in it that now calls the authority Land Transport New Zealand because when the bill was introduced the authority was the Land Transport Safety Authority. Of course no one will object to that but how about something like the proposed new clause 48(a) that gives the Minister the power to make rules concerning “… rail vehicles railway premises or railway infrastructure:”? The bill as introduced under clause 51(a) provided that ordinary rules could be made amongst other things to “regulate the use of railway lines and empower access providers to control restrict and prohibit the use of a railway line and to close railway lines in specified circumstances or on specified occasions.” But quite serious concern was expressed about that. 
The select committee members I think worked very cooperatively—Lynne Pillay is in the House today and I think that she will agree that the select committee worked very cooperatively—to get the bill to where it is but what do I see in this Supplementary Order Paper? The select committee had deleted that power because on evidence on balance and across the board of all operators who made that submission it was something that should not have been in the bill. But what do I see now? I see that Supplementary Order Paper 353 proposes to reinstate it. 
The Minister is saying that he does not care what was said in the submissions from all the various interested players at the committee hearing. He does not care about what the officials finally advised the committee or indeed what members of the committee across Labour the Greens National and ACT—four parties or maybe even five parties; I do not think that United Future was represented on the committee—all agreed to and agreed to in a very cooperative style. No—remembering that the bill was reported back on 9 August 2004 we now have a situation where the Minister has come back with a Supplementary Order Paper and has shoved that provision back in. 
Now I have to say that that really tests our resolve to try to work cooperatively. I think that sending the officials away to work with the various players—mainly Toll because it is the main game in town but also a number of others—got us a bill that was tidy and a report back we could all sign up to. It got us into a space where we were comfortable—but now this has happened. It is actually a sort of Michael Cullen on steroids trick. This is not just changing one word; this is coming back and changing the entire intent of the bill by whamming in a Supplementary Order Paper in at the last minute. 
I will be talking a little more to some of my colleagues about how we will deal with this bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. But at this point I say that the bill as reported back from the select committee does great credit to all members of that committee to the officials and to the people outside who have to run the rail system. If this bill were passed as it came back from the committee we would have a safer rail system in which people would know their responsibilities more clearly. The chain of command would be established as to who was responsible for the railway lines for the land on the side of the railway lines for the operation of the rolling stock for the health and safety of workers on the railways and members of the public who come near a railway line by way of using a railway crossing or walking beside it and for the rights of individuals to enter on to railways land or to walk off it. 
This bill would cover all of that in what I think is a very tidy fashion—but not when the Government in the form of the Minister just says it does not care what everybody has agreed to or how long the process took place: “I know best; I am in charge. ‘We won. You lost. Eat that!’ Here is a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute.” 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a call on this bill because I agree with Maurice Williamson that it is a very important bill. I also agree with him that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked really hard on it. I think that the outcome is very very good. I also have to commend the industry for its submissions and the union and the employers who worked together and put very much time and energy into making sure that all the t’s were crossed and all the i’s were dotted and that we ended up with the best bill we could get. After all this Government believes that a well-developed safe and sustainable transport system is absolutely essential to growth and innovation. 
Let us not forget what this bill was a result of. Last year we rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation and we pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of our transport infrastructure. The bill seeks to build on that. It aims to and certainly will improve rail safety. That is very very important. The bill will transfer rail safety legislation into a comprehensive piece of legislation—namely this bill—so that what we see is what we get. 
The bill will also ensure public safety and the protection of those who are not covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It will ensure health and safety on the job which this Government is really committed to as are the workers and their representatives out there. The bill will also gain assurance from the rail industry that it is managing its safety risks. 
There has been much work and much commitment as I said before from both the union and the employers within this industry to ensure that all bases are covered. I have no hesitation in standing here as a member of the select committee and commending this bill to the House. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I agree with almost every word the honourable member who has just resumed her seat said. When this bill went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there was a great deal of cooperation between members. The officials took a huge amount of time going back three or four times I think to various participants in the railway system. I also agree that this bill is essential to make our railways safe. I most certainly agree that the Government has bought back the railway line in a dilapidated state and that it needs some capital injected into it. I do not think $200 million will be enough—I think it will fall short by a long way—but I agree that the railway system was in a dilapidated state and needed some money put into it. 
But now we have this Supplementary Order Paper about which I note the honourable member Lynne Pillay did not say a word. I have only just received a copy of it and I have only had a limited amount of time to read it. I have to say that it raises a question mark in my head. I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson and I think he made a very good point—despite the fact that he is obviously suffering from Alzheimer’s because he could not remember that Peter Brown and New Zealand First were on the select committee. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I said that. 
PETER BROWN 
: No the member did not. He got it wrong. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: My total apology. I withdraw and apologise. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member. He has raised some concerns that do not sit comfortably with us at all. We will take a closer look at this Supplementary Order Paper because I hope the Minister has not undermined— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Michael Cullen. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does the member think it is a Michael Cullen trick? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes he changed one word— 
PETER BROWN 
: He has actually changed about a thousand words by the look of this Supplementary Order Paper so we will take a very careful look at it. I hope that the Minister has not pulled some sort of swifty on the select committee because the select committee took a lot of time and trouble in endeavouring to get this bill right. New Zealand First is of the mind that the bill should be supported in its entirety and if the Minister has reversed some of the assertions in the bill then we will be concerned. 
Our only other concern—we would like to put this to the Government maybe one of the next speakers for the Government will tell us the reason—is why it has taken so long to get this bill before the House. The bill was reported back mid last year and now in April 2005 we are discussing it in urgency and trying to progress it through the House. 
I do not think there is a great deal more I can say. I remember at the time being impressed by the way the select committee applied its talents its determination and its dedication to getting this bill correct and fair in all manner of areas. New Zealand First was very impressed with the attitude of the committee and the outcome—the way the bill was finalised. But I am just a bit concerned by this Supplementary Order Paper and we will be taking a closer look at it when the bill gets to the Committee stage. In the meantime New Zealand First still supports the bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party does not support the Railways Bill. It is always hard to argue against safety because one’s opponents can then very easily put out a sound bite saying that one’s party is arguing against safety. When we debated the first reading of this bill the Hon Jim Anderton as members might recall stood up and used a very emotional ploy. He talked about the terrible accident that happened to the child Morgan Jones on the railway. A considerable amount has already been done since that accident. In fact since 2000 when the Wilson report came out Tranz Rail in particular has done a significant amount of work in improving its safety standards. 
There are a number of reasons why ACT cannot support this bill. It started off with good intentions. It went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out and we on the select committee worked towards reporting back with something on which we could reach at least some sort of quasi-agreement that it was better than what came to the select committee in the first place. But as is typical especially when we are in urgency—it comes back to urgency—we have to pass all remaining stages of the bill and lo and behold there is a Supplementary Order Paper that damn near takes the bill back to what it was before it went to the select committee in the first place and before we heard all the submissions. 
And there were significant submissions on this piece of legislation—from Federated Farmers from Toll Holdings from Tranz Rail from the unions and from the small railways operators. Those are the operators of heritage railway tracks and the small not-for-profit organisations—charitable trusts that run railways just because they are rail nuts. And good on them. They do a good job in terms of preserving some of our historical railways heritage. But this bill is a push by the unions. It is a union-backed bill. It is interesting that— 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well Lynne Pillay just stood up and said it was pushed by the unions. She said it in her own words. She said that the unions backed this bill— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I didn’t. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: She cannot even remember what she said 5 minutes ago but she said it was a union bill and she said that it was good to see that the employers cooperated with the unions. Well what choice do the employers have—the wealth creators the working people in New Zealand—when these pieces of legislation come before them? They had the Health and Safety in Employment Act they had the amendment to that and then on top of that they have the Railways Bill. If that member had even bothered to read the Wilson report she would have seen that it specifically stated that rail should not be disadvantaged when it came to safety measures that any legislation that followed the report should not be anti-competitive and that rail should be on the same footing as other forms of transport. 
This is not what we have seen. This Railways Bill is demonstrably stricter and more prescriptive than analogous legislation that deals with air transport and road transport. It is significantly more prescriptive in a number of ways and one is that there is a regulator. The participants as they are defined under this bill—the licensees and the people who control access to rail—said in their submissions that they accepted that they have to be responsible for safety and for the setting standards they have to be accountable for those standards and they have to be accountable when things go wrong. There is no problem there they do not disagree with that at all. But what will happen is that having a regulator responsible for all that will take the responsibility for the safety standards and setting the compliance and vigilance for those standards away from the rail companies—the rail participants—and put them in the hands of a regulator. All the participants will be reduced to box ticking and ensuring that the companies comply. 
As I said at the beginning it is hard to argue against safety and we do not argue against safety. But one always has to remember that safety comes at a cost. Under this bill safety is coming at a significant cost. Those parties such as the Greens who say they want to save rail should look very carefully at the costs in this legislation that will be inflicted on rail operators. The licensing costs will go up for the participants and the fees have not been set yet. Plus Land Transport New Zealand has stated that its costs will go up. Its hourly rate will go up to $160 an hour. There will be no time limit on that so those costs will run into the many thousands and those costs will always be passed on to the people who use rail whether it be freight operators or whether it be passengers. 
The companies themselves will not carry those costs. When those companies find that they are in financial difficulty and that they cannot carry the costs and have to pass them on to their customers what will this Government do? I know what they will do. We will see more of this nationalisation of State assets in reverse. We will see a repeat of what happened with Air New Zealand. It will happen with the railways and we will go “back to the future” where in 1 year $90 million of taxpayers’ money was lost by New Zealand Rail and where we had shocking safety standards. 
The member Lynne Pillay has huge faith in Crown ownership ensuring that safety follows. She has an incredible faith in politicians. I do not have that faith in politicians. I would not have that faith in any politician to ensure that no accident happens on the rail and this is what this legislation will do because it puts the onus on the Minister of Transport. The perception out there will be that the Minister of Transport will keep rail safe. What will happen the first time that there is an accident? Who is going to be responsible? Will the Minister of Transport put up his hand and say “mea culpa”? I doubt it very much. This is bad legislation made worse by a Supplementary Order Paper introduced at the last minute to overturn the agreements that were reached at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we will not be supporting this bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am happy to take a very brief call on the Railways Bill. As the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to thank fellow committee members for all their hard work—those who turned up and understood the bill. I think there was an ACT leadership thing going on— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Primary! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes primary—that was it—paid for by the taxpayer. It was not done by rail though; I think it was done by aeroplane. Quite frankly I think that speech was an ungracious one because Deborah Coddington does actually contribute very positively to the committee when she is there. On this bill all the members worked through a very good process. 
As the Minister of Defence said in his speech this measure is about an approach whereby the Government does not set the rules then expect the people out there just to follow them; the people out there are actually engaged in setting the rules themselves monitoring them and making sure from both the management and the workforce perspectives that they have the safest possible rail system in New Zealand. There are many terrible international examples of rail safety gone wrong. The select committee tried to learn from those examples and not repeat the mistakes. I think in this bill we have the best of both worlds. We have proper Government intervention through a proper Government agency but more important we have management and workers together making sure we have a safe railway system. I look forward to the debate in the Committee where we can test that as we go through the bill. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting the bill. The process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was good. It took some time to get our heads round the measure because what we have now is an industry with a great many players and there is scope for overlap and therefore scope for gaps between responsibility. This legislation provides measures to ensure responsibilities are met and things do not fall into gaps. 
Rail does not have a bad safety record. The problem is that when things go wrong they can go horrendously wrong and the accidents can be of a horrific nature. Trains are very large and very unstoppable and it is important that we do have really good processes in place as Mark Gosche has said. It is up to the operators to write out their safety procedures. But they are not left on their own. They then have to have those safety procedures approved by the Director of Land Transport New Zealand as it is now. 
The mechanisms in place are first of all the safety case and the safety mechanisms. The safety case provides the overarching framework of processes and mechanisms and the safety systems are the more detailed procedures for the day-to-day operations. The removal of the position of safety manager is interesting the reason for it being that it is believed that all operators have to take a measure of responsibility. The words in the bill provide that the buck actually stops at the highest level. There are a whole range of operators from access providers to infrastructure owners rail vehicle owners premise owners rail traffic controllers and maintenance providers. It is important that in each of those areas there is sufficient funding in place to make sure that the operators have the funds and the expertise in place to meet their safety obligations. 
Deborah Coddington made a good point about the amount of costs met by rail operators. Of course those costs are higher for rail operators than they are for other transport operators. In the case of road transport we have warrant processes that are administered by somebody else. In the case of rail transport the expertise lies with the rail operators. They have to supervise their own safety processes to make sure they are done day by day because they are the ones who know about the matter. 
The Greens are pleased to support this legislation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Firstly I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done. United Future does not have a member on that particular committee but I can see from the report back that the committee worked very cooperatively and made some very useful changes to the legislation. I also thank the officials who helped us with a briefing to enable us to come up to speed with the changes that have been made. As I said we think that these changes are improvements to the legislation. 
The bill proposes a more proactive approach to identifying and managing critical safety issues by ensuring that the key rail participants are licensed that key safety data is collected that operators demonstrate that they are managing safety risks and that the Land Transport Safety Authority has more powers to audit inspect and sanction operators. This bill seeks to reduce compliance costs without reducing safety standards. A feature of the bill is its proportional response to the various issues that arise. It does not seek to overlegislate but it does not let pressing issues fall through the gaps. It provides distinctions as to who is accountable and that is very useful. Another feature of this bill is the implicit incentive to maintain a required level of safety standards. 
The changes made by the select committee reflect the ongoing vigilance of the industry and Parliament to maintain safety standards and to correct any problems inconsistencies or discrepancies—no matter how incidental—that might compromise rail safety or the efficient management of the rail corridor. The inclusion of new definitions of terms and positions in the first series of clauses provides needed clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of positions that are central to operational safety and performance. It also provides for a clear pathway to accountability in order to isolate and fix problems that may arise. We are interested not just in sheeting home the blame to someone but also in then being able to fix the problems that may arise. 
The legislation recognises that addressing issues of safety often calls for direct action to be taken bypassing the line of authority when circumstances warrant it. That is represented in the bill by the requirement to obey the network controller unless circumstances dictate independent action—such as where the network controller has no knowledge of the situation at hand. That flexibility allows for quick action to be taken and is yet another example of the practical measures that are a hallmark of this bill. 
It is encouraging to note that the legislation reflects the thinking of experts in the field who have first-hand experience in other jurisdictions. The fact that an expert from the United Kingdom was consulted on risk management in the rail industry is testimony to the fact that no stone was left unturned to get the best result. This approach—ascertaining as much what to do as what not to do—is a healthy approach to designing safety standards. Safety monitoring at a personal level is also addressed in the bill which requires that safety assessors have the requisite training knowledge and experience to undertake assessments. United Future commends that inclusion of expertise as a necessary requirement of safety assessors. 
We are also pleased that unresolved issues surrounding level crossing safety have been addressed in this bill. There have been too many tragedies involving personal safety at level crossings largely because of a lack of adequate warning devices and signs. We are pleased that there will be improved coordination between parties both at the local level and at the higher governmental and operator levels to improve warning signs and related safety measures. It is important that a balance be reached between allowing heritage rail operators—who offer important tourist attractions—not to be overburdened with compliance costs and still maintaining required safety levels. United Future is pleased that this bill recognises that balance. The bill also provides a good balance between upholding requirements and allowing flexibility to act to achieve railway safety. 
United Future congratulates officials and the committee for applying practical solutions to pressing risk management and rail safety problems. This is an approach that United Future always advocates so we gladly lend our support to the second reading of this bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Railways Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I think that we now have a process we could follow that will make this stage go quite quickly. I can give the Government and the Minister an assurance that National Party members do not intend to take too much time on this if we could get just one thing from the Minister. I would ask him to take us through some of the key parts of Supplementary Order Paper 353. 
In particular the amendment that I am very concerned about is to clause 51. It reinserts paragraph (a) to regulate the use of railway lines and so on. I understand that the clause is in Part 2 and that we are doing this part by part so Madam Chairperson may want to rule me out of order. But all I can say is that the Minister knows very well that Oppositions can delay bills for a long long time if they want to. We do not want to. We want to work cooperatively; we really do. We think that we got this pretty well tidied up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I ask the Minister to take a call to give us a brief explanation. It does not need to be earth-shattering thunderous or something that will make the front page of the newspaper tomorrow—we just want a little bit of a description. 
Some of the amendments are so obvious it is not funny. Of course one would want to change the definition of “Authority” from the Land Transport Safety Authority to Land Transport New Zealand. That is correct. Then there are other things such as amending clause 92(1)(b) to omit the unneeded cross reference for example. Of course there will not be any political concern about that amendment. But I repeat some things that the select committee after intense discussion and consideration had agreed to take out—for example clause 51(a)—have now gone back in. The Minister may have a perfectly logical explanation and say that that paragraph had to go back in because it did not stay in so I will make it clear now: we will cooperate. There will be hardly any speaking from us at all. We will go with this bill as it is if the Minister could give us a very brief explanation as to what is going on. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Shortly I will do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that Part 1 be agreed to but first of all we have the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 to be agreed to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This might be a sneaky little trick but I hope it is not. I have made it clear that the Opposition will cooperate. All we are asking for is a very brief explanation as to why this Supplementary Order Paper is back here at the last minute. Members might remember that this bill was reported back in August 2004 after extreme cooperation from the parties. A brief explanation is all that I am asking for which is a very reasonable request. 
If we have to start voting on the Minister’s amendments not only will we vote them down—probably unsuccessfully because of our numbers—but we will also start speaking on them and haul down a team from all the other busy operations and we will take this bill through every damn clause and part that we can. But I am sure that the Minister will have a good explanation for us. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Perhaps I can help. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask whether the Committee wants to deal with Parts 1 to 4 as one question. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 My understanding from Mr Williamson is that the Minister has indicated he will make a contribution prior to the question being put on Part 1 only. Presumably because you have put the question members will need to seek leave for the Minister to make a contribution prior to that vote being taken. If that is the case I seek leave accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have not completed putting the question. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I assure Mr Power that I would have immediately taken the call had he not risen to seek leave and used some time in the Chamber. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson has made a very good contribution and I thank him for his offer of cooperation. I am aware that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated the issue of clause 51(a) and with the officials agreed initially that it was probably not needed in the bill and should be struck out. However the New Zealand Railways Corporation has sought the reintroduction of this enabling provision in the rule-making powers to enable better management of the network and to ensure that the overall management of the network can be thoroughly achieved. It is an enabling provision. It allows for changes to be made as needed. It may be that for a period parts of the network shall be controlled in some way—restricted due to operational requirements or other matters perhaps. They may even be the sorts of matters that Mr Brown raised a while back about track maintenance. For whatever reason the New Zealand Railways Corporation which owns the tracks as the former Minister will be aware has asked for this clause to be re-included. The officials having heard the case have recommended that that is the case. That is why the clause is back on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will take one quick call to ask the Minister to give an explanation—and this will be very cooperative I promise members. I thought that stuff would be covered under the Rail Network Bill in terms of the New Zealand Railways Corporation’s ability to close track when there were issues about safety such as bolts having been taken out. The Rail Network Bill would have allowed for that sort of regulation. If the clause is also needed in the Railways Bill as a belt and braces I will live with it because it seems a halfway reasonable explanation but we did not think it was necessary to bring it back into this bill. If the Minister could explain that would be fine. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 The Rail Network Bill is about the role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation as an entity. The Railways Bill is much more about the corporation being a participant in the operation of railways. So this provision might be needed for operational reasons. There might have been a slip or something of a temporary nature which means that the speed on the line needs to be regulated. Or there may be some subsidence around bridge footings which is the type of situation where conditions could lead to the need to provide some sort of restriction or maybe even to close the track temporarily. They are operational issues rather than network ownership issues. That is the best explanation I can give the former Minister. I am sure that as a former Minister he will realise the practicality of these issues. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think that there will be a great deal of debate on this bill. By and large I think the whole Committee is supportive of it. I seek leave to take the whole bill as one part from now on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to take Parts 2 to 4 including the schedules as one question. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to. 
Parts 2 to 4 and schedules 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mine will not be a long contribution. I accept that the Minister has stood and clarified why clause 51(a) has been inserted in the bill but I draw his attention to new clause 48 on the same Supplementary Order Paper 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Which clause? 
PETER BROWN 
: Clause 48. It is a modification of the existing clause 48 but I think it gives the Minister all the powers he needs to do everything that he just outlined to us. I cannot find any need for clause 51(a) to be reinserted into the bill. Having said that New Zealand First is quite happy with this bill. As I said in the second reading speech we believe that the railway needs a safety regime that is more practical and a little bit more comprehensive than the current regime. We are very supportive of this bill. If the Minister wants to put in clause 51(a) we have no real beef with that. We can understand it but we do not think it is necessary. We accept the Minister’s explanation but we think the issue is well covered. 
I conclude by saying once again that a lot of work was put into this by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by officials. I would like to compliment the officials. They went back three or four times to various rail participants. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We were quite hard on them. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we bullied them a little bit if the truth is told. But they came back and delivered the goods and I think they have a pretty good bill. I am a little disappointed that the Government did not see fit to alert us to this Supplementary Order Paper. The Government had a lot of cooperation from the Opposition parties and we would appreciate a little— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It was nearly a case of all bets are off I tell you. 
PETER BROWN 
: It got close to that. It touched on our sensitivities. But I think the Minister has taken the point on board. When the Government gets cooperation as it has on this bill it would be nice if it would say: “Look we just want to amend it a little bit. Would you guys like to give it some sort of consideration?”. But the Government is the Government and one gets consideration from the Government only by insulting one’s own colleagues and calling them goodness knows what. Then one gets considered by the Prime Minister and one gets cuddles. But by cooperating with the Government one gets nothing except treated with a degree of contempt. I conclude by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I thank members for their support of this bill. It is a very sensible bill. In answer to Mr Peter Brown the purpose of clause 48 is to line the bill up better with the new land transport legislation—simply to reflect better the wording of the two pieces of legislation and to make them work better together. I think we should proceed with the voting. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Parts 2 to 4 and the schedules be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Parts 2 to 4 and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Railways Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
Architects Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building Issues 
: I move  
That the Architects Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to acknowledge the timely and thorough consideration that the Government Administration Committee has given to the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who made both written and oral submissions. This bill repeals the Architects Act and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. It is a companion measure to the Building Act which reinforces the importance of each element of the building process and it is an important component in the wider review of the regulatory framework for the building industry. A debt of gratitude is owed to the honourable Lianne Dalziel who introduced the bill into the House and to the Hon Margaret Wilson. 
My colleague Lianne Dalziel has spoken in this House before about the initiatives that are contained in this bill. The bill strengthens the regulatory framework and has a strong focus on consumer protection. It does that by introducing both initial and ongoing competency testing for registered persons by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against a registered person in the last 3 years by providing people with the information they need in order to choose a competent registered architect and by introducing meaningful reinforcement and sanctions provisions. 
The select committee has considered the bill and reported back to the House. It has supported the key principles behind the bill and recommended some amendments to better reflect the policy intent behind the proposals. The main changes from the committee include: an amendment to increase the maximum fines for breaches by registered persons to $10000 so as to provide a more effective deterrent to offending; an amendment to increase the maximum fines for persons claiming to be registered when that is not the case to $10000 in order to prevent the registration system from being undermined; an amendment to enable the registration board to undertake any function delegated to it under any other enactment so as to increase flexibility and allow better integration with the Building Act; and an amendment to replace protection of the title “architect” with protection for “registered architect”. Consistent with that the committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board. 
Following the release of the committee’s report concern has been raised regarding the appropriate use of the title “architect” in relation to building design. I signal to the House that I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to address those concerns. As currently drafted the bill requires the registration board to be established on 1 July 2004. That date is no longer appropriate. The Supplementary Order Paper will also ensure that time is provided for the establishment of the board. 
I find it interesting that the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration board and has recommended instead that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration. That institute is a voluntary industry organisation and has no statutory role under the bill. As my colleague the honourable Lianne Dalziel said in her first reading speech on the bill the current registration board the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects were closely involved in the development of the bill and it fits with their desire to modernise the regulation of the occupation. 
In conclusion this bill is an integral element of the wider review of the building legislation of 1991 and of the inputs into the building process and is necessary to ensure that buildings are designed right first time. I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill and to acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions. I commend this bill as reported back from the select committee to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—[ 
Interruption 
] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I can understand your haste in wanting to move on Madam Speaker but there are a few comments the National Party wishes to make particularly in response to the Minister. Before I do that I welcome the newest member of Parliament Ms Soper whom I have not yet had a chance to acknowledge. I hope her time in this place although it will be brief will be enjoyable. Perhaps she may learn some lessons from her senior colleague the honourable John Tamihere on how to get promoted in this place and I wish her luck with the process. 
I come back to the Architects Bill and I say to the Minister who has just finished his speech Rick Barker that the reason why the National Party has suggested self-regulation rather than Government-imposed regulation is that more often than not that brings about the best outcome for all concerned. As the Minister said in his opening comments the whole process started with the Building Bill. We can see now what a circus that legislation has turned into what a mess the Government has made of it and how it has had no effect whatsoever on resolving the problems that came from the leaky houses situation we have in New Zealand because of the circus the Government created. With regard to the whole argument around whether architects should be described as “registered architects” or just “architects” it is our view—and always has been—that the best body to administer that regulation is the group itself whose members have the expertise the knowledge and the desire to see the right outcome. 
Architects were themselves caught up in the whole debate around leaky homes. The inquiries that took place into that issue suggested that the failures were systemic from design—which of course is the area where architects are involved—right through to monolithic cladding and untreated timber and the list goes on and on. Architects themselves were quite anxious to protect their brand and so they should be. Why should the Government—and this is the question that the Minister did not answer—step in and use a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? Therefore National believes the regulation that the Minister is suggesting we should have supported is not necessary. 
This bill is very good legislation in the sense that it is simple it protects the brand “registered architect” and it gives architects the legislative framework that they have decided would be desirable. For that reason the National Party will support the bill going forward. I know that my colleague Lindsay Tisch has studied this issue substantially and he will bring forward a recommended change to the bill in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure that the House once it has fully studied that Supplementary Order Paper will accept that it is very good and that it will pass rather than the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. The numbers in support of National’s Supplementary Order Paper are getting stronger all the time. The Government should take note of that—and it should certainly take note of what Mr Tisch has to say about that—and pass Mr Tisch’s Supplementary Order Paper which the National Party will be voting for. 
I say also to the Minister that it would be helpful if in his contributions through the debate—if he or any other Labour member is prepared to make another contribution—he would explain to architects why the Government believes that they are not qualified to decide how to regulate themselves. As I recall matters architects themselves stated in their submissions that the best way to get the outcome the Government wanted was not to use a heavy hand—although the Government Administration Committee as the Minister rightly said suggested that increases in the fines should take place. There are now fines of up to $10000 for a variety of offences—up from $5000—and a range of other fines in the legislation. We think that that is the right approach. The Minister should explain to the industry why he thinks that his department or another Government department is in a much better position than architects or would have much more knowledge than them so as to dictate to that group what it should or should not do with regard to the registration of the industry. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Disgraceful. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a fair question and the Minister seems to have a view on it. I would like the Minister to explain to us why that is so. There is no evidence to support that approach in most of those cases. 
If we look at the Building Act we see the mess that it has turned into. When central government dictates what “Joe Hard-worker”—the builder with the ute the dog and the radio—can do or even that if “Joe Hard-worker” as most hard-working Kiwis do buys a run-down house does it up himself on the weekend and allows it to become part of his growth plan in terms of equity it can dictate the way he must do that and that he must pay this expert and that expert to give him advice on how to do it then we end up with the exact opposite of the outcome we set out to try to achieve. It would be good if the Minister could enlighten the House as to how many leaky houses now coming through the inquiry that was set up by the Government are homes that have been renovated by the home-handyman kind of builder. Perhaps in the Minister’s seat of Tukituki there may be one. I have heard of none; I have seen none. I have asked for evidence that “Joe Hard-worker” and “Bob the builder” with their ute dog and radio caused that problem and I have seen none. I have seen absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. So I ask the Minister to take a call. I may be proven wrong but I have not been able to find one single case that could substantiate that argument. 
In the case of architects there are good ones bad ones registered ones and those who use the title of “architect” but who are not registered. Just like hiring or not hiring a master builder that is something the consumer must always have the right to decide on. If somebody has the skills and expertise to be an architect but does not have the necessary regulation—if that person is not cornered and driven into a high - end cost structure by a Government regulation but can still give the design work necessary to “Bob the builder” or the home-handyman renovator—then why should he or she not be allowed to do that? The Minister has not answered that question. 
National will support this bill because we believe that in its current form provided that it is not subject to the passing of any Supplementary Order Papers that the Government may subsequently bring forward it is good legislation. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am sure that the Minister will take some calls at the Committee stage. We are currently at the second reading. This bill has had a fairly long gestation. I have certainly met with architects in my electorate to discuss their concerns and to listen to the issues of importance to them and I was very pleased to have that opportunity. Architecture is an important profession. Our built environment is of considerable importance to New Zealand. Although our natural environment receives a lot of attention our built environment is deserving of attention as well—and it does receive the attention due to it from time to time. 
This bill makes a number of changes to improve standards for architects and I think that that is largely what the profession was aiming for in its consultation—to modernise the legislation that applies to it. The bill has many key features. They include the protection of the title “registered architect” and the establishment of a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect in order to provide better information to his or her consumers. My understanding and experience is that the profession is very client and customer - focused but the establishment of a public register will be of benefit to both the profession and its clients. The introduction of ongoing competency testing for architects is another feature of the bill as is a modernised governance and administration process which will help to bring the legislation in line with current practice in occupational regulation. 
A number of amendments were made by the Government Administration Committee. One was an amendment to increase the maximum fine for persons claiming to be registered when indeed that is not the case. That fine increases to $10000 to prevent the registration system from being undermined because the protection of the integrity of registration is very important. Another amendment replaces the protected title “architect” with “registered architect”. Consistent with that the select committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board. 
It is interesting that although there is agreement on and support for this bill around the House the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration body even though that is what the profession wants. The National Party has recommended instead that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration through self-regulation. Given that the vast majority of parties in this House have listened to representatives from the profession I think National is really just reverting to type saying: “Let the market rule.” We all know that that principle never works—it never has and it never will. The National Party is basically reverting to type and not responding to professions and organisations that know themselves better than anybody else. This bill will provide advantages for both practitioners and their clients. It is a good bill and I think that we are all keen to assist in facilitating its rapid passage through the House. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 One is loath to criticise colleagues particularly colleagues who work fairly hard and diligently on a select committee but I have to say that in terms of this bill they got it wrong. They got the substance of the bill correct because the industry is supportive of the substance of the bill. But the bill as it stands now without the Supplementary Order Paper protects the term “registered architect” and leaves the word “architect” out there floating for anybody to use—effectively anybody. 
Before I had read the report back from the select committee I had architect friends contacting me and they were up in arms. They outlined in quite some detail who could or would be likely to use the term “architect”. In basic English an architect in the minds of most people is a person who designs buildings or modifications to buildings. When we think of an architect we do not think of a landscape architect or a software architect—I suggest most of us do not. Because these architects who approached me were so angry I did a little private survey asking many people what an architect was—just that one word. They all without exception said that an architect was a person who designed buildings. Most of them added: “I would have thought you were old enough to know that Peter!” after I asked the question. I told them I was asking for a genuine reason. 
I think this Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by Mr Tamihere. One has to say he has been getting a lot of flak recently but if it is true that he initiated it a degree of debt is owed to the honourable John Tamihere because without this Supplementary Order Paper this bill could go through protecting the term “registered architect” as against “architect”. 
New Zealand First is absolutely committed to protecting the term “architect” for people who design buildings. Of course they have to be up to a standard. When we say “buildings” we are talking about homes commercial buildings and what have you. But when it comes to homes it is the biggest investment by far that anybody makes. If a person has a home or commercial building designed by an architect that person wants to know that the architect is up to speed. So we want the architect to be registered to have gone through the necessary exams and to be kept up to speed with industry requirements. So it is very very important that an architect is actually an architect not somebody who has done half a course or has some ability in designing things. He or she must be a fully qualified architect. 
New Zealand First is keen to support the Supplementary Order Paper where protection is again offered to the words “registered architect” and “architect”. An architect in simple English language is a person who designs buildings and the term should be protected. I have to say that for that to escape the notice of the select committee is to do a huge disservice not only to architects but also to people who would use them. I believe that the Minister’s amendment which as I say I think was initiated by John Tamihere will bring the bill back into line and I am personally very very grateful that that has been undertaken. On that basis New Zealand First will support this bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have to say that I was dying to get the call immediately after the last Government speaker the senior Government whip because it was so amusing to see what pure lip service was being paid to the Architects Bill. No Minister was paying any attention. The speaker the Government put up was reading essentially from the notes of the Government Administration Committee and was applauding what the committee had done not knowing that her own Minister had a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table to undo all the good work she was applauding. Mr Brown thinks that the undoing is a good idea; he thinks that Mr Tamihere’s amendments are a sound idea. I do not. 
I think it is quite wrong for any profession to seize a general descriptive word a word that has a meaning in common language that goes far wider than the technical meaning and then to say: “That’s ours.” and that anyone else cannot use it. What that seems to mean for example is that a landscape architect could be in trouble if he or she were involved in helping to draw up plans for a building. A financial architect doing a financing plan would be in trouble. There are all sorts of uses of the term “architect”—for example the architect of the Iraq war. It is a general term a general piece of language. 
We simply do not do that in other ways. Accountants for example were not allowed to seize ownership of the term “accountant”—the description that was given protection is “chartered accountant”. I think that Mrs Pettis was absolutely right in her praise for what the select committee did. She very correctly identified the contribution the select committee made. It heard submissions and it resisted the self-interested whining of the establishment of the profession which wanted something far too wide. So for her to draw attention to what the select committee did and to praise it in her speech as she just did was sensible. 
The sad thing is that Mrs Pettis’ own Government colleagues and Cabinet do not agree with her and they seem to— 
Jill Pettis 
: Mr Franks you are putting words into my mouth. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: If Mrs Pettis cares to look at her  
Hansard 
 she will find that she praised the change of title of the bill to the Registered Architects Bill. She praised the change the committee made to ensure that the term “registered architect” is protected. What the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table will do even though it may not have been read by anyone on the Government benches is reverse that good work. I see that the honourable Minister Mr Barker has just suggested that Mrs Pettis hold her tongue because he knows that I am dead right and that she was dead right the first time. This Government wants to suck up to the professional body and has decided that it is far better to grease to the people with the money—the people who run the professional organisation—and to give them what they have asked for. 
That is not usually how this Government portrays consumer protection. This Government usually says that it is making businessmen whine and is making trouble for business because that is the way it claims it is doing something for the consumer. Instead in this case it has succumbed to the representations from the industry. It has taken away a perfectly descriptive word for a whole host of people who should be able to refer to themselves as architects but not as registered architects and this bill now changes that. I hope that the National Party will vote against the Supplementary Order Paper because it is wrong. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We’ll vote against it unless I get my Supplementary Order Paper changed. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: OK so there is a qualification. Well I will be interested to follow it and I hope that we can vote on the same side. I always prefer that. 
I am certainly very disappointed to hear that New Zealand First is going to go along with a move to lock up a sensibly descriptive word and give it to one profession. We do not for example say that only engineers who are members of the institute can use the term “engineer”. They have to be registered engineers. We do not lock up the term “accountant” for accountants. The new bill for lawyer regulation will not give the degree of absolute assurance that the Registered Architects Bill will now give. 
I am glad to see a relatively simple and straightforward piece of law coming in to reform the law that regulates the architecture profession. I am interested that consists of only 48 pages. I compare that with Mr Goff’s disaster bill for the law society of over 300 pages in which he hands to them just about everything they ever wanted. 
I am interested of course in one or two of the other things that the Supplementary Order Paper does—in the other last-minute thoughts. One of the problems in this bill that one would have thought would be looked at closely flows from the very poor drafting. The bill refers to plans but it does not say what a plan is. In this case for example I expect we will explore in the Committee of the whole House what a plan that someone draws for a building is. Does it include the landscaping plan? Does it include the plan for example of a shopping centre which would be a very detailed plan outlining how the letting is to be done and exactly which shops will go where? 
That would not normally be considered something that the Government would regulate in an Architects Bill. But this legislation is so poorly conceived like the Building Act that we will probably end up with some poor real estate agents suddenly being advised someday by their lawyers that they are caught by an Act they would never have dreamt would touch them There would be a plan obviously for the letting progressive opening and sharing of income—in essence the terms that are used in everyday language to do everyday things. This bill now carelessly seems to give a prior right or so-called protection to the architect’s profession in relation to those. 
I think that commonsense will apply. Probably most people will simply ignore those meanings of the law but it is just bad handling of Government business to end up with legislation that is so easy for a lawyer to criticise when he or she looks at it for the first time. ACT is not represented on the Government Administration Committee; I wish we did have enough entitlements to allow us to be on that committee because the Government seems to send to it everything that it wants to slide through and pretend is unimportant. The committee simply has not done a good job on the technical aspects of the bill. The definitions are sloppy and casual and they will require people to say: “Surely Parliament can’t have meant that. We will read it as if it doesn’t say what it actually says.” 
That is the same phenomenon we are seeing at the moment in relation to the Building Act. The Minister in charge Mr Carter has had to stand up here and tell us all that he has instructed his officials to tell local authorities that they ought not to apply the law as it reads and that they should simply not enforce it—in other words do something that we have tried always to get away from constitutionally: exercise administrative discretions to overcome poorly written law. 
This bill is likely to be supported overall by the ACT party. We will vote against the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. We will do that for the reasons so ably outlined by Mrs Pettis the Government’s chief whip before she realised that the Government had done a back-flip and put in a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes the good work of the select committee. We hope that Mrs Pettis will have the courage of her convictions and join us in voting down the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and in voting against New Zealand First and United Future which I expect will also support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. It will be very gratifying indeed to see such a fine speech as that made by Mrs Pettis followed up by a vote that is in line with her own rhetoric. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The bill does not prevent anyone from designing a building; it prevents people from being misled into believing that those who are not suitably qualified to design buildings get the job of doing so. That is the purpose of this bill and it makes good sense. Designing a building is more than just putting up something that looks good; it also has to work. Some buildings that owners have had built in recent times indicate that the protection they might expect from local authorities and building inspectors is not necessarily there. Therefore going to an architect who has suitable qualifications makes very good sense. 
Architects have the task of designing those most enjoyable spaces in our community—and we do not have enough of those kinds of buildings—making sure that people know when they go to architects that they are architects that they have been trained and that they know not just how to make things look good but how to make them work and to be weatherproof as well and that is important. 
A couple of interesting points have been raised and I guess they have been raised with the other parties as well by an architect in Auckland—that is relating to the idea that the term “architect” needs to be more clearly defined. The reason is that architects not only draw up plans for buildings; there are other sorts of architects such as software architects landscape architects financial architects etc. who also draw up plans relating to buildings. It is perhaps important that that is made clear in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The term also applies to registered architects. Apparently 40 percent of architects do not register as architects and that is something that needs to be addressed. The Greens support this legislation. It does give a reasonable level of protection. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the second reading of the Architects Bill which is to become the Registered Architects Bill. It is notable that I was part of the Government Administration Committee for the purpose of this bill. At that time a large part of the reason for joining the committee to deal with this bill was that we were dealing with the reformation of the New Zealand Institute of Architects in conjunction with the Building Bill that went through. It is important to note that there is a link between the two. That link really comes down to the terminology of “licensed building practitioner” in the Building Bill and in particular the need for all building practitioners which will include architects to be licensed building practitioners in order to do the work they want to do in so far as it relates to the construction of buildings. 
It may be worthwhile outlining both our understanding and the select committee’s understanding of the way the two relate because I know there has been some confusion about it in the past. As I just said all building practitioners will need to be licensed. The intention is that when it comes to design work licensed building practitioners will be of a design category. They will be divided into classes of licence under the design category and different classes of licensee will be entitled to do different levels of work depending on their competence experience and training. 
It is yet to be seen just how many classes of licence there will be under the design category but it is envisaged there may be three or four. That was the expectation we had at the time we were considering it. We are not sure whether the licences will rise up in scale from one to four if that is the number or down from one to four. I will assume it is scaled upwards and that a class 1 licence will entitle very basic work to be done and a class 4 licence the most sophisticated buildings and complexes. 
It is envisaged that the people who are able to obtain class 4 - type licences will be registered architects and are likely only to be registered architects. Certainly that class of licence may be open to people who can prove they have the same competencies of registered architects but it is hard to see how that would happen without their having registration at least of an equivalent status to the sorts of qualifications and experience that New Zealand - trained registered architects have. So the highest level will be reserved to registered architects and the lower levels to people such as those who are currently termed “architectural designers” and so on downwards. 
So there needed to be a dovetailing of the Architects Bill with the intention under the Building Bill to have those classes of licence. We took that into account in the select committee when we looked at this. 
As we looked at the need for changes to the architectural profession and its governance and at the need to update the New Zealand Registered Architects Board as it will become we took into account three aspects as alluded to in the report we wrote. The first was consumer protection the second was professional competencies and the third was market competition. We were well aware of the confusion in the public sphere between people who call themselves architects and people who call themselves architectural designers. Indeed I recall mentioning at the time that I had spoken to a friend and asked what the difference was between an architect and an architectural designer. He was of the view that the architectural designer was the one who had the qualifications which just shows the level of confusion that was there. And that was somebody who had actually been involved in building his own house and one would have thought he would have known something about it. 
But there is certainly a degree of confusion in relation to the term “architect” as to who is an architect and what it means when people say they are architects. It is really that more than anything else that motivated the select committee to think that it was time we should be referring to “registered architects” rather than simply to “architects”. 
The second reason for doing that as previously stated is that we have all sorts of architects now. We have landscape architects eyelash architects and a wide range of people who are using the term “architect”. It has become something of a generic term. The term “registered” of course is already well used in the professional sphere. We have registered medical practitioners. We also use the term “chartered” for chartered accountants and chartered professional engineers. So New Zealanders have become accustomed to having an adjective in front of a generic occupational term. We have registered valuers as another example. 
That then gives the public some sort of idea that the person they are dealing with has not only some professional competency but also the backing of some sort of registration board that has acknowledged that competency. It seemed to us that it was to the benefit in fact of the architectural profession to be using the term “registered architect” because in the mind of the average person it denotes that that person has something more than simply a degree or holding themselves out to be capable of something. It means they have the backing of a board that has registered them and a professional organisation that is effectively behind the term “registered” and that is giving some credibility to what they do. It is actually in the long-term interests of architects to refer to themselves as registered architects. No doubt under this bill they will be able to do that because we are indeed changing the term to “registered architect”. The sooner architects who are experienced have the necessary qualifications and have become members of the New Zealand Registered Architects Board refer to themselves as registered architects and not architects the better it will be for consumer protection and the better it will be for the architectural industry generally. 
That raises the issue of what to do with people who are at a lower level of competence but who are designing basic buildings—maybe single homes that are not complex garages or structures of that sort—and their ability to be able to do that work and to call themselves architects rather than architectural designers and titles of that nature as they do now. There is a huge amount of confusion out there about people who are using that other sort of terminology. I do not think it is feasible that architects should be able to ban the use of titles like “architectural designer”. It makes for too much of a closed shop. There is a place for people who are not registered as architects to do that sort of basic work and as I said right at the very beginning the whole purpose of the Building Bill in terms of the licensed building practitioner regime is specifically to ensure that people who have competency at a certain level are able to exercise that level without having to have the high standards that registered architects require. 
So that is really the issue that confronted us and that is the reason the Government Administration Committee thought it would move to the term “registered architect” and free up the term “architect” to be used in a generic sense. 
One of the other things we had debate about and conflict with the architects board was the issue of who should be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of that board and how they should be appointed. The bill provides that the Government will appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson but the architects wanted to make those appointments themselves. I think the Government’s insistence that it appoint chairperson and deputy chairperson is right because at the end of the day that board has quite a strong element of consumer protection. There is nothing to stop the Government appointing to those roles a person who is an architect and in most instances I think it would certainly be advisable for credibility’s sake to have appointees who were knowledgable about the industry they were meant to deal with. 
Nevertheless there is a role for the Government to be involved from a consumer protection point of view in order to ensure that the architects board does not become a closed shop and to do such things as limit by very strict rules those who can enter their profession. There is the important role of allowing some degree of freedom and not having a hierarchy created and that is one way that that can be achieved. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Architects Bill because I took part in the select committee process for dealing with it. I was invited to the join the Government Administration Committee which was ably chaired by Dianne Yates and we did a very extensive examination of first of all the weathertight homes problem and the debacle that followed that. Then at the same time as the Building Bill was before that committee we examined the close relationship between the Architects Bill and the new Building Bill. It was during that process that we realised there was a need to link the two pieces of legislation. 
That link comes about through the licensed building practitioner regime. Through that regime there is a set of classes of licence and architects fall into one of those categories. During the select committee process we heard from numerous people for and against the retention of exclusive use of the name “architect”. As a member of the committee I hate to disagree with my colleague Peter Brown on this issue. I understand the position he has taken but I agree with the outcome of the select committee process. The committee agreed to deal with architects under the term “registered architect” and to free up the term “architect” for those people who have the necessary qualifications. I give the example of people who have a qualification such as Bachelor of Architecture. Such people should be able to use the term “architect”. They have the qualification and with a certain amount of experience they will fit into the licensed building practitioner format so there is a place for them in that structure. Obviously there is a means of discipline within that structure and there is also a means of identifying what level they are capable of. The registered architects will have been accepted into their own institution and will be recognised accordingly as licensed building practitioners. 
It is interesting to note that during the select committee inquiry into the bill the New Zealand Institute of Architects came before us and claimed to have a certain number of members. After the select committee produced its report there was a mad flurry of activity behind the scenes and all the MPs on the committee were lobbied. I was one who was lobbied to try to have me change my view on it. I had a visit from Chen Palmer and Partners along with— 
Jill Pettis 
: How much did it cost you—$3000? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Well it did not cost me anything. That firm was representing the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. It was during that discussion that the New Zealand Institute of Architects claimed that its membership was 2000 which did not tally with the numbers that had been given to us during its presentation to the select committee. During the select committee process it had said the membership was 1000. When questioned why there was a difference in the figures the institute agreed that its membership was 1000 but said there were another 1000 trying to join. I have to question why that other 1000 were being included in its membership. When I questioned members of the institute further as why those people were not being welcomed into their club—I have to use the term “club” because that is the way it seemed to us during the select committee process; it had become a closed shop or club type of arrangement—I learnt that some of those people either elected to remain outside of it or were being kept outside of it because they had disagreements with the institute. It was during that process that I realised we had it right in splitting away the registered architects and having a separate category of architects. 
I was very disappointed in the claim made by the institute that it had received dozens and dozens of letters from overseas expressing grave concern about the proposed changes. When I asked for copies of those letters I received some. I point out that the meeting with the people from Chen Palmer and Partners took place on 19 May 2004. The date on the first letter from Paris is 19 May 2004. If we take the time difference into account that was the day after our meeting. The next letter is dated 22 May 2004 and was from a New Zealand architect. Then there was another one from Scotland dated 20 May 2004—the letters are starting to be dated several days after the meeting—and it just goes on. Those letters are all dated after our meeting. I wondered whether the institute had actually received any of those letters beforehand—perhaps those dates were incorrectly put on them! But I was very disappointed in that process because the institute’s representatives were making claims about the institute’s membership that were not quite correct and then they made claims about letters they had received from overseas. 
I have to question their ability to manage their institute because we were disturbed by the fact that they were very blasé during the select committee process but when things looked bad for them they brought in the big guns. It must have cost an awful lot of money to have Chen Palmer and Partners lobby for them. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes it’s $3000 an hour. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: How much an hour? Good heavens! For the institute’s representatives suddenly to take a heavy-handed approach like that after the select committee had gone through its process shows I suspect that they were smarting. The institute’s membership must be very angry with the representatives who did the presentation. They were very blasé and were not very forthcoming with the information they should have been presenting. 
Personally I am of the view that there should be two classes with the criterion for registered architects being that they meet the qualifications of the Registered Architects Board and there being another level for architects on their own. Those people will have qualifications like a Bachelor of Architecture and they should be allowed to use that qualification because they have earned it. They should not be excluded. They have the ability and the qualification to produce quality designs and buildings. Of course under the Building Act and the whole process of licensed building practitioners they fall into one of the categories. Depending on their level of competence and qualification they should be able to fit in accordingly. 
The one other point I would like to raise on this part of this bill is the link between the Building Act and the Architects Bill and the regulatory means for disciplinary action. It needs to go both ways. If registered architects fail in terms of the Building Act then that information is passed back to the architects’ board for disciplinary action. Ordinary architects who are not registered are disciplined under the Building Act—they are kept in line there. 
With that point I conclude that I strongly believe that the select committee had it right. A very good examination was made by the select committee and I congratulate Dianne Yates on the work she did on it. I am disappointed that the Government because it has been heavily lobbied is changing the bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that will come up later. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this bill which has been around for a long time. In fact I heard the Minister for Courts say in the opening address that this bill goes hand in hand with the Building Act. Well say no more! What have members spent most of today under urgency doing but trying to fix up some of the issues in the Building Act by way of legislation that does not bear any resemblance to the Building Act? 
I want to draw the House’s attention to what has been happening in other countries. A review of what happened with our closest neighbour Australia is significant. Our Government Administration Committee made a trip to Australia and information was supplied to us—and I took a particular interest in this matter—about a review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. It was a public inquiry. I think the points that came out of it are relevant for the debate we are having and for the legislation that we will be voting on shortly not to mention the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has subsequently produced. 
It is interesting to note that architects have wanted a monopoly. That is why as Mr Catchpole has said they were quite horrified at suggestions that the term “architect” be replaced by “registered architect”. I note the architects’ submission to the select committee dated May 2004 on the proposal in the committee’s report to remove protection of the title “architect” and instead to protect the title “registered architect”. They stated: “The change has taken the architectural profession by surprise and it has provoked considerable shock and concern. There is widespread agreement within the profession that this will spell the end of the longstanding reputation of high standards and professionalism that architects have earned over the years and the end of consumer protection safeguard incorporated in the protection of the title ‘architect’.” 
That is what they said; here is their submission and that is what they said. But if we look at overseas experience we see that in Australia for example architects have only a very small share of the market for design of new residences. Usually residences are of a standard design or they are project homes. But even with large commercial projects architects face competition from specialist project engineers managers and non-architect designers. That is the nature of the business they are in. So the experience of other places would suggest that architects are having to compete more and more for their share of the market and what the architects in New Zealand are suggesting is that they need that monopoly protection. 
If we look at what the recommendation of the commission was we see that its report states that amendments “could improve current Architects Acts by reducing impediments to competition and promoting transparency and accountability of Architects Boards. In particular introduction of a two-tier system which freed up use of the generic title ‘architect’ (and its derivatives) and applied statutory certification only to a title such as ‘registered architect’…”. That is the Australian experience. 
That is one reason why the Government Administration Committee decided that “registered” is in fact a term that other professions use. Let us look at some of the numerous examples that have already been given. If we look in the  
Yellow Pages 
—at the accounting profession for example—we see that there are chartered accountants and accountants. There is clear separation between roles in such professions. If we look at the profession of which I am a member valuers we find that there are valuers chattel valuers plant and machinery valuers and—surprise surprise—registered valuers. So the term is commonplace. And there are other professions—some of which have been mentioned like engineers—in which there is a two-tier system that gives consumer protection. If we look at even the motor industry—and the member over there in the back row has an interest in that—we find motor vehicle dealers and licensed motor vehicle dealers. 
So having looked at those other professions we are saying to architects that they can stand on a pedestal in the role of registered architect but to say that one cannot be an architect in any other sense is absolutely and completely wrong because the word “architect” is generic. The dictionary entry for the word “architect” states it means a designer who prepares plans for buildings or ships or supervises their construction or a person who brings about a specific thing as in “the architect of his own fortune”—and it goes on and on. The point I make here is that “architect” is a generic term. For the building industry or people who prepare and design plans to say that only they can use the term “architect” is completely and utterly wrong. Another dictionary I looked at actually states that an architect is a person who plans devises or contrives the achievement of a desired result. So there may be software architects landscape architects financial architects conservation architects—I could go on and on. 
The point I make here is that National members are supporting the bill because those who sat around the select committee table represented various professions where there are already such tiers. Architects lawyers accountants and—as in my case—valuers have a two-tier system. 
One of the areas that we are concerned about—and this is a point the Minister made—is that we are not happy with the registration board approach. We have always subscribed to the view that we get the best results with a self-regulatory regime. If someone wants to be a member of an organisation let the organisation set the rules and conditions. Why should Parliament dictate how the profession operates? That is mentioned in our report as being an important factor. 
I want to bring to the House’s attention my amendment that changes very slightly some of the points made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. Originally that Supplementary Order Paper was in John Tamihere’s hands. It has now of course been given to Chris Carter. When we look at the definitions in the Building Act we see that there is absolutely no correlation between them and the definitions in this bill but this bill was actually brought in at the time when we were debating the Building Bill. The bill before us has sat on the Order Paper for months and been moved around. I want clarification that will enable us when we come to debate the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to tie in its intent with what is actually in the Building Act because the Minister and other speakers have said that the two go hand in hand. 
In the Building Act we have a definition of “plans and specifications”. It states that that term means: “drawings specifications and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed…”. So there is a clear definition in the Building Act but there is no definition in the Architects Bill as to what a plan is or a specification is. 
The other question is what “architect” means. I have said it is a generic term that is used by many professions. The bill does not define the word “architect”. As a result the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 provides an explicit definition for the purposes of what is to be the Registered Architects Bill namely a “person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises construction of buildings …”. If that is to be the definition of a registered architect then it is my view that the same definition should be in the Building Act. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Registered Architects Bill 
name changed to Registered Architects Bill 
. 
Registered Architects Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Registered Architects Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 Registration complaints and discipline 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to look at Part 2 in conjunction with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 and the changes I propose to that Supplementary Order Paper that would I believe clarify the position. I want to go back to the point I made during the second reading debate on the question of what an architect is. The word “architect” is not defined in the bill at all. As the bill does not define the term “architect” the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper has provided a definition for the purposes of the Registered Architects Bill. I made the point—and I reiterate it—that the Supplementary Order Paper states that an architect is: “a person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings …”. But let us look at the Building Act. This is a comparison of two pieces of legislation that go hand in hand. It does not talk about architects at all but it does talk about plans and specifications. It states: “ ‘Plans and specifications’ means the drawings specifications and other documents”—and that is an important phrase—“according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed ”. So here we have a difference between the two pieces of legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am referring to clause 7 and to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. The point I was making before the tea break was that we have different types of architects. All the so-called architects be they software architects landscape architects financial architects or conservation architects will in the course of their work prepare plans. That is the nature of the work they do. So what does the Government mean in its Supplementary Order Paper therefore when it states “designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings”? This is the issue I have with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Is it going to be illegal for software architects to use the title “architect” when they prepare software and concept plans for a building? The Minister might like to take a call on this. Will it be illegal for landscape architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare planting plans for building projects? Will it be illegal for financial architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare financial plans for a property developer’s building portfolio? Will it be illegal for conservation architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare a written conservation plan identification of the architectural or cultural significance of a heritage building? 
It would be ridiculous to fine these people $10000 which is provided for in the bill because these people are preparing plans that are associated with buildings. It is illogical to limit the use of the generic word “architect” beyond the definition required for the purposes of the bill and thus the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper needs to clarify the phrase “prepare plans”. 
I referred before the dinner break to what is in the Building Act because that talks about definitions for plans and specifications. I want to see a clear distinction so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the difference between preparing and drawing plans. My Supplementary Order Paper which has been tabled states: “No person who designs buildings draws plans and prepares specifications”—that is the word change—“for buildings …” and it continues. 
Let us be very clear about that. The clause would read: “No person who designs buildings draws plans and prepares specifications for buildings or supervises construction of buildings may use the title ‘architect’ unless they are registered.” That in my view tidies it up. 
The second point I want to bring to the Committee’s attention is the use of the abbreviation “BArch”. If someone has a Bachelor of Architecture clause 7(2) states that “a person may use the title ‘registered architect’ or ‘architect’ (or words initials or abbreviations of those titles) in accordance with the rules in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.” 
It is the phrase “awarded by overseas agencies” that I have difficulty with. Does it really matter where the qualification comes from? I would have thought that New Zealand qualifications were held in the highest esteem. Certainly when members of the Institute of Architects appeared before the select committee they made that claim and I am not doubting their sincerity at all. One must be aware that 40 percent of all architectural graduates do not become architects. They do not become registered. But they have a qualification. It is just the same as someone not practising law who might be able to call himself or herself “such and such LLB”. 
Someone could well be an accountant and could call himself or herself a chartered accountant even though that person might not be practising at the time. I am entitled to call myself a valuer because I have valuation qualifications but I am not a registered valuer because I do not have a practising certificate and that is the difference. Clause 7(2) states: “Despite subsection (1) a person may use that title (or words initials or abbreviations of that title) in accordance with the rules in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.” 
What I want to see here in my submission and the Minister might take a call on this is the omission of the words “awarded by overseas agencies”. It is very clear then. People who have qualifications are able to use those qualifications because they have earned them they have a degree or qualification that they can put beside their name. It does not purport that they will be a registered architect. But just as with any other profession those people would be able to use their qualification. I do not believe that people who have an overseas qualification will be deemed to be any greater and have any greater experience or expertise and offer to New Zealand consumers the protection that this bill is aiming to give. 
I do not think also as I read this part that even if people were to come to New Zealand they could come here and not be registered but still use the expression “BArch” because it has been awarded by an overseas agency. I think that is wrong. So my Supplementary Order Paper states quite clearly that people who have a qualification are able to use that term even though they may not be registered. 
These are the points that National wants to bring to the Committee’s attention. I invite the Minister to take a call specifically on the points I have mentioned. I think they are very clear. I do not think they are contentious in any way. They clarify the position. What they do in my view is bring some clarity to the whole debate because the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is ambiguous. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I will respond to the comments made by Lindsay Tisch and accept his challenge. Mr Tisch predicates his amendment on a misconception of how the title “architect” can be used. He seems to think that the definition here is ambiguous in some way. I think it is absolutely plain. I have never seen it be more simple or more direct in my life. In new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter the term “architect” refers to a “… person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings”. I will pick up  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which I happen to have with me and look at the definition of the word “building”. 
Darren Hughes 
: Which page? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is on page 172 for the member’s information. “Building” is defined as something built with a roof and walls. That is pretty straightforward. I thought all of us would understand what a building was—walls and a roof. 
Mr Tisch thinks that if someone does any architecture in conjunction with software that happens to relate to a house then the person who is designing the software architecture is somehow making a building. But I say to Mr Tisch that I have never seen a piece of software yet that had walls and a roof. Mr Tisch then goes on to say that if someone does some landscape architecture around a building in conjunction with a building then somehow that is a building—that that landscape has walls and a roof. I have not yet seen walls and a roof on a tree or a garden. I have seen them on a glasshouse which I would say is a building and I have seen a garden shed that has walls and a roof. But no one calls that a garden. It is the garden shed; it is a building. 
Also we have other sorts of architecture. I saw something very interesting in the Cook Islands loan scam where tax evasion was the key. Someone described the architecture of the scam—how it was constructed. I would say that someone could front up and use the term “architect” in that context perfectly legally to describe himself or herself as a scam architect. I would say that no one would be able to sue such a person for calling himself or herself a scam architect. That is why Lindsay Tisch’s amendment is wrong—it is absolutely wrong. The amendment in new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 goes on to state “supervises the construction of buildings”. An architect is someone who supervises the construction of buildings—something with walls and a roof. So if a person is an architect and supervises software then obviously it does not have walls and a roof. 
The definition is absolutely accurate; there is no ambiguity at all. Reference to a naval architect which Mr Tisch alluded to is not confusing either. If a person calls himself or herself a naval architect that person is not using the word “architect”. Such a person is saying “naval architect” because the person realises that he or she is working with a ship’s sides and keels and topsides but that ships do not have what people would normally see as being walls and a roof. There is a roof on a ship but people call it something else. I just want to make that clear. 
Simon Power 
: What is it called? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I just cannot remember at the moment. 
Dail Jones 
: That’s got the member! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It has me for the moment but I will come back to it in a tick. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A deck. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No it is not a deck. But then the roof of the top of the ship is a poop deck. I am not sure but I think there is another term for it—bulkhead there is a range of other terms. 
The point about this issue is that the definition is absolutely clear and the Government is opposed to the amendment proposed by Lindsay Tisch just as it is opposed to the second amendment to clause 7(2). What the amendment to that clause on Supplementary Order Paper 354 tries to do is to make sure that if someone has an overseas qualification and comes to New Zealand then that person is entitled to use that qualification provided it is done within the context of the person being registered as an architect and it is not being done in order to deceive. But if that person had the title which may not have been registered and if using it may in fact lead people to believe that he or she is qualified to do the job when he or she is not then we are saying that is illegal—that we do not like that. 
I want to assure Mr Tisch that if someone puts on his or her card that he or she is a landscape architect that person will not be sued because it is quite clear that the person is a landscape architect and that that has nothing to do with walls and a roof. If a person calls himself or herself a software architect that person will not be sued because that person’s work has nothing to do with the walls and roof that make a building. We are perfectly happy with the definition as it stands. I think anybody who reads new clause 7(1A) about an architect being a “… person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises …” would say that that definition is absolutely clear. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It was good that the Minister took the call to try to explain why he is opposed to Lindsay Tisch’s amendments. I propose to support them for reasons that do not arise out of anything doctrinaire—it does not seem to me that this bill should involve political alignment—but simply because the words do not tell me what they intend. When the bill refers to “overseas agencies” in clause 7(2) it states that despite the prohibition on using “architect” or “registered architect” in relation to building when one is not a member of the institute one can use that title or words initials or abbreviations of one of those titles “in accordance with the rules” and it does not tell me here what “the rules” are but perhaps I have missed it somewhere. But it is worse that it says “awarded by overseas agencies.” Now what on earth is an overseas agency? Is this a mail-order university? What is an overseas agency for the purposes of this bill? It may be that there is a really straightforward answer and that it appears here somewhere. But it seems to me that this could be like Bernie Ogilvy’s university—his doctorate; the sort of thing one goes and spends 5 months at and as long as one receives the label “architect” one can walk around the purported protection. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister is saying “No.” I hope he can explain exactly how. Because I have been as quickly as I could through this bill and I cannot see why the term “overseas agencies” does not refer to anyone setting up as the conferrer of useful titles. My amendments suggest that instead this clause should refer to “New Zealand university”. I say that because the term “university” in New Zealand is protected—as long as one is not a wananga it is fiercely protected—and in fact the Government has made it plain that it will not be lightly allowing institutions to use that description. So if we wanted to repair this defective provision with the very short notice that we have a reference to “university” would mean that at least we were referring to BArch or the qualifications that have some content. 
But I look at clause 7(2) as the most “own goal” loophole that can be imagined. It says we have the strict rule that New Zealanders with a New Zealand Batchelor of Architecture cannot use their qualification if they are involved in anything connected with building but someone who gets one from an overseas institution—and it may be a New Zealander who simply sends for it by mail order—can walk right around the rule. Surely the Government cannot mean that. 
If that is not what it means then the Minister had better read into the record of this Parliament—into  
Hansard 
—exactly what it does mean because the courts will be very puzzled. The courts will be struggling to find just what Parliament was meaning by something as vague as a “title … (or words initials or abbreviations of those titles) … awarded by overseas agencies.” I take it that the Minister is being briefed on this. I hope he can explain it. 
I now want to go back and speak in support of Mr Tisch’s first amendment. Because it seems very clear indeed that the word “plan” without referring to drawing plans can refer to just about any scheme that involves a building. The Minister may not be from a culture that is familiar with the way business is done but the first thing to do when building a building is to go to the bank with a business plan. I am sure the Minister is not intending to catch the person who prepares business plans—[ 
Interruption 
] It may be as he says that this is pedantic but without the extra clarification that Mr Tisch adds by talking about drawing a plan I think the court will not have enough to be able to say: “No drawing a plan doesn’t refer to all those other kinds of plans.” So I think Mr Tisch’s amendment is a very sound one. 
But if Mr Tisch’s qualification is wrong we would really like to know the reasons. The Minister scoffed at the notion of say a landscape plan because he said that did not involve a building. That may be the case except that we now have a Building Act that expressly extends the meaning of “building” a long way past what the Minister talked about as being a structure with a roof. I think I recall from the debate only a few days ago that “building” now includes dams. No one has ever called “dams” a building before. But I think that for the purposes of the restrictions in the Building Act it now includes dams—holes in the ground with no roof. 
So I suggest he could give a more substantive answer than simply mocking the Tisch amendment and the efforts of the Green Party and United Future Party to do their best in this Committee stage on what should be a non-contentious bill to improve its wording to avoid ambiguity and to do what this Parliament is here to do during a Committee stage of a bill which is not to set people on a course that inevitably involves enriching lawyers at some stage in the future. 
The Tisch amendments are minor and as I see them quite uncontroversial. They are an attempt to improve the language. They do not try to change the policy. They do make it clear that what we are talking about is what most people would think of as builders’ or architects’ plans instead of all the other kinds of plans that there can be and the other kinds of specifications for that matter. I think the only reason the Minister can genuinely offer for opposing that amendment instead of welcoming it and endorsing it is simple arrogance of office—the pride that says “We can’t learn anything until we’ve been humiliated the way we have been on the Building Act.” 
I am surprised that this Minister who does not have the natural arrogance of the Minister in charge of the Building Act Mr Carter does not simply say “We will look to it.” Why not reorder the business give the Parliament a couple of hours look at those words and recognise that. If it is really too excruciating to have a National Party amendment approved by United Future the Greens and the rest of the Parliament then put in a Government amendment to do it. Handwrite it. We will not care. ACT will vote for it as long as it improves the legislation. That would be satisfying. It would be satisfying for this Parliament if we improved it. But to simply stand there and scoff at a clarification without saying why it would do harm is not a responsible position for a Minister to take. 
I ask that the new clause 7(1A) the Government has put in in reversal of the considered work of the select committee be modified as proposed by Lindsay Tisch from National because the Parliament ought to have more care when promoting legislation that it will not be simply a picnic for lawyers at some time in the future. 
In terms of “overseas agency” the least embarrassing course would be to take Mr Tisch’s proposal and simply drop those words. It is embarrassingly vague. “Overseas agency” sounds like al-Qaeda’s public relations firm. An “overseas agency” could be anything. It is an undefined term and we could remove it. I think “overseas agency” could be left but the Minister would be far better to replace that term with a reference to New Zealand universities so that we know that what is intended is “BArch” or whatever the term is that the university confers to show that someone has spent the time and qualified in architecture in New Zealand. That of course would mean that 40 percent of New Zealanders who choose not to become registered architects within the institute would not then be tempted to find their convenient “overseas agency” through which to exercise their loophole powers or to find a way through a loophole. 
Mr Tisch also mentioned that there were requirements in other law for people to state their qualifications—for example in prospectuses. Prospectuses quite often set out plans or diagrams. A prospectus for a unit trust to fund a shopping centre will have a plan and it will be in connection with the building. The prospectus requirement under the securities regulations is that one must put one’s qualification. As subclause (2) stands any foreign designer could put his or her architecture qualification but it would appear that a New Zealand qualified architect could not irrespective of whether he or she is a member. It just seems that the Minister is being offered a way out and is not taking it. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Do I think that there is likely to be any confusion over the term “architect”? No I do not. If a software architect used the term he or she would put “software” in front of it. If a landscape architect used it he or she would put “landscape” in front of it. If a software architect wants to design buildings he or she cannot use the word “architect” on its own. “Architect” on its own has a well-understood meaning: it means somebody who builds buildings—someone who designs buildings and supervises their construction. It is very clear on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter that anyone who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect”. Anyone who does those things is a registered architect provided he or she has the qualifications and is registered. That is fairly clear. 
We have been told that although the words “overseas agencies” are used they do not preclude New Zealand architects from using their qualifications. It does not indicate however that because people have “BArch” after their name they are necessarily the kinds of people who have the expertise to design a building that will keep out the weather and do all the things we would expect of it. It just means that they have the basic qualifications—that they have been to university for the required length of time and sat the examinations. That is the beginning. Normally it takes a great deal more experience than that to design buildings and that experience can be gained in an architect’s office. 
The term “draws” is not free from ambiguities. We draw up plans for all sorts of things. So putting the term “draws” instead of “prepares” would not really clear up any ambiguities at all. There are ambiguities only if the term “prepares plans” is divorced from the rest of the description of “… prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings…”. People may use the title of “architect” provided they have the appropriate qualifications and provided they are registered. 
It is important that people who want buildings to be designed for them go to the kind of people who have the appropriate qualifications. We are not talking just about buildings that keep out the weather; we are also talking about buildings that are safe. I think of the building that I spend a great deal of my life in these days. 
Stephen Franks 
: The bill doesn’t state that we have to use an architect. 
MIKE WARD 
: One does not have to. But if a person has any sense at all he or she will go to somebody who has the appropriate qualifications. I would suggest that anybody who simply relies on the terms “architect” or “registered architect” as the sole reason for going to somebody really needs to do a reality check. I would hope that someone would go and look at the work that the person had done before check out his or her credentials in terms of experience and go to somebody who had a track record that could be relied on. The terms “registered architect” and “architect” are a measure of protection but of course a client would need to do more than to simply rely on that term. 
I will not be supporting Lindsay Tisch’ amendments. I looked at them and checked out just what is in the bill. It is fairly clear that those amendments are not necessary. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I think there is common ground among all parties including the Government on this measure and that is that the intention is that the proposed wording “prepares plans and specifications for buildings” in new subclause (1A) of clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 is confined to architectural plans and specifications. It is not intended to have a broader definition that goes beyond that. That is the intention of the Government the Minister and the Opposition parties and certainly it is my intention. The argument is simply whether the wording that is there achieves that end or needs some modification such as that proposed by the National Party in Lindsay Tisch’s amendment which would change “prepares plans and specifications” to “draws plans and prepares specifications”. 
Firstly I express my appreciation to the Minister for making his officials available to talk with me at length during the tea hour to discuss that. I know that it is not a matter of the Minister taking an arrogant line and being a stick in the mud; he is taking advice from his officials and his officials are the ones who really need to be convinced about this but I was not able to do that during the tea hour. 
However I should clarify for the sake of the debate that “building” has a far broader definition than simply walls and a roof. Section 7 of the Building Act states that it also includes mechanical electrical or other systems a fence a vehicle or motor vehicle a mast pole or a telecommunication aerial a cable car and any two or more buildings that on completion are intended to be managed as one building. That is the extent of the definition. The definition is far broader in terms of the Building Act. 
Notwithstanding that we are talking about construction and we are looking at the issue in that context. That is probably the critical thing; we are looking at the question of preparing plans and specifications in the context of new clause 7(1A) which states: “No person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of building may use the term title ‘architect’ … ”. That in itself firstly confines us in terms of what we are talking about to architectural-type work; to work that is commonly understood to be architectural work and not work that is outside that—and I think landscape architecture is one example of that that has been mentioned. 
Also the term “prepares plans and specifications for buildings” would be read by any court as a whole. The three words “plans and specifications” are read together and they are defined again in the Building Act as meaning “the drawings specifications and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed:”. To some extent to try to take “prepares plans” out of that context and to say that it could be read outside the context of both this subclause and the definition of “plans and specifications” in the Building Act is not realistic in terms of the way that the court will approach it. 
The question is really whether National’s amendment will actually improve the situation. One of the things I note is that by separating out the words “plans and specifications” so that they no longer operate as a unit and making the phrase “draws plans and prepares specifications” we may be creating more problems than we are resolving. That will make “plans” a separate unit distinct from specifications because the amendment states “draws plans” then “prepares specifications” as opposed to “prepares plans and specifications”. That may in fact create more problems. There is also the issue as to what the phrases “prepares plans” and “draws plans” actually mean. For example could one say that a landscape architect actually draws a plan? One might argue that he or she does indeed draw a plan—and prepares a plan as well. So does the word “draws” actually solve the problem for us? 
I am not too sure that this amendment would actually correct the perceived problem. Therefore I am a little ambivalent in my own mind as to whether the amendment ought to be supported. I do have a concern that “prepares plans” could be construed particularly by the Registered Architects’ Board as allowing a very broad-brush approach to be taken and that it could abuse it for its own ends in terms of protecting the industry. At the end of the day that can be challenged in the court and it would take only one court ruling to do that. So although I have some sympathy for the change and had in fact intended to support it I am not sure firstly that it does solve the problem and secondly I am concerned that it may actually make the situation worse by dividing up the phrase “plans and specifications” and separating the words out as not actually flowing together. On balance I will not support the amendment despite having the freedom to do that. 
In terms of the second amendment—and I have heard what Mr Franks has said—I think the difficulty Mr Franks has is that he is overlooking the fact that new clause 7(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 states “in accordance with the rules” and he has admitted that he is not quite sure what “in accordance with the rules” means. But “in accordance with the rules” is an obvious reference to clause 67(2) of the bill which provides for the board to make “rules that govern all of the following matters:” and paragraph (b) of which states: “the form of words initials and abbreviations that must be used if the title ‘registered architect’ (or words initials or abbreviations of that title to which section 7(1)(b) applies) is used in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies”. It seems to me that what is happening here is that there is already provision for the use of the terms as far as New Zealand qualifications are concerned. That is clearly covered in the bill in clause 7(1) as it stands and new subclause (2) is to cover the situation of qualifications outside New Zealand. Paragraph (a) of clause 67(2) governs the ability to set up rules to say how the abbreviations can be used in the New Zealand context and paragraph (b) states that the board can set up rules in terms of how the words initials and abbreviations can be used in regard to overseas qualifications. 
So it does seem to me that including the words “in accordance with the rules” gives quite a lot of scope for the board actually to determine what is acceptable when it is looking at overseas qualifications and the limits to which that can be used. That no doubt would include looking at the overseas agency concerned and how that should be able to be expressed. So there is some sense in new subclause (2) of clause 7; it does not need the amendments that National and ACT are proposing because of the context of clause 67(2). 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am grateful to have been referred to clause 67 by Mr Smith which does indeed provide the board with an instruction to make rules. I think he is correct that the reference to rules in clause 7 probably contemplates those rules—although I think it would have been better drafting practice if that had been defined either in clause 4 or in clause 7 itself. But I certainly do not think that clause 67 puts the board into a position whereby it can write rules that exclude overseas agencies without the possibility of a very good fight in court. 
I am not trying to debate Part 3 but I am saying that in the context we have clause 67 expressly preserves forms of words that are outside the forms that are approved by the rules to represent a person. It states: “(without limiting any others that may be used consistently with this Act)”. I have no doubt that because of the term “overseas agency” someone will at least argue that his or her overseas qualification is one that he or she may use because it is consistent with the intent of clause 7 which is not to prevent people from accurately describing their qualifications. 
This is the problem that happens when the Government ignores the work of a select committee that has gone through and seen that the most rational framework would be one that accepts the same limitations that other professions have accepted and decided that the word “registered” should go ahead. I do not think the Green argument that people who are software architects will put “software architect” or landscape architects will put “landscape architect” helps very much because I am not confident that that does not still constitute a breach. The protection clause simply states that it is “words initials or abbreviations … that are intended to cause or that may reasonably cause any person to believe that the person using those words initials or abbreviations is a registered architect.” If one calls oneself a landscape architect one is still claiming to be an architect and of course it will be in connection with buildings. Just about any big project now has a landscape component. 
I am looking at this as I suspect lay people will look at it because ACT members were not represented on the committee and we did not go through the reasoning that the committee members reached. They came out saying that they were comfortable for example that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement would work because a registered architect in New Zealand would equate to similar requirements of the equivalent profession in Australia. Now of course they will not. By succumbing to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s eloquent lobbying the Government United Future and the Greens are now saying that it will not be equivalent to the requirements in Australia. So there is nothing to tell us that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement will still be as neat a fit. 
It may be that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker can rebut that. There may be facts that are not obvious but the problem is that the Supplementary Order Paper does not have the same kind of explanation that the select committee made to explain what it was doing. At the very least it would help the courts in future if the Minister would make a statement to rebut any inference that the rules in clause 67(2) will not be comprehensive. If they are comprehensive then that may assist the court. The statement should also explain exactly what it is the Minister thinks an architecture graduate from a New Zealand university can do about his or her qualification when he or she is engaged in something connected with building. Does the Minister think graduates can use the term “BArch”? Does the Minister think their letterhead can state “Graduate Architect” or words to that effect? That is what the bill does not tell us. 
After all this time I think the public architects and the customers of architects are entitled to expect that they could look at the bill and know the answers to those questions. I do not know those answers. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 If landscape architects or software architects want to set themselves up to design buildings prepare plans and specifications for buildings or supervise the construction of buildings then they may not use the title “architect” because it is quite clear that the proposed amendment to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 reserves that title for people who are registered as architects and who have the appropriate qualifications as architects. No one else can use that title. If people go along to a landscape architect or a software architect to get their house designed then they probably deserve what they get. It is very clear in this bill that that term is reserved. The provision is phrased: “(1A) No person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect” unless he or she is a registered architect.” That is very very clear to me. 
Stephen Franks 
: So what do they do with their qualification? What do they do with their degree? 
MIKE WARD 
: Their qualifications are guaranteed by the fact that they are registered. Clearly a person will not get registered if he or she is a landscape architect or software architect. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new subclause (1A) the word “prepares” and substitute the words “draws plans and prepares specifications”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “awarded by overseas agencies”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the words “or New Zealand university”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments be agreed to. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When the Clerk calls: “Any other votes?” is that the time that a member who wants to have a vote recorded personally and separately from the party vote would speak up? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Was it within the member’s ACT vote? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No it is just that Mrs Pettis made a speech against this Supplementary Order Paper before the meal break and I thought that with 51 votes cast hers might have been the missing Labour vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that is not a point of order. The parties call it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 New Zealand Registered Architects' Board 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This debate includes debate on schedule 1. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 On this part in which there are a whole host of establishment issues I would like to hear from the Minister as to why the Registered Architects’ Board is being left with such a relatively lean set of instructions requirements and specifications when this same Government seems to have decided that the more up to date model of professional regulation as it appears in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill requires hundreds of pages. When I look at it I see that the model looks reasonably self-contained and adequate so I am not criticising it but I think the Minister could take a call to explain. It is so elegant. The functions are set out very briefly—the powers relating to members the composition of the board the criteria for appointment to the board and the committees are all set out in the way one would expect of a tradesman-like drafting job. 
This part sets out in about 10 pages pretty much all the provisions of a regulatory regime for a self-regulating organisation to maintain and oversee quality standards. I commend the Government and the officials responsible. As far as I can see it is a framework that pretty much does what one would expect an architects board and a registration body to do. I would nevertheless be very pleased if the Minister could explain whether any particular efficiency has been achieved. Has something been missed because it was seen as superfluous to architects? Is there a view that architects are not as important as lawyers? It is odd. 
Health and safety depends on what architects do. Buildings collapse in countries that do not have high standards of design. Two hundred people were squashed in Bangladesh last night presumably because a building was not built to a very high standard. I am surmising but it is the kind of thing that happens. I would be a little disappointed if this bill were as lean and spare as it is simply because of the view that what architects do is less important than what lawyers do. 
I cannot help but compare it as a model of regulation with what the Government has proposed in the hundreds of clauses and vast expanded specified provisions to govern what used to be the lawyers self-regulatory organisation. 
I am also interested in the relationship between the board and the Minister. Clause 59 states that the board must provide an annual report to the Minister showing the audit. The Auditor-General must audit but the bill does not actually give the Minister the powers as I see it to turn round and dictate to the board how it is to exercise its powers. That might be qualified by the fact that clause 69 states that the Minister must approve the rules that are proposed by the board. I think that is a shame. I think it would have been far better if this part of the legislation had set up the opportunity for there to be more than one board that boards should be competing to attract architects to them and to uphold high standards and to make sure that their standards are recognised by the market as adding value. That would have been a better safeguard for standards than to have the Minister’s approval of the rules. The temptation under clause 69 of course is for a Minister to make sure that no one can ever accuse the Minister of having disregarded anything that might relate to a consumer interest. Of course they then gold-plate the rules or they hold them up out of fear that someone will hold them responsible later. I think clause 69 is bad in principle for an organisation that should be taking full responsibility for quality standards in a profession. 
I hope the Minister can answer those two questions. Firstly why is this so simple and elegant compared with the other professional regulation measure before us? Secondly why is the Minister reserving the power to in effect second-guess or overrule decisions of the board? I imagine that this is a comfort to the officials. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” I am not sure what kind of consistency is contemplated there. It would have been understandable if it stated: “… unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the requirements for public safety” or something that was an overriding concern that the Minister had to look out for. But when the clause states: “… consistent with the rules that apply to other related building applications” what is meant by “consistent”? Is it consistent in terms of fees payable drafting style penalties coverage? What consistency is required? Most of it could be utterly irrelevant. Does the term “related building occupations” include plumbers or electricians? Is that the new Building Act? What is meant there given that it refers broadly to rules? Does this assume that the definition of “rule” is not the definition that Mr Murray Smith said was the definition in this Act—namely the rules under clause 67? This assumes that other building occupations have rules that are parallel to the rules under clause 67. I have no idea. 
There is nothing in the commentary that states that other related building occupations will have rules that are familiar. It may well be that the Minister runs into blocking action by someone who does not like the rules who will be able to stand up and point to a building occupation that does not have a rule that is parallel to the rule proposed by the architects. Then the Minister and the architects are once again spending thousands of dollars and time on lawyers because of clumsy work done upfront. 
I think it is simply because the Ministers here decide they want a finger in every pie. The rules of a profession being approved by the Minister actually mean that the profession has lost its pride. It also means that instead of having that nice balance which a profession must always monitor between the interests of its clients and the interests of the people who are the clients of those clients—that is the interests of the public those who use architects and the interests of the architects themselves—we get politics coming in. People can lobby the Minister. Instead of bothering to persuade all their peers instead of going through the expertise available to the professional body they can short-circuit it they can employ a Sir Geoffrey Palmer who comes and talks to the Minister scares the Minister politically and then we have either a veto or an argument between the Minister and the professional body. 
That is the area of Part 3 that ought to be the embarrassment to the profession. Instead of the profession spending all the thousands it must have spent on Sir Geoffrey Palmer to do the lobbying it would have been far better if it had spent that time and money on making the case for the profession to be truly accountable for its own rules instead of subjecting them to a politician. 
I think there are some safeguards there. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” The only element of safeguard there is that if there is a silly rule in place they all have to have the same silly rule and if there is a good rule in place they will all have that rule. But what if there is no rule? How can it be consistent when there is a simple absence? There are quite a few building-related occupations that simply will not have this structure of rules. I think it is a carelessness. I hope the Minister can reassure me that he has in mind a whole set of rules for all the other building occupations; at least that will make this one work. 
Judith Collins 
: Law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Law is a building-related occupation; certainly conveyancing is. I do not think the rules here will be consistent with the rules they are preparing for lawyers. I do not know whether Mrs Collins can think what the building-related occupation rules are. It would be plumbers electricians— 
Judith Collins 
: Plasterers roofers. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes and carpenters master builders. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the schedule be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2Commencement 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building Issues 
: I move  
That the Registered Architects Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final passage through the House as this bill represents the balanced path for the regulation of architects that both industry and consumers have been seeking. 
The debate in the Committee stage was very interesting and I want to applaud Murray Smith for his clear exposition of why clause 7(1A) of Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the Minister’s name should stand. He hit the nail exactly on the head when he put together the “prepares plans and specifications” provision in respect of buildings. The three things should be read together. We had some debate in the House that people who were architects of a financial plan were somehow going to be covered by this bill. This bill is about buildings so Mike Ward was exactly on the money as well. 
Dail Jones 
: No this bill is about architects. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Architects—yes that is right. The second thing I want to do is to reassure members of the ACT party who were concerned about the title “overseas agencies”. The whole purpose of the part was to be able to make a distinction between qualifications people have as academic qualifications and qualifications they have as professional qualifications. People will be able to use their titles in relation to architecture if they have qualifications from an overseas university. They will be able to write about them and say they have them but they will not be able to put those forward as if they were professional qualifications unless they are consistent with the rules provided under this legislation and therefore registered. So the bill is making a very clear distinction. I want to reassure the ACT party that people will be able to write about and have their qualifications relating to architecture on letterheads and otherwise providing they are not putting those forward as if they were professional qualifications—unless they are registered and compliant with the legislation. The bill is making a clear distinction which I think the member Stephen Franks has missed. 
This is a very good bill which has been around for a long time. I thank Stephen Franks for his comments on the symmetry of the bill. I am sure its writer Margaret Wilson would be very pleased to hear his comments of admiration. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 During the Committee stage I listened to Rick Barker’s explanation of the definition “architect”. Although it was imaginative I find myself in agreement with the Tisch amendments and with the comments and contribution made by Stephen Franks in particular. It is easy in this environment to be certain about what the term means. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of Mr Franks and Mr Tisch with a wave of the hand and a “Don’t be silly; that will never happen.” attitude. Well I recall similar assurances being made about the foreshore and seabed legislation. We heard: “Don’t worry that will never happen.” We were told that the issue would never be back in the courts. We were told that the Maori Land Court would never make a determination that would make life difficult for members of Parliament—because the bill passed with such complete certainty! There was no equivocation or ambiguity. [ 
Interruption 
] New Zealand First! That is right the legal mind of Dail Jones has already been questioned by Judge Williams. 
I find myself wanting to conclude National’s remarks in the third reading debate on the Registered Architects Bill by saying that yes we support this bill but not without reservations in particular those contained in the Tisch amendments. We are concerned about the fact that this Government’s view of how others will interpret legislation does not affect the way the courts may do or will interpret legislation and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the legislation is so unambiguous so certain and so clear that it will not be questioned. So although Rick Barker stands and makes dismissive gestures about examples of the word “architect” being used to describe those in other professions or trades who may have incorporated that word into their titles the proof will be in the pudding. Mr Tisch made a contribution to try to clarify some of those issues. That contribution was dismissed outright by this Government and time will tell whether the Tisch amendments were right or wrong. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through. If the Tisch amendments had been passed I believe they would create a great deal of ambiguity and confusion in the courts which is the reason why New Zealand First would not support them. Of course any matter that comes before this House and provides for say an appeal to the District Court as this bill does may end up in the District Court. I say to all those people who wish to go and see lawyers whether they are the 17 people from Opotiki who cannot understand an Act that states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: That’s one group that can’t understand it. 
DAIL JONES 
: And there is only one other group that cannot understand it—Dr Brash’s group. The Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property. That is clear to everyone in New Zealand other than to 17 people in Opotiki. Well I say to people who want to go to court only one word—“breed”. 
Darren Hughes 
: “Breed” or “breathe”? 
DAIL JONES 
: Breed—because lawyers love people who want to fight cases that they will lose. It is a lawyer’s dream. So I tell those people to breed and I say to Dr Brash “Breed.” if that is what he believes about the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
However I come back to this bill. Of course people can go to court. That is the right New Zealanders have. It is their right under the Magna Carta to go to court. It is their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and under all the various legislation that goes back to before there were Maori in New Zealand. It is people’s right to go to court and be judged by their peers. Nothing in this bill stops that from happening. Nothing in any legislation ever stops that from happening. Whether they win of course is another matter and as a lawyer I say to them: “Just breed.” 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has voted for the Registered Architects Bill for the reason that on balance it probably does more desirable things than undesirable things. But it is such a shame to have to support something reluctantly because with a little bit of approval and a bit of commitment to quality in legislation we could have had something that was far more satisfying. In this case “satisfying” would simply have meant law about which the Minister could answer simple questions without confusing us more than we already were. 
The Minister tried to answer a question when he began the third reading debate. He said that yes of course people will be able to use their professional qualification on their letterhead as long as in relation to building—and I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—it does not purport to be their qualification for building. The words were something to that effect. It was quite a long sentence that essentially said: “Yes you can use your degree; yes you can put your degree on the letterhead as long as it is not in connection with a building and implying expertise in building.” Well what else is a degree in architecture? So does that mean that they can or they cannot put their degree on the letterhead? We do not know and the reason we do not know is that the Minister would have had all those whisperings in his ear from the officials behind him busy telling him “Yes” on the one hand and “No” on the other hand and he ended up as confused as we predict the court will be when it tries to make head or tail of what New Zealand First the Greens and United Future have now colluded with Labour to pass. 
The other opportunity I should take at this stage is to explain why we are voting for this bill despite having voted against the first schedule. We voted against the first schedule simply to record for the sake of consistency that we believe in one law for all. We do not unlike the other parties in the House justify race discrimination on the grounds that it might be well intentioned. ACT is against race discrimination. ACT is against “the soft bigotry of low expectations”—I think that is the phrase. We can see in the first schedule to this legislation that the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board of all bodies is directed as a specific requirement as a good employer to recognise the aims and aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board. So what is that a quota? Does that mean that the Registered Architects’ Board now has to go out and find some token Maori because this Parliament is telling it that it must recognise the need for the involvement of Maori as employees of the board? What a patronising piece of law. What a piece of bigotry. It is bigotry because it has such low expectations that Maori need Parliament to instruct the Registered Architects’ Board that they must be employed. What a pathetic piece to be sticking into law in this country in 2005. 
The rest of this Parliament as it does solemnly voted in favour of those provisions. ACT is proud that we do not vote for this stuff. We actually read the law. We think that quality matters and that principles are only principles if one sticks to them consistently. Just because there is an architects body out there and it is election time and greasing around and throwing baubles at tiny segments of the electorate is the fashion it does not mean we should be voting for provisions as patronising as these. The need for the board to be a good employer— 
Steve Chadwick 
: It’s what they wanted. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I will tell the member why they wanted it—presumably “they” being the representatives of the architects. They probably told the Government that they would go along with these nonsense words because they knew this Government to be full of people who would not advance the legislation unless they did. They probably feared knowing what this Government is like that unless they came up with this kind of twaddle and stuck in this stuff that compels the board to employ Maori that the cabal—how did John Tamihere describe them—of lesbians and the rest of it would not let them get their legislation through. Is that what the member for Rotorua is really saying when she tells us that the architects wanted to be told that they must employ Maori? They would employ Maori because Maori were competent. They would employ Maori because they presented as the best person for the job. That is what any employer would do. Employers do not come along and say to Parliament: “Please order me to employ Maori.” If the member would care to look at clause 38— 
Steve Chadwick 
: I was on the committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The member is telling us that she was on the committee. Did they actually come before the committee and say: “Please instruct us to employ Maori?”. How did they word it? What did they say? They are not my words. The member was shrieking at me: “That’s what they wanted! That’s what they asked for!” Who were they and what did they ask for? Did they ask for clause 38(2)(d) in schedule 1 which tells them that they must recognise the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board? Clause 38(2) in schedule 1 requires that the board must recognise the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board and the aims and aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. What is this? Does the Registered Architects’ Board have to employ someone who understands tepee building gers or Mongolian yurts? What are these Maori reference words doing in legislation to set up the board to register architects? How do they recognise the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups on the Registered Architects’ Board? 
Judith Collins 
: Ask Mr Choudhary. He will know. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mrs Collins says that Mr Choudhary will know. There may be someone else in the Chamber who was on the select committee because we are now being told that that is what the architects asked for. I really would like to know how they— 
Steve Chadwick 
: That’s not what I said. I said they are very happy with it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Oh now they did not ask for it. Now I understand that they are very happy with it. Of course they would be happy if they had a couple of spiky-haired people with big dangly earrings telling them: “You be happy with this or we won’t advance your bill. You just show joy or it won’t go through.” I think that is the sort of thing we are hearing. We are hearing that there was a bit of a stand-over of the architects board. They were told: “You be very very happy. Dance or we will not put your bill through.” It is interesting is it not. It is really very very strange. 
There is a bit more here too that I had not noticed. The board has to recognise “the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.” The regulations already require ramps and toilets for disabled people. What more can the architects registration board do to recognise the employment requirements of persons with disabilities? This is PC nonsense. 
Judith Collins 
: It’s the sort of thing John Tamihere railed against. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It does sound like the sort of thing John Tamihere has been railing about. I can understand how sickening it must have been sitting in Cabinet when he was required to sign up to this sort of thing. What it does not explain to me—sure John Tamihere has blown the whistle on the Labour Cabinet—is why the rest of Parliament voted for this. Why on schedule 1 was the 113 to7? I think that it should not have been just ACT saying that this kind of nonsense does not need to be put in the law. I would expect National to vote against this schedule. I would expect New Zealand First to vote against it. New Zealand First has very recently discovered that it has votes in relation to principles of the treaty. It now manages to vote against bills that refer to those principles. What about voting against bills that tell the Registered Architects’ Board that it has to involve Maori as employees of the board because that is patronising pap? 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board and the profession of architects on achieving their new bill after 40 years replacing their 1963 Act and bringing them into a form of governance that is of a more contemporary nature. I know they have waited a long time for it and I guess that once they saw the bill come out of the select committee they thought they were getting close only to have to sit on their hands for a number of months before it finally came to the House. But the bill is here tonight and it will be passed tonight and no doubt they will have a cocktail party of their own to celebrate. 
I must agree with Stephen Franks’ comparison of this bill with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and agree that this bill is succinct at 87 clauses. It is something more of the sort of ilk we would expect in terms of a Government bill regulating a profession. Certainly it makes the 380 clauses in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill look ponderous complex and way over the top as I have said previously. I guess the architects have to be congratulated on having a modest-sized bill come through the House. I would only like to see lawyers achieve the same result at the end of the day. 
This bill is about setting standards in terms of architecture but it is important in relation to the new provision for standards educational qualifications and things this bill now implements that the Registered Architects’ Board as it now is does not continue with the reputation it has for being a bit of an old boys’ club and for being restrictive. I know that there is some concern out there from some quarters that there is a degree of patch protection as far as architects are concerned. 
I think it is important for the good of the profession as a whole and for the whole building industry in fact that architects have an inclusive organisation that tries to foster difference within its midst. It may well be that architects need to look at different standard qualifications in terms of architecture to accommodate some of the people who have architectural degrees but who want to work more in a fringe area than in the main areas of high-rise buildings commercial buildings and buildings with other complicated designs. It is important if the registered architects’ profession wants to maintain a broad membership that it can accommodate the needs of its members both at the highest levels and at lower levels. I would encourage it to do that. Certainly at the Government Administration Committee we heard from architectural draftspeople and others who are working in areas on the fringes of strict architectural work and we heard their concerns about where they fitted within the industry. I will commend to the Registered Architects’ Board that it tries to take an inclusive approach but I recognise that it does have to set some minimum standards. 
This legislation as I said in my second reading speech ties in very much with the Building Act and with the licensed building practitioner regime. There will be a design group there and the indications within this legislation in terms of its facilitation which allows the Minister to delegate functions to it are that the board will be looked to in order for it to play an important role in relation to design practitioners under the licensed building practitioner regime and in setting standards for that group—at least in a consultative way if not also in a way that involves the assessment of practitioners in terms of the various categories of design. I think the board could make an important contribution in that area but if it is to do that it is important that it takes the inclusive approach I was referring to earlier. 
I congratulate the board on achieving this milestone of a new Act and wish the board well for its future as it implements the Act sees it bedding down and furthers the interests of its own profession. 
Bill read a third time. 
Charities Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Charities Bill be now read a second time 
. The Charities Bill will establish a new Crown entity the Charities Commission. One of the commission’s functions will be to administer a registration reporting and monitoring system for charitable organisations. The intent behind establishing the commission is twofold: firstly to improve public trust and confidence in charitable organisations and secondly to obtain better information about the size and scope of the charitable sector. 
A number of changes have been made to the bill by the Social Services Committee and I will shortly outline the scope and intent of those changes. In addition the Ministry of Economic Development wrote to approximately 25 umbrella organisations and other entities to seek their views on the workability of the bill. On the whole the feedback from those groups was positive. In addition to the changes recommended by the select committee the Government reaffirmed its commitment to the charitable sector by announcing in October last year that it would commit $9.8 million in funding to the commission. That means for example that registration with the commission will be free for all organisations. 
The select committee has recommended that the bill provide for the commission to be established as an autonomous Crown entity. That removes the requirement for the commission to establish and maintain a separate register of approved donee organisations. That function will continue to be undertaken by the Inland Revenue Department. Operationally however most charities will deal with one agency. With the agreement of the donee organisation the commission will have the ability to provide the Inland Revenue Department with any information contained in the public register including information that has been withheld from the publicly accessible register for public interest reasons. The Inland Revenue Department will be able to assess whether a registering charitable organisation also qualifies to be recognised as a donee. The notable exception will be charities with significant international operations that also want to be donee organisations. They will need to work with the Inland Revenue Department or obtain parliamentary approval to be added to the list of recognised overseas donee organisations contained in the Income Tax Act 2004 as is the current process. 
The select committee has recommended significant changes to the section of the bill outlining the commission’s functions. Many submitters expressed a concern that the commission’s functions were too focused on its registration and monitoring role. To make the bill’s intent clearer the commission’s functions are now explicitly set out as providing education and assistance on matters of good governance and management to charitable organisations. The bill gives the commission the ability to provide policy advice directly to the Government about issues faced by the charitable sector. For example the commission may want to make recommendations to the Government about whether a new type of corporate legal entity for charitable organisations needs to be developed. Under the bill as it has been reported back the commission will monitor and promote compliance with the legislation. The bill also now gives the commission express responsibility for taking prosecutions for offences against the legislation in appropriate circumstances. 
In many of the submissions received concern was expressed about the definition of a charitable purpose used in the bill. The test used in the bill comes from case law and the select committee has not recommended that that test should be changed. What it has recommended is that the bill codify for clarity reasons the common law on non-charitable incidental purposes. Throughout the select committee process the single biggest concern raised in relation to the charitable purpose test was the position of advocacy and whether organisations that undertook advocacy work would continue to be classified as charitable and be able to register. The committee has recommended changes that make it clear that the commission will not prevent an organisation from being able to register if it engages in advocacy as a way to support and undertake its main charitable purpose. 
The bill has been amended to increase flexibility for registration. A national organisation can now register on behalf of a number of entities where those entities are affiliated or closely related to it. That will enable charities with complex organisational structures to register once if they so choose. The commission will also have the power to grant a waiver so that registered organisations are able to comply with their regulatory obligations and duties in a way that best suits the organisation concerned. For example a parent organisation with 29 branches around New Zealand will be able to register and each of its branches will be able to use the same registration number and will generally need to file one annual return form that covers the organisation’s entire operations. Where that is not possible or practical an organisation can request that the commission allow each of the 29 branches to file its own return. I also propose by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to extend the commission’s power to grant a waiver to cover the registration requirements for charitable entities. The commission could then allow an umbrella entity to file a single set of rules on behalf of the group. 
I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill and I acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the many hundreds of people and organisations that took the time to make submissions and present oral evidence on the bill. During the Committee of the whole House I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: consequential changes due to the enactment of the Crown Entities Act of 2004 minor changes aimed at improving the workability of the bill and three other changes. The first empowers the commission where it deregisters a charitable entity to specify a period of time within which that entity may not reregister. The second of those changes empowers the commission when it does deregister a charitable entity to also disqualify an officer of that entity from being an officer of a charitable entity for a period not exceeding 5 years. Those provisions are also consistent with the provisions of the Companies Act. The third change removes from the bill provisions that exempted the commission from the laws of defamation where it issues notices and publishes details of possible breaches of the bill and other serious wrongdoings. I consider that such provisions are inconsistent with the broad Government policy in the Crown Entities Act. Also there are no special reasons why the commission should be treated differently from other Crown entities. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I was a member of the Social Services Committee who looked at this bill and I heard a tremendous number of submissions from a lot of people who came along to give their time to talk about what a silly bill it was. But there was a good thing about that committee that Georgina Beyer chaired and she chaired it very well too I should say—I like to give credit where it is due; I do not often get the chance to give credit in this place. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Hide asked me to say nice things and I tell Mr Hide that I am going to do that. 
One thing that happened was that the Labour Party members on the select committee were very shocked that everybody who came along to submit on this bill submitted against it. Those people submitted against it for the very reason that this bill which is called the Charities Bill is not particularly charitable. It is all about trying to remedy a wrong that does not actually exist. The Government of course thinks that the great wrong is that there is not enough money going into Government coffers or enough people being employed to regulate the ordinary everyday lives of people who volunteer their time and money—and many times their family’s work—to be able to help people in need. 
We know there are lots and lots of charities in this country. There seem to be thousands of them. Most charities are not huge organisations. Many charities are actually very small organisations and the provisions for charitable purposes have been determined by the Inland Revenue Department ever since there has been an Inland Revenue Department. There cannot be a more powerful body in this country than the Inland Revenue Department when it comes to having powers to investigate look at and take money out of people’s bank accounts wages and almost everything else. 
Yet this Government which is utterly driven by a politically correct agenda and utterly incapable of seeing the wood for the trees is utterly incapable—as Mr Tamihere has said—of being able to relate to ordinary New Zealanders who go about their business who do not commit crimes and who pay their taxes. The Government is utterly incapable of understanding that. This Government feels that any people in charge of any money not actually their own must be about to steal it. 
That is the way this Government has acted. It has acted by wanting to over-regulate those bodies to the point we found out that even someone like Sue Bradford who is a very good hard-working member of the select committee would not be able to be on the board of one of those charities because of her previous time as an almost professional protester—no not professional but a person who would have been protesting. 
Sue Bradford 
: Radical protester. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: She was a radical protester as she likes to be called. Well this is a House of Representatives and everyone can be represented here even radical protesters. She is someone whom I would not mind having on a board I was on and I think she would be quite happy to be on that board but we found out that she would have been stopped by this silly Government that simply wanted to say it did not trust anyone. 
Now of course we have found out the real reason for it all. Apart from the fact that the Government wants to rip money out of the system and take money out of the little charities that pay for things like school uniforms or sports equipment for kids who need it and for poor schools in poor areas the Government wants to rip money out and control the system itself. The Government wants to get rid of those little charities and organisations. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask that member opposite who keeps screaming out why she did not give her speech as though it actually had some meaning. I really did think before that I should have been seeking a point of order and suggesting that maybe the Minister could stand up and be given the chance to redo her speech. But next time she should sound as though she means it because the speech she gave earlier sounded as though it had been written by some flunky who did not know any better. 
Of course we understand that this Government is so much better at talking about charity and about what it wants to do for people than it is at actually doing it. And there is no other example really that is quite as good at the moment as the example of the attitude of Government members in their charity towards Mr John Tamihere. That is certainly an act of charity towards Mr Tamihere—and it is one of those stunning acts of charity that the women members of the Labour caucus will stand by and support a man who has referred to them in such a disgusting way as Mr Tamihere did. Those members do not have enough in them to stand up and fight for their rights so they leave it to me—a National Party MP—to have to stand up for them. Well what sort of attitude is that? Fortunately I am a pretty charitable person and I am happy to stand up for them if they are too weak and emotionally crippled to be able to do it for themselves. I will stand up for them because they definitely need it. 
Peter Brown 
: Are you charitable to tossers? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Brown is asking me whether I am charitable—and under this bill I am thinking in a charitable way—to tossers. Well I say to Mr Brown that it is not really a term I would normally use. I would not like to call any member of this House by such a term but unfortunately Mr Tamihere does. We have to understand that there is a certain amount— 
Rodney Hide 
: Who said “tosser”? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think there are a couple of members who did but I tell Mr Hide that we will not go into that. 
I will seek in the Committee stage to bring about a change to some parts of the bill. One of the changes I will seek to deal with is the fact that the Charities Commission—which will of course be made up of Labour Party flunkies—will have to try to minimise compliance costs. We know as people who have been involved in small businesses that it is the compliance costs that grind people down in business and they will grind people in those charities down. Generally the people we are talking about are not people who are financial wizards. They are often mums and dads who help out at Scouts and all sorts of organisations like that. Yet here they are being treated in this bill as if they are some form of great big business. 
The compliance cost in the bill is something that Mr Tamihere has talked a lot about. He has said a lot about small-business compliance cost yet the Government will not see its way to be charitable towards the very people who spend their time and money raising money for other people—which is a very charitable thing to do. 
I cannot understand why this Government thinks that the Charities Commission will have more power and ability to deal with the deceit or criminal actions of people involved in charities than the Inland Revenue Department and the police have. We know there is a shocking shortage of police particularly in south Auckland and particularly in Manurewa which is in the Hon George Hawkins’ electorate. There is a shocking shortage of police there yet we have a bill here that says maybe that is why the Government is going to have a Charities Commission. 
We know that the Charities Commission will always be full of Labour Party flunkies while Labour is in power—but fortunately that will not last long—and we will see a huge amount of cost. We can just imagine how many trips overseas there will be for those commissioners to look at charities. How many little people will be paying for that? How many school uniforms will be lost because of those costs? How many people will be told: “I’m sorry; we won’t be able to fund your child going to Scouts this year because the money has had to go in compliance costs.”? Charities and the Charities Bill should be all about getting the money out to the people who need it not about building a huge administration in order to stop money going where it needs to be going. 
I think that almost every—in fact every—submission I heard on this bill was against it. Government members eventually listened to some of those views but what they could not get their head around was the fact that it was a bill nobody wanted except for themselves and their officials. 
Unfortunately the Minister who was previously in charge of this bill simply could not understand what was actually in the bill or how it would work. I understand that the Labour Government may have some trouble with understanding how charities work but if the Greens can understand it why can the Government not understand it? I mean everyone else here can understand it. 
The exception is United Future members I think who will do what they always do and help out the Government on anything tricky. That is a real shame because I have received submissions from interfaith people saying: “Please—we’ve got a bill here that’s going to set how we have a board. We don’t always have boards.” Yet the Government will be dictating through this Parliament who will be in charge of the very church charities that United Future says it is happy to support. 
In essence this bill is unnecessary. It imposes a load of extra compliance costs on charities and the money should be going where it is needed. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the second reading of the Charities Bill. I will focus primarily on my gratitude to members of the Social Services Committee which I am proud to chair and which I chaired during the course of the hearings on this bill. I thank the members who served on the select committee: Dr Muriel Newman Paul Adams Sue Bradford the Hon Taito Phillip Field Bill Gudgeon Moana Mackey Katherine Rich Dr Lynda Scott the Hon Judith Tizard and Gordon Copeland. I also thank Judith Collins who on occasions was present as well. 
The committee received 753 submissions of which we heard 161 and we held hearings in Auckland over 2 days. It became very apparent to the select committee very early on in the hearing of submissions that some points were consistently raised by the submitters we heard. So we devised a list of the eight concerns most often raised by the submitters we had seen so that those who came after them could look at that list and agree that those were the points they had concerns about. That was provided particularly because of the very short amount of time submitters had to have their voices heard and it allowed submitters to get the best they could out of the process in that time. That was achieved because they were able to eliminate the eight points and go on to other matters that concerned them that they otherwise might have had little time to express. 
I believe that the select committee process worked as far as our democracy is concerned—to the point indeed where the submissions we read and heard had a profound effect on how the committee felt it should deal with the bill. As the Minister mentioned in her speech most if not all of the eight concerns consistently raised by submitters have been addressed and rectified in the bill that is before the House now. That should send a strong and clear message to New Zealanders that the select committee process is of value that what is of most value is their opinions and submissions on particular bills and that they are indeed listened to by members of select committees. Quite often we are told that they are not valued and that we do not listen to them. Well here is an example of a bill on which they were listened to and to which they added some significant changes—there has been a virtual rewrite of the original bill. 
In the House this evening we are on to the second reading of the bill and we will I hope speedily continue through to the Committee stage. I conclude by acknowledging the select committee again but also importantly the officials who worked with the select committee. They included officials from the Ministry of Economic Development the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development—particularly the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector—Treasury and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They had hours and hours of work to do as the committee went through its considerations. 
Also I would like to acknowledge Gordon Copeland in particular. He of course worked some years previously with the working party towards what became a draft of the Charities Bill. I look forward to his speech later on. He will be able to enlighten the House and anybody who happens to be listening on the details and perhaps the gestation of this bill. With that— 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh no! 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: Well I should carry on; I am getting rounds of applause here. I wish the bill a speedy passage through the House. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Taking into consideration the serious concerns of the many charitable organisations throughout the country New Zealand First supports the intent of the bill. Clause 15 disqualifies a number of classes of people from serving as officers. New Zealand First supports in particular the exclusion of people who have been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more or of 2 years or less when a person has been sentenced to imprisonment. 
The Charities Bill establishes a new Crown entity the Charities Commission responsible for running a registration reporting and monitoring system for charities. It is also important to note that only those charities that are registered with the commission will be able to retain or gain tax-exempt status while any unregistered charities will not be income tax exempt. That will ensure that the sector becomes more accountable and transparent to the donating public and that fraudulent activities can be eliminated. 
New Zealand First believes that this bill will assist in the ongoing provision of important services to the community that confidence in the charitable sector will increase as a result of the activities of the Charities Commission and that this confidence will encourage the Government to consider a more generous tax rebate. 
What is the definition of “charitable purpose”? Part of the criteria for registration as a charitable entity is that the entity must be maintained for charitable purposes. The bill defines “charitable purpose” as including every charitable purpose whether it relates to the relief of poverty the advancement of education or religion or any other matter that would contribute positively to community advancement. 
The commission will have a number of enforcement powers available to it to address any situations involving deregistration. In the first instance the commission is more likely to use its lesser enforcement powers or its education function to encourage and help the charitable entity to comply with its obligations. 
New Zealand First believes that this bill will encourage more responsible activities and more accountability to public donors. It does not pose a threat to democratic process because it is only when laws are in place that democracy can function. The voluntary sector is much appreciated by New Zealand First for the service it renders to the general public. The sector’s independence is firmly in place without being jeopardised by the fly-by-nighters who as we are only too aware are getting a free ride under the guise of being charitable organisations. New Zealand First supports the bill because charitable organisations have been part of the landscape of New Zealand communities and are a reflection of a service-rendering society. 
During the hearing of submissions as the chairperson mentioned a list of eight points was agreed to by the select committee under the stewardship of the chairperson and with the supporting vote of the committee. The list reads: (1) general concern that compliance costs imposed by the bill will be onerous; (2) concern about the definition of “charitable purpose” that is used and the position of organisations that undertake advocacy; (3) the commission’s status as a Crown agent and its lack of independence from government; (4) the fact that registration numbers will need to be displayed on all correspondence and fundraising materials general concern about compliance costs of this; (5) disqualification of officers clause too onerous and may prevent people from volunteering to be officers; (6) inability to indemnify officers is too onerous and may also discourage people from becoming officers; (7) filing claims specified in the bill for providing information and annual returns to the commission are sufficient; (8) commission’s functions need to include a general education and support role and not be limited just to providing advice and support about regulatory duties and obligations. 
Listing those eight points assisted us to cut down the time spent listening to submissions. As submitters read those points they were able to get past them. I now realise that the bill covers those points to the advancement of charitable organisations in the country. I am sure that many submissions listed concerns outlined in the list I read out. Those submitters will now be happy with the result in the final bill. 
New Zealand First has concerns but we are looking at the overall picture of charitable organisations throughout the country. We support this bill to the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. It surprises me that New Zealand First is supporting it. 
Peter Brown 
: Show a bit of charity. Where’s your charity? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Peter Brown calls out that I should show some charity. In fact to New Zealand First I do because do I think that party is a charitable case. Mr Peter Brown in particular I think is a charitable case so I will not be too hard on him. I will just point out that I think he is mistaken. In fact I can understand New Zealand First being mistaken. What I cannot understand is the United Future party being so mistaken particularly Mr Copeland who has some experience of the charitable sector. I am astonished that he with his experience would come along to this great House—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Copeland calls out that he has had quite a bit of experience. He cannot have learnt much. I am astonished that he comes to this great House and proceeds to socialise charities in New Zealand. 
The whole point of the charitable sector is that it is private. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it gets on and does the business. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it does not have to worry about busybody politicians coming along and making charities pay registration fees. That is the success of the charitable sector. Anyone who believes in charity in New Zealand has to vote against this bill. Anyone who believes in the charitable sector and the importance of a civil society has to vote against this bill. Why? Well what I ask Mr Copeland is the purpose of this bill? It sets up a new Crown entity. How I ask Mr Copeland will a new Crown entity help a charity? It is the charities that pick up the flotsam and jetsam that falls out of the welfare State that Mr Copeland supports. Now he is turning round and wants to hobble the charitable sector with a Crown entity that the charities themselves will have to pay for. I ask Mr Copeland: what is this Crown entity going to do? It is going to sit there and this Charities Commission will be responsible for running a registration reporting and monitoring system for charities. 
I ask Mr Copeland: how many charities are there? There are 37000 charities. So Mr Copeland and New Zealand First are voting for a quango to look after 37000 charities—to monitor them to register them and to keep an eye on them. There will be an army of bureaucrats doing that. [ 
Interruption 
] Sue Bradford laughs. How many people does she think it will take to register monitor and run 37000 charities? [ 
Interruption 
] Is the member going to vote against it? 
Sue Bradford 
: Absolutely! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh thank God! I love the Greens! Sanity from the Greens. Why cannot New Zealand First see it now? ACT and the Greens are agreeing. The great National Party will be voting against the bill. And here we have that basket case New Zealand First voting for it. God only knows why Mr Copeland is voting for it. 
Peter Brown 
: God does know. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: God does know I know. God only knows why New Zealand First would vote for this. I ask Mr Copeland: what is the mischief that we are trying to fix? 
Gordon Copeland 
: If ACT and the Greens are against it we must be right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have to say that that is the definition of the logic from the United Future party. Mr Copeland just called out that we are going to set upon the charities of New Zealand a charitable commission set up by the Labour Party with seven Government appointees running it all on the public tit paid for by the taxpayers that will require charities to register. Mr Copeland was asked: “Why are you voting for it?”. His answer was: “Because the Greens and ACT are voting against it.” That is the logic of the United Future party. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s a pretty good reason. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have to say that they are no longer poodle power because they do not even have a poodle brain. The logic of it is that there are some charities that run off the rails. Charities have been around for 400 years and they are forever running off the rails. What is the mechanism that we have to pursue them? Section 58 of the charities Act. I ask Mr Copeland: who is in charge of that? The Attorney-General of New Zealand is in charge. 
Dail Jones 
: The charities Act? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No section 58. Under that section we can pursue a charity for fraud. 
Dail Jones 
: Of what? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Section 58 of the Charitable Trusts Act. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What about Fiji? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Robson the deputy leader of the Progressive Party leading the left-wing faction of the Progressive Party calls out: “What about Fiji?”. If they want to talk about charitable trusts they have an expert sitting on their side of the House in the name of Mr John Tamihere. We know that Prime Minister Helen Clark has forgiven him. All is forgiven. She will know all about the charitable trusts that Mr Tamihere has set up where the money has come from and where it has gone to. Do not worry we will be revealing that for the delight of— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about the pyramid selling schemes? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Swain is calling out about the pyramid selling schemes. Let us get back to the point. Why do we have 37000 charities having to be registered and monitored by a quango? 
Darren Hughes 
: Stop ripping them off. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Now we have whatever that guy’s name is Darren Hughes calling out saying that the Attorney-General has not been doing her job. I agree with him. If the Attorney-General did her job and pursued those people who ripped off the charities and used them for personal gain we would not be debating this Charities Bill tonight—because the Attorney-General would be doing her job. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Now it’s a “he”. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well when she was the Attorney-General. Now it is a “he”. What is he doing about the charitable sector? Is he pursuing them? [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Copeland now agrees with me. God knows what he is thinking. I say to Mr Worth—he will understand this—that if the Attorney-General was doing his job we would not need this bill. Is that correct? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Quite right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He agrees with me. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t disagree. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Copeland now does not disagree. So now he is saying that if the Attorney-General was doing his job we would not need this bill. I look forward to United Future’s contribution to this debate. 
Peter Brown 
: Well sit down and get it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I will. We will get it after this and I want to hear some logic about why they are voting for this bill. I ask Mr Copeland to tell us in his contribution to this House how many civil servants it will take to monitor register and promote the research in the charitable sector. He does not know. He is voting for the bill and he does not know. I ask Mr Copeland: how much will it cost? [ 
Interruption 
] I have no idea but I am not voting for it. 
Darren Hughes 
: It will be a lot less after ACT has gone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It will be a lot less when ACT is in power; that is true. 
Darren Hughes 
: When ACT has gone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: How much will it cost? The member is going to vote for it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: No you are right. I have no idea. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The member has no idea. Mr Copeland has no idea what it will cost. He has no idea how many people it will take yet he is going to vote for the bill. Who is going to miss out? It will be the poor and the downtrodden—the people whom these very charities have been set up going back hundreds of years to serve. They are the people who will miss out. Why would we load charities with extra cost? Why would we load charities with extra bureaucratic hassle when we could simply demand that the Attorney-General do his job and pursue the ratbags who are ripping off their own charities—pursue them to the nth degree? If we did that and indeed lowered tax we would have more charity not less. This bill is about having less charity in New Zealand and for that reason the ACT party is voting against it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I have to say on behalf of the Green Party that it is a real pity that we are seeing the Charities Bill come back to the House tonight for its second reading and all further stages under urgency. The community and voluntary sector has seen this bill as a really significant piece of legislation and I think it is unfortunate that we now have to deal with it in such haste. A complex bill such as this deserves the time and care needed for last-minute consultation and discussion especially during the Committee stage yet with such short notice it is virtually impossible to do that. I apologise in advance to the groups and individuals in the sector with whom I usually work for not having had the time to consult them on the final phase of the bill. 
In a way the fact that we are dealing with the bill with such unnecessary despatch in the House tonight typifies the whole unsatisfactory process on the bill from its conception to its delivery. The facts that the bill was conceived evidently in Treasury and was designed by the Ministry of Economic Development show just how out of touch the originating Minister or Ministers were with the realities of the community sector in this country today. The officials who worked with us on the Social Services Committee had a really tough job on all fronts and I have a lot of sympathy for them. They should never have been put into such a position in the first place. A bill that deals in such detail with issues of critical importance to all types of community and voluntary sector groups should have been all along within the purview of a ministry with substantial experience of the sector with the most obvious examples of such ministries being the Ministry of Social Development or the Department of Internal Affairs. The bill should not have been the responsibility of a ministry far more accustomed to working with “for profit” business than with the vast diversity that comprises the world of non-governmental organisations. 
The Government has very belatedly decided to hand the Charities Commission over to the Department of Internal Affairs with input from the Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector. That is a good step forward but it should have happened right at the start. A lot of the problems in the gestation of this legislation could have been avoided if the people who put it together had had the kind of substantial and hard-won experience of working with community groups that is needed when dealing with a whole series of complicated and sensitive issues. And any public servants with decent experience of working in this area would have known that the bottom line in terms of getting buy-in and acceptance would be widespread and detailed consultation locally and regionally as well as nationally rather than reliance on a limited and carefully selected task force to do the job for them. The history of this bill through Parliament exemplifies why and how even a well-meaning Labour Government still has a long way to go in terms of understanding not only how best to work with the third sector but also of understanding the need for the Government to treat all parts of the sector with the respect of an equal towards an equal rather than acting as a superior towards an inferior. 
I now turn to some of the details of the bill itself. I sat on the select committee which received many hundreds of submissions that critiqued in fine-tuned detail many many aspects of the legislation as drafted. I was as impressed as ever with the integrity and passion of community sector submitters in all their variety and with the fact that right across the spectrum people were almost universally committed to either major reform of the bill or throwing it out and starting again. I do not accept the comments made by several previous speakers including our committee chair Georgina Beyer that the eight points put forward to the submitters by the chair were the only ones they were concerned about. In fact there were hundreds of points of concern many of which were not touched on in the list of eight that was presented to the submitters. I am sorry that the Labour and United Future members of the committee chose to take the path of least resistance and to make a series of hodgepodge reforms of the bill rather than having the clarity of vision to actually throw it out and start from scratch learning from the overseas experience readily available to us and also utilising far more comprehensively the wisdom of all the groups that care about these things. 
There have been improvements made to the bill and I am glad of that. Some pleas from the sector were listened to and heard. We are pleased for example to see changes that mean compliance costs have been reduced that the prohibition on indemnifying officers has been removed—a totally ridiculous provision—that umbrella groups can register all their constituent bodies that the blanket disqualification of officers with certain convictions has been taken out and that the absurd requirement to have the group’s registration number on all written communication is gone. However serious concerns remain. For example we still have big issues around the definitions of “charity” “charitable purpose” and “public benefit”. The select committee in its wisdom decided not to expand or update the definition of “charitable purpose” which the Green Party believes is a missed opportunity to update a concept rooted in the law of early 17th century England. We are indeed truly immured in our colonial past. 
We also continue to have queries about advocacy and about the extent to which the advocacy function of community organisations can and should be regulated through the mechanism of this bill and of the Charities Commission once it is established. The Government has attempted to improve the bill by the addition of a provision to clarify that an organisation with so-called non-charitable secondary purposes such as advocacy will be allowed to register with the commission if its advocacy is in support of the charitable primary purpose. However I am still really apprehensive about the extent to which that allows the State to define what is and is not acceptable to itself as advocacy and what exactly is and is not charitable. That takes us back to the original definition problem. In the argument around advocacy I also remain as concerned as I always was right from the start that some groups with substantial advocacy functions will not even bother to try to obtain charitable status and the fact that they do not have it will have a downstream negative impact on their ability to gain funding. Funders will be looking for that registration number even if it is on fewer bits of paper and if a group does not have that number I fear the consequences. It will be far easier for funders just to say that if there is no number they will provide no money. 
Another area of disquiet for us even in the amended bill lies in the fact that although very limited appeal rights have been established there will still be an inability to develop common law that relates to the sector because those rights are so restricted. And from a more overarching point of view I remain completely unconvinced that this bill will actually or adequately address the need to find ways to expose and extinguish bogus and corrupt activities within the not-for-profit sector. The Government talked a lot at times about that being the trigger for the development of the bill—as Mr Hide did earlier tonight as well. But in fact I do not think that this bill will make much difference at all if any in that area. The worst levels of corruption and theft in the sector happen because some people are simply determined criminals and I do not see how the bill will aid in stopping that any more than the State sector legislation that we recently passed can in itself stop determined theft by public servants from Government departments. At another level the best way to deal with internal fraud abuse and other problems such as that in the community sector is actually through things such as good employment practices and the willingness of groups for example not to give false or misleading references for employees who move on to another organisation having left a trail of disaster behind them. Again that is not something that the bill can hope to solve. The answers lie in more willingness to share information when necessary between groups and in not leaving others to carry the can for a poor employment decision or for someone feeling sorry for a desperate job applicant. 
Beyond the amendments made during the select committee process the Government has also tabled further extensive changes to the bill this week. Those changes are mostly minor and beneficial in nature but none of them demonstrates the kind of major improvement that might have led the Green Party to change its position on this bill. We are voting against the Charities Bill tonight because we do not have confidence in the process by which it has been developed and because we do not think the amendments made by the Government go far enough towards solving the problems that the bill creates. We also lament the lost opportunity here. If the Government had had the patience to start the process over again and had worked cooperatively with the sector to draft a really exciting and positive bill Labour would have had our enthusiastic support from beginning to end. As it is this bill leaves a sour taste that all the minor amendments in the world will not fix. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 My involvement with this matter goes all the way back to 17 December 1987 when in a now somewhat infamous line-up in the Beehive Roger Douglas announced to the nation his proposal for a flat tax. He then went on to say that would mean charities would henceforth be paying taxation. Many twists and turns have occurred in the saga in the more than 17 intervening years that have brought us up to this day. 
This is the second attempt by a Labour Government to establish a Charities Commission. I opposed the first attempt in 1989 but then tried with successive Ministers of Finance for the next 10 years to get the Government to allow greater tax rebates for gifts made to charities from the maximum level of just $500 resulting from a total gift of up to $1500 per year. That was the rate that existed through that whole decade. In fact it was not until Dr Michael Cullen became the Minister of Finance in the year 2000 that that limit was adjusted for inflation from $500 to the current level of just $630 by way of tax rebate based on giving up to a maximum of $1819 per annum. That amount of $1819 is incredibly stingy when compared with the amounts allowed in other OECD jurisdictions. 
The USA has long allowed virtually unlimited tax deductibility for charitable gifts. This amongst other things sees the super-rich giving literally billions of dollars to charity in the case of people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner. It also means that the great universities like Harvard and Yale have enormous endowments whilst charities that work to alleviate poverty and addictions and do other good works flourish to the benefit of all. 
The United Kingdom under a Labour Government has adopted similar policies because it recognises in this most tangible and motivational of ways the importance of encouraging both philanthropy and generosity amongst the citizens of their countries. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member relate the issue to the bill please. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Members should remember it is more blessed to give than to receive. The good that charities do in our community is very significant. Indeed I go further in saying that charities are the most efficient organisations known to humankind. It is estimated that $1 of social services delivered through a charity would cost $2 if delivered through a Government department. Encouraging charities to flourish therefore is just common sense. 
New Zealand charities have high hopes for this bill. Their hope is that once the commission to register monitor and ensure that charities prosper is established—a task that we are likely to see completed very soon—the tax rebate will be lifted substantially and significantly in the 19 May Budget this year. In that regard I hope they will not be disappointed. 
It is true that this bill will mean that charities face new and additional compliance costs. There is no getting around that reality. This bill is therefore somewhat reluctantly accepted by charities as being necessary in order to bring about the benefit of a higher tax rebate for gifts given to charity. I am pleased to record that the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen is already in the public record as saying that once the Charities Commission is established by this bill which will be passed into law hopefully this evening he will be giving consideration to a significant increase in the rebate level for charitable gifts. 
I am also bolstered in my hope for this bill and its outcomes by the experience of both the United Kingdom and the USA. The United Kingdom has for many years had a Charities Commission. In recent years again under the current UK administration and Chancellor Gordon Brown the ethos of that commission has been changed quite significantly so that now its role is to ensure that philanthropy charity and generosity flourish in the UK for the reasons that I have mentioned. As a result charitable activity and charities themselves are now flourishing once again in the UK to a greater extent than they have for many many years. 
A similar situation exists in the USA. The USA does not have a Charities Commission but it is necessary in order to have tax-free status for a charity to complete an annual return to the Inland Revenue Service. This is quite voluminous and imposes compliance costs on charities in that nation that are far greater than will result from this bill. Not unnaturally when the Internal Revenue Service provisions were introduced by legislation in the United States charities strongly opposed them. But they now say quite openly that they were wrong. That is as a result of the increase in public confidence that has flowed from the fact that people know that they are dealing not with cowboy charities but with genuine bona fide charities. Charitable giving in fact has grown in the United States by several billion dollars. So that gives me the confidence and the hope that we will see a similar result in New Zealand. 
This bill therefore for me is just—if one likes—the first step in an ongoing process. I hope that it will lead to charity philanthropy generosity and that the good works our many many thousands of charities undertake often unsung on a day by day basis in this country will flourish and grow in the years ahead. If they do then all sectors of society including the Crown accounts themselves will greatly benefit and we will see far greater social services and good strong robust social outcomes for the citizens of this country. 
With those remarks I signal that United Future will support this bill both in its second reading and through all remaining stages. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to follow the comments made by Rodney Hide and Judith Collins during the course of this debate. It is very appropriate to ask why we need some legislation. Rodney Hide said during the course of his contribution that we should look at the Charitable Trusts Act because the answer is there. Unfortunately for Mr Hide that is not the case in practice. 
As I said in the first reading the call for the regulation of charities has been a longstanding one in New Zealand. In fact it goes back even as far as 1967 with a call made by Justice Gresson in the case of  
Re Goldwater (deceased) 
 [1967] NZLR 754. There was a call for a review of charities and that Act. 
When I was in practice in the late 1980s and the early 1990s I set up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act. I asked having looked through the Act what controls there were on all those charitable trusts. Really there were no controls on any of them although it would be fair to say that Mr Hide was correct to say the Attorney-General could look at them. But by the time a complaint is laid with the Attorney-General on anything all the evidence has gone all the money has gone and it is far far too late. 
The Charitable Trusts Act has not proved to be very good in practice in so far as control of charitable trusts is concerned. I wrote to the Minister of Justice about that matter and I received a copy of the Property Law and Equity Reform Committee report on the Charitable Trusts Act issued in 1979. The report referred in paragraph (1) to the request to consider the comments made by Justice Gresham in  
Re Goldwater (deceased) 
. The report went on to state: “Subsequently it was suggested that the whole of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 called for a general examination. In particular the question was raised of the desirability of establishing more effective means of control of charitable trusts perhaps by means of a charities commission along the lines established in the United Kingdom.” 
The report in paragraph 13 of page 7 stated: “The committee was asked to give particular consideration to the questions raised by the Rev. R M O’Grady the associate-general of the National Council of Churches in a newspaper article in which he said: ‘The public has no protection against charities in New Zealand. It would not be difficult for a skilled promotional person to raise $10000 or more for almost any appeal one cares to name. Simply by national advertising and a small mailing to selected persons any charity can get itself established in a few weeks. Raising really big money for a charity requires time and planning. By far the best method is the house-to-house collection.’ ” That quotation is taken from a report written in 1979. We were talking about $10000 then. Taking inflation into account we would be talking about a bigger figure that could be raised by a skilled promotional person who could end up fleecing all the people who thought they were giving the money to charities. So I was very pleased when this bill came before the House. 
The need for this legislation has clearly been established a long long time ago. As Rodney Hide has said the legal basis for a charity goes back to 1601 and of course that Act just confirmed what had been happening prior to that. The Statute of Elizabeth 1601 confirmed the basis on which one could establish a charitable trust. So the whole concept has been going for a while. But in England—since before 1979 obviously—there has been a charities commission and in New Zealand since before 1979 we have had complaints about the way in which charities have been run. So that is the reason if we need a reason in answer to Rodney Hide’s question as to why we need a charities commission or some control on charities and this bill is the best bet that I have seen so far. 
I note what Mr Copeland said. Rather than looking to the past he is looking ahead to what might happen in the future. If much more money could go to charities that would be well and good. 
New Zealand First did not make a minority report on this bill but we were concerned—I was present at the select committee on the day we did the deliberation—that the Government was watering down the provision for the disqualification of officers as the commentary states on page 10. Clause 15(2) identifies which persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities. The original clause 15(2)(c) and (d) stated: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence:”. Paragraphs (c) and (d) were taken out by the select committee which put in instead: “(c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. 
So the committee was trying to bring into the provision that “Nandor Tanczos Clean Slate Bill” type of thing—that nice warm green fuzzy idea. The committee has changed the provision into a nebulous type of thing which means that anyone who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more can be a trustee and a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence can be a trustee. New Zealand First cannot support that. How can anyone who supports law and order or who wants to make sure that the trustees of a trust function properly and are not criminals possibly support that amendment? That is why I have lodged an amendment on the Table reinstating the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d). 
After all the criticism of trusts and charities is that they are being fleeced by fly-by-nighters criminals or people who may get on the board and do away with the money—and this bill is promoting that. It is promoting criminals being on the board. It is nonsense to strike out those two paragraphs and to put in a nebulous provision about whether those people were sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years. The whole thing is a nonsense. I think that we need to be tougher on law and order. We need to make sure that charities have a stronger ability to refuse to accept people who have criminal convictions of 2 years’ imprisonment or more or who have been sentenced to imprisonment for less than 2 years for an offence. 
I cannot understand how United Future or Labour would have agreed to those provisions concerning persons being convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more being struck out. The mind boggles. Of course the Greens in a strange sort of way opposed this legislation. But when I said that New Zealand First wanted this provision to be reinstated they then changed their mind and now they support this part. 
Sue Bradford 
: We certainly don’t support what you are putting up now. 
DAIL JONES 
: What I am putting up is what was in the original bill. The Greens do not support what was in the original bill because there might be a member in this House who falls within the definition of the original clause 15(2)(c) and who would not be eligible to be a trustee on a charity. 
Judith Collins 
: He’s on stress leave isn’t he? 
DAIL JONES 
: No I say to the member that such a member is sitting in the House at the current time. There is a female member of this House who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment of a term of 2 years or more who might be affected by this legislation. 
I just raise the point that if a person has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more—that means just a conviction without the person going to jail—he or she can still be a trustee on a charity and be involved in working for a charity. If the person has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence he or she can still be a member of that charity and be working for it. I think that is nonsense. 
As I said the commentary states under the heading “Disqualification of officers” on page 10: “The New Zealand First Party supports the intent of the original bill.” As we support that intent we want to see that intent retained in the way that the Government originally wanted it—and I believe the Government was absolutely right on that occasion. So I have put forward an amendment to reinstate the original provision into the bill. We want honest people working for charities and the new clause 15(2)(c) is totally contrary to what was intended in the formation of the Charities Bill and the Charities Commission. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Charities Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Charities Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Charities Commission 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Part 1. Looking at the part I find it very interesting to see how much of it the Government has changed. It is not often that one picks up a bill and finds that more or less an entire part has been rewritten word for word. The only thing I can see that has not been rewritten is the definition of “chairperson” which means the chairperson of the board. The rest of it has been struck out by majority and new provisions have been put in. I am not surprised as to why either because after 753 submissions all of which have said that the legislation as originally drafted was nuts the Government did not like being bagged by charitable group after charitable group and being told that the bill was an absolute nonsense. 
One of the first things to be struck out was the idea that if a body was not registered under the new Charities Commission it would not officially be able to receive funds and that groups community trusts or financial groups would not give one funding if one was not an approved donee. That was one of the major things that this bill created concern about. Members of group after group said that it was hard enough being a volunteer and being involved in a charitable group without the level of bureaucracy and registration required plus the cost which will make their work more and more difficult in times when it is harder not easier to collect funds. So the Government has done a total flip-flop. 
The Government has rewritten this entire part. It has taken out the bits of heavy-handed regulation because it knew they would be unpalatable in an election year and it has put in a few clauses that it thinks will get the bill through with the help of a few parties in this Parliament. I think that that will backfire. We have already heard the Minister introduce this part with as little passion as could possibly be used in such a delivery. That is because her heart is not in it either. She knows that this bill will provide a level of regulation and cost that we have not seen before. Thousands and thousands of charities will find it harder not easier to do charitable work in this country. 
A lot in this part was an absolute joke. My learned colleague Judith Collins told me in the House today that 37000 groups will be looking to register through this new organisation. What a waste of money! It will not put one more volunteer on the street. It will not make their work any easier. It will not help one single New Zealander to get any better service. It is all about Government control. It is about the Government sticking its nose in so that it can collect more tax. That is all it is. That is what we are seeing here. The Government wants to collect more tax from some of those groups and get its hands on money that it does not actually earn. As to saying that the whole point of the bill is to protect people I tell members that those organisations that rip off New Zealanders will not bother to register through the Charities Commission. They will not bother to go through the processes to become legitimate charities. That is the whole point—they are criminal. They will go ahead and rip off New Zealanders without getting the registrations and things that this bill requires. Even some of the reporting required in this part is just absolutely outrageous. 
I wonder whether any members of the Government have been involved in a voluntary group of late because if they have they would have heard people saying: “What is the point of becoming a volunteer when we’re going to be in the gun if things go wrong?” So we have seen a total rewrite. Part 1 does not look anything like what was in the original bill because the Government knows that the bill as first drafted was an absolute joke that was designed to create problems—and boy it is not like the criticism from some of its mates when they turned up to give submissions on this part. Time and time again this legislation was bagged and Government members sat like sad sacks— 
Judith Collins 
: Like they are now really. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Like they are now but they are probably thinking more about John Tamihere than anything else. It is interesting though that while we are talking about the Charities Bill the Government has shown the ultimate charity to Mr Tamihere by allowing him to stay. So why is the Government being so charitable to Mr Tamihere when it is being super-uncharitable to those charities and organisations? 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Charities Bill. Let me just say for a start in response to the remarks from the member Katherine Rich that I would have thought it was actually quite meritorious for the Government and the Social Services Committee that considered this bill to have changed the bill significantly in response to the genuine concerns of the many submitters whom we heard. I do not find it a very convincing argument that having heard those submissions it is some kind of cardinal sin to change the bill accordingly. 
The other point I make is that under this bill registration for charities is not compulsory. Indeed because of my involvement in the sector a number of charities have already come to me and said they are not sure whether they really want to register because of the compliance costs involved. I have said to a couple of them that they should think carefully about that. The purpose of registration in Part 1 is to enable charities to remain exempt from income tax. Many smaller charities do not have any taxable income as defined in terms of the Income Tax Act. For a lot of charities whatever comes in on one hand in terms of income is immediately applied to charitable works on the other so they do not actually have any taxable income. 
So it is still an option for such charities to decide not to register. It does not make them some sort of second-class citizen. They are still legitimate charities—it is just that they will not get tax relief if they have some taxable income which might be just a few bucks of interest for example that they have to pay tax on. 
That is an option for charities. In contrast the large prominent public charities will certainly of course need to register and so forth in order to continue to access income tax relief and also to ensure that money given to those charities is eligible for what we call donee tax rebates. 
I really want to talk about just one aspect of the amendments to clause 4 as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 357 which changes the definition of “officer”. This is a very worthwhile amendment. It arose as a result of submissions received from the Inter-Church Working Party on Taxation and in particular from the representatives of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. Those Churches are governed by bodies—in the Anglican Church referred to as synods—that comprise several hundred people. 
It would be quite impossible to have all those several hundred people designated as officers of the charity. For example we have to ensure that every one of those people is not disqualified from being an officer in terms of this bill and it would be quite an impractical way to proceed. Accordingly this amendment is aimed at ensuring that the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches and to some extent the Methodist Church will be able to register themselves and have a definition of “officer” that will fit the circumstances of their organisations. That is a very good step forward. 
Furthermore the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper omits and substitutes a new definition of “officer” and adds subclause (c) and subclause (d) to do with regulations just in case the submitters the select committee and the Government itself have missed something and a problem arises about registration to do with officers. Regulations may then be put in place to overcome whatever difficulty arises. 
The intent is to give complete flexibility to the new commission so that it can register charities that come to it having regard to their particular circumstances. Those circumstances vary enormously. For example the situation as between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church is quite radically different. This is a good step forward and I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I note that Mr Copeland explained to the Committee why United Future is voting for this part and indeed for the whole bill—which is with some reluctance as I understood his speech. It is because Michael Cullen has promised he will increase the tax-free threshold for charities if United Future supports the bill. 
Judith Collins 
: Did you check all the words! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I do not know whether Mr Copeland checked all the words. He has just said that to say “promise” might be a bit rich. But to be honest he has just explained United Future’s voting for this bill in a most unparliamentary way—that is there will be a quid pro quo for charities and that is why United Future is voting for it. It is not voting for the legislation because it thinks it is a good idea; it is voting because Michael Cullen who—we know from John Tamihere—dupes and tricks United Future most days has promised them some time in the future some more money. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Dream on! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I think that Mr Copeland is dreaming on about this promise from Mr Cullen. 
I notice that Mrs Rich has explained just how much this bill was gutted at the Social Services Committee so I do not need to go there. But I draw members’ attention to the functions of that commission that quango that Mr Copeland wants to vote for. It is truly extraordinary. There will be a quango of seven Labour Party flunkies and an army of bureaucrats and when we see the calibre of the people that Labour has as MPs and JPs we can imagine the sort of people that Labour will have on the commission. 
The commissioners’ job will be to educate and assist charities in relation to matters of good governance and management. Can one imagine Helen Clark lecturing and educating anyone on good management and good governance or John Tamihere lecturing anyone on good management or good governance? What a joke! The commission is there to make appropriate information available in order to assist persons to make registration applications under this legislation. So it sort of exists to teach charities how to fill in the forms that the commission requires to be filled in. Under clause 10(a) its function is to: “receive consider and process applications … and (b) compile and maintain a register of charitable entities;”. 
I remind Mr Copeland that the charities sector has survived 400 years without that sort of bureaucratic nonsense. The commission is also to (e) “receive consider and process annual returns submitted by charitable entities … —thousands and thousands of them. It is to supply information and documents to the Inland Revenue Department and to monitor charitable entities. So charitable groups that are getting on with doing the business will find an army of those types of people—the sort who run the Labour Party and whom John Tamihere described as narrow; who have no family life or outside life but who just sit around plotting late at night— 
Judith Collins 
: Parlez-vous français? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Parlez-vous français? Those people will be crawling all over those charities to monitor them. They are to inquire into charitable entities so we will suddenly find that they have nothing better to do but plot and plan when inquiring and investigating into charities. 
What about this? Under clause 10(k) they are to: “stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to charities”— 
Hon Member 
: Smarmy! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is exceedingly smarmy; in fact it makes one think that Steve Maharey must have had something to do with it—and “(l) carry out any other functions that the Minister may direct the Commission to perform in accordance with section 87;”. 
I say to Mr Copeland that I think this bill proves what John Tamihere was saying about Michael Cullen and United Future. United Future is voting for this bill not because it agrees with it but because Michael Cullen has “promised” to increase the tax-free threshold for charities and that is the quid pro quo. Well there is a word for what Mr Copeland has just admitted to and I am not allowed to use it. But that shows us the sort of integrity that United Future members bring to this Parliament when they vote or do not vote for a bill. They are voting for this bill on a monetary promise that will never be delivered—and John Tamihere was right: they are so stupid they do not even know how duped they are; they do not even realise it. 
If people want to know why charities are going to struggle in New Zealand they have two groups to blame—United Future and New Zealand First. I say this about United Future: at least it was bribed to do it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank Mr Hide for his contribution and just say to United Future— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: He visits Fiji regularly for a contribution. 
SIMON POWER 
: That Minister should go back to sleep. I say to United Future to beware of legislation that sets up a commission. The Tertiary Education Commission was also created in a similar vein. That commission was to be a light-handed steering instrument to guide strategic priorities in the tertiary sector—whatever that means. Two hours and lots of paper later I was none the wiser. The story with the Tertiary Education Commission is that it now has a staff of 324 people— 
Rodney Hide 
: No! 
SIMON POWER 
:—that is the light-handed steering instrument—and cost $210 million to set up and run. It has been restructured once already—every job readvertised in a complete restructuring of a governance system that parties in this House said would not work. The Government was told at the time that commission was set up that it would not work. But no the Government members sat opposite and said that we did not understand that that was a light-handed steering instrument and was not designed to get in the way of the tertiary sector. The same thing will happen in the charities sector. 
I say to voluntary organisations and charities to beware of clause 7 that sets up a commission. I will tell those charities what is coming with that commission—320 bureaucrats will storm down the doors of their charities to monitor work that the charities have always done unencumbered without needing to seek the permission of the Government to do too much and with their independence never compromised. I tell charities to beware of legislation that sets up commissions. That means one thing: that the pitter-patter of an army of bureaucrats is on its way to disrupt the good work that charities throughout New Zealand do. 
Where is the hint in the legislation that that is what is coming? Well members and those interested should turn to clause 10. There we have a page and a half of the commission’s functions. It is very reassuring that it will be a light-handed organisation that will leave the sector to get on with its business! There is a page and a half of things it will do—a page and a half of functions to interfere with the workings of charities. 
But my favourite clause is clause 10(i)—it is a doozy. This commission will monitor charitable entities to ensure that the entities that are registered as charitable entities continue to be qualified for registration as charitable entities. Look out here comes the commission with its clipboards and pens both red and green for initial checking and auditing. That group of bureaucrats will be on the march to disrupt the good independent work that charitable organisations have done up until this point. 
The real questions the sector should be asking the Government are why do they need that commission why do they need more people interfering in the way they conduct their affairs and why do they need clause 10 with paragraphs (a) through to (o) outlining the functions of the commission. I say to those organisations that the same thing happened with the tertiary education sector. It was promised a light-handed commission that would guide the sector gently. Look at what has happened! The commission has 324 bureaucrats and costs $210 million. I tell the sector to beware of legislation that sets up commissions. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to clause 10 the following new subclause: 
(2)When carrying out the functions of the Commission the Commission must have regard to the need where reasonably possible to minimise the compliance costs of the registered charity. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Charitable entities 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I want to look at one particular clause that really does strike at the heart of this legislation which is too socialistic for even the Greens to support as it has too much Government regulation. There may be a snigger coming from members opposite but they know it is true. I refer to clause 26 “Grounds for removal from register” which states that “The Commission may remove an entity from the register if—” and in particular I refer to subclause 1(e)—“any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. What does that mean? I turn to the definition— 
Rodney Hide 
: Would John Tamihere be interested in this? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I think Mr Tamihere would be interested in this. But I turn to the definition of “serious wrongdoing” in clause 4 and that definition is given as “(a) an unlawful or a corrupt use of the funds or resources of the entity; or (b) an act omission or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the public interest in the orderly and appropriate conduct of the affairs of the entity; or (c) an act omission or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or (d) an act omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive improperly discriminatory”—and what does that mean?—“or grossly negligent or that constitutes gross mismanagement”. 
What that means for charities is that if the charity is unfortunate enough to become the victim of a con man the charity suffers. It is the charity that folds and that has to be one of the most stupid provisions in this legislation. What does it mean? Well the Problem Gambling Foundation a few years ago had a big chunk of money ripped of by Ralph Gerdelan who was at that stage I think the chief executive. He stole money from that organisation and under this law when it comes through that very victim the Problem Gambling Foundation would in fact be liable to have itself deregistered. 
Rodney Hide 
: How would Stephen Ching get on? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think Mr Ching might also have some problems. How many laws do we have where the victim pays yet again because of the wrongdoing of the perpetrator of the crime? This is like having the poor old person who is stolen from suddenly lose his or her house as well. That is exactly what this silly silly law is all about. It is a complete overreaction. We have 37000 charities in this country. We know the ones that get ripped off because we discuss these matters in the House day after day and it normally involves people whom we all know. Yet what we have here is a bill that punishes the very people who are the victims. I can just imagine that if another party had put forward this sort of silly legislation the Government would be screaming and saying: “Oh no we cannot attack the victim twice.” 
This bill attacks the victims of crime by saying that they could lose their charitable status. What about the charities that provide homes for abused women? What if one of them happens to be ripped off by a con woman a con artist or whoever? What about them? They are liable to be stripped of their charitable status by some unfeeling Government body full of people who have never put themselves on the line full of Government appointees and people who have never done a charitable act in their lives except at their last caucus meeting as the Labour Party just did and who make their living out of the taxpayers of this country and have never contributed a cent that they did not get from taxpayers first. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is an appropriate time for me to make my point in regard to clause 15 and the amendment I propose. The two provisions I wish to reinstate in the bill are clause 15(2)(c) and (d). They can be reinstated along with the new clause 15(2)(c) which states that the following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: “an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. So if someone was sentenced in 1997 which is 8 years ago this provision does not apply. So despite anything that someone did in 1997 or before—any type of dishonesty—that person is still entitled to be a trustee. In 7 years’ time the person who has just been mentioned by Judith Collins will be entitled to be a trustee again. That is what this legislation permits. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well I’m pleased I’m not voting for it. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is quite extraordinary and that is why I am proposing my amendment. My amendment which was originally in the Government’s bill states that a person cannot be involved if that person has been “convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more” or if one is a person “who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence”. 
That is relatively minor if we look at section 2(1) of the Crimes Act of 1961 and make our way inevitably through that. What we are concerned about in this particular part is people who may have been charged with offences from more than 7 years ago involving dishonesty; taking obtaining or copying trade secrets; or aggravated burglary. Those people could be trustees if they committed the offence and were sentenced more than 7 years ago. But for some reason if they did it in the last 7 years they cannot be. 
What is the magic about 7 years? I am not suggesting that we should provide for such a big offence in the last 7 years; I am just saying it should be something involving a sentence of 2 years or more imprisonment which is what the Government originally wanted. It is in addition to what the Government wants in regard to 7 years. It seems to me to be such a simple measure. The Government wants to do something to protect charities from people ripping them off but it is quite happy to have people on charities who may have been the great train robber 8 years ago. Such people could be entitled to be an officer of a charitable entity. Any criminal who was sentenced 8 years ago on dishonesty matters can be an officer of a charitable entity. It is quite extraordinary. I just cannot believe that that is what clause 15(2)(c) put in by the majority does. 
All I am asking is whether we can go back to including the original paragraphs (c) and (d) which I am calling (bb) and (bc) and the new paragraph (c) as well. The Government can have what it wants but I say that it does not want criminals who were convicted 8 or 9 years ago or even 3 years ago of minor offences on those charities. If we look at the charges mentioned here they involve terms of imprisonment of 7 years 10 years and 15 years as we go through. If in the last 7 years one has been convicted of a 2-year offence one could still be on a charity even now. 
Someone in the Government has not thought this through. There will be the defrauding of charities left right and centre because those people will be permitted to be on them. I just cannot understand the Government’s thinking on this issue. 
New Zealand First is supporting this bill. There are no deals. It is because I have taken an interest in this matter for 15 years. I have been creating charitable trusts for people for a long time and I just cannot understand a bill that would allow dishonest criminals to be officers of charities under a bill that is meant to protect people from dishonest officials. It is extraordinary. 
I will leave it at that. I cannot keep repeating myself forever. I hope the Government will see the light and support the provisions that it supported originally and it was right in doing so. I cannot understand who asked the Government to take them out. The Greens do not support this. They have a vested interest in keeping people who have committed crimes with a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years on the committees. They voted for the amendment to this part at the select committee when we voted against it. We voted against the amendment at the select committee. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Judith Collins has drawn our attention to clause 26 “Grounds for removal from register”. Clause 26(1)(e) states: “any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. Judith Collins drew our attention to that then she said that wrongdoing is defined in clause 4 in this way. It is: “(d) an act omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive improperly discriminatory or grossly negligent or that constitutes gross mismanagement”; or (c): “an act omission or course of conduct that constitutes an offence;”. 
I would love the Minister to speak on this bill and explain what is an act or omission that is oppressive improperly discriminatory or grossly negligent or that constitutes gross mismanagement. I think we need an explanation in this Committee of what that entails and I will give examples. The Waipareira Trust would just fold because we know that the chief financial officer has admitted to the Serious Fraud Office that he forged six invoices to rob the trust of $80000. On that basis he has committed a course of conduct that constitutes an offence so the whole Waipareira Trust would be deregistered. Is that what the Government wants? I look to the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard to explain that if we have someone like Mike Tolich who has admitted forging six fake invoices to get $80000 out of the trust while John Tamihere was the chief executive officer— 
Dail Jones 
: He did that more than 7 years ago so he is eligible to be on a trust now. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No he did not do it 7 years ago. It was in 1989. 
Dail Jones 
: So he can still be on a trust now. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: OK but that example— 
Dail Jones 
: He can still be on a trust now. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: But what happens to the trust itself— 
Dail Jones 
: It’s irrelevant. This bill allows him to be on the trust. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —if it happened 5 years ago? I do not know why Mr Jones is voting for the bill he has so many complaints about it but there we go. Then I go to this provision that states “oppressive improperly discriminatory or grossly negligent” and I ask about Mr Steven Ching. Is it grossly negligent for example that he did not reveal to the Labour Party or to the JP society that he had obstructed justice? Is that an example of gross negligence or gross mismanagement? I do not know. We need to know what it is that gets a charity deregistered. [ 
Interruption 
] Peter Hodgson is laughing; he must know the answer. He is voting for this. What does it mean to have a person in a charity who is grossly negligent whose behaviour constitutes gross mismanagement or who is improperly discriminatory? What does that mean? [ 
Interruption 
] Peter Hodgson says that if I sit down he will take the call. He will get an opportunity when I do sit down. I would love him to take the call because he is a Minister. We have a Minister in the chair who has resolutely refused to speak to this bill or to explain a thing. So I am pleased that Peter Hodgson has told the Committee that when I sit down he will take the call. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If you sit down I will take a call. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am allowed my 5 minutes; there are no conditions on that. We know that over there on the Labour benches it is rosy on the outside but on the inside it is all miserable fisticuffs and the rest of it. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You wish! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Judith Tizard says: “I wish”. I can tell her that I would not want to go 10 rounds with her—no way. I would even agree to this bill if that were the prospect—fisticuffs with Ms Tizard! 
But I say to members that I just want an explanation from the Minister in the chair as to what is meant under clause 4(1) in relation to “serious wrongdoing” of “(d) an act omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive improperly discriminatory or grossly negligent or that constitutes gross mismanagement”—because what we have seen in the Labour Party is that almost anything goes. With Steven Ching and John Tamihere the Prime Minister is infinitely forgiving but when it comes to a charity the whole charity gets deregistered. I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Not necessarily. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh not necessarily! Well why not? 
Gordon Copeland 
: It is not necessarily. It doesn’t necessarily follow. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What does he mean when he says that it does not necessarily follow because— 
Gordon Copeland 
: It could be. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It could be. Well this is great! We are passing law here tonight—and I wish I could vote against it twice now— 
Gordon Copeland 
: Read the clause. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am reading the clause and Mr Copeland is saying that it might apply it might not apply they might be deregistered or they might not be deregistered and the Minister will not stand and take a call to explain what it all means. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to speak on Part 2 but when Mr Dail Jones repeated comments about clause 15 and asked for some reason why this clause has been amended I felt constrained to speak as that is a clause that would have affected me personally. 
He is right: I did vote for the Government’s amendments in the select committee because I think they do absolutely the right thing—and they do what many hundreds of submitters advised the Government to do as well. The effect of the original clause as drafted the original clause that Mr Jones and New Zealand First are trying to put back into the bill would have been to exclude many many hundreds if not thousands of really excellent board members and trustees from taking up positions on the boards of the thousands of community groups around this country. I am more than happy to say that I am one of those people; I have been convicted of offences liable for 2 years’ imprisonment or more—offences connected with the 1981 Springbok tour. I have no shame about them. I do not want to be clean-slated for them. I am proud of those offences because they are part of my political history and actually such a history is an honourable tradition of previous generations in the Labour Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Crooks and thieves. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: It does not mean one is a crook or thief—to stand up for one’s political principles at times like that. I think it is a really good qualification for being in this Parliament. It is also a really good qualification for being on the board of an organisation that is following certain principles and values as so many of our church and community sector groups do. 
But that is actually a minor matter in terms of why I supported the Government’s amendments to this clause. It is not just about people like me with political convictions. I might just add that I taught governance at the tertiary level for 5 years before I came to Parliament. I have taught many people about these things and it is really ironic for me as a teacher of governance that this clause would have said that any group of which I was a board member had to get rid of me unless it got a special exemption. And I still am on some boards. 
But beyond that and much more important is that a whole lot more people who have been convicted for all sorts of criminal offences not political ones would also have been excluded. Many many of the organisations that do such good work in our community are like the one already mentioned by my colleague Judith Collins the Problem Gambling Foundation. As well there are many groups that for example work with prisoners like the Prison Inmates’ Loved Ones Linked as One to Renew Strength the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society groups that work in the drug and alcohol addiction areas and ones that work with all sorts of offenders and ex-offenders. Some of the best people on those boards are people who have been down that road of addiction have been in prison or have been a gambler. Those people are very very valuable members of those boards and they should not be excluded. That is the main reason why it was very important that the original clause was eliminated from the bill and was replaced by the one we have in this draft. 
As members know the Green Party does not support the bill overall but we are really pleased that in a number of areas the Government has seen fit to improve it. We accept the inevitable: this bill will become law. Community sector groups are going to have to work with it and we want it to be in the best shape it possibly can be. So I certainly hope that no parties in this Committee will support the New Zealand First amendment. 
I have a couple of other points while I am on my feet. I do not know that I would go as far as some of the comments from Simon Power and Rodney Hide about jackbooted armies of bureaucrats marching into the sector as a result of the Charities Commission being set up but on looking at this part overall I cannot help but be a little afraid that so much of the focus of this bill is simply on regulation down to very minute detail. The overarching feel we get from it is that it is about the monitoring and regulation of a sector that thrives on its individuality and its commitment to purpose to kaupapa to values. Somehow we have got it wrong in this legislation; it is all about regulation and not about enabling and empowering the sector to do the good work it can do. 
Finally in terms of clause 26(e) which Ms Collins and Mr Hide have been talking about again I agree with them. It is phenomenally incomprehensible that an organisation could or should be punished for the misdoings or outright crimes of one person as Mr Hide referred to. It is a situation I myself have been through with organisations in terms of other people. Organisations are inevitably badly damaged by criminals who somehow become part of them and rip them off and it is a curse of the community sector that it happens to us at times. Of course it happens in the private sector and the Government sector as well; all sectors have to deal with it. But this kind of clause simply does not make sense. If a trustee or board member knowingly commits a crime or acts against the law of this country of course he or she should be held responsible as should a staff member who does that. But that does not mean the organisation should suffer. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a brief comment first of all on the amendment from Dail Jones. He asked which submitter to the Social Services Committee had asked for those words to be dropped from the Charities Bill. 
I can tell him that one of the submitters was the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society a charitable trust. It made the very sound point that in fact one of the things it does in terms of rehabilitating prisoners is to encourage them to give something back to the community by becoming involved in a charity. I would also point out to Dail Jones that his amendment would exclude not only Sue Bradford but also Nelson Mandela from being an officer of a charity. I for one would be very proud to have him as an officer of a charity with which I was involved. 
I would like though to speak for a moment about clause 56 a very long new clause that has been inserted into the bill. Rodney Hide spoke a little while ago about charitable trusts as if it was simply the case that all charities are also charitable trusts. But that is not the case. In fact one of the unique features about this bill and about the charitable sector is that charities come in many different shapes and sizes. Yes we do have charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act but we also have incorporated societies under the Incorporated Societies Act. We have companies under the Companies Act and we have unregistered associations of people—Catholic parishes would be an example of that. We have charities that are set up under their own special Acts of Parliament such as the Anglican and Catholic bishops’ empowering Acts. We have charities that take the form of partnerships and we have many thousands of charities that come into existence through the operation of wills. It is the sheer bewildering variety of shapes and sizes of charities that makes it quite difficult to write law that states exactly how they should be registered exactly how they should be monitored and exactly how they should submit returns. 
The very innovative way of cutting through that great Gordian knot was clause 56 “Commission may grant exemptions”. Tonight I want to really commend the officials who drafted that very extensive clause because it essentially aims to equip the Charities Commission with a whole tool-box of exemptions that will enable it to fit the way it regulates a charity to the actual legal form and circumstances of that charity. Also in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 357 there is a small amendment to clause 56 which adds to the list of matters on which the commission can grant exemptions. It adds clause 16 of the bill to the list. If we go to clause 16 we find that it is in fact the registration clause. I think that completes as I said before some quite elegant legal drafting so that in all those different circumstances the commission will be able to be flexible with the aim of doing a good job of fostering charities in this country as it is bound to do and of ensuring that compliance costs are minimised. 
I really commend those provisions to the Committee. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker mention words like the “sheer bewildering variety” of charities. Yes out of the 37000 charities in this country there are a huge number of differing kinds of charities yet this bill is trying to squash them into regulation and registration even though they may differ dramatically in terms of their objectives and the work that they do. 
I would like to endorse the comments made by Judith Collins and also by Sue Bradford on the original clause 15 “Qualifications of officers of charitable entities”. It was very interesting to hear members of the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society when they came before the Social Services Committee. They basically said that the society would have no office holders if that part of the bill went through as it was. Is it not odd that someone like Sue Bradford can become a member of Parliament under the present law but that under this bill as it was she could not have become the treasurer of her local Plunket? 
Office holder after office holder said to us that this law was just nuts. The first thing they wanted to be able to indemnify themselves against was carrying the can if things go wrong and luckily that is one of the changes that has been made. Time and time again volunteers said that they were happy to work for their communities as volunteers but if things go wrong why should they carry the can? If the local Plunket group finds out that someone has embezzled money or the local sports club finds out that some office holder committed some wrongdoing that constituted an office holder being penalised why should the group carry the can for that? So that change made a lot of sense. 
The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard needs to explain what mischief this legislation is trying to solve. She has not taken one call tonight to explain any part of this bill or to answer any of the questions put to her by any of the speakers. 
I would like to turn members’ attention to clause 23 “Charitable entity must display registration number” which has been struck out. One mischief that this bill was supposed to solve was the opportunity for bogus charity collectors to walk the streets shaking a tin and asking for money. This provision required all charities to display a registration number on every written communication every piece of fund-raising material every pamphlet every badge and every bit of paper. Charitable group after charitable group came before us and said that it would cost them a huge amount of money to reprint all their materials to put this magic number that they will get from the Charities Commission on to their marketing materials and signs. 
One National member of the select committee piped up and said: “Hang on a minute. If people are going to try to rip off New Zealanders and pretend to be a bogus charity aren’t they just going to make the number up? Won’t they just plonk some number on to the tin or the pamphlet and hold that out as being their official number?”. The officials and the Government members of the select committee said that—duh—that might be the case. It had not occurred to those members that if anybody did want to go and rip off some poor New Zealander that person would just make up the number. So thankfully that bit has been struck out. That will save charities a lot of money and a lot of difficulties. We live in a world where people can forge passports money and credit cards—and paintings in some cases—so it is not difficult to put a number on to a begging tin pamphlets or raffle tickets. 
Rodney Hide 
: If Helen Clark was convicted of forgery. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Well yes if that clause had gone through she would not be able to be the treasurer of her local Plunket either I say to Mr Hide. 
So at least we see a few changes and struck out provisions here. But I would like the Minister in the chair to expend a few calories and get out of that chair to tell the people of New Zealand what mischief this legislation is aiming to solve because we have not seen clear evidence of bogus charities seeking money from New Zealanders. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to have another go at looking at the two issues. I would be interested to see what Rodney Hide can find out about the Electoral Act in terms of whether if someone has been convicted of an offence punishable by more than 12 months it bars that person from being a member of Parliament. I doubt that very much. I think it may have something to do with being in prison but that is another matter. But that is not why I am raising this issue; I am raising it because it is quite clear that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) is perfect. That is the obvious situation. The replacement clause 15(2)(c) which the majority of members of the Social Services Committee put in will allow a convicted fraudster to be an office holder of a charitable entity. Of course it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society would want a fraudster to be involved in a society because that would seem to aid former prisoners to get back into their wicked ways and help themselves to the charity’s money. If we want to be ironic about it that is what a prisoners’ aid society may want. It was interesting to listen to Katherine Rich though. She seemed from everything that she said to support this bill although the National Party opposes it. 
I turned up to the select committee—I am not a regular member; I was filling in on the day of its deliberation—and I could see that there was something the matter here. The struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) could have been amended to refer to an offence of dishonesty in order to get over the problem that has been raised quite correctly by another member of this Committee. Those clauses were so broadly drawn in the first place that they did catch a wide range of people who might not have been involved in dishonesty offences. The select committee has tried in the replacement clause 15(2)(c) to catch people involved in crimes involving dishonesty but that really links it to the Greens and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act which referred to 7 years. That is the reason why the period is 7 years—it is because of that Act and the view of this Government that it should continue with the clean slate philosophy that if one has committed an offence 7 years ago one should be forgiven. 
That is all right for offences that do not involve a person going to prison but not when it involves offences like for example dishonesty within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. That includes false accounting. So if one was convicted of false accounting 8 years ago one can be an officer of a charitable entity. If one has counterfeited the charity’s seal in terms of section 261 of the Crimes Act “Counterfeiting public seals” yes one can be an officer of the society. That also applies if one has been involved in other offences involving for example using altered or reproduced documents with the intent to deceive. Now that is what one would do as an officer of a society with all that money. The offences include forgery and using a forged document—that sounds a bit familiar. In terms of those offences if one committed them 8 years ago one could be an officer of a society. 
I just say that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) are perfect. But I think we would be better off to have the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) in the bill at the moment in the time that we have for this legislation rather than letting it run with the replacement clause 15(2)(c). The Government has an opportunity to either correct it now while the drafters are still here or leave that clause in and correct it in the fullness of time as soon as possible in the next 2 or 3 months. Otherwise we could be in serious problems. New Zealand First is not doing any deals. We will still support this legislation because the intent is right. But I think that the way the bill is worded means we will not solve the problem of charities having dishonest employees. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I thank members for their very useful contributions. I think it is a pity that Mr Jones did not have more discussions with the very good New Zealand First members who were present for the submissions on this legislation. If he had he would have heard about cases where for example a person helping to run an athletics club in which a charitable trust is involved may have a driving conviction or some issue of that sort. I think we want charities to be as free as possible to represent the communities for which they are working and for a range of people to be enabled. 
The point was made that many education trusts have been a means by which people have gone on into business and into self-employment in all sorts of ways. People get governance experience through community organisations. Sometimes they are trustees sometimes they are members of charitable trusts and sometimes they are not. The Government is satisfied that the provisions around who can and cannot be a trustee are satisfactory without prescribing exactly what people may have been convicted or not convicted of. The point was made that a member of parliament might be affected. I hope that the widest range of people will realise that working for communities is beneficial gives people a great deal of hope and energy in life and can often help individuals families and communities. The Government is very happy with the new state. I thank New Zealand First for its comments but I assure Mr Dail Jones that those issues were considered. 
On the issue that was raised by I think Katherine Rich relating to clause 26 I just point out that the deregistration power is discretionary—it is not obligatory. I would expect the Charities Commission to go through a range of choices and discussions with any charity before that charity is deregistered but the commission should have the power if it is clear that fraudulent behaviour is systemic in a charity to deregister that charity quite quickly. 
Of course all of that comes back to the fact that the establishment of the Charities Commission is a result of working parties discussion papers and a great deal of work going back—as Mr Copeland has very helpfully pointed out—to the 1980s. It is a result of the voluntary sector’s desire to have a commission that is separate from the Government. In the first instance it will clearly be funded by the Government but it will be separate from the Government. That matter was discussed in some detail and at some length in the Social Services Committee. The commission will be independent. It will have the responsibility of educating enabling and providing support and information to charities. 
I thank members of the Committee for their useful comments. I hope that this new legislation will be what hundreds of organisations have asked for and will be of service to the thousands of charities that serve New Zealand so well. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I should have mentioned that I have put forward another amendment. Clause 15(2)(c) ends with the words: “… and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. I have put forward an amendment to remove those words so that the clause would simply relate to: “(c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) …”. 
We are talking about dishonesty. We are not talking about Springbok tour protests. If someone has been involved in a Springbok tour protest that is fine—that person can be a trustee. A person who has been convicted of driving while disqualified can be an officer of a charitable entity. Any conviction that does not involve dishonesty is fine; it does not debar a person from being an officer of a charitable entity. 
If members do not want to vote for my amendment to leave struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and 15(2)(d) in the bill I have just offered the better alternative of deleting the last few words from new clause 15(2)(c). The Government may care to think about it again. The offences referred to in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act are serious offences. We are not talking about minor crimes of dishonesty. Theft is there receiving is there—we are talking about 7 year - type offences. I think that the final words in clause 15(2)(c) could be removed and that members and other people who have admitted their involvement in non-dishonesty situations could still be officers of a charitable entity. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (2)(b) the following new paragraphs: 
(bb)a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: 
(bc) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of clause 15(2) the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Miscellaneous matters relating to Commission and other miscellaneous matters 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I would like to turn listeners’ attention to clause 82 “Minister’s role”. This is a rather disturbing clause because it lays out the role of the Minister in relation to this new organisation and in particular the Minister’s role in relation to the appointment and removal of members of the commission. What I think we will see once again is the appointment of Labour Party friends to this commission so that the commission will be a poodle before it even starts. 
This part of the bill also sets out what directions the Minister can give to the commission and the fact that the Minister can review the operations and performance of the commission. This part of the bill should send a shiver down the spine of every single charitable organisation in New Zealand. This is where the cold clammy hand of the Government starts to interfere with the role of the Charities Commission which in turn will interfere with the role of charities up and down this country. If this clause were not scary enough we need to turn to clause 123 “Minister may conduct review” which states: “(1) The Minister may review the operations and performance of the Commission at any time.” The moment the Minister wants to get in there and interfere bully a few members get a few decisions she or he can review and conduct a performance investigation at any time. 
So what we have here is the Minister’s ability to get involved with the commission to interfere to make this commission its lapdog for the Government so that this bill can achieve its ultimate goal which is to get Government involvement and control over 37000 charitable groups that currently enjoy autonomy. This bill is designed to make sure that the Government can start to interfere at a level we have not seen. This is the part of the bill that introduces politics to the Charities Commission. This is where we will see people who have perhaps delivered pamphlets for the Labour Party for the last 20 years being appointed to a wee job that they can oversee as a reward for their service to their political party. 
This part of the bill is particularly disturbing. The Minister needs to explain how these appointments are to be made that they will be independent that the appointees will not be Labour Party friends but people who hopefully are community representatives people who have had some involvement at least with the voluntary sector and that they are people who will do a good job once this bureaucracy is set up. This part of the bill introduces the costly part of the bureaucracy because it is all about who goes on the board what they are to be paid how they are to be appointed what the requirements will be and what the Minister can do to interfere in that particular role. 
The Minister must explain to the Committee what she sees as being her role because at the moment in black and white it looks pretty extreme. Under this legislation she can give directions to the commission. She can decide what she wants the commission members to do at any point in time. If they do not play ball she has the ability to go in there and review the operations and performance. Anybody who has been involved in an organisation knows that that is often a bullying tactic of Labour Ministers: “If you do not play ball we’re going to go in and audit you and conduct reviews until the cows come home so that we can get you to do as we say.” 
What we have seen in this part is very very concerning. This part of the bill is designed to add additional bureaucracy. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 What we see in this part is the direct control of the Charities Commission coming under ministerial persuasion. Ms Rich is quite right. This is what should upset the charitable organisations because we ask ourselves: what sort of direction will be provided? Here we come to the window that we have recently had on this Labour Government the make-up of this Government and the sorts of people who will be given this direction and making these appointments. We have learnt that they are dominated by unionists so it is a very very narrow sector of New Zealand that will be directing the Charities Commission. 
We know that the most powerful group within the Labour Party and hence the Labour Government is what Mr Tamihere calls the “Wimmins Division”. I look across the Chamber and I can see all the members here tonight. We know that the people who are dominating the Labour Government do not have families according to Mr Tamihere and he should know. He says that they just sit around “parlez vous” drinking their lattes and plotting and planning. Those are the sorts of people who will be making these appointments and giving directions to the Charities Commission. We know from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be giving the directions are smarmy and have no substance. One can listen to them for 2 hours take lots of notes and learn nothing. We have certainly seen that in this Chamber tonight. 
We have learnt from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up and running this commission are duplicitous and that they cheat the likes of the United Future party by changing words. These again are the people whom the commission will be stuck with—people who are duplicitous. We hear from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up this commission are tossers. That is what he said. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to Mr Hide that that word has been ruled out as unparliamentary. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry. I did not realise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member withdraw it please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not realise. 
Katherine Rich 
: Caber tossers. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A cabal of something and we heard this from— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: No Celtic history in that guy. 
Jill Pettis 
: He would have ended up in the haggis. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Tamihere did not make the half of it did he. What a mean miserable little party it is represented by Jill Pettis. It is no wonder poor John Tamihere rushed off to Ian Wishart to bare his soul. What would it be like to be locked up in a room with the craven women on that side of the Chamber and have to put up with their cheap jibes? I am not surprised that the poor fellow is under stress. 
Jill Pettis 
: How many times have you won your electorate? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That again is the sort of fisticuffs the intimidation the claws that poor old John Tamihere is suffering under. Then they say that he is a red-blooded heterosexual male and that he is stressed and in need of psychiatric help. How could he not be if he is sitting with Jill Pettis Judith Tizard Helen Clark Heather Simpson and Marian Hobbs? That would drive anyone to a psychiatric institution. I am amazed that John Tamihere lasted as long as he did. There are no other members in that party who have any red blood going through their veins. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will come back to the bill please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am talking about the bill. I do not know why you think I am not because I am saying that if we look at clause 82— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Don’t challenge the Chairperson. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: There is Pete Hodgson saying not to challenge the Chairperson. He is sitting in his seat not taking a point of order. He is useless as usual. He said that if I sat down he would take a call. I sat down. Did anyone see him take a call? No. He does not even know what we are debating he is so useless. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Talk to the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Now we are hearing from Lianne Dalziel. The poor girl. She is stressed. She got sacked. What did she do? Actually not much. She has not been forgiven but John Tamihere is back in the fold. [ 
Interruption 
] Now she is calling out for me to talk to the bill. If she would shut up I would. It is no wonder that John Tamihere is in a psychiatric institution with that sort of carry-on. I am talking about clause 82 and the sorts of people that the likes of Lianne Dalziel would be appointing to run the commission and get their sticky little fingers on 30000—[ 
Interruption 
] John Tamihere will be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 be agreed to. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will be quiet. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. How come Lianne Dalziel can sit there and call out and the chair does nothing but if I respond the chair jumps on me and asks me to withdraw and apologise? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: What I heard and I certainly did not even hear another one—I could not hear it above the decibels emitting from the member— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Why do you not ask Lianne Dalziel whether she called out when you started to put the question? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. With the greatest of respect I was responding to what Lianne Dalziel called out when you were taking the vote. You think it is OK to punish me—I notice that the Speaker asks a member whether he or she was calling out. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedules 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I put the questions on the schedules I note that the Minister has an amendment to omit schedules 1 to 3. I will not put the question on that amendment as it is in direct negation of a question. It signals the Government’s intention to vote against those schedules being agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification. You said that the Minister wants to withdraw schedules 1 to 3. Is that right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: My advice is that they still have to be voted down. I now put the question  
That schedules 1 2 and 3 be agreed to. 
Schedules 1 2 and 3 not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2Commencement 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Charities Bill be now read a third time 
. The passing of the Charities Bill into law will allow the new Charities Commission to be established. That is a first for this country and will further demonstrate that this Government has an ongoing commitment to strengthen its relationship with the charitable sector. 
Many people in the charitable sector will remember the idea of a charities commission being floated as far back as 1989 with the release of the Spencer Russell report. It recommended that a commission for charities be established to register advise and supervise charities. While the timing was not right then for such a commission to be established the sector has continued to ask Governments to provide greater support. 
One of the Government’s primary forms of assistance to the sector is the provision of certain income tax benefits for charities and for people who make donations. Over recent years the charitable sector has asked the Government to increase the level of support provided to it through the taxation system by lifting the maximum rebate level for people who donate to qualifying donee organisations and by making charitable organisations’ imputation credits refundable. It has traditionally been difficult for any Government to assess how much that an increase in those forms of assistance would cost. That is because robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand has traditionally been difficult to collect or access. In addition to there being little information collected there is no specific law standard procedure or Government department concerned with ensuring the accountability of organisations that receive donations in cash or in kind. 
The reporting requirements currently imposed on charitable organisations are minimal. While some income-generating charities might need to file a tax return the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s role is to ensure that income not entitled to an exemption is taxed. The role is not about ensuring that the charitable sector is generally accountable to the public. Holding the officers of a charitable organisation to account for an organisation’s administration expenses for example is well beyond the ambit of the commissioner’s current responsibilities. It is also not the role of the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. 
The establishment of the Charities Commission will significantly improve the current framework under which charities operate. It will provide the Government the sector and the public with more comprehensive information about the charitable sector. From the Government’s perspective that information will be utilised to assess whether its support for the charitable sector is as well targeted as it can be or whether changes should be made 
For the sector the information on the register is likely to prove to be useful in a number of ways—for example as a means of tracking funding trends within the sector which may help organisations to develop more effective fund-raising campaigns or for determining what service providers are established in a particular locality. The creation of the commission will also allow the public to undertake closer scrutiny of all organisations purposes and activities and the way in which those are delivered to the public. It should help to increase public trust and confidence in the charitable sector. 
The establishment of the commission is not just about increasing the sector’s accountability to the public; it is also part of the Government’s wider strategy to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sectors. While the commission will have a registration and monitoring role it will also have a range of other functions that will allow it to be active in helping to build an effective and efficient charitable sector. That includes the ability to educate and assist organisations about management and governance issues and the ability to make policy recommendations to the Government on its own motion. 
One key area of concern to the sector as evidenced by the submissions made to the Social Services Committee is the current definition of “charitable purpose” used across the New Zealand statute book. Once established the commission will be able to provide policy advice to the Government about the continued workability of the definition and whether it needs to be updated or left as it is. 
Leaving that review for the commission to undertake will allow the review to be better informed than might otherwise be the case. The charitable sector is diverse and because of that it has been difficult to gather information from and consult with all interested groups. Having a single register of charitable organisations operated by one agency will make it much easier for the charitable sector to become informed about respond to and comment on issues specifically affecting it. 
In concluding I thank the members of the Social Services Committee the officials from both the Ministry of Economic Development and the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector and the large number of organisations and individuals who made submissions on this bill. Charities make an important contribution to the social well-being of many New Zealanders by providing valuable services that help to strengthen and support local communities. The Government recognises and values that work. 
The Charities Bill is a significant step forward for the New Zealand charitable sector. As a means to increase the sector’s public accountability and transparency it represents a positive move toward helping to develop a culture of philanthropy and giving in this country. The establishment of the commission is one of a number of projects that the Government is advancing to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sector. The passing of this bill will help to ensure New Zealand’s charitable sector is able to operate effectively and efficiently to deliver necessary and important services for the betterment and benefit of our communities. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That would have to be the most boring speech of the night from the most boring member. It is no wonder that David Benson-Pope cannot keep awake. We can imagine how boring it must be in their caucus—except when Mr Tamihere turns up upon which they all roll over and say: “Tickle our tummy Johnny boy.” and they go for it every single time. The great thing about John Tamihere is that he actually did in an act of charity give the Prime Minister the opportunity to show just how in touch with her feminine side she really is. 
I have looked at the bill and I have listened to some of the speeches tonight and we have had some really good speeches from this side of the House. I think of Simon Power’s comments on what happens when commissions are set up. He talked about what had happened to the Tertiary Education Commission under Steve Maharey the man whom Mr Tamihere very uncharitably and not in accordance with this bill called “smarmy”. I have gone a bit further—I have looked at Part 3 which contains a few of the core things this bill can do. I refer to clause 70 “Core things Commission can do” which states—guess what—“anything”! The clause states: “The Commission may do anything authorised by this Act or another Act.” 
The bill goes further. I shall read clause 71 “Other things Commission can do” because it is so exciting so narrow and so focused. It states: “(1) The Commission may do anything that a natural person of full age and capacity may do.” That actually is the power of general competence. The Government New Zealand First United Future and Jim Anderton’s party—whatever its name is—are giving to the Charities Commission the same power that they gave to local authorities and that resulted in people’s rates being put up including those of the elderly who cannot afford to pay their rates. That was all from the power of general competence. 
The commissioners who will be appointed by the Labour Government will be able to do anything they want to do—and guess who pays for it? Well the Minister stood up in the House and told us a really funny joke. She said that the Government will pay. The Government does not pay; the taxpayer pays. Every single cent that is signed off by any Minister in this House is paid for by the poor old taxpayer every single time. The Minister said that the Government will pay. Well it will not. Mr Copeland very kindly and trusting in the Hon Michael Cullen said: “We know it’s going to be OK because we will get a bigger deduction for charitable donations. 
I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right. Is it something like that? 
Gordon Copeland 
: Yes that’s right. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well that is his hope. Even Mr Copeland has to say that that is the hope. Did Mr Copeland check the wording? Did he check every single little word? We know just how clever the Hon Michael Cullen is. We know it because Mr Tamihere said so and we know it because Mr Copeland has just confessed to us that that is what he is hoping. The good thing is that Mr Copeland may actually get what he wants now because Dr Cullen will be so keen to show that he is not as clever as that at all. 
We have heard some very interesting things. What we have heard from the Minister in this third reading debate is that the charitable sector asked for this bill. Well I do not know—I mean the Minister does not pay a lot of attention at select committees. The Minister does not pay a lot of attention anywhere. We could see by her lack of passion and drive—and everything else that she put into this bill—that she does not really know anything about it. What she actually said was that the charitable sector asked for it. Well not one of the submitters actually asked for it. Not one of the submitters we heard from asked for it at all. What they said was that they are frightened they will get loved to death by this commission. They are frightened that they will be stood over by people who do not care about the voluntary sector; people who are busy sitting in cafes “parlez vous”—that was the term was it not I ask Mr Hide—and drinking their lattes; people who do not care about the ordinary New Zealand mum and dad who have to try to find the money for the sports fees and sports equipment. A lot of these fees are now paid for by the charitable institutions that this Government wants to love to death—in other words clasp them to the Minister’s bosom and then suffocate them by regulating them out of existence. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is true. We could laugh about that but it is utterly true. That is what happens. We know that there are lots of volunteers who are scared of this bill. They are scared that they will get into trouble because of something someone else does. They are petrified. They came to us and said that they are not going to volunteer anymore. They do not want to because they are scared. The Green member Sue Bradford said that she has heard exactly the same thing. 
I have spoken tonight about what would have happened to the Problem Gambling Foundation if this bill had been in effect at the time they lost a huge amount of money to a thief. It would have been in danger of being closed down. The Minister stands up here in the House and says: “Oh well it’s all discretionary”. I ask the Minister what it is discretionary upon. Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with the Minister? Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with someone in the Labour Party? We know that that is what the discretion is because the commissioners will all be party appointees and not one of the Labour members will actually say: “We wouldn’t do that.” When we look at the bill we see regulation for regulation’s sake. The Minister said that we have to stop anyone using charities to rip off people. Well we already have a law. It is in the Crimes Act. It already is an offence to rip off people using charities. We do not need to have another law. We do not need to have a law for anything that moves. 
I have taken on board some of the points that Mr Jones has made about people who have been dishonest within the last 7 years and whether they should be trustees. Well I guess I am a bit kinder than Mr Jones. I accept that I may be an old softie on these matters but I do actually believe that some people have the ability to be rehabilitated. 
Katherine Rich 
: So does the Prime Minister. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And so does the Prime Minister. She believes it as well Mrs Rich says. In fact I understand that one can be rehabilitated— 
Katherine Rich 
: In 2 days. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In 2 days. That is all it takes as well as a bit of stress leave. In fact one is rehabilitated even before one takes the stress leave. 
I believe that people can be rehabilitated and I do not like to think that just because someone has a criminal conviction he or she will forever be stopped from contributing in a positive way to society. So on that basis I did not support Mr Jones’ amendment. We should not be convicting people before they have actually committed a crime and that unfortunately is what we do when we say that nobody who has committed a particular crime will be able to be in a position of responsibility in relation to a charity. It would be far more sensible to be able to say that we cannot trust that Government in spending taxpayers’ money. Fortunately I think the people are about to say that. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last speaker in her opening remarks slurred the New Zealand First Party which did not vote for the Local Government Act 2002 and therefore was not responsible for the charges that she said resulted from that Act. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am happy to withdraw and apologise for that in relation to New Zealand First. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is not often that I have the opportunity in Parliament to support legislation that when I was in legal practice I wanted to see introduced as I have with the Charities Bill. As I said earlier when I was in legal practice and forming charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act for various people I became concerned that the Act had no real means of dealing with people who robbed money from charitable trusts or who just did not operate them satisfactorily. Members will recall that in the early 1980s when National was in Government and I was in Parliament—and in the later 1980s as well—there were all sorts of groups setting up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act especially Maori groups for employment schemes. When I set up a few of those I was concerned that people were getting money from the Government and there did not seem to be any control on those charitable trusts as to what would happen. 
We have heard recently about ACT’s concern about the lack of control over Te Wananga o Aotearoa. I would have thought that ACT would support this legislation in order to make sure that there are real controls over how money goes to the various trust groups and I am disappointed that ACT is not following up some of its allegations by supporting the legislation. 
I have had concerns about this issue. I wrote to the Minister of Justice in the early 1990s about it. I got a report that went back to 1979 which set out a court case from 1967 in which Justice Gresson expressed his concern about charitable trusts. In that report there was a concern from the National Council of Churches as to the way in which charitable trusts and charities were being operated. 
I have had a long-felt regard and concern about the way in which charities have been operating improperly and without any adequate supervision. So I was delighted when this bill was introduced to the House and I am even more delighted by the changes that were made in the Social Services Committee as a result of the committee giving good consideration to the bill. I mention to the Minister that New Zealand First had a subcommittee on the bill that consisted of myself and Mr Gudgeon. I spoke on the first reading and because of my interest he and I communicated regularly on the bill and I kept a close watch on it. So when I had the opportunity to be present for the final deliberation of the bill I took it with both hands. 
I believe that in Opposition one does not oppose just for the sake of it. If one sees something that is good coming forward one should support it. As Martyn Finlay would say it is not just a question of opposing it is also a question of proposing. In this legislation something that I have had a great concern about for some time is being remedied. There has been a mischief—a Judge of the High Court and the National Council of Churches have said that there was a mischief—and I am sure that the Government would not have introduced this legislation if there had not been some form of mischief because otherwise it would have been a complete waste of everybody’s time and most Governments do not tend to waste taxpayers’ money as freely as that. So I am delighted by the bill coming into the House. 
I have just one criticism of the bill that I think is important but I was not about to spit the dummy out and throw my teddy bear out of the pram just because I did not get my way on that issue. But I think the Government will have to do something about it fairly soon. The Government had originally intended clause 15(2) to state: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: …”. The Government and the select committee decided to take that provision out because groups like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said that plenty of people had been convicted of disorderly offences—perhaps while opposing the Springbok tour or for driving while disqualified—that are not dishonesty offences and that that provision covered them. 
Then the Government came up with this alteration. In place of that provision it would put in clause 15(2)(c) which states: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. That means that anyone who has been convicted of that crime 7½ years ago can be an officer of a society. That includes people who have been convicted of receiving blackmail theft or stealing theft of animals and theft by spouse. I am referring to the sections in Part 10 of the Crimes Act regarding the conversion of vehicles breach of trust the punishment of theft the power of search etc. 
When appointing someone to a trust one wants someone who has not committed a breach of trust. But this Government will allow people who have been convicted of the offence of breach of trust 7½ years ago to be officers of a charitable entity. That just does not seem to me to be right. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: There has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. But as Judith Collins said when she was being critical of a trust that may get into difficulty and she was considering what could be done a trust is likely to get into difficulty because some fraudster forger or thief is a member of it and has fallen back into his or her old ways again. That is the case. 
We are not talking about people who have committed minor offences. We are talking about people who have committed serious offences and this Government is saying that those people can be officers of a trust. We in New Zealand First take a tougher line in some areas. As has been asked in this Chamber if people steal from a trust where is the indemnity for the other members of the trust? It all goes. 
One of the concerns has been the question of indemnity. Who will indemnify the other people in a trust if that money goes down the tube? I have raised the issue. I have received no support from the Government. The Minister—as she is entitled to do—offered no support. I suggested that the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years” be removed so that clause 15(2)(c) would relate to anyone who has been convicted of an offence under section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. I did not receive support. I suggested that the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) should go back in because that was the Government’s original intention. That is what the Government wanted in the first place. 
So I have given the Government all the options. For the purpose of the third reading I just record that that was what happened at the Committee stage—which is one of the reasons for a third reading debate; it used to be the case and I am sure it still is. If something goes wrong I will say: “I told you so.” especially if a substantial trust has to be wound up as a result of a former criminal defrauding it. 
The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said to us that we should be lenient and we should make sure that prisoners who had been found guilty of forgery and suchlike had the chance to redeem themselves. But there is too much hard-earned money involved. People have knocked on doors to collect that money. They work extremely hard. There are people at the other end of the chain who deserve that money and I do not believe that there should be any risk of it being lost. After all the Government has put a time limit in the provision of 7 years. It considers that people should not be on a trust if they have been sentenced for a crime within the last 7 years. I am merely saying that they should not be on a trust at all. 
I disagree entirely with Judith Collins. She can be soft on this if she likes but New Zealand First takes a hard line on law and order issues. We are concerned that people with records will be on a trust. At the moment there is a land transport bill is there not that relates to people who have committed offences. The Government is saying that those people should never be able to have a land transport licence and that they should have no right of appeal. That is how tough the Government can be. Why is the Government not being equally as tough on forgers receivers and other people who have committed dishonesty offences particularly in respect of charities for which people go to a lot of trouble to raise money? Not only could a trust lose money but it could lose everything else as well. 
I just raise that issue. As I said New Zealand First will not die in the ditch on it. We believe in the essential principle of the bill. We wish all charities well. We ask them to be extremely careful about whom they employ—although once again the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act will make it difficult for them to ensure that the people whom they employ have not previously been convicted of a dishonesty offence. There are a couple of barriers for all employers but as far as a charity is concerned there is an even bigger one. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I commend Dail Jones for his speech. We sometimes see piffle on the front page of our newspapers and in the lead stories on the 6 o’clock news that means absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with improving people’s quality of life yet the cooperative approach that has been taken for most of this evening by all members of Parliament in trying to pass legislation that will be of benefit to the people of New Zealand will not get mentioned even on page 19. I just say to Mr Jones that I enjoyed listening to his speech. 
The tone will drop now because I will refer to those comments made by Judith Collins. I say from the outset that National members and Judith Collins in particular would not recognise people from the charitable or voluntary sector even if they ran over them. Judith Collins in her Jaguar—well I do not care what she drives; I will just say that she would not recognise them if she ran over them. She is the very same member who has made comments that sole parents sit around watching videos and TV all day and smoking dope. That is an indication of how much she knows about people who are perhaps at the lower end of the economic scale and she has no idea about people who are trying to improve the lot of others in a very humble but very effective way. 
I also remind the skeleton crew on the other side of the House tonight that Nick Smith when he was in that ill-fated National Government threatened the voluntary sector with the removal of its funding if it spoke out about and against the National Government of that time. He threatened the sector with the loss of funding. A lot of those people—and a lot of people whom we on this side of the House know well—were genuinely frightened about that. That was the kind of intimidation that was brought to bear during the last National Government. 
Even before then Mr Muldoon withdrew the charitable status of CORSO because it spoke out about the evils of apartheid. Some people will not remember those kinds of things. Some people will not even remember the huge amount of international activity that took place to rid South Africa of apartheid. The mean Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time Mr Muldoon reacted by crawling to Margaret Thatcher and treated CORSO cruelly. That is something many people in New Zealand will always remember. Of course some johnny-come-latelies will have absolutely no recollection of that history at all. 
This bill is a good bill because firstly it is an initiative that will acknowledge the vital contribution that the charitable sector makes to the New Zealand economy and to the well-being of New Zealand and New Zealanders. This Government in support of this Charities Commission has committed $9.8 million of funding to help the commission in its initial stages. 
One very important aspect that has not been mentioned very much tonight is that the charitable sector has approached the Government a number of times over recent years about income tax benefits for charities and for people who make donations and quite rightly so. The Government will be in a position to assist because it will now be able to assess how much an increase in the form of taxable assistance would cost and how much it would assist those various organisations. It is critically important to have robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand and it has traditionally been quite difficult to collect or assess that information. 
This is a good bill because it will protect the integrity and reputation of the charitable sector. I just want to pay my respects and express appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of people who go out and do voluntary work every day in a humble but hugely important way. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call in the final stage of this debate firstly to acknowledge everybody in the House everybody on the Social Services Committee and the officials who were involved in putting the Charities Bill together. Although I feel really sad about the opportunity we have missed with this bill I feel at the same time—as we saw on the select committee and as we can see in the debate tonight—that MPs from both sides of the House have engaged with the debate and recognised the significance both of the bill and of the community sector it deals with. That is a good thing. 
But I think it is a real pity that the Government in the end did not have the courage to accept that the fundamentals of the bill were flawed from the start and in particular that its very beginnings and very flawed consultation processes meant that it was not going to build at any point the kind of trust needed between the Government and the sector to make something like this really work well. 
We had submissions hundreds of them from all parts of the sector—from what I would call the very conservative end of church groups mission groups priests and nuns right through to groups at the other end of the scale the sort of groups that I might have come from. We also had groups like the Tindall Foundation which is probably respected by every party in this House as a very significant philanthropic body in this country. Tindall Foundation representatives came to us and said that the best thing we could do with this bill was to chuck it out and start again and to learn from the experiences of places like the UK and not be so silly as to go ahead with a bill that to make work we would have to amend and amend in almost every clause. In fact that is what has happened so we have this piece of miscegenation and that is a real pity. 
Even after the select committee had made its rather fumbling amendments the Government restarted a small consultation process which succeeded only in annoying a whole lot of groups around the country a whole lot more because only a few groups were involved and brought to the table. Groups in the north of the country retained a heap of concerns as did others in the South Island. 
There were concerns such as why the meaning of “charitable purpose” had not been dealt with and brought up to date and ongoing concerns about the threat to the independence of the sector particularly in relation to advocacy. There were concerns about the functions of the commission and in particular that its potentially good role in playing a developmental role with the sector would be subsumed into its regulatory and policing role. There were issues relating to the payment of trustees—for example in respect of bogus charities such as some primary health organisations where trustees can receive very substantial payments but the organisations are still seen as not-for-profit. Those kinds of issues that are very real in the sector are just not dealt with by this bill. 
There are ongoing concerns about the lack of detail and the information provided during the consultation processes and I know there has always been an anxiety about what will happen once this bill is passed in terms of its regulation-making powers and what kind of consultation will actually happen at that point. That is really getting down to the nitty-gritty. 
Just recently too there have been changes announced by the Government about proposed alterations to the Financial Reporting Act. Financial disclosure under the Charities Bill will be determined by the Financial Reporting Act’s requirements which are still subject to work by the Ministry of Social Development. What is all that going to mean? We do not know. None of the community sector organisations in the country know. We do not really know what we are passing tonight or what the implications are and will be for the financial reporting requirements of all those groups in the future. 
Just this week we had an announcement by Cabinet on Monday—which stunned many parts of the community sector—of its sudden withdrawal of support for a body whose establishment the sector had spent 5 years working through with the Government. The new national entity had been backed by the Government but in one day that support was withdrawn. I do not know how some of the groups that might have supported this bill may be feeling tonight about the relationship between the Government and the sector. It has certainly not been a fantastic trust-building process. 
There has not been at any point comprehensive analysis of the genuine need for or real cost of the proposed legislation nor has the Government really ever had a clear understanding of what the bill seeks to achieve and how. What we have ended up with tonight is a far cry from what could have been a really empowering and enabling piece of legislation supported by all the different groups and by MPs across the House. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government still appears not quite to understand what an excellent opportunity it has missed. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The message from this Government to the charitable sector is a simple one: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. Here is a Government rushing through legislation under urgency that Sue Bradford who is an expert in this area says she does not understand and the charitable sector does not want. But what does this Government care? 
We heard the Minister responsible Judith Tizard give a speech—actually saying “speech” is dignifying it. She stood up in this House and gave the worst speech I have heard her give. She just mumbled into the Prime Minister’s handbag. I do not know what was going on—whether it was that she was so embarrassed by this bill. Then we heard Jill Pettis whom John Tamihere has nicknamed “Paint Stripper” because of her voice— 
Hon Member 
: What! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know she knows. I have news for the Labour Government! John Tamihere is talking to the media again. It is going to be great. He is actually giving “on the record” interviews again about his colleagues and repeating everything so there will be some fun in the weeks ahead. But we heard from Jill Pettis— 
Jill Pettis 
: I think you are obsessed with me. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not sure I can go on. Could I take a minute to recover? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes you can. I have not taken it off your time. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a shocking shocking thing to say. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the comment that Jill Pettis made. I consider it to be an insult and offensive and I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Sorry Mr Hide. At what point did she make that comment? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The thought that I could be obsessed by her. 
Opposition Members 
: Obsessed with her. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh the thought that I could be obsessed with her! That is deeply insulting and offensive and I take offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You have taken offence? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. I have a reputation to protect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has been offended by what Jill Pettis said. I ask her to withdraw. 
Jill Pettis 
: All right I apologise. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: God knows there are girls in Parnell who could be listening! 
What we have heard from this Government tonight absolutely backs up what John Tamihere has been telling us and telling the nation. Mr Gordon Copeland got up and said that he does not like this legislation but will vote for it because he hopes that if he does vote for it Dr Cullen will lift the tax-free threshold for charitable donations. That is what I understand Mr Copeland to be saying—that he would vote and hope. 
Then we heard from the Minister in charge of the bill Judith Tizard. She got up mumbled away into the Prime Minister’s handbag and said that the reason for this bill is so that the Government can collect information about the charitable sector. That is very interesting. What is the Government going to do with this information? [ 
Interruption 
] She went on to explain I say to Mr Copeland that it is to figure out how much it would cost if it lifted the threshold for tax-free donations. She is nodding her head—that is exactly what she was saying. Gordon Copeland is voting for this legislation in the hope that the Government will gather up information figure out what lifting the tax-free threshold will cost and Michael Cullen will then reward the charitable sector with some extra tax perks. That is the basis for Gordon Copeland’s vote. It is a case of vote and hope—let us collect the data and hope. I think Mr Copeland has been duped. [ 
Interruption 
] He says there is nothing wrong with being duped. Well he may think that but I think there is a problem with being duped. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That member would know about duping people. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Is that not great! Here is the Labour Party talking about my duping people. This is coming from a party that has Steven Ching at No. 42 on its list. Talk about being duped! 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Where was Donna Awatere Huata on your list? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: She is gone—that is where Donna Awatere Huata is on our list. After the Labour Government gave her $2 million we got rid of her. Where is Steven Ching? He is coming in and he is a man who lies to people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —and obstructs justice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What is that Mr Assistant Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Was the member referring to a member in the House? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No—Mr Ching. He lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All right but can I in that case explain— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is a total liar and a total crook. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Mr Hide to make some reference to the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes—we are talking about being duped. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Let’s talk about Fiji. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Do we not just love Mr Swain! He wants to talk about Fiji. Labour’s line is this: “Let’s talk about Fiji but when it comes to John Tamihere we want to put a line under it and move on!”. Mr Steve Maharey says that he did not get an apology or a retraction. John Tamihere called Steve Maharey “smarmy” and he hates that. He considers John Tamihere to be a liar and now he says he just wants to put a line under it and move on. That is what Mr Maharey No. 3 on the list says. 
I can understand the concern that those in the charitable sector have. They are saying that if someone comes into one of their organisations and he is a crook that person can actually get the whole charity deregistered. I want to explain to the Labour Party how easy it is to get members who are crooks coming into a charitable organisations. The Labour Party should know should it not? Labour has Steven Ching at No. 42 and I can tell the Labour Party members that they will learn a lot more this Sunday about their No. 42 Mr Steven Ching the man who was selling seats to sit beside Helen Clark for thousands of dollars. 
Judith Collins 
: They want their money back! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. Then there was the matter of obstructing justice. Did the Labour Party know about that? Did Labour members know about the fact that John Tamihere had pleaded guilty in the High Court to two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are debating the Charities Bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes and what we are talking about—and it is right on; this is a third reading speech—is wrongful behaviour. I am just saying how easy it is for a charity to get someone on board who is less than savoury. I ask members to look at the Labour Party. It has got itself stuck with John Tamihere and it has got itself stuck with Mr Steven Ching who is No. 42 on its list. If that is what can happen in the Labour Party we can imagine what can happen to for example the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society. It could happen there and that society could end up being deregistered. I think Mr Maharey knew all along what Mr Tamihere was like. He nods his head. He knows exactly what Mr Tamihere is like. 
We have a bill here that affects the charitable sector—37000 charities. It is true that about 500 of them were set up by Mr Tamihere. But 37000 charities are going to come under this regime with seven appointments from the Labour Party to set up the commission and a team of bureaucrats to run around and monitor inspect and collate information. Those members talk about putting $9.8 million into it. That will actually be a drop in the bucket compared with what it will eventually cost. 
Let us think of any one of those charities and what it could do with $9.8 million! Let us think about the good works that could be done with $9.8 million! It will though all go just on bureaucracy. That $9.8 million will be spent on making more work for the charitable sector. That is what will happen. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: What? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Steve Maharey yells out “What?”. I know that Mr Steve Maharey can talk for 2 hours and if one takes a page of notes all it is is clichés and hackneyed policy words but there is no substance. We know that because his former Associate Minister John Tamihere told us. He summed up Mr Maharey rather well—I thought it was perfect. He said he was smarmy. Do members notice how smarmy his interjections are? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he wants to be slimy rather than smarmy. Maybe he is slimy and not smarmy. I do not really know but I know that what Mr Tamihere had to say was not very nice—and it was the truth. I say to Government members that they should listen to John Tamihere a bit more. They should not just go around liking him because he gives 150 percent. They should not just go around saying: “When he’s good he’s really good but he has the odd stumble.” They should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying. He is telling Labour members that they are out of touch. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh he’s scoring another 2 percent. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is “Paint Stripper”—Jill Pettis from Whanganui. That is what Mr Tamihere has gone around the gallery and said tonight. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Oh that’s original. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mark Burton confirms that he has heard it before. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It has been going around for years according to Mr Mark Burton. Labour members should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying. 
They should think about the charitable sector which is there to look after families which this Government knows nothing about. They should listen to families and to hard-working New Zealanders. My goodness! As my colleague Sue Bradford said Labour should just listen to the charitable sector. But oh no Labour members are sitting around supping their lattes talking parlez-vous and not listening—just plotting. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased that the Charities Bill will receive its third reading this evening and become the law of the land. Let me say just for the record that the Social Services Committee which I was on—it sounds like it was a different one from the one Sue Bradford or Judith Collins was on—actually heard 743 submissions from organisations that collectively would have represented thousands of New Zealand charities and virtually all of those submissions said that they felt the time had arrived for the establishment of a charities commission. So the concept of a charities commission has the overwhelming support of the charitable sector. 
I thought that in this third reading debate it would be worth just pausing for a moment to think about the wonderful benefit that not only our nation but the world derives from charities and I want to refer to the tsunami in east Asia which has occurred since the first reading of this bill. It is almost inconceivable to think of how the world would have responded to that disaster without the assistance of charities. We think immediately of organisations such as the New Zealand Red Cross Society Unicef World Vision Christian World Service Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand and The Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund or “Tear Fund” for short. 
Here were charities that within hours of that disaster were responding not only by asking Kiwis to help—and Kiwis are very very generous—but also by getting people on the ground to deliver goods and services medical care comfort and so on to the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives will never be the same again after that enormous event. 
Kiwis are generous people. There would be many people who in response to that tragic disaster would have given over and beyond their regular giving to charities yet under the present law they get a measly tax rebate on doing so of just $630 per annum and that needs to change. Governments should encourage greater giving through higher rebate levels. We need to remember that for each extra 33c given up by the Government the charity receives an extra $1. If for example the Government gives up $20 million it will be because Kiwis have given of their own free will an extra $60 million to charities. 
The fact is that such giving is an efficient and effective investment in the social development of those countries that are its recipients. If given to developing countries it has the potential to transform the lives of others particularly in those countries that are desperately poor. I have only to mention for example the Fred Hollows Foundation or mercy ships and immediately images come to mind of the medical miracles that result for people who were blind or near blind who can see again and the deformed and crippled children often outcast by society whose lives are transformed with life-changing and lifelong positive consequences. 
Again I ask the Government to take note. It now has the Charities Commission; it is up to it now to improve the tax rebates and concessions that it gives to encourage Kiwis in their natural propensity towards generosity. 
Charities are also looking for the refundability of imputation credits. On introduction the original purpose of imputation credits was that the final tax paid would be equal to the marginal tax rate of the recipient shareholder. Well the marginal tax rate of those charities that have shares in New Zealand companies is zero. So why do they pay 33c in the dollar as a final and non-recoverable tax because they cannot claim back their imputation credits? It is wrong and it is blatantly unfair especially when non-resident companies—that is commercial organisations not charities—can now get an imputation tax refund. 
Additionally so long as charities can receive interest income without tax deduction—and there is no suggestion that that would change in any way as is right and proper—they should also of course not be paying imputation tax on company dividends at 33c in the dollar because that fundamentally distorts investment patterns by charities so that decisions become tax-driven rather than market-driven something that directly contradicts not only common sense but the policy advice given to the Government by Treasury. Charities will also want to see that fixed in this year’s Budget. 
In conclusion the passage of this bill is a landmark in the evolution of the New Zealand charitable sector. It is a sector that has served this country well since the foundation of our nation. My hope is that it will continue to flourish in the years ahead that there will be an increasing appreciation by New Zealanders of the valuable work that it does and that the Government will do its bit to encourage that to happen. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Charities Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Public Records Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a second time 
. The Government Administration Committee has heard submissions and has proposed amendments that bring greater clarity to the bill. The Government will support those amendments. 
My thanks are extended to the select committee with special thanks to the chair Dianne Yates. I also thank the archives and record-keeping community firstly for its focus in seeking legislative change and also for its knowledge and input during the development of this bill. In particular I note the efforts of the late Ian Wards who I hope would have been very pleased with the progress of this bill to date. 
This bill replaces the Archives Act of 1957 which will be safely archived after many years of stalwart service and the documented archives provision contained in the Local Government Act 1974. The objective of this bill is to improve the standard of Government record-keeping. It will improve the accountability of Government organisations enhance democratic participation in Government and contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. Good record-keeping underpins those outcomes and is an essential part of efficient government as it supports day-to-day operational legal and administrative requirements. Put simply it is good business practice. 
Legislative changes such as the Official Information Act the emergence of new Government agencies and activities and changes to the day-to-day methods of documenting business have required a change to the tools available to the Chief Archivist to ensure those purposes are met. The impact of email and the Internet which have eroded traditional record-keeping practices and increased the complexity of recording business transactions has particularly brought home the need for the change that this bill provides. The bill establishes the record-keeping requirements of public offices and local authorities and enables the Chief Archivist to help with those requirements by issuing standards of record-keeping. 
I would like to touch on some of the amendments recommended by the select committee. The committee has accepted the policy and approach of the bill but has suggested some valuable amendments. These changes will clarify the requirements of public offices in managing their public records. One amendment is that the Chief Archivist must establish an appropriate framework for the management of public records. Some concern was raised in submissions that the Chief Archivist could consider the management of public records only when making decisions under the legislation but in requiring an appropriate framework the bill now clarifies that the Chief Archivist must consider good management and compliance costs for public offices in setting the record-keeping framework. 
A further amendment clarifies when public records need to be created. Public offices do not need to create and maintain a record of every single happening within the conduct of their business. The amendment notes that the requirement to create records is in accordance with normal prudent business practice. Although a phone call to a Minister changing the venue of a Cabinet meeting is not required to be recorded the minutes of the Cabinet meeting are required to become part of the public record. The Chief Archivist will be able to provide standards and guidelines to assist public offices in determining when a record should be created. 
Several submissions noted that the penalties contained in the bill were unlikely to deter offenders and it is good to see that the committee has recommended an increase in the penalty provisions. In response to concerns from the tertiary sector the committee has recommended clarifying the definition of “public record” to prevent academic and student records from being covered by the bill unless they relate to the business of the university itself. 
I would like to address the question of access to records under the bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)