Volume 612 Week 39 - Tuesday 14 October 2003 
Volume 612 Week 39 - Tuesday 14 October 2003 
[Volume:612;Page:9079] 
Tuesday 14 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Thai Migrants—Government-funded Holiday 
1. DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has a migrant Thai couple received a Government-funded holiday to Thailand as stated by Rt Hon Winston Peters? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. The individual he named was a New Zealand resident married to a New Zealand citizen. There is no evidence that he has breached any immigration rules with regard to eligibility for anything. Allegations about New Zealand citizens or residents receiving benefits or student allowances while out of the country should be made to the Ministry of Social Development. It is the Customs Service database that is used for Ministry of Social Development data matches not that of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
Dianne Yates 
: Have there been other instances of incorrect information being given about immigration cases and why is it important that information is verified before allegations are made? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is important that verification is given so that the truth of the matter can be got to. There is another example I would like to bring to the House’s attention. It was alleged that Mohammed Saidi made false representations about where he was from. The advice I have is that that allegation came from a woman who said he said that to her— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes his wife. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes it was from the woman he married not the New Zealand Immigration Service. He is alleged to have said that he was really Italian. To have said that he was Italian might be immoral but it is not illegal. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I thank the Minister for setting up an own goal. I ask her whether that man is the man who spent a month on remand at Paparoa prison on charges of rape and breaking and entering which were laid by his wife; is it a fact that he left here on 6 July 2003 for Thailand; is it a fact that he is on a 30-hour adult education programme at Linwood College a course that is free of charge to New Zealand residents and that he is I might add a beneficiary; is it a fact that he is receiving a student allowance which is a very difficult thing to get; is it a fact that since July he has been paid $1423.81 and that if he stays until his return date which will be in January next year he will have picked up a further $3000; and how on earth can someone (a) get into the country (b) get a student allowance and (c) be abroad picking up that allowance when he is not fulfilling any of the requirements? Here is the icing on the cake: his wife is also a beneficiary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A number of questions were asked there. The Hon Lianne Dalziel can reply briefly. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The individual concerned is a New Zealand resident. His wife is a New Zealand citizen. The member should direct questions about benefit matters to the appropriate Minister. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Have there been any other examples of incorrect information that make it difficult for immigration groups to respond to allegations in Parliament? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. It was alleged in Parliament that an asylum seeker had gone missing from an Auckland Refugee Council hostel in May this year. That was not correct. I now have a copy of a trespass notice issued against that individual by the Auckland Refugee Council in order to keep him away from the hostel because he had no basis for being there. I also have a copy of a letter that the Auckland Refugee Council sent to me which says that it is quite clear somebody used the letter to Winston Peters to go to some lengths to blacken the council’s reputation. That is not good enough. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all is it not a fact that three women wrote to that Minister about the first person who she said had some Italian connections? One of those women was his wife; the second was his paramour with whom he had a baby and the third was another paramour with whom he had a baby and the Minister has still done nothing about this person. Second how can someone be on both the benefit in the case of the wife and on a student allowance in the case of the husband who is in Thailand now and have no one check up; and third when will this Minister get on top of her job so that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two questions are allowed and the member has had two. He then went on to ask a third. He has finished the two questions allowed inside his supplementary question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The answer to the first question is yes I received correspondence from the wife of the individual concerned and yes she did make it very plain to me that he told her he was Italian rather than Moroccan. As I said before it might be immoral to mislead people about one’s ethnicity but it is not illegal. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So is this man who is lying to all and sundry including his wife and others a matter of comedy as far as this Minister goes—despite the fact that he is not worthy of being in New Zealand in the first place and is being paid for by the taxpayer; but more seriously what sort of a Minister tolerates someone who seeks to bribe an applicant for sex as we will see in question No. 8 today in order to escape both her own responsibility and that of any official? No one was prepared last night to front on the  
Holmes 
 show and defend themselves. She should resign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may respond to the questions. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: With regard to Mohammed Saidi as that member well knows because I have answered questions in the House—[ 
Interruption 
] Excuse me. That was the first question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is seeking to identify one person in particular and I am raising issues in respect of three people in particular as examples of her gross negligence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked two questions. The Minister at the moment is attempting to answer one of them. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The first question asked whether I felt that it was a matter of amusement that Mohammed Saidi said he was Italian in order to inveigle his way into the affections of a New Zealand woman. I do not think that is funny; I think it is ironic that the member raised the question about him commenting upon his ethnicity in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just heard an allegation from Mr Mallard. It is an allegation that is frequently repeated in this House and I do not mind. I can take it and I can give it out better than most of them. The point is that he has repeated an allegation that is demonstrably untrue. He knows full well that I was captain of the Auckland Maori side and that the allegation is a lie. So would you ask him to cut it out? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just say that personal comments are never helpful they do not improve the standard of debate in the House and they will cease. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I was saying I do not find it amusing that people are afraid to front up to their own ethnicity and parade themselves as coming from another country because they are ashamed of who they are. With respect to the second question no I do not find it acceptable that any member of staff of the Immigration Service would offer information in exchange for sexual favours. That person has quite rightly been dismissed from the Immigration Service. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table the background documents in respect of the Thai man that the Minister referred to and that the primary question referred to—bank accounts airline bookings— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —the full hundred yards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought is to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before Mr Peters had finished saying what his documents were you were asking the House to grant him leave. I think it not unreasonable that he be allowed to list the several documents he was asking to release. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did indicate that the documents related to the case raised in this question. I thought he said that quite satisfactorily. Leave has to be brief and seek the position concerned. Mr Peters quite rightly sought that leave. I will put the leave again. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Auckland Refugee Council talking about the jealousy and pettiness behind the attempt to sabotage the organisation. 
Document not tabled. 
Privy Council—Referendum 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: In light of the poll in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that shows 79 percent of New Zealanders want a referendum on whether to abolish appeals to the Privy Council will the Government now agree to let the public decide by holding a referendum; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: No. It is the Government’s view that referenda should be used sparingly and this does not present a case for it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In which case how does the Government claim to have any mandate to change the constitution in that Labour got 41 percent of the vote last election and the Greens who are supporting Labour stated their public position at the last election as being that they would not agree to do away with the Privy Council unless Maori agreed; so how is there any moral basis for the Government’s intention to do away with this important part of our constitution? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Party went to the electorate with a clear policy in this regard. I might contrast that with the 1987 election and the subsequent sale of State enterprises. 
Tim Barnett 
: Were referenda used in Australia Canada Hong Kong or Ireland to determine whether to leave the Privy Council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No referenda were not used in those circumstances in those countries—[ 
Interruption 
] Legislation in one sense or another is always passed by a majority in this Parliament. That is how it gets passed. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Attorney-General in the light of her constitutional responsibilities feel proud of the fact that she is flying in the face of public opinion both as evidenced by the poll taken in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the fact that 75 percent of the submitters who appeared before the select committee were opposed to scrapping the Privy Council; if the emotion is not pride what is it—arrogance perhaps? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the Attorney-General is proud to assert that New Zealand is an independent nation and perfectly capable of arranging its own final court of jurisdiction. Despite the incompetence of one or two lawyers produced within New Zealand we are confident that there are plenty who are able to fulfil judicial office. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does the Minister persist with the Supreme Court Bill when the Government’s own consultative process has indicated that the vast majority of the sectors of our community oppose the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and also the haste with which this matter is proceeding; if the Minister believes there are sectors that support this legislation would she tell the House which sectors those are? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not accept that assertion about the vast majority of people. We are certainly aware of many members on the opposite side of the House who in the past have supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister which sectors supported the legislation and that aspect of the question was not answered. I did not need to know about any other members of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question but if the Minister wants to comment about sectors he may. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike the legislature in Hong Kong election to this Parliament is based upon individual votes not sectors. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: When have constitutional issues been subject to a referendum in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Extremely rarely—usually in relation to the Electoral Act or related matters such as a proposed 4-year term of Parliament. Referenda were not used in New Zealand for example with the abolition of the Legislative Council or with similar kinds of constitutional reforms in the past. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting the Minister‘s reference to the sparing use of referenda and the fact that referenda were not called to determine whether we should retain the MMP system or to deal with the numbers of members of Parliament—and now will not be called on the Supreme Court Bill—can the Minister indicate the types of constitutional issues that the Government would envisage being subject to a referendum? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the one area where it is clear referenda are sometimes held in New Zealand is in relation to major changes to the Electoral Act. The reason for that of course is that the Parliament and the Government seek support from the public on matters about Parliament itself in terms of its own arrangements. The courts are in the end creatures of Parliament and of statute. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the House understood the Minister’s answer correctly to be that because the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries and Hong Kong did not use a referendum New Zealand therefore should not; is that the argument or is it just that this is an issue about which the Government wishes to be nationalistic and does not trust the country to be able to make a decision in a referendum on whether it wants a Privy Council—is that the real reason that the Government does not trust the people? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This Government certainly trusts the people. At the last election the Labour Party by itself received as many votes as National New Zealand First and ACT combined. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave of the House to table the results of a poll that show that 80 percent want a say on a new court— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not meaning to be presumptuous but it has become a practice in this House for senior members to try to table papers that clearly are not within the intention of the Standing Orders. Speaker’s ruling 114/1— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I point out to the member that he is quoting Speaker’s rulings. The Standing Orders are different. They are actually the rules; Speaker’s rulings are the interpretation. It is perfectly in order to seek leave to table a document and anybody has a perfect liberty to say “No”. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member raises quite a good point that probably the tabling of documents has become abused. It occurred to me in this case that the Government was so out of touch that it does not even know what is in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is a good try for a Tuesday. 
Land Transport Management Bill—Transport Strategy 
3.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is he satisfied that the Land Transport Management Bill will contribute positively and equally to all the goals listed in the New Zealand Transport Strategy which are: “assisting economic development assisting safety and personal security improving access and mobility protecting and promoting public health ensuring environmental sustainability”; if so how will it do this? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied that the provisions of the Land Transport Management Bill will contribute to all the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy. 
Larry Baldock 
: How can the bill assist economic development and therefore the Government’s stated goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD if the purpose of the bill is not to achieve an efficient transport system as well as an integrated safe responsive and sustainable one? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The purpose of the bill sets out what the Government is trying to achieve. It is fair to say that after some discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the word “efficiency” was included in the bill and I think that improves it. But ultimately the decisions will have to be made by the board and it will have to weigh up all these factors and try to take them into account in order to advance New Zealand’s transport system. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What comment does the Minister have about the changes made to the bill by the select committee? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The committee has done a very good job. There is no doubt that the bill is now a better bill. For example the committee has simplified and clarified the consultation requirements; it has as I said included the word “efficiency”; it has included more flexible arrangements for tolling and public-private partnerships; and it has emphasised the need for more strategic transport planning in the suggested changes to the regional land transport strategy. This shows a good effort from a select committee. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given that the changes made in the select committee were done by Labour and the Greens with National New Zealand First and ACT opposing those changes and given that since the bill has been reported back the Road Transport Forum Business New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the Automobile Association have all said that this bill fails to deliver why is the Minister so optimistic? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Because I am an optimistic kind of person. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers and that the Minister has only this day stated on public radio that the Auckland Harbour Bridge cannot be tolled under this bill can the Tauranga Harbour Bridge or any of its lead-in roads be tolled under this bill as is being advocated by United Future? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I understand that the select committee spent a lot of time considering this matter. Some changes were made to the bill to bring in some flexibility around words like “operationally linked to” and “physically linked to” with the opportunity for an arrangement for another bridge in Tauranga to be built if the community so wishes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked particularly whether the Tauranga Harbour Bridge could be tolled under this proposal. He did not answer that question and it is key to this issue. It is not whether the people up there suggest some new bridge be built; the question is whether it will be tolled—yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue does not have to demand a yes or no answer but the Minister should address that part of the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: If there were a desire in the local community to have a new bridge and part of the tolling arrangements was to put a toll on the existing bridge that would come forward as a proposal. Basically it would then be up to the Minister and the Government to decide whether that was an exceptional circumstance to allow that to occur. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How will economic development be advanced by this bill when earlier this year the Minister admitted that the Green Party’s control over transport was the price his Government paid for the 4c increase in petrol tax last year and given that this bill was written by a Green Party staffer who then went out and formed a lobby group to campaign against business interests that opposed the bill? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I admitted to no such thing and the bill was not written by that person. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on decoupling economic activity and transport growth which notes that decoupling has the potential to develop both greater economic efficiency and environmental benefits and has he seen any acknowledgement of this from people who are complaining about the Land Transport Management Bill? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will answer the second question first. No I do not recall having seen any but I have read a number of reports about decoupling. I think the important thing that the bill does which is what the strategy does also is to take a multimodal approach and to recognise the fact that we are going to have to look across all modes if we are to try to solve New Zealand’s transport problems. We are not going to solve the problems by motorwaying our way out of the problem. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
 Will the Minister acknowledge the contribution made by United Future members to the proposals in the bill regarding alternative funding proposals for new roading developments which subsequent to the bill’s reporting back have been acknowledged by both the Mayor of Auckland and the Greater Wellington Regional Council as providing them with positive steps forward to initiate long-overdue roading projects in their areas? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I will acknowledge that. The reality is that as the bill went in the public-private partnership arrangements were far too inflexible. With good discussions in particular with United Future we have come up with some lease arrangement options that are very similar to the Melbourne link. It is highly confusing for people who are criticising the bill to say that this will not produce a public-private partnership arrangement. We have only to look at Melbourne to see such a situation occurring and I want to thank United Future members for their support in making this a better bill in that regard. 
Peter Brown 
: In light of that question and the Minister’s answer will he tell the House whether United Future members are correct when they state: “Ten years of funding has already been announced and allocated and the only way to get the road built and the second bridge”—and I add the words “in Tauranga”—“built quickly is to see it toll funded.”; are they correct in saying the funds have already been allocated for the next 10 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is true to say that Transit funds have been allocated over 10 years but this is reviewed on an annual basis for a whole pile of reasons—for example sometimes the roads cannot be built in time. So there is a whole review that goes on each year and the 10-year plan is updated as a result. The reality is that the bill does allow tolling options where communities want them and I thought that was something New Zealand First would support. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave for the Minister to reconsider his answer because his officials will say that the funding is indicative only. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of anybody else. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware of all the data that support the claims of the land transport sector that an efficient transport system will contribute to economic development and gross domestic product growth; if he is why is “efficiency” not included in the purpose of this Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen a lot of that argument and arguments have been made very very strongly by United Future members. After careful consideration the select committee has included the word “efficiency” when it comes to the way in which Transfund operates in terms of its funding. I think that is a good addition to the bill and that it improves it overall relative to the state of the bill before it went in. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister proud of presiding over a landmark change in transport direction which for the first time encourages a multimodal approach takes account of social and environmental issues early on ensures transport planners look at both supply and demand and will result in safer streets better public transport and less heavy freight on our roads? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I am. I think that this transport strategy and now the Land Transport Management Bill are a major step forward and I acknowledge the work and support of the Greens in achieving that. 
Peter Brown 
: In light of the Minister’s earlier answer with regard to the Tauranga Harbour Bridge will he consider at all recommending to Transfund that funds are made available to fund that harbour link project as being advocated in Tauranga? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Under legislation I am specifically not allowed to recommend any project at all. I think that is a key point the member has perhaps missed. It is important that Ministers do not get involved around specific projects. If that is the case then we get ourselves into all sorts of difficulties. I think the way the bill is now balanced is very very good and I thank the committee for its work. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware that the addition of efficiency criteria to the bill’s purpose clause and not somewhere in another part of the bill would help dispel the concerns of the land transport sector that a disproportionate amount of the revenue collected from road users will be spent on non-road initiatives; if so how else does he propose to mitigate these concerns? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have read a lot of the comment about the bill and I have to say it would be almost impossible to mitigate some of the criticisms that come from some sectors because the reality is that a lot of people are still locked into the old ways of thinking. The new ways of thinking are to look at transport across a range of modes. That is what will get New Zealand back up to the top half of the OECD. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister therefore conclude that looking at transport across other modes means that we do not have to look at it efficiently; if so can he explain that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not agree with that and that is why the select committee wisely put “efficiency” in clause 20 around Transfund’s objectives. 
Privy Council—Supreme Court 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement that establishing the Supreme Court is “not major constitutional change” with her reported statement in August 2000 that the constitutional effects of dropping the Privy Council were vast; and why has she changed her position since August 2000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The second statement referred to is not a direct quote but if it was ever made it is not a view I now hold. That is because I do not believe that changing the top appeal court’s location is a major constitutional issue and nor did the member in the past. 
Hon Bill English 
: On what advice and what expertise did the Prime Minister rely in coming to her conclusion that creating a new Supreme Court in New Zealand is not a major constitutional change; or did she just take her own advice because it happened to suit her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear that no one’s rights of appeal to a layer across the Court of Appeal are being taken away unlike the proposal that member supported in 1996. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a direct question: on whose expertise and advice did she rely or did she rely on her own. She made no attempt to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Prime Minister could just slightly clarify her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over a long period of time I have read a great deal of advice on this subject and have formed my own view. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has happened in the policy development process since August 2000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A great deal has happened. A public discussion document on the subject was issued in December 2000 and submissions were invited. After a number of meetings and reflections on submissions a ministerial advisory group was established in October 2001 to develop a detailed proposal. It reported in April last year. The policy of establishing a Supreme Court was included in Labour’s election manifesto. In December 2002 a bill was introduced. After a full select committee process it is due to pass today—10 months later. This has been a full and proper process with integrity. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Prime Minister says she has spent a long time studying this subject and has read widely on it is that what led her to say that the last time Maori went successfully to the Privy Council was in 1927; if so is she not aware of the fact that last year there was a decision in the case of Taito James McLeod Bennett and 10 others that affected hundreds of New Zealanders on the question of legal aid—a case brought successfully by a former clerk-assistant of this House Ellis—and that three-quarters of those people were Maori; is she not aware of that and if she is aware of it then she clearly must be quoted on radio today as telling lies and if not could she explain why she is so ignorant on the matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The suggestion that the member is telling lies is out of order and will be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is telling everyone around New Zealand that the last time Maori went to the Privy Council was in 1927. Everybody who knows something about the law knows full well that a former clerk-assistant of this House brought the case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just because the member made a particular statement does not mean that she is telling a lie. Anyway that is out of order in this Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I left her an alternative. I asked whether she was either telling lies or was ignorant on this matter. Surely she could get up and say she was not telling a lie and was just plain ignorant on the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being smart. I would like the Prime Minister now to answer the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I take it from the member’s question that the matter he refers to is one around legal aid. The statements I have made relate to issues pertaining particularly to Maori and I would not regard that as one such. 
Stephen Franks 
: If it is not a major constitutional change— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my honourable colleague. Could you explain to the House why it is that you continue to call the Prime Minister by the title “the Rt Hon” when she is the very person who seems not to want to have anything to do with the Privy Council or its titles. Has she given you instructions to continue to refer to her as such or is she intending resigning the title? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is for precisely the same reason I call the member’s leader “the Rt Hon Winston Peters”. The title applies to both those members and I recognise them in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect at the start of a session members are asked what title they would like to be referred to by. We are all asked that. I said I would like to be referred to by the title that was conferred on me by the Queen. No doubt the Prime Minister said likewise. But she is in there for some things and not for others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the start of each session I write to all members and ask them how they want to be referred to. Until they advise me differently I will carry on doing that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is really a frivolous point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: Well that is precisely the answer that I was seeking. I wanted to know why you were continuing to refer to that title. I would have thought that the Prime Minister has long since written to you and said that she rejected the Privy Council and no longer wished to be referred to as “the Rt Hon”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being totally frivolous and will shortly leave the House if he goes on like that. 
Stephen Franks 
: If it is not a major constitutional change to sack an entire independent top court so we can “mature as a nation” and replace it with a new court—with every member selected by the Attorney-General—to “develop an indigenous law for New Zealand” in the Attorney-General’s jargon what kind of change to the courts would constitute a major constitutional change? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A major change was proposed in 1996 which was to take away altogether a level of appeal above that of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. I say that the Supreme Court will be staffed I would hope from the most senior judges in New Zealand appointed with no consideration whatsoever given to politics and every consideration given to distinction and merit. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister feeling popular and modest when she has discovered that no one outside the Labour Party caucus agrees with her view that this is not a major constitutional change and can she confirm that the main reason she has turned down a referendum is that she thinks the people are too stupid? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In this country referenda are used sparingly. I understand there have been 10 in the last 85 years. The last one in 1997 cost $9 million for a 92 percent rejection. Neither Canada nor Australia held a referendum when they changed their top court structure and I do not believe that one is justified here. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: If the Prime Minister thinks it would be a more significant constitutional change to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council without replacing it with something like the Supreme Court as proposed by National in 1996 is she aware whether that proposal included a proposal for a referendum? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It certainly did not include any such proposal but then that proposal in 1996 was advanced by a man the Leader of the Opposition now calls an aggressive republican. 
Community Housing—Supply 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received on improvements in social housing provision? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Housing New Zealand Corporation annual report which was tabled today records that almost 30000 people were assisted into State housing last year; 2500 State rental properties were added to the portfolio; 2600 older State houses have been insulated and retrofitted; 450 State houses have been modified; and over 89 percent of State tenants are now benefiting from an income-related rent saving households up to $60 a week. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What initiatives are under way to improve social housing provision further? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the most exciting is the Government provision of $63 million to encourage local government and charitable social housing provision. A series of workshops are currently being held around the country to develop social housing partnerships. The $63 million fund which we hope will be complemented by resources from other groups will ensure that we have a great deal more social housing to help low-income families. 
Free-trade Agreement—United States 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she be asking President George W Bush to add New Zealand to the list of countries with which the United States of America is negotiating bilateral free-trade agreements when she meets him at the APEC summit next week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I will register New Zealand’s interest in ongoing dialogue on trade issues from the multilateral to the bilateral level. I expect the main focus of the meeting will be on the many positive things New Zealand and the US are doing together. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Labour Government give up on its relentless official optimism behaving as if trade negotiations have almost started—if they have not actually already started—when the truth is that there will be no negotiations about a free-trade agreement; and why can she not be honest about that? 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: That is not a view the Government accepts. I note also that other commentators have stated that the US does trade agreements only where it believes there is a net economic benefit to the US. “They don’t do them as a favour to everyone else; they do them as a favour to themselves.” Those words came from the Leader of the Opposition after his trip there in June. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why will the Prime Minister not concede to this House that the proper way to interpret the US Ambassador’s speech last week in which he said New Zealand would not get a free-trade agreement is that the United States does not accept the way she and other members of her Government continually give the public of New Zealand an optimistic view of our trading prospects when the real reality is that the world trade talks have collapsed when every other member of the Cairns group of free traders has a prospect of a free-trade agreement with the United States and when New Zealand under her administration has never been more isolated? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Last week the ambassador most certainly did not say that New Zealand would not get a free-trade agreement. This Government with the strong support of other advocates for New Zealand—and I include the Rt Hon Jim Bolger in that—will continue to mobilise business and congressional support in support of New Zealand a very old friend of the United States. 
Rod Donald 
: Will she guarantee that her Government will never weaken our foreign investment laws our quarantine rules or our GE labelling rules or abolish Pharmac in order to get a bilateral trade deal with the US as the Australians have been asked to do by the United States let alone sell out on our foreign policy and our nuclear-free status? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: New Zealand has vital national interests to protect when it enters into discussions and it is important that they are protected. I would also say that in respect of foreign policy these positions are arrived at over a long period of time and as I have seen a range of newspaper editorials from one end of the country to the other say long-considered and popular foreign policy positions are not to be thrown aside lightly. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answers that the Government’s position now is that it will show up for free-trade negotiations with the US even if the US has said that it will not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously it takes two to tango but I am confident that this country has very substantial support within the United States and we will continue to work on the relationship. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister intend to tell President Bush when she meets him to stop trying to push New Zealand around? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I will say to the President is that the relationship between my country and his is one of great value to us and we will continue to give it the highest priority. 
Genetic Modification—Votes Health and Education 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When she said on television that genetic engineering “will pay for health. It will pay for education.” how much does she expect genetic engineering to contribute to the health and education budgets in which years and on what evidence does she base her predictions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Taking the full quote in its context it is clear I was referring to the need for a growing economy to pay for health and education and biotechnology has a part to play in a growing New Zealand economy. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she said in the next sentence: “It will pay for the things we belong to.” which things that we belong to did she mean will be paid for by GE: was it the World Trade Organization was it the free-trade agreement with the United States or is there some other thing we belong to that the New Zealand people do not know about? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I reiterate I was referring to the need to have a growing economy. I would like to draw that member’s attention to a speech given by the managing director of Wrightson over the weekend who said that millions of dollars would be lost to New Zealand agricultural research if the moratorium continues. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that AgResearch had to pay over half a million dollars on two occasions for GE research applications aimed at cures for serious diseases why has her Government given way yet again to irrational Green pressure and made compliance costs much more onerous for medium and high-risk GE medical research into containment? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The changes proposed in the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which I hope we pass this afternoon are designed to allow us to move forward with the need to protect the environment and the health and safety of our people. I agreed with the speaker when he stated in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “The reality is that commercial release in New Zealand of GM crops in the near future is extremely unlikely. We should follow a cautious evidence-based scientific approach to GM …” and that is what this Government is doing. 
David Parker 
: In view of a recent report from the Government’s Growth and Innovation Advisory Board that identified agriculture and forestry as the two sectors offering the most potential growth and innovation in the New Zealand economy has the Minister seen any information that suggests GM forms part of that potential? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I have. Last weekend John Palmer the chairman of Wrightson Ltd a New Zealand company referred to the report and told his company’s annual meeting that the moratorium must expire because “technical innovation has always driven progress in New Zealand farming and it is biotechnology possibly including genetic modification that is a key to realising much of the future potential identified in the report.” 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister read the  
Trust and Country Image 
 report from Otago University which states that according to its market research the prospect of GM being used in farm animals that produce meat or milk for food or in pasture plants to feed such animals received an almost universal highly negative reaction in markets; how does she think that will assist an economy that is so reliant on meat and dairy exports? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I have. I have read the report from cover to cover and if one takes out just one sentence one will see that the report advocates that we continue on a case by case basis taking into consideration on each case marketing evidence that may be there. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the Minister believes there is already good evidence to show that genetic engineering will be so good for the economy why does she think that the chief executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand said: “It's like Sars or terrorism—you can have a minor risk or you can have a potentially catastrophic risk. At the moment insurers are unable to calculate the risk. What they do know is that a worst-case scenario makes it an unsustainable piece of business.”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The answer is that as with Severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and other things when one cannot totally tell at the beginning the Insurance Council is very reluctant to insure in the early months. Members will notice that with Sars insurance started within 5 weeks. 
Immigration Service—Conduct 
8.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: On what date did she first learn that the New Zealand Immigration Service had dismissed an immigration officer who had sought sexual favours in return for helping a woman with her immigration application and does she consider it acceptable that the Immigration Service never called the police? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was first notified of this matter on or around 3 October 2003. Whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity which would involve a referral to the police as opposed to misconduct amounting to grounds for dismissal will be a matter of judgment on a case by case basis. As a result of concerns I had about allegations around misconduct I asked the Minister of State Services just before Christmas last year to invite the State Services Commission to review the procedures that the Immigration Service has in place for internal investigations. This has now been completed and the recommendations are being implemented. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Exactly how many complaints were received against that officer and did he continue to work as an officer while that one particular complaint was investigated? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: In answer to the second part of the question the answer is yes. With regard to the first part of the question the advice I have is that a complaint was first received from an immigration consultant who said that he used inappropriate language in dealing with her. Then the complaint that has received the publicity was received from the student. I am also advised that a subsequent complaint was laid after he had been dismissed. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister now request that the police investigate the “sex for residency” scandal; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The individual concerned was the subject of an external investigation that the Immigration Service sought when the two complaints were originally received. At the time the complaints were received it did not appear that there was sufficient evidence of criminal activity warranting referral to the police. With regard to the external evaluation of the situation the investigators reported back to the Immigration Service that on a question of balance there were grounds for dismissal for misconduct. That dismissal took place. The individual concerned then consulted a lawyer. The lawyer then made a complaint to the Immigration Service that a personal grievance was to be pursued. The last correspondence was with the lawyer in May. We are still waiting for them to nominate a date for mediation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is that under the Minister’s leadership of the Immigration Service we have within her service sex maniacs— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —that is what I would call them—and fraudsters and conspirators who seek to break the law with others all of whom were identified by her officials at the last estimates hearing of a parliamentary select committee; and why were not all those cases referred to the New Zealand Police or is she seriously involved in a cover-up? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Given that the individual concerned had been employed by the Immigration Service for 8 years the member can answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I ask that the Minister develop her answer a little more fully please. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member was employed 8 years ago and the Immigration Service received a report identifying that on a balance of probabilities he had breached the code of conduct. He was dismissed for that reason. We are awaiting further advice from his legal counsel about the setting down of a date for mediation. I think it would be inappropriate to go into any further detail until the matter is finally resolved. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked this Minister why this very serious behaviour repeated across a number of officials in a number of different areas—all cases of criminal behaviour—has not been referred specifically to the Minister of Police. This is not a matter of wrongful dismissal or a grievance situation; this is a criminal matter. I am asking her to tell me which of the 13 cases were referred and which were not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister after I asked her to develop her answer did address the question. That obviously will not satisfy everybody but an answer has been given. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the decision on whether to press charges better made by the police rather than the Minister’s own immigration officials; and why will she not call in the police to undertake an investigation into what is a “sex for residency” scandal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member can define it as such if she likes. Twenty-five members of Immigration Service staff have been dismissed since 1999 for a range of reasons—not all criminal offences—including giving precedence to certain clients failing to turn up to work providing a fraudulent medical certificate in relation to absence from work misappropriating money behaving fraudulently and processing applications improperly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. He is very lucky not to be leaving the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can we take it from the Minister’s answers that her Government’s policy is that immigration officers seeking sex for residence from would-be immigrants are guilty of sexual harassment rather than bribery and corruption; if not what is her Government’s policy? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Government’s policy is that it is unacceptable for any official to make demands of any customer or client of any Government department. This Government will not tolerate fraud at any level. I approached the Minister of State Services in December last year and asked for a full report to be done on the way the Immigration Service deals with internal complaints. This Government is in the process of implementing recommendations which we have addressed and which no other Government has addressed before. 
Katherine Rich 
: What signal does she believe this case sends to migrants and is this the reason that the department is keeping the matter in-house if not covering it up? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The message this sends to would-be migrants is that if they are in any way treated inappropriately by any member of the Immigration Service then this Government will act. 
Truancy—Policy 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is the Government taking any steps to ensure that students stay engaged in learning and therefore reduce the level of truancy; if so what? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes the Government is expanding its existing suspension reduction initiative to include schools with very high rates of early leaving exemptions supporting a pilot project designed to streamline and make more cost-effective truancy prosecution and developing new data and tracking systems to ensure that parents can deal immediately with unexplained absences. This will inter alia involve emails and text messages. 
Jill Pettis 
: Could the Minister advise the House of the aim of the pilot project that is looking at the prosecutions process for truancy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The project has been developed in conjunction with the Crown Solicitor’s office in Auckland and is aimed at providing schools and the police with a cost-effective and speedy process for dealing with truancy when other means have failed. Funding for this will be up to $30000 in the first year. However it will still require the prosecutor to turn up in court unlike Nick Smith’s pathetic performance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last few words were unnecessary. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister say he is ensuring students stay engaged in learning and is reducing truancy when he intends to reduce the number of rural schools in places like Taihape thus making it more difficult for students to attend schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have made no such decision to reduce the number of schools in the Taihape area. In fact I have had quite positive discussions with the local member on the subject. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Noting the Minister’s efforts to tackle truancy by seeking to engage students in school will he also consider increasing the sanctions for parents of recidivist truants from a $150 maximum fine to an amount that reflects the cost to the taxpayer of educating that child such as a per-day amount of $18.85 for primary school students and $27.48 for secondary school students; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not an expert on the law but I understand that separate prosecutions can be taken on a daily basis and therefore the $150 could apply on—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry I will take the advice of the member that that amount can occur. The key as far as I am concerned is to make examples of a few parents but the really important thing is to ensure that kids are engaged. The work of Russell Bishop John Hattie and others is showing that good work within schools can result in engagement and in kids wanting to be there and that makes a difference. 
Government Revenue—Increases 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What licence fees Government charges taxes or levies have increased since 1999 and by how much? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Most levies licence fees and Government charges will have been reviewed since 1999. Nearly all of these are not my responsibility as Minister of Revenue. The main tax change has been the new 39c tax rate in incomes over $60000 and related changes. In order to assist the member if he cares to put down a written question to the Minister of Finance I will do my best to ensure a coordinated answer is prepared. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is he aware that since Labour became the Government income tax has gone up fringe benefit tax is up trust income tax is up resident withholding tax is up tobacco tax is up petrol tax is up an import fee has been introduced the accident compensation petrol levy is up alcohol tax is up the accident compensation employment levy is up the accident compensation motor vehicle levy is up birth death and marriage certificate fees are up driver’s licence renewal fees are up the fire service levy is up the fishing licence levy is up the cattle slaughtering levy is up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Peter Brown 
: I have nearly finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. If there are two more the member can have the last two. 
Peter Brown 
: The export education levy is up and the fund withdrawal tax for superannuation is up; and does he believe that is compatible with the promises he made before he got into Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am amazed at my ability to get things up but could I point out to the member that in the last poll I saw approval of the Government’s economic performance was 67 percent for and 28 percent against. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second time today that a senior Minister has stood up and started to give on the matter—by way of the biggest part of the answer—some latest poll figures. That is not the answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This has the latest poll. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. That cannot be an answer. The member in his primary question asked about a matter and the Minister gave as his first answer that he was the Minister of Revenue and that the member should put down a question to the Minister of Finance—which he also is officially I might add although there is not much evidence of that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the question has to be put to Ministers in terms of their portfolio responsibilities. This question was put to the Minister of Revenue. If the member had put the question to the Minister of Finance then indeed I have the responsibility as Minister of Finance for all those areas in some form or another. But as Minister of Revenue I am responsible only for direct taxes indirect taxes and related matters. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: With more than a billion dollars a year additional revenue from new and increased taxes and levies why has the Minister done nothing to reverse the 42 percent increase in income tax as a proportion of gross wages for average production workers since he has been Minister as shown by OECD research published this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That data is highly debatable in terms of assumptions. The important point is that tax as a proportion of gross domestic product has risen only very slightly during that period and we are still well below the OECD average in that regard. If the member wants to wait until next year I am sure he will find the Government making some significant moves to assist families—low to middle income families with children. He of course will not qualify under either head. 
Domestic Purposes Benefit—Maori 
11.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How does he reconcile his statement that the increase of Maori on the domestic purposes benefit was due to “MSD tidying up their records” with his previous statement that it was due to “age structure”; and when did he first become aware of this increase of Maori on the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 First the statistics do not show an increase of Maori on the domestic purposes benefit; they show an overall decline in domestic purposes benefit numbers. Second the number of people without an ethnicity code dropped from 12386 in 1999 to 1178 in 2003. That renders any ethnicity comparison between 1999 and 2003 meaningless. Third population age structure and fertility patterns combined with labour market participation and marriage status explain most of why young Maori are disproportionately represented on the domestic purposes benefit. 
Katherine Rich 
: In light of the fact that there has been a rise of Maori on the domestic purposes benefit and invalids and sickness benefits and the percentage of Maori on unemployment benefits has increased will he stick to his statement that the rise of Maori on domestic purposes benefit is solely due to “MSD tidying up their records”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The figures show that back in the 1990s the previous National Government was not asking the department to code people on the basis of ethnicity. Therefore in the years we have been in Government we have been asking for those figures to be cleaned up. We have seen a change in the number of people who are recorded as being Maori who have the domestic purposes benefit. Overall the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit have gone down by 1 percent since we have been the Government. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How has the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit changed since 1999 and what has the Government put in place to assist people on the domestic purposes benefit to move into employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit as sole parents has declined from 104199 to 102146 since we have been the Government. The annual personal development employment plans and more active case management that we have brought in will ensure we move people into work as family circumstances allow. This is a marked change from ignoring people until their youngest child turns six or 14 as the previous Government did. 
Katherine Rich 
: While the Minister has offered two different explanations in 2 days for rising numbers of Maori on the domestic purposes benefit is he concerned that after 4 years of closing-the-gaps-like programmes the gaps are widening not closing for Maori? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know it is complex to hold two explanations in one’s mind at once but it is not that difficult. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not the way to answer the question. The Minister will answer the question asked. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is clear that the explanation as to why there is an apparent change in the number of young Maori on the domestic purposes benefit does need for us to understand how the stats are being collected and it does mean that we need to understand the basic explanations of population change and so on. Both those explanations are needed. But I repeat the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit has gone down since we have been the Government. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the rising trend of Maori women on the domestic purposes benefit does he share the concerns of the Chief Youth Court Judge David Carruthers who recently outlined here in Parliament the clear link between increasing fatherlessness and increasing crime; if so given that Maori are already over-represented in crime statistics can he tell the House what action he intends to take? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no rising trend but the Government is very concerned about people who are on a benefit for any length of time rather than earning a living and getting on with their lives. That is why in all cases of beneficiaries we have been introducing a very vigorous programme which has given us the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a full list of the tax increases. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that list. Is there any objection? There is. 
Small Businesses—Compliance Costs 
12.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to reduce compliance costs incurred by small businesses in completing requests for statistical information? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has been doing a huge amount in recent years to reduce the time and effort required of small businesses to provide statistical information. It is estimated that extended use of sampling and administrative data will mean that in the year 2004 60 percent of New Zealand’s smallest businesses will receive no questionnaires at all from Statistics New Zealand and a further 17 percent will receive only one simple request to update basic descriptive information. 
Mark Peck 
: What feedback has the Government received on the need to reduce statistics compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs made a number of recommendations in this area. On the Government side of the House we listen to small-business people. We know that completing statistical returns is time consuming and frustrating for them so we have done something about it. Statistics New Zealand’s initiatives in this area are just another example of this Government’s commitment to take action to reduce compliance costs rather than just talk about it. 
Supreme Court Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a third time 
. One hundred years ago the then Chief Justice and former Prime Minister Sir Robert Stout called on New Zealand to reappraise its continued use of the Privy Council for New Zealand appeals. Shortly thereafter East Coast Maori petitioned this House to end New Zealand appeals to London in relation to Maori land issues and instead to direct them to courts here—to judges more familiar with New Zealand conditions. In 1983 the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon acknowledged the time was coming when our use of the Privy Council would cease. In 1989 the Law Commission report on the structure of the courts supported the end of appeals to the Privy Council. The report stated: “The underlying motive for ending judicial committee appeals is that the final New Zealand court responsible for clarifying and developing the law of New Zealand should be composed of senior New Zealand judges who are part of our community and closely familiar with our historical social and legal history. Moreover they should be part of a permanent court made up of judges regularly working together as a collegiate group.” 
It is now 30 years since we have accepted in a broad way the proposition that we should have a final court actually sitting in New Zealand with permanent New Zealand members. It is that aspiration that successive Attorneys-General have sought to achieve over the past 20 years. In 1996 the National Government introduced a bill to end appeals to the Privy Council but that Government failed to gain sufficient support to proceed. In 2000 I decided not to introduce legislation immediately but to follow a more inclusive process by publishing a discussion paper with the options identified by the previous National Government. Public submissions revealed an even balance in the community’s attitudes towards abolishing or retaining appeals to the Privy Council. There was however a clear message: that if the Privy Council were abolished there needed to be a clear distinct and independent two-tier appellate court structure above the High Court. 
Following further consultation with Maori business groups and the legal profession a ministerial advisory group was established to provide advice on the framework of the new Supreme Court. Rather than proceeding immediately the Government deliberately decided to wait until after the 2002 election before proceeding. This bill was introduced after that election and the Justice and Electoral Committee then held extensive hearings on it thus completing a 4-year-long process of consultation on the role and structure of New Zealand’s Supreme Court. 
Throughout the debate on the bill very little has been said about the real reasons why the time has not only come but is overdue to establish our own final appellate court. When our Court of Appeal was established in 1957 it was intended to be the final appellate court for most cases. Limited appeals to the Privy Council were retained for rare cases. The Court of Appeal was intended at that time to have the role of error-correction as well as of clarification and development of the law. With the Court of Appeal’s increasing workload the latter function has become increasingly more difficult for the court to perform. As a result the development of New Zealand’s law has been stifled. The Privy Council cannot fulfil that development of the law function because of the narrow range and limited number of cases it hears and most important its lack of understanding of the context within which New Zealand cases arise. Members of the Opposition have suggested that this problem could be overcome by all cases going to the Privy Council—after all they argue it is cheaper than our courts because it is subsidised by the British taxpayer. That “freeloader” approach is not the policy of this Government. 
That brings me to the second reason why the time is overdue for New Zealand to take responsibility for its own court system. With the passage of time there have been significant changes in Britain in the Commonwealth and in New Zealand—such that the Privy Council now faces an uncertain future. Fifty independent countries have withdrawn or are in the process of withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Only the independent countries of Mauritius Brunei and the Bahamas will continue to appeal to the Privy Council. Tuvalu and Kiribati although they still have a right of appeal have not exercised it in 30 years! 
It is not only the fact that so few countries remain with the Privy Council that makes change urgent here. This year the United Kingdom Government announced major changes to its court system—namely the abolition of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to be replaced by a new Supreme Court. This court will hear devolution appeals from Scotland which is the only other significant jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Somewhat belatedly the Opposition has noted those developments which make its promise to repeal our Supreme Court legislation and reinstate the Privy Council a nonsense. I rather doubt that the United Kingdom would wish to reinstate the remaining trappings of colonialism at a time when it is firmly turning towards Europe. The Opposition may want to be the last to leave—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a serious debate and I am going to make sure that during the course of it people are able to have their contributions heard in relative silence. I do not mind the odd interjection but I do not want too many. There were too many interjections when I intervened. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Opposition may want to be the last to leave the Privy Council but this Government has more dignity and foresight than that. True leadership means that one creates one’s own future and does not wait for others to impose it. With this bill this Government has demonstrated the courage of leadership. 
It is appropriate at this time that I formally express to the Privy Council New Zealand’s appreciation of the service it has provided over a long period. That service was particularly important when we were a young emerging nation and our judicial resources were limited. As countries mature they develop their own legal resources and that is what we have done. It is time we stood on our own feet. 
In conclusion the reasons why this bill is so important are simple. If New Zealand is to develop as a fully independent country we must give all our people equal access to justice and not just a privileged few. If New Zealand is to develop its own jurisprudence reflecting the needs of our own society then we must throw off once and for all the fetters of our colonial past. It is time we took responsibility for our own legal destiny and celebrated the fact that we have a judiciary of the highest integrity and capability. Speaking as the Attorney-General privileged to act as midwife to this long-awaited change I along with this Government will continue to protect the independence and integrity of our legal system as it embarks on this new phase of its development. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I think the way that speech was greeted in the House is a very serious issue for this Parliament. This new Supreme Court starts out damaged at conception and the reaction of this House is the measure of it. It is the measure of the fundamental problem at the core of the dispute today and that is distrust. This is made obvious even by the way the Prime Minister has conducted the debate in recent weeks. She has said that this is not a major constitutional change and that that is why it does not require a public referendum. Well that is rubbish. She stands alone popular modest and competent as she is as the only person—aside from members of the Labour caucus—who believes that. Anyone else who has looked at this measure which not only abolishes appeals to the Privy Council but sets up a final Court of Appeal in New Zealand says it is a major constitutional change. 
So why does that matter? Well I just wish the Government would listen to this advice. This court can succeed only if it meets one of two conditions: it has broad support in Parliament or if that is not the case it has the broad support of the public. It is a major constitutional change and the constitution belongs to the people. If in the first instance this Parliament offers broad support that can be enough. In the case of MMP it was decided that there had to be not only one referendum but several because it was such a major change that would affect the direction of this country and its political life for decades. 
I say to the Government that it has failed the very court that it so much desires to have. It has failed because it has not gained broad parliamentary support. It has made no effort whatsoever to gain that support—none whatsoever. So the Government ends up passing this bill in this House on a narrow left-wing majority. It could have done differently. National did put a bill forward in the mid-1990s which failed for lack of parliamentary support. That tells that side of the House that these ideas are not altogether foreign on this side of the House. There could have been debate and discussion about it but there was none. In fact the Government did such a bad job of parliamentary support that it started out with the support of the United Future party which had goodwill and whose members are supporters of the Government and it lost that support. That is how badly the Government has failed. 
Then the Government failed the second test which was that if it could not win over Parliament it should put it to the test with the public. It has not. That goes to the core of the mistrust of this Government and its social agenda. The way that the Government has dealt with that issue has been arrogant elitist and contemptuous of public opinion. Helen Clark Margaret Wilson and Lord Cooke—our most eminent jurist apparently—have all said that the public are not up to it. In fact Lord Cooke said that the thought of the proposal being subject to a referendum made him tremble. I sat there and watched him tremble as he said it. That is the risk for New Zealand—that the spirit of the founders of this Supreme Court Margaret Wilson Helen Clark and Lord Cooke will infuse it. The risk for this country is that people who have so much contempt for public opinion who think we are just not clever enough to understand the issues are the types of people who will be appointing the Supreme Court and will be on the Supreme Court. It is a disgrace. I say to this Government that long after it has gone this Parliament will be wrestling with that Supreme Court because it started out without the foundation of support that even the supporters of the Supreme Court should be looking for. If the Government really wants this court to work then it should get the public behind it if it has failed to get Parliament behind it. 
The next step in this process is the process of appointment. Again it is blighted by distrust. Margaret Wilson’s record on appointments is disgraceful. This Parliament does not trust her to make the appointments to the Supreme Court. Many people do not realise that Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark get the opportunity to appoint two courts—the Supreme Court and then to fill all the vacancies on the Court of Appeal created by that process. It could be the case that in the next few months Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark will appoint 10 of the 12 senior judges of New Zealand for a generation. That is unacceptable. I believe that it would be unacceptable if the National Party set out to do that. It has never happened in New Zealand history and it ought never to happen. If the Government is determined to push this through judges cannot be appointed in the way that traditionally they have been. 
I recommend to the Government that it take this advice as well. It must fundamentally change the appointment process for this round of appointments. In the ongoing business of Government we accept that appointing a judge or two at a time which is the way it has been done traditionally is all right and is effective; the record shows that competent people are appointed. But when up to 10 judges are going to be appointed for a generation it must be done differently. I believe that it should ultimately be done by resolution of this House. That resolution should occur after hearings by a special select committee to consider the candidates for the Supreme Court. We need to know what these people think. We cannot trust Margaret Wilson’s judgment about it nor can we trust the judgment of Sir Paul Reeves or that influential knight of the realm Sir Geoffrey Palmer or Heather Simpson. Those people have no concept of the mainstream views of New Zealanders about New Zealand and this court will certainly be taking points of view and making judgments about New Zealand. 
I believe that the primary constitutional difference that it will make is to render the Treaty of Waitangi a virtual constitution for New Zealand. That is written into the legislation quite specifically at the wishes of Labour and the Greens. The court will be charged to deal with the treaty in a way that the Privy Council simply refused to do. We need to know whether these judges are breathing thin pink oxygen the clapped-out warped ideology of separatism that Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson are driving into this country or whether they will stick to a judge’s job of interpreting the law not making a new constitution for New Zealand. If any of them think they are going to do a Lord Cooke and put five of them on there they are wrong because that approach will certainly lead to a head-on clash with this Parliament. 
That is why the appointment process must be changed. For just this one-off group of appointments of which there could be up to 10 we should have select committee hearings where those judges can be interviewed and their views discussed. Parliament can then decide whether to pass a resolution to appoint those judges. 
I ask the Government to please take the advice. It failed to win parliamentary support and it refused to seek public support; it must now seek the broad support of Parliament for those judges’ appointments or this court will be damaged at birth in its credibility and therefore will fail to fulfil the Government’s vision but more important will fail to fulfil the role that it potentially could have for New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take the next call I advise the House that I have had a request from National and New Zealand First that they split the 10th call into two calls of 5 minutes each. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. So when the 10th call is made there will be two calls of 5 minutes each. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before Mr English spoke you reprimanded the House and said that this is an important constitutional debate and that you would insist on the highest standards. I waited because I thought perhaps you did not intend to break up Mr English’s speech and would reprimand members now at the conclusion of his speech. We saw two extremely unparliamentary actions during his speech. The first was made by the co-leader of the Green Party. He walked between Mr English and yourself conducted a conversation with the Clerk then came back and started to make gestures towards the Opposition like a soccer hooligan. The second grossly unparliamentary action was the Attorney-General deciding to stand in the gangway—standing is completely out of order when interjecting—and heckle Mr English as she walked ignoring you. I believe that those two members should be reprimanded by you for their conduct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do that because I thought that the interjection should not have been made in that way. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise for interjecting. 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Donald broke one of the traditions. One does not go in front of the member when one is 
moving in that way. I think the point was validly taken. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are proud to support this bill. We believe that it accords with the Green Party charter and our principles. We also believe that the idea of the final court of appeal in New Zealand being situated on the other side of the world in London is just bizarre and not credible for an independent nation such as ourselves. We are pleased that this country will finally get a fully functioning final court of appeal. The point has been made in this debate previously that we do not have a fully functioning final court of appeal in this country. The access to the Privy Council is so restricted and the number of cases that can get there are so few that the Privy Council is just not able to fulfil the traditional functions of a final court of appeal. On the other hand our own Court of Appeal gets so many cases that it is unable to fulfil that function. It does not have the time to deal exhaustively with matters of law in order to play that function. 
It is no surprise that we see the right-wing parties of the House line up together to support a final court of appeal that serves the rich well but does not serve the ordinary New Zealander. The question that the Green Party had to address in dealing with this bill was whether we support justice for all New Zealanders or justice just for the rich. We unashamedly support justice for all New Zealanders. We believe that this bill is a step towards the decolonisation of this country and the development of the forging of a national identity. Some people have claimed that this is a move towards republicanism. Those claims are exaggerated. Lord Cooke said very clearly in the select committee that although he is an ardent monarchist he supports this bill. We have only to look at the example of other countries—Canada Australia and the like—which have ended their appeals to the Privy Council but remain part of the Commonwealth with the Queen as their head of State. 
However I personally have to say that I hope we will see constitutional change in the not too distant future. I believe that we do need to move towards a republic. We do need treaty-based constitutional change and a written constitution to constrain the ability of this House to act particularly within the context of a unicameral system. We need to end the fallacious doctrine of the indivisibility of sovereignty which is just incorrect in the context of Aotearoa. 
The Attorney-General has outlined the process by which this policy was developed and by which the bill arising out of the policy was developed. This bill has highlighted a more general concern that the processes by which the Crown engages with Maori in general have not been well developed by any Government whether Labour or National. The select committee has asked for more work to be done by the Government on how processes of negotiation can be better managed. However it is simply not true to say as some do that this bill has been rushed that it has been introduced by stealth or that the public has not had the chance to have input. The Attorney-General has outlined the lengthy process that the bill has gone through and that process included an extended select committee process to try to ensure that the public had ample opportunity to have a say on the bill in addition to the discussions prior to it being introduced into this House. 
There have been accusations by some including the Hon Georgina te Heuheu among others that the Greens are supporting this bill because we have done some kind of a deal. One has to ask: “A deal on what?”. I cannot even begin to imagine. Perhaps a deal on GE? Well we have yet to see the Government budge one millimetre on the GE issue in response to the Green Party representations and in response to the many thousands of people who marched in the streets this last weekend. Did we do a deal on the Clean Slate Bill perhaps? I do not think so. Perhaps we will see tomorrow if my Clean Slate Bill comes up during members’ day but I am certainly not holding my breath to see the Government support my Clean Slate Bill because I would probably expire if I did. Those people simply find it difficult to understand that there is a party in this House that does not operate like that—that does not trade between issues and that acts with integrity on such matters. They fail to understand that the Green Party has a consistent position that we will support legislation when we think it is good legislation and we will oppose legislation when we think it is bad legislation. It is just that simple. 
I have to distinguish the members of that member’s own party National whose leader Bill English said on National Radio last Friday that he supported the National bill in 1996 but is opposing this bill now because of who has put it up—because Margaret Wilson has put it up and because the Prime Minister is Helen Clark. If that is the reason the National Party is opposing the bill I have to say that is the kind of first-past-the-post politics that this country rejected when we moved to MMP. The Green Party has not done a deal and in fact the position of the Green Party to support this bill was a democratic decision of the entire party not just of the caucus—and I believe that the Green Party policy development process is the most democratic of any party in this Parliament. It was the position of the party and it was reaffirmed by the caucus to support this bill. 
I have to acknowledge that there are members of the Green Party who do not support the position that the party has taken. In particular some of the Maori members have expressed grave concern about the bill and would prefer to see the Green Party oppose the Supreme Court at this stage. They want to see a written constitution developed and the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi clarified before the bill is passed. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view. But it was a decision of the whole party democratically arrived at through our policy development process and affirmed by the caucus through a separate process to support this bill. That is the will of the Green Party and that is what the Green Party caucus will continue to uphold. 
The concerns expressed by those members have been acknowledged by the party and are the subject of ongoing discussion with the Government in terms of providing impetus to a proposal for a constitutional inquiry through the Justice and Electoral Committee. I certainly do not think it is the place of the select committee to say what our constitution should be. But I think the select committee could play a very useful role in saying what our constitution is now because there is a lot of confusion about that and in saying what the appropriate process is by which this Parliament can engage with the public to have a public discussion about our constitution. 
I would like in the last stages of my speech to refer to the question of referenda. I talked about this during the Committee stage so I will not go over the many good arguments against referenda on this particular bill in general except to say that although some media have jumped on the bandwagon in the last few days and whipped up fear through in one case at least a good deal of misinformation and outright lies there is no evidence in fact of a widespread call for a referendum. A poll published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today shows support for a referendum but any poll would show support for a referendum on just about any piece of legislation. If one phones people up and asks them whether they want to have a say through a referendum they are bound to say “Yes”. But I think it is highly significant that the campaign to get a petition to force a citizens initiated referendum had to be relaunched a few days ago because it had flopped so badly the first time it was launched. So I think this House has to conclude that there is no evidence of a significant call from the public for a referendum. 
This bill is good legislation and it was clearly signalled by Labour before the election. Finally this country will have a fully functioning final court of appeal that is open to all kinds of cases and wide open to all New Zealanders not just the elite friends of some of the parties of this Parliament. The Green Party will support this bill. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This idea was illegitimate at conception and it will be illegitimate at birth. There was no mandate for this matter at the 2002 election. It was in Labour’s manifesto and it was in the Progressive manifesto but both those parties could not get a majority. It was not in the Green manifesto. The Greens said they would pay attention to what the Maori people wanted. So firstly there is no mandate. Secondly 80 percent of the people of this country want to have a say on this issue and they should have it. On such a significant issue of constitutional change the people should be asked not the temporarily empowered politicians about to go from this Parliament as Margaret Wilson soon will. The moment the Prime Minister flies the white flag she will be gone as well. They want to leave that legacy to the rest of us to try to put in place in the long term as we carry on in Government. 
Helen Clark said she knows at least 10 other people who support this legislation. Is that so? Could that be true? Are there 10 other secret supporters of this bill? Well I tell the Prime Minister to put her money where her mouth is and have a conscience vote today. We will then see who is telling the truth—Helen Clark or the rest of us. 
Then she talked about the cost. Any international business that in the future has a dispute—and this will be written into the contract—will not have that dispute decided in New Zealand. It will be decided in the UK Canada Australia or Europe—anywhere but in New Zealand. Because there is no way that 4 million people can put together a group of judges far enough removed from the maelstrom of politics to be independent. Those are not my words they are in the 1969 thesis of one Geoffrey Palmer. It is all there. No way could one have that proximity to the people and guarantee independence. So we disposed of that argument as well. But the costs to New Zealand business will be huge. 
Then of course they say as Nandor Tanczos and John Tamihere did that the Privy Council is only for the rich. It is amazing to hear that stupid statement. Who took the Samoan people during 1982 who were not the rich to a win in the Privy Council? Who took a whole lot of Maori claimants just last year to the Privy Council—all seeking legal aid and three-quarters of whom were Maori—to benefit hundreds of people because our High Court and Court of Appeal got it wrong? They were ordinary poor people. I myself have been there against the rich and famous in the wine-box case. 
Pita Paraone 
: Labour supporters! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh Labour supporters; Labour donors! They gave Labour millions. This argument about the cost—that the benefit will be only to the wealthy—is therefore spurious totally false and a diversion. 
They say we are doing just what Canada and Australia did. That is not true. That is false. Helen Clark says she is widely read on this issue. She is not. Margaret Wilson made that claim too. This is a former dean of a law school. Mind you it was Waikato University! This former dean does not understand that in Canada—after it finally established its last and final Court of Appeal—the right to go to the Privy Council went on for another 74 years. In Australia the other example put up by Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson the right to go to the Privy Council went on for another 85 years. Not this bunch reciting those examples! Ignorant of the facts they say we will be in the same circumstances as Canada and Australia. That is totally false and historically wrong. There is a word for that but I cannot use it. 
And here is the other Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson deceit. They said that the last time Maori went to the Privy Council and won was in 1927. That is demonstrably false and totally untrue. A former assistant clerk of this House Ellis took 12 people to the Privy Council three-quarters of whom were Maori—but the beneficiaries in the main from that finding were Maori and there were hundreds of them—and they won. Those people were so poor they could not even afford to go there unless it was on legal aid at the time. So we have debunked that argument as well. 
But I want to come to those seven Maori MPs who every day say that they are the unique special and particular voice of the Maori people of this country who have been here for 1000 years and entitled to a special ward in political terms themselves. Those seven Maori members say that above all else they speak for Maori. 
My colleague Pita Paraone passed on an old saying to me this morning: “Even lambs make noises.” Even lambs say something. So can people hear the voice of Maoridom down the centuries the tangata whenua the people of the land? What can members hear? A deafening silence; not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable not a sound and not even a bleat! “Yes ma’am yes ma’am three bags full.” They talk of tino rangatiratanga the tribe the mana the majesty of the people and standing in the shoes of chiefs. Can members hear the voice now? No I cannot. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Taihoa taihoa. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is. “Taihoa taihoa it’s off to vote we go!” That is their idea of representation. If ever I saw a nail in the coffin of special Maori representation I am seeing it today. For there is no reason to carry on with the separate Maori seats if that is what the standard unique and special voice represents. 
I say to the Maori members over there that they have nothing to be afraid of. Those seven Maori members have nothing to lose by crossing the House to vote with their people today. They have nothing to lose. They will not even lose their seats because we will not stand against them. They have nothing at all to lose but their weakness. They have nothing at all to lose but their subservience. They have nothing at all to lose but the subjugation of their people. So they should stand up today for their people. They should do something. [ 
Interruption 
] 
They should not shout at me; they should shout at their leader. They should not shout me down; they should shout their leader down. Or better still those members should get up on their feet to defend this bill. If ever I saw a patronising attitude to Maori it is in the way Labour has treated them today. All during this debate they have not been able to speak. Not one Maori member has spoken for the full time since this debate started. 
The senior Government whip pretends that he speaks for Maori right over his colleagues’ heads. If that happened in my party we would be shouted down would we not? But those members are colonised. They are suffering from overbearing imperialism. They have nothing to lose. They should cross the floor. Their people are asking them to do that. 
Lastly this is a defining moment for this country. We intend to repeal the legislation. No respectable jurist if he or she is halfway wise will take on that office. But more importantly unlike what their spin doctor told them this will not be forgotten in 2 years’ time. It is the defining moment for the next election and when it is all over those members will be over here and we will be over there. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is a defining moment when a court is born in these circumstances. Every decision it makes for the next few years will be scrutinised to see whether indeed we have ended up with hero judges. I shall read a description from a paper in Australia that is very influential: “Hero judging signals the reversal of time-honoured beliefs about the role of judges—transforming them from guardians of liberty with a healthy suspicion of Governments into partners of the politicians working to strengthen rather than limit the role of Government. It asks judges to participate in economic social and political governance and sets tasks for which they are ill-suited. Hero judging is profoundly antidemocratic because it allows unelected and politically unaccountable judges to participate in Government. It allows elected politicians to avoid dealing with politically sensitive issues by transforming political issues best decided through the give and take of the political process into legal questions of right and wrong.” 
That is what this is about. That is why 80 percent of people want a say. There may be many who think that hero judging is a good idea. Others are starting to sense that there can be no other reason for the false arguments and claptrap that has surrounded this debate. The only argument that remains after the select committee consideration and the Committee stage in this House is one of national pride—the so-called “maturing as a nation” argument. The other two were clearly falsified by the evidence and no one now tries to sustain them—that is the argument of cost and access to justice. 
On the argument of cost this legislation will cost New Zealand at least $27 million more than we spend at the moment on appeals to the highest level. This Government—on the argument of access—will put families who have been through the Family Court farmers and business people and someone who wants to build a granny flat who have been through the Environment Court and workers and employers who have been through the Employment Court through three stages of proceedings. 
That is not justice. That is litigation savagery. To have people required to go through three stages instead of two is not something suffered by the Australians or the British. In Britain the number that go through two stages of appeal to a third court is one per million in Australia it is about four per million and in Canada it is about three per million. Under the heading of “Access” this Government is planning to put 12 per million through our Supreme Court. 
That of course does not add to justice. It simply adds to uncertainty especially when we see what lies behind the Attorney-General’s promotion of this bill. All those extra appeals that will go not just two stages but three—except one special area—will be on law and fact. Typically appeal courts do not go through the facts again because that is torture. That is exposing people to enormous expense. The Attorney-General has carefully changed perhaps 10 different Acts to make it plain that there can be appeals to the Supreme Court on both law and fact. However there is one very telling exception. That exception is in employment law. Employment law appeals can go only on the law. 
I wonder why that would be. I believe that it is very clear. As time went on the Attorney-General still would not state a simple process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. She will still not unequivocally acknowledge that it will be the senior judges from the Court of Appeal. She still will not accept any process or mechanism to ensure that it is not politically stacked. She can see that she will not get away with more than one or at most two odd appointments. She does not want this new court to be dealing with her baby the employment law. She does not want them re-examining Judge Goddard’s findings until a year or two down the track we find that that Supreme Court is starting to get on it the people that she is appointing at the lower level. 
That is a postponement because she knows she will get to stack the court through the appointments at the lower level. A court that starts off like that is not a celebration of nationhood. It does not give us pride. It will make our law process a nonsense. As the Leader of the Opposition Mr English said this is a day for shame. As Mr Peters said this is the worst kind of start or birth for a new court. 
 Labour members and their proxies in the Greens in their arguments also talked frequently about a court for the fat cats. Did the patient in the Bottrill case think she was a fat cat when she got the Privy Council to overturn the establishment view in New Zealand and allow her to challenge the decision that she could not sue for the negligent cancer diagnosis? Is she one of the Labour Government’s fat cats? What about the more recent case concerning the man who cannot be named who took on theChildren Young Persons and Their Families Service because the New Zealand Court of Appeal said that negligent investigation of an abuse case cannot be a matter for litigation in the New Zealand courts? 
Antonia Fisher came before the select committee because of the experience she had had acting for the women in the Bottrill case. Mr Chris Sygrove told me it took only $60000—and every dollar of it well spent—for the man who had been so badly treated in the child abuse investigation by Children Young Persons and Their Families Service. 
And there is more. In the Taito case Mr Tony Ellis and Mr Shaw went to the Privy Council to get the legal aid appeals decision reversed and it took $25000. They considered that every dollar of that was well spent. Of course because they won it was reimbursed by legal aid. If this Government were really interested in access to justice it could send every person who goes near the Privy Council to London and back in a private jet. The amount the Government is spending for this new court works out at $150000 per extra appeal. Appellants could go backwards and forwards in a private jet two or three times—unless they were Mr Tamihere who wrote in the newspapers that it had cost his folk more than a million dollars for their appeal and they failed. Of course they failed; the rich are Mr Tamihere’s urban Maori. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Tamihere is one of them. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: That is right the fat cats! The venom of Mr Tamihere is probably because the real fat cats lost. 
What is the outcome? What will happen? We will have a court born in this state because the Attorney-General made absolutely no attempt to get consensus. She never approached any member on this side of the House as far as I am aware or even the Government’s friends in United Future to discuss a way of appointing judges that might reassure people it was not part of an agenda to stack the court. As Mr English suggested she did not even bother to deal with the first appointments as a separate matter. She did not bother to get the retired judges who were making silly observations about there never having been political appointments to consider the situation across the Tasman. 
I asked the Parliamentary Library to look at the appointments to the High Court of Australia and when I stopped at Lionel Murphy’s name which must be the high point of appointments to the highest court 17 of the first 33 Australian High Court judges had served as politicians. Why would New Zealand be different? It has not been a stacked court in our appointments to date because it simply has not been worth incurring the political cost. What Government would bother to stack a New Zealand court when we can appeal to a patently impartial independent set of international referees? Of course it would not. But the past is no guide to the future. Because the Minister rejects our past rejects tradition and wants the future to be different we are going into this with absolutely no protection against a stacked court other than the assurance that the Solicitor-General—the Attorney-General’s chief employee—and Sir Paul Reeves will be giving her advice. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 What a shambles the Government had made of this proposal. We have a Privy Council that is in decline and as I said in my second reading speech I would give it 5 years before it needs replacing. We need to replace our right of appeal to the Privy Council. The Supreme Court proposal put up by the Government was generally a good proposal. The only problem is that the public do not want it. The Government’s response to the public’s opposition to it is: “Stuff the public! We are going ahead anyway.” Support for the Government drops further and slowly its buffer zone whittles away. So let us have a post-mortem. What went wrong for the Government? It all comes down to marketing. For marketing I would give the Government a D minus. Simply it did not sell this proposal to the public. It was a constitutional issue it needed the public to be onside but the Government failed to get public support. 
What were the errors the Government made? Firstly there should have been a select committee inquiry into whether the Privy Council should be abandoned in favour of a Supreme Court based on a specific discussion paper that was effectively a shadow bill. Instead the Government tabled a Supreme Court Bill and said: “Well here it is. Now we will discuss it and then we will pass it.” and the public felt it was a fait accompli. The issue needed to be taken on a gentler basis. The issue of whether the right of appeal to the Privy Council should be abandoned in favour of the Supreme Court should have been fronted up directly to the public—not just through a consultation paper that asked what would replace it on the assumption that it would be replaced and not based simply on private conversations with selected people. There should have been a discussion paper because then there would have been public ownership of this issue. The public would have said: “All right we have been asked the question. These are our views.” Those views could have been discussed and the public might have come onside. 
Secondly the Government should have said to the public: “The Privy Council is in decline. What are we going to do to replace it?” We know that countries have left the Privy Council and we know that only three countries apart from New Zealand now actively participate in the Privy Council. The public do not know that. It has been too little and too late for the Government to now sell this bill on that basis. The public needed to know that fact a long time ago. 
Even recently I have been getting emails from people saying: “If it isn’t broke why fix it?” The fact of the matter is that if the Privy Council is not broken now it will be broken shortly but the public do not realise that and that is the Government’s fault. Even in this House there are people who did not know that the Caribbean countries are leaving the Privy Council and they make up 40 percent of the caseload of the current council. They did not know that England is to set up a new Supreme Court which would take 20 percent of the caseload away from the Privy Council leaving New Zealand and those other small countries. The lack of education within this House let alone outside it—and I am talking about Labour MPs here—has been abysmal. 
It is only in the last week that the Government has finally started arguing that this is a necessary bill because the Privy Council is going into decline. However the Privy Council was probably not in demise 2 years ago when the Government actively started this process. The Caribbean departure has occurred over the last 12 months and the Supreme Court proposals in England have really taken place this year. The Government’s initial approach was to do this as an ideological drive so its timing was out. If the Government had been a little bit more patient about this bill and taken a little bit more time to get the public onside then the events we have seen in the last year would have helped it achieve the goal it felt it needed to achieve. 
But once the Government realised the public was not onside it could even then have taken a step back and looked at some degree of compromise that could have resulted in this bill going through. Government members could have swallowed their pride opened their minds and said: “All right we do not have public support. What do we need to get it?” That is the approach United Future took. One way would have been to disclose the names of the senior Court of Appeal judges on the first court. There is no reason why the names of the first court could not have been decided and disclosed before this bill went through. The Government could have consulted as much as it liked beforehand but that disclosure would have given the public and the business community confidence that the court would not be stacked. 
With regard to judicial appointments clearly there are the beginnings of a worldwide trend—particularly in Commonwealth countries—for there to be an independent judicial appointments commission. As those criticisms arose the Government should have volunteered a discussion paper and announced that there would be a move to work towards a more independent judicial consultation process. That would have allayed fears among the legal and business communities about the stacking of courts and the judicial process that has started to arise particularly on the back of the Australian experience. 
 Thirdly among Maori the key argument was that a constitutional review was needed and that the place of the treaty within our constitution needed to be examined and cemented in. That was the message that came out of the Taupo hui and it has been ignored. For all sorts of reasons we are long overdue in deciding what the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our nation is. Instead National and Labour have taken the approach of saying that they are too scared to address the place of the treaty but that they will create “treaty principles”. That has confused the situation even more. We have been wandering around—as Labour continues to do—with no vision of the place of Maori and the treaty within New Zealand for the next 5 to 10 years. We need a clear direction and that is what Maori are calling for in the context of this bill. 
Fourthly the business community clearly lacks confidence that the Court of Appeal judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be able to decide their multi-million dollar cases in that court. That is not necessarily to say that our Court of Appeal judges do not have competence. They do have competence but in comparison to the level of support and confidence engendered by British judges and the senior Commonwealth law lords the business community thinks we will be poorly served. 
What could we have done to try to alleviate that concern? Why not arrange that two of the five judges on the initial bench will be overseas judges with commercial experience? In exchange for us withdrawing from the Privy Council why not ask the British legislature to make two judges available to us—even just during the transition process—in order to get the support of the business community? I am sure the British Government would have been sympathetic to that request but it was never put. There could have been a transition. We could have looked at reviewing the system in 5 years’ time. That would have allowed the court to begin with the confidence of the public and to prove to itself and to New Zealanders that our judges had competence. When it was reviewed in 5 years’ time it might well have been OK. Instead Labour is seen as arrogant ideology-driven dismissive of public opinion and untrustworthy. 
Why are the Greens supporting this bill? According to Green members they got no concessions. They went into the select committee process wanting three things. They wanted overseas judges more consultation with Maori and a clause inserted in the bill to the effect that the bill did not affect the treaty rights of Maori. Have they got any of those? No they did not get a single one. They said they changed their minds on overseas judges. There might have been more consultation with Maori but Maori emphatically said “No” so the Greens ignored them. Is there a clause protecting treaty rights? No there is not. The right of appeal based on treaty issues has been taken away and put into the purpose clause. One could argue that effectively the role of the treaty has been demeaned not encouraged. So much for that! 
The mystery is what the Greens have achieved from it. They have achieved nothing. They have sold out their constituency and New Zealanders who do not support this bill. It will not be the last time they sell out their constituency. They have promised to bring the Government down after the end of the month if the moratorium is lifted. They have said they will not support the Government’s legislation. It will be interesting to see whether they welsh on the commitment they made to the people as well and once again sacrifice their constituency. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 E te kaihautu me te whakaruruhau tenara koe. Nga mihi nunui ki te whanui o te motu kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Taku inoi ki a koutou—e aroha ki a koe Georgina aroha ki a koe aroha ki a koe. Mohio ki a matou aroha ki a koutou. No reira ki a koutou ma taku inoi e nga iwi whanui kia mau te kaupapa nunui te kaupapa tuturumoratoungatipuna. Te mana motuhake momatou. Katia te pitomo te Kawanatanga. Engari e tuake au ki te tautoko te mana whenua te mana monga iwi kotahi tatoumo te whenua o Aotearoa. Kareratoungatipuna e warewaretia e matau. Takototonu takototonu a takototonu. 
Madam Speaker I acknowledged you in my opening. As a Maori member I am privileged to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the Maori caucus as well as for my full caucus. I acknowledged the people far and wide in this country. Notwithstanding the interjection from the list member of no fixed abode Georgina te Heuheu I noted her and acknowledged her interjection. Furthermore I indicated quite clearly that it is the wish of our Maori members elected with the constituency vote and the party vote that our people stand up and wake up. It is our prayer that we cut the tie to Great Britain that they have become dependent upon. It is our view and our right on behalf of our people to acknowledge—and it was handed down from our ancestors—that we must be independent of not dependent on Great Britain. I also acknowledged our ancestors who fell on our behalf as shown by the memorials carved into the Chamber and those who have fallen recently. 
A wrong perception is definitely held particularly by a few people on the Opposition benches that the Privy Council serves as some sort of guardian of Maori treaty rights and that moving to a New Zealand - based Privy Council—our own Supreme Court—is inconsistent with the treaty. We do not believe that. That perception is inaccurate and unacceptable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We didn’t say that. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member for Tauranga goes around the country saying one thing in front of the Maori constituency but another in front of the old people in Tauranga. He is an absolute flip-flop. 
Settlements progress and as Maori organisations grow and change the prospect of litigation also grows. This Government is about positioning New Zealand for opportunity and for the future. That is the direction this Government is going in. The future will see Maori versus Maori cases not just Maori versus the Crown. Those days are over. Our people have to wake up and realise that we can no longer be dependent on traditions 12000 miles away. We have to understand our own mana for a change rather than being suffocated by a Privy Council in Great Britain or by Mr Peters’ social welfare department. It is likely that the final court of appeal will have to make determinations on matters of Maori tikanga—that is on matters of fact. 
As someone who has been to the Privy Council it became obvious to me that the council lacked the ability to make decisions on our cases. Its members did not have the knowledge of what makes a Kiwi or of our jurisprudence which has been treaty-driven through the Waitangi Tribunal. They did not have the knowledge of our society in our times for our things. Not only do I say that Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said it in the Privy Council. He said: “For some years their lordships’ board has recognised the limitations on its role as an appellate tribunal in cases where the decision depends upon considerations of local public policy.” 
The courts of New Zealand are much better placed to assess the requirements of public interest in New Zealand than their lordships’ board. I concur with that lord. He was honest enough and the Privy Council was honest enough to know that they could not handle Kiwi-related matters. They could not apply the facts to the law because they no longer understood the facts. In 1973 when Great Britain deemed it time to go to the European courts it was quite clear that it had embarked upon a new form of law. That law was not our law; it was that country’s law—under the European courts. Twenty-five years later Opposition members sit there and say that is not true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member for Tauranga continues to say that it is not true. We know different. 
Was it not a joke? We saw the Maori Affairs Committee desecrated yesterday by a love-in by the nancy boys running their own hui—the unholy alliance in our own select committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was a meeting yesterday. There were no Labour members there and yet he is referring to “nancy boys”. He should not be allowed to talk about his colleagues in that way. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am glad the member has come out of the closet. I am grateful for that. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I recall an incident last week in the Committee of the whole House that you were chairing in respect of which we recalled the Speaker. There was a Speaker’s ruling that there were to be no inferences. The issue arose when the Maori members on the other side of the House were called “the seven gnomes” and that was ruled out of order. Indeed the Speaker ruled that no inferences—such as “nancy boys” or anything else—were to be made. Because we had a discussion around it I ask you to make sure that that rule is constant right across Parliament. That member should not make any inferences about or references to anybody that are derogatory. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not use language in that way. As the member has said it encourages disorder. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am not making a point of order about the fact that what the Minister said is liable to raise disorder in this House. I know he is not talking about members on this side; he is talking about his colleagues and we all know who they are. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member raised a point of order and I have ruled on it. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whilst we are taking the point I would like you to draw to members’ attention the fact that in his rather derogatory comments about members of Parliament who are still in the closet the Minister knows full well that many of his own party for their own reasons have yet to come out on that issue. To pull them into this debate which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bill before the House is totally inappropriate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: When I was talking to my 13-year-old boy last night he said he saw Huey Dewey and Louie on television. I asked him who they were but I accept that I cannot name them in the Chamber— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the same point. The Speaker was very clear—no inferences or derogatory comments are to be made about any members in this House. It was a Speaker’s ruling and we had a debate about it. That member should be asked to desist or else have his speech terminated. It is not a very good one anyway. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is quite right. If the Minister is referring to other members of Parliament he will refer to them correctly. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The arrangement we have proposed in the bill is clearly this: we are elected for our judgment; we will not be bullied we will not be intimidated and we will not be stood over. [ 
Interruption 
] Not by the pinstriped one from Tauranga! That will not happen. Not only that we will also say that this court is about access for Kiwis to the highest court in their land. It is very simple. The money it takes to go off to Great Britain and trudge all the way through the process means that the Privy Council is no doubt supported by business which uses it as a negotiation instrument and a tool. The people I represent do not; the rich Maoris whom Ms te Heuheu represents do. That is the difference. ACT might want to do that because it is the party in Parliament to support the big side of town; we over here on this side of the Chamber are looking after all the little fellas. That is the way it goes. 
Much is made by members opposite of the fact that we are a small country and that supposedly means that we are incapable of supplying a sufficient number of high-quality judges to determine what the law of New Zealand is. It means that we are no good at anything and that we should sell ourselves—as the ACT party would have us do—to be the 51st state of the USA. That would mean a Bill of Rights and going to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That party would have the Supreme Court of America tomorrow but it will not acknowledge the mana of its own people in our times. Worse the National Party would want to make us the seventh state of Australia. They would rather have an Australian Supreme Court rule on us. That is an outrage and the sooner Kiwis wake up to the fact that this is our time to shape our destiny—our time to grow up and say: “Now is the day.”—the better. 
I want to acknowledge something about the Attorney-General. They can intimidate stand over and say all of their ugly nasty little things about her but at the end of the day in terms of public service to Kiwi nationhood—whether as President of the Labour Party or as a senior academic at Auckland and Waikato universities—she beats them hands down and spades down. I am grateful that she is a colleague. Even better I am grateful that she is a mate. On this side of the House we stand by our mates. We do not sharpen the knife as Ronny Marks does—just behind Winston Peters—because Ronny’s after that. National members would not sharpen the knife because they do not know where to put it. Clearly they do not have a back to put it in. 
In any case I want to make it quite clear that in terms of this bill New Zealand has reached the stage in its nationhood-building where it must reject the cultural cringe and accept that we have the strength confidence and expertise to base our ultimate court in our own country and in our own times. Luckily we have a Government that has direction. Luckily it has leadership. Members on the other side are barren and bankrupt of leadership. 
I say to the member for Tauranga that I do not know the names of his Maori members. No one in the House knows the names of those Maori members. They are no-hopers nincompoops and all the rest of it but I understand they are not bad blokes outside the House. Never have they attended any Maori hui. Never have other Maori members seen them in any Maori hui. They do not turn up; they are as bankrupt as anything. 
I will conclude by saying that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have got it right. If we cannot run ourselves who can? We say we can we say it is our time and we say that this bill is the best thing that has happened in our court processes and constitution since we arrived. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 If one were to summarise that speech one would have to say that it was characterised by a tirade of abuse. This is a very sad day for this Parliament. We are at the stage of the parliamentary process known as the third reading of this bill. That process is almost complete and I was saddened to hear the sycophantic applause that came from the Labour benches when the first speech given by the Attorney-General was read to the House. This is a sad day also for the New Zealand legal system. 
I would like to start if I may by recounting a story to the House that smacks of both treachery and intrigue. At an early stage of the legislative process relating to this bill—which National opposes to a man and a woman—I had a discussion with the Green representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I asked him what the position of the Greens would be on this bill. He was quite open quite direct and quite frank. He said that the Greens would follow the position of Maori on the bill. So it was that he continued as I did to listen to submissions made by the submitters who came before the committee. We heard a large number of Maori submitters. Many of those submitters represented iwi interests and many of them represented Maori business. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise if I do not understand the Standing Orders but I wonder whether it is allowed within the Standing Orders for the member to misrepresent the Green position in that way. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: What was the view of Maori on this bill? They were strongly opposed to it. The Government has rushed on heedless of that concern and I suggest that the consultation hui that have occurred have been shallow and meaningless events given the commitment of the Government to see this legislation through whatever the consequence. So we have a situation in which there has been poor process and acrimony. That is surely not a good start to a major constitutional change. The court has been politicised and I believe that one of the great institutions of the State—our domestic legal system—has been substantially damaged. 
National has made its position clear: it does not support this legislation. When National comes to office in 2005 with the centre-right parties it will repeal this legislation. Those who have been foolish enough to take tenure as judges will lose that tenure and in conjunction with the British Government National will restore the Privy Council link. 
I would like to talk about one aspect of the legislation and its process that is of real concern. Probably the best starting point is to refer to that great newspaper the  
Independent 
. On 10 October 2001 the present Attorney-General made it very clear to those people who read the the 
Independent 
 that the business community must be confident with the outcome relating to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. She said: “We need maximum agreement if there is to be any changes.” Her words were “maximum agreement”. A synonym for that is “broad-based consensus” and that is wholly lacking as demonstrated by a large number of indicators. Of the submitters who appeared before the select committee 75 percent of them did not want this change to occur. Has the Government listened to those views? It seems not. Then there was the poll reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning that shows that 79 percent of New Zealanders want a referendum on whether to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. Will the Government listen to that? No. Will the Greens take any account of Maori perspectives? No. Is it too late for Green members to do something about that? It would be hard for them but they could do so. If they stuck to their principles they could do something. But will they? Probably not. 
I would like to summarise very briefly the arguments that have led National and perhaps other parties of the centre-right to the position they have taken. That position simply expressed is that we want appeals to the Privy Council to remain. I think that one of the most telling comments that emerged in the course of the select committee process was that one of the judges a former Chief Justice of New Zealand who had served on the Privy Council told us in a frank and an unadorned fashion that the Privy Council is certainly an extremely high-class polished Rolls-Royce service. He said that there was no gainsaying that. Why are we doing away with that court of acknowledged excellence? Why are we doing away with a court that has given us such great service for so long and that remains committed to that end? Why are we going to gut the Court of Appeal by moving the Court of Appeal judges up to the Supreme Court? How are we going to fill the Court of Appeal one of the hardest-working courts in our legal system with competent judges? None of those questions has been properly addressed by the Government. 
The second point is that the major users of the Privy Council—which include business interests and Maori in the way I have described—are opposed to the abolition of rights of appeal to the Privy Council. Clearly their views must be worth something in this argument but has the Government given them any weight? No none at all. 
The third argument which has been put to the select committee by a number of submitters—not many but a few—is that as a matter of national identity New Zealand should no longer defer to an overseas jurisdiction. It is an argument I guess about sovereignty and about giving sovereignty away. But the reality in the modern world is that many countries including New Zealand have ceded sovereignty in a number of ways. The classic example of that would be the international agreements that New Zealand and other countries have entered into. But the more significant point is that it is a global trend for countries to look outside their territorial boundaries to have disputes determined. What is the highest court in the United Kingdom? It is not the House of Lords. There are now rights of appeal that extend into Europe to the European court of justice and the European Court of Civil Rights. So whereas we have countries looking outside their boundaries for the resolution of disputes the plan for New Zealand is apparently for us to draw ourselves inward. I have argued—and I believe it is correct—that justice transcends nationalism. New Zealand is following a contrary course by abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council. 
I would like to talk about investment interests and their impact on New Zealand. There is little doubt—and it may be that some Labour members do not like this—that we are significantly dependent on the free flow of capital into New Zealand reflected in investment in New Zealand business and New Zealand infrastructure. Those offshore investors—the majority of whom I suggest are highly responsible and whose investment capital we want—will look before they enter a country at the stability and strength of any particular legal system. I know in the context of my own experience as a lawyer that it is sufficient for them as they embark on the due diligence process that leads to an investment decision that the Privy Council is our highest court. It is certain that they will have qualms about this new regime in the context of their investment strategies. 
National has said—as other parties of the centre-right have said too—that issues of substantial constitutional substance should be the subject of referenda. But I think there is an equally worrying aspect—and it is an issue that National’s leader the Hon Bill English spoke about—which is that the judges of the new court have the potential to shape the legal and social landscape of New Zealand in a significant way. It is wrong that they should be appointed through a limited political process. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 On 28 August 1939 Great Britain declared war on Germany. On 3 September the New Zealand Cabinet did the same. That decision was taken by Cabinet—not by Parliament; not by the people—as was the constitutional convention of the time. Michael Savage the Prime Minister went on radio and his famous words were: “with gratitude for the past and with confidence in the future we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes we go. Where she stands we stand”. He spoke within the terms of a constitutional convention of the time that the Prime Minister could declare war. We have moved away from that constitutional convention and recently when an illegal war was declared against the people of Iraq New Zealand refused to take part. Moreover the Government took soundings with the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. It had moved away from the constitutional convention whereby wrapped up in that constitutional convention we would allow our decisions to be taken by a foreign power. Thank goodness in the context of Iraq—where mendacity has been proven on the reason for the war and where there has been an absolute breach of international law—we have moved away from the basis of the constitutional convention that led to the view that where Britain goes we go. 
In the history of this country there has long been a move—and it has been the parties of the left that have led that move—to make sure that decisions affecting our people are made in New Zealand. In 1937 the New Zealand representative at the League of Nations was to make a speech on behalf of the people of New Zealand calling for the invocation of clauses of the League of Nations covenant that would give support to the embattled democratic republic of Spain against the attack of General Franco who was supported by the fascist powers of Italy and Germany. When he rose to give his speech he found there were blue lines through the parts that were critical of Great Britain. The British foreign secretary Anthony Eden—later to be Sir Anthony Eden who led the world in the infamous episode of the attack on the Suez Canal which was the property of the Egyptian people and the attack on which was also supported by the National Government at the time although it was illegal—had put blue pencil lines through the speech of the New Zealand representative. Who would dare to do that today? The only people in Parliament who would like us to be in such a subservient position in our foreign policy are in the National Party which wants the American Ambassador to make our decisions on whether we are nuclear free or not and in the ACT party which believes that if we go to war that decision must be made by Britain and the United States—and I say we could put the inappropriately named in this case New Zealand First Party in that camp as well. 
This legislation is a step to expand the rights of New Zealanders. Therefore I do not understand how it is a constitutional outrage. It would be an outrage if a right was being taken away—certainly. But here we have an expansion of the right of access to justice for New Zealanders. I am a barrister and solicitor and have appeared a number of times in front of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. But I have never had the funds myself to travel to the Privy Council. I have never had clients who could fund a case to the Privy Council. I now know that my fellow brothers and sisters the lawyers of New Zealand will be in a position to practise in front of the highest court of our country. 
Some people know that I have Australian birth. I am always reminded that one of the heroes of Australia Ned Kelly—he certainly was a hero in my family—would probably not have been hanged if we had not in Australia hung on to some of the constitutional proprieties of the British justice system. I am certain that an Australian court with Australian-born judges would not have hanged Ned Kelly. I am not arguing that we set up a court that would perhaps allow people like Ned Kelly just to be dealt with through restorative justice and released into home detention. But the point I am making is that all countries including Australia New Zealand and other countries that were colonies began the process of moving away from dependence in all areas of their affairs a long long time ago. 
It should be remembered that New Zealand took a long time to move to the position where it would accept the Statute of Westminster. It was passed in 1931 and it was not until 1947 that we let go of our Dominion status. We are a cautious people. In this case as well we are cautious. Canada and Australia ended appeals to the Privy Council a long time ago and the Caribbean countries beat us to the punch. When we pass this bill today we will be ahead of the Caribbean countries in establishing our judicial independence. Our Court of Appeal has a good reputation in terms of its jurisprudence and the ability of the judges on it. But it should be remembered that it came into being as a constitutional change simply by a vote in this Parliament with regard to the Judicature Act 1908. It added a level of appeal that we did not have in New Zealand. Until that time appellants could go only to what was then called the Supreme Court the equivalent of our current High Court. The Court of Appeal inside New Zealand added a tier of appeal in New Zealand and on top of that was the Privy Council. 
Those levels of appeal are important. What is happening in New Zealand is not that a level of appeal is being taken away. No we are replacing the level that was formerly in Great Britain—and was off-limits to those New Zealanders who did not have the funds to take a case there. As well we are expanding the legal areas for cases to be heard. We will give rights to people who never before were able to take a case to a level of appeal such as that of the Privy Council. What is wrong with that if one is a fan of access to justice? I say nothing. 
We should focus on the fact that we have already abolished many of the links to the Privy Council. It is a rare step to be given leave to go to the Privy Council. Most areas of law have long been scrapped where people could go to the Privy Council. This bill restores many of those. The one written constitutional document that most New Zealanders know about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at section 25(h) states that there is the right if convicted of an offence to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction or the sentence or against both. In criminal cases in New Zealand it is rare to have leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and now this legislation enshrines that fundamental right if people are fighting for the belief that they are innocent to go to our highest court of appeal. 
To the argument of the Opposition the conservative parties that we do not have the legal talent to staff this court I say it has been a long time since people believed that they needed just 50 or 100 classically educated English men—not women—from Eton to go out into the world and rule the savages. It was the belief that those men could rule the Hindus the Chinese—using the terminology of the 19th century—and the people of Africa and that it needed a small number of them. What is the difference between them and those who now say that they should be our legal elite? Where does the Privy Council draw its judges from? It draws them from a very very narrow pool—not the millions who live in Britain—of people mainly educated in the elite colleges. What will we do? We have 4 million vibrant people. We do not put barriers in front of people—men women and people of different cultures and religions—becoming judges in our country. We have a long way to go; there have been barriers there. But we are breaking those barriers down and were breaking them down for a long time before the English system began to do so. So within New Zealand there is an adequate pool of people who can provide the highest judicial officers in our country. When we set up the Court of Appeal we had a population of 3 million; we now have a population of 4 million to draw from. 
On every front—independence for New Zealand judicial advancement and the rights of New Zealand—this bill is a constitutional advance and the parties with the majority in this Parliament have the courage to vote for it. I am sad that United Future which was for the bill has suddenly decided that the blessing of the Business Roundtable is more important than taking the right step to advance the judicial independence of New Zealand. I expected the same thing from the other conservative parties I am afraid. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The Supreme Court Bill which abolishes New Zealanders’ right of access to the Privy Council represents a constitutional change that does not have the backing of the New Zealand public and National does not support it. Helen Clark herself in 2000 acknowledged the constitutional nature of this change because of its relationship to the treaty and the link to the British monarch yet in the face of opposition from Maori she pushes it anyway. This is the height of arrogance from a Prime Minister who is happy to fraternise with Maori at their hui on their marae when it suits but on an issue that they feel strongly about she has closed her ears. Tinkering with the purpose clause has not answered Maori objections one bit. 
As for the Government Maori MPs they will rue the day they allowed our right of access to the Privy Council to pass into history. This they do in the face of overwhelming opposition from their own constituents. But then as the Rt Hon Winston Peters says: “Lions on the marae lambs in caucus—not a bleat!” What a disgrace! It demonstrates how well and truly under the proverbial petticoats of Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson those Maori MPs are and demonstrates exactly why under their stewardship the existence of the Maori seats has proved to be of no value whatsoever. 
Those Maori MPs also show their complete lack of understanding of the Maori position. Parekura Horomia’s belated statement today demonstrates this. He said that the Privy Council had not been good for Maori. Others of his colleagues say much the same thing when they review the matter in terms of cases won and lost. I say to them sometimes one should pursue important matters because there are matters of principle involved. But then the Maori MPs on the other side of the House would not know a principle if they fell over one. 
Maori value deeply the symbolic link to the monarch with whom their forebears signed the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no protection in this bill for the status of the treaty and those Maori MPs on the other side of the House have done nothing to alleviate Maori concerns about that matter. But I say again that sometimes there are issues that Maori regard as so significant that the possible outcome of a case is not as important as the principle and the right of access to the counsellors who are privy to the monarch is thought important for principles. The te Heuheu case was one such example and more recently the Maori Option was another. Those cases show that even when the odds were stacked against Maori they took the case anyway because they considered that there were matters of principle involved that mattered more to them and to their position as New Zealanders in this country. But then why would I think that the Maori MPs on the other side of the House might understand that? [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Labour member who has just commented that her husband knows very well what I am talking about. There is no doubt whatsoever that the independence of the Privy Council and the exposure of the Privy Counsellors to a greater breadth and depth of humanity can never be replicated in New Zealand. 
However there is an even more worrying outcome from what has happened here today because of those Maori members’ lack of will to do the right thing by their people—that is by their inaction they confirm in the mind of the Prime Minister although she probably did not need confirmation that their support can be counted on in relation to the Government’s unprincipled proposal to deal with the foreshore and seabed issue. On that issue the Maori MPs will get done like a dog’s dinner. By their inaction today they have guaranteed that. They will lie down like lambs as they are doing today and allow Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson to ride roughshod over the rights of the people who voted them into this Parliament. 
John Tamihere talks of breaking free of our colonial vestiges but my gosh he should look out from under the petticoats of Helen Clark just long enough to walk his talk. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I came into this House on this occasion as a member of an MMP Parliament and I took the view as a member of an MMP Parliament that the spirit of MMP should be invoked by this House and that when we make decisions in this House especially of a constitutional nature we should do it on the basis of a broad-ranging support. Yet here we have a bill where the number of members voting in favour of it is likely to be about 63—that is a majority of three members based on the 120 members of this House. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Donald’s party has failed in making its comments and I suggest he does not breach the Standing Orders by trying to interject over my shoulder. 
When Mr Robson spoke he made a very good point. In 1939 the Labour Government and this Parliament decided to go to war and the decision was made unanimously. That is something that Mr Robson forgot. They made the decision unanimously and they sang “God Save the King”. There is no feeling like that in the House today. Here we have a very very important constitutional issue and there is no unanimity. There is barely a majority in this House in favour. It is like being in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe today. I know what it is like to be in Opposition in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe as I stand here and speak in this House. The New Zealand people should have been consulted on this matter. 
We have the person who supported the Labour Party Lord Cooke trembling at the thought that the average man in the street—the man in Henderson the woman in Kaikohe Winton or wherever—might have the opportunity to give a vote to this issue. We represent those people and they should be entitled on such a major constitutional issue to have a say. This bill should be resolved in either of two ways—either by a 75 percent majority of this House or by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. Instead this bill is being rushed through this House with a majority of three. 
When the bill was introduced into the House last week we had the second reading and the Committee stage—all on consecutive days last week—and today the next consecutive day this bill is being rushed through on the third reading. That is rushing legislation through the House. 
Of course Lord Cooke who talks so much about not supporting appeals to the Privy Council is himself hearing appeals for the Hong Kong court. I did not realise Lord Cooke was Chinese! But that does not stop him from sitting on the Hong Kong Appeal Court—sort of one law for New Zealand one law for Hong Kong and another law for Lord Cooke. 
It is often said that the Opposition is not strong enough or it is asked what the Opposition is doing to try to stop something from happening or what it is going to do about something. Well one of the Opposition parties—United Future—initially started off supporting this bill it had a good look at all the submissions and despite initially supporting the bill it decided that the bill should not go through and it has indicated its opposition to the bill. That is what one of the minor parties has done. We had another party—the Greens—indicating that it was not going to support this bill unless the Maori view came out in favour of the bill. We all in this House know that the Maori view opposes this bill. The only Maori view that supports this bill is the view held by the seven Maori members of this House who represent the Labour Party. That is where the only Maori support comes through and they are doing what they are told so they can continue to receive the big salaries the big cars the houses and the overseas trips which they would otherwise never be able to achieve in all their lives. 
The Privy Council has been of very good value to New Zealand. The Privy Council has helped Patient A in the Bottrill case where the Court of Appeal refused to help. The Privy Council has helped Taito and all those Maoris who were not being given support by the Court of Appeal. Today we set up this Supreme Court. In Australia and in Canada there was a gap of 75 and 84 years before the Privy Council was abolished—from the setting up of their High Court and their Supreme Court. We do not wait 75 years we do not wait 84 years before we abolish appeals to the Privy Council: we do it immediately. What a disgrace this minority Government is. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The last speaker from National demeaned herself. She said that various Labour members were hiding behind the petticoats of Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson. That was meant as an insult. I reject those misogynist comments. Gender is not relevant to good leadership. I am certainly proud to serve women leaders such as Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson. 
I want to focus on a very important issue—that of parliamentary sovereignty. The move from the London-based Privy Council to a Supreme Court based in New Zealand is evolutionary not revolutionary. The small list of countries outside the United Kingdom still using the Privy Council speaks volumes. Those that have already left include Australia Ireland Canada and Singapore—without any referendum! Those that have not yet signalled their intention to leave are the likes of the Bahamas Brunei Kiribati Mauritius and Tuvalu. We can argue about whether the move from the Privy Council should have happened 7 years ago as then proposed by National or should happen in a few years hence as others propose but the point is that the evolution of our highest court away from the Privy Council to a New Zealand - based Supreme Court is inevitable. 
It does though focus the mind on constitutional issues and my contribution to the debate will be to focus on the importance of protecting the sovereignty of this Parliament to pass laws on all issues including treaty issues. New Zealand has a single-tier Parliament. Our unicameral Parliament is more like a camel than a dromedary. We have no equivalent of the Australian or US Senates or the UK House of Lords. We have one hump to get over to pass legislation not two. As a consequence our Parliament is able to enact new legislation relatively quickly. This does have advantages. New Zealand can and does take important decisions that might be avoided for purely political reasons in some other countries. 
We do have some protections. Our select committee procedures are more fulsome than most. We have an MMP Parliament and coalitions do tend to moderate policies. But perhaps the most important safeguard New Zealand has is the ability to vote in another Government that has the legal right to enact new legislation that can overrule the old in any area of law—and I mean any. 
 The importance of parliamentary sovereignty is hard to overstate and in practice at the heart of parliamentary sovereignty is the relationship between Parliament and the courts. I am a lawyer. I respect legal processes our courts and our judges. Our judges are competent hard-working and free of political bias. But I also recognise their limitations. My comments today are not an attack on the New Zealand courts or on any particular judge. But this is an appropriate time for Parliament to remind the courts of the limits of their role. It is proper that the courts critically assess whether decisions made by Ministers or Government officials are within their legal authority. When the courts find that Ministers or officials have been acting ultra vires they strike down their decisions. We in Parliament respect their right—indeed their duty—to do so. The executive abides by those decisions. 
I also accept that one of the strengths of our common law system is its ability to evolve. But I am concerned when judicial activism goes too far and amounts to lawmaking which should be left to Parliament. One example in recent decades was the imposition of liability in negligence upon local authorities for inspections by their building inspectors. Although this started with the English courts its adoption by our Court of Appeal was overenthusiastic. Interestingly that excess was left unchecked by the Privy Council in the  
Invercargill City Council 
 v  
Hamlin 
 case even after the English tide had turned back. The subsequent retreat by New Zealand councils from meaningful oversight of building projects to limited inspections in order to limit their liability and the divergence of New Zealand law from UK law all flow from that judicial activism. I for one believe that some of the problems we have had with leaky buildings have their roots in those well-intended but misguided decisions. I thought the activism in the building cases was perhaps a high-water mark for our courts. Our courts have traditionally taken special care not to make new law in politically controversial areas. The vast majority of our judges agree that this is not their role; it is the preserve of Parliament. But just as members of this Parliament err so too do judges on occasions. 
A recent court decision which may be an example is the foreshore and seabed decision. The five judgments in that case are all intelligent well-reasoned decisions given after serious deliberation. But for the court to arrive at its decision it was required to overrule a longstanding part of our common law. It had to overrule the 50-year-old Court of Appeal decision in the Ninety Mile Beach case and a line of prior cases. In doing so it unleashed the highly charged and intrinsically political furore that has since ensued. I reinforce that I do not suggest any bias on the parts of members of the Court of Appeal as another member has but I for one am not sure that the Court of Appeal did itself our courts system or our nation any favours in that decision. 
The consequences of the foreshore and seabed decision are being responsibly dealt with by this Government. Remedial legislation is going to be required and will be introduced. But members should reflect on this: this is possible only because Parliament has sovereignty over this issue. That sovereignty offers our country huge protection. If the nation believes we have it wrong it elects a new Parliament. The new Parliament which will in itself be sovereign can pass new legislation to change the law. That brings me to my main point. I say to our courts and in particular to our future Supreme Court that they should not try to fetter the sovereignty of Parliament by overturning the decision in the te Heuheu Tukino case. To do so would be to usurp Parliament’s sovereignty in respect of treaty issues. The present constitutional status of the treaty in New Zealand has not evolved significantly beyond the principle laid down by the Privy Council in 1941 in the te Heuheu Tukino case. The treaty has the force that Parliament gives to it by statute. Parliament has given it more force in the last decade but the important underlying constitutional principle remains unchanged. 
That has been relatively recently reinforced in the 1992 Court of Appeal decision in the Maori Council case which stated: “Treaty rights cannot be enforced in the courts except in so far as they have been given recognition by statute.” In the High Court in the same case Justice McGechan said something similar and went on to say: “Lest however this seem intellectually lazy I record a view that matters of such fundamental constitutional importance with serious implications should be decided only by legislation.” 
So the Supreme Court will inherit the Privy Council’s right to overrule or uphold the Privy Council decision. If the Supreme Court were so unwise as to try to usurp Parliament vis-à-vis the treaty then the sovereignty of New Zealand’s Parliament would be fettered. This would be outrageous and I do not think it will happen. For over 150 years New Zealand’s Parliament has exercised sovereignty in respect of treaty issues and over the last two decades our sovereign Parliament while it has through statute given greater effect to the treaty has not conceded and will not concede jurisdiction to the courts. I say to the court that it should not play with fire but should leave lawmaking including laws relating to the treaty to Parliament. 
This Parliament’s concern to emphasise and preserve sovereignty is an important reason behind the select committee’s addition of the new clause 3 “Purpose” to the bill. That clause records in subclause (2): “Nothing in this Act affects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.” That new clause has the support of this House. I am confident that the Supreme Court will not be politicised when it commences. The risk of it being politicised in the future is remote and depends completely on the Supreme Court and whether it politicises itself by trying to usurp our sovereignty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Russell Fairbrother. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We seem to have an odd occurrence. The convention of the House is that speakers alternate. Given that we have just had a Labour speaker it is now the turn of the Opposition to get the call. There has been no prior arrangement or notice that any change should take place. There is a schedule set down and if the Government did not want to take its calls in order that is not the Opposition’s fault. As convention has it the Opposition now should get the next call. That has been the way of this House for years and years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance on this matter. I determined the list in consultation with quite a lot of members at the start of this debate. I said that this was the last third reading under the system we have because I have just announced a change to the Business Committee that will come into force as from the next bill. But as far as I have allocated calls here the Government of course has the right to have its calls and this call has been allocated to the Government. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must say this is a strange occurrence. Normally when there are changes made they are made with the consent of the House with agreement. For instance the National Party agreed to have a split speech and we notified you and you were good enough to advise the House of that change. In this particular case given that there is a change taking place— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no change at this stage. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes there is because under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings speeches alternate. The normal case would be that an Opposition speaker would be the next speaker. It is unusual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a good argument but I just refer the member to the fact that I have the list here. After Labour National and the Greens it was then New Zealand First ACT and United Future because I have decided to call all the parties. One of those slots could technically have gone to the Government but I decided to allow the parties to have their say because I think that in an MMP environment there is a slightly different way of ordering things. That is what I have ruled and in fact it has the support of the Business Committee. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not changing the rule I have made. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I suspect I have already taken note that you are not likely to change your mind but can I just say that I was unaware that that change had taken place— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it has not taken place yet. It will take place after this debate. I will announce it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER 
: More important it would be helpful if when decisions of this kind are taken we could please be notified prior to their taking place rather than after the event. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a very good point and I accept it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Up and down this country there are people whose most important life is their family life yet they cannot take their disputes to a level of appeal equivalent to that able to be reached by the commercial companies the Opposition seems to support. There are people up and down this country whose most important asset is their house yet they cannot take environmental court disputes to the final level of appeal that the companies this Opposition seems to favour can. Up and down this country there are people who rely every day upon the security of their employment yet they cannot take any employment disputes to the level of appeal that the companies the Opposition seems to support can. Unlike my friend Mr Franks from ACT I do not deny those people a final level of appeal at the top court. 
The top court in this country is and will be the Supreme Court. However it is not a major constitutional change. When Stephen Franks wrote to me on 10 April asking whether I would support his call for a referendum because the court was a major constitutional change I wrote back and said that I did not agree with that for two reasons: firstly because it denied not access to anybody but increased access; and secondly because the court sat within our present framework of courts. I got no response. He fought it out in the newspapers rather than justifying his unfounded allegation of a major constitutional change. 
What is the major constitutional court in this country? It is described in section 18 of the Constitution Act of 1986 as the court of High Court judges the High Court. Incidentally that Act was passed without a referendum; it is described by all academic writers and leading lawyers as our premier constitutional legislation. The Constitution Act is carried forward to the present bill. Section 4B—in clause 42A—which nobody has bothered to refer to states: “The Chief High Court Judge is responsible to the Chief Justice for ensuring the orderly and prompt conduct of the High Court’s business.”—that is under this bill the Chief Justice heads the superior judiciary which is our High Court. Our High Court is the only court in this land with inherent jurisdiction. Any matter that needs to be argued in the interests of justice can be argued in the High Court. All other courts including our Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are defined by statute. Our High Court inherits its powers from the common law so it must remain our major constitutional court. 
That is why those people arguing shibboleths arguing for referendums are defeating their own argument because the strength of the argument we have heard today is exactly why we should not have a referendum. People advance untruths shades of truth and downright misunderstandings of the law. That will be the effect on people who rely upon newspapers such as the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to make their decisions. They will be misled they will not be helped and the decision they make will be uninformed as was predicted by the former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum in June of this year when he spoke to the select committee. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unclear to me whether the member is suggesting that untruths have been propounded by members of this House or solely by people outside the House. I ask whether you could clarify that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have listened very carefully. At this stage the member has not gone out of order but if he does suggest that any member in this House tells an untruth he will be withdrawing and apologising. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum pointed out to the select committee and I must say he was unchallenged by any member opposite that a referendum was an inappropriate way to handle a change such as this because the people making the decision would not be properly informed and those with money would have their view advanced in the press better than that of people affected by this measure but without money support. 
This is a bill that brings justice back to New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] The irony is that the judges that that man who is yelling chooses to criticise as not being competent are invited to sit on our Privy Council and the judgments from the Court of Appeal that he criticises the judgments from the Privy Council that he favours are often written by our own New Zealand judges who sit on the Privy Council. Is that a consistent argument? No. Is the opposition to this bill consistent? No because there is no logical foundation to argue against our Constitution Act to argue against section 4B in clause 42A of this bill. We must bring justice back to New Zealand. 
My friend Georgina te Heuheu complained about the loss of status of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi is not embodied in any legislation that affects the Privy Council but if she goes to the purpose clause she will see that it is embodied there. That same member ignores the 1964 Privy Council decision that countries that go to the Privy Council have no direct right of access to the monarch. The Privy Council is solely a judicial forum. This myth that Maori are being deprived of access to the monarch which is being perpetuated in this Chamber today is a myth not based on fact. Lawyers who perpetuate it are failing to read their own common law—the 1964 decision from Ceylon that has been unchallenged ever since. And people have advanced denial of access to the monarch as a reason for Maori opposing this measure! 
Ladies and gentleman the time has come for this court. As the only practising appellate lawyer in this Chamber—the only lawyer in this Chamber who has appeared before the Privy Council—I say that the Privy Council should have been long gone and I welcome the Supreme Court. This is a great day for New Zealand a great day for the man in the street and a great day for justice. I support the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a result of a misunderstanding on the part of the person in the House on Thursday afternoon I seek leave to alter New Zealand First votes on the following questions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill—that is that Part 4 stand part Part 5 stand part the schedule stand part and the bill be divided. Instead of our votes being for the Ayes they should be for the Noes. Mr Donnelly had forecast that but unfortunately owing to a misunderstanding the vote was announced incorrectly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the leave of the House that that change be made. Is there any objection? There is not. It is so made. The voting figures are Ayes 92 and Noes 21 on the questions for Part 4 Part 5 the schedule and dividing the bill. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Order of Calls 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I carry on I can say that as a result of a Business Committee determination I have now ruled as Speaker the order in which I am calling first second and third reading debates and that is at the table here. However let me say that if a person does not take his or her call then another party can get the call. 
Third Readings 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.  
I do this with pride—pride in a Government that has worked through these issues over many years. The legislation to allow the release of genetically modified organisms was passed in 1996. Let me repeat that: the law to release genetically modified organisms was passed in 1996. The legislation we hope to pass today adds a series of safeguards such as conditional release to the mix of controls that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can use. In 1996 when I was still a school principal I cannot recall any staff room arguments about genetic modification. I certainly cannot recall street marchers or naked protests and I would remember those. But for all the lack of mass public concern in our manifesto of 1999 the Labour Party promised a committee of inquiry a royal commission into genetic modification. We wanted to check whether the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act had enough safeguards. We wanted advice.  
Why choose the royal commission? A royal commission gives a Government independent advice having listened to arguments and tested assertions. In a rational society it is not enough to assert a risk or to assert a benefit without testing it. A royal commission is the highest body for hearing an investigation that we have available to us in New Zealand. Other mechanisms offer fewer opportunities for decision makers to obtain and to appreciate a full range of arguments in place of untested assertions or blatant misrepresentation such as toads and potatoes or four-breasted women. 
I am very much a rationalist which is a drawback in the world of 6-second sound bites aggressive interviews and media hype. Decisions around genetic modification need to be made with rational consideration. That brings me to the moratoriums for there have been two of them. The science and agricultural community agreed to a voluntary moratorium for the life of the royal commission. It did not apply for any field tests or general releases. That voluntary moratorium ended in 2001. The second moratorium on applications for general release was legislated for in 2002. The royal commission advised in 2001 that we could proceed with genetically modified releases straight away but that there were improvements to the law that could be made. The Government set in place a time-bound moratorium to lift in October 2003 in order to make those legislative changes. We passed that legislation in 2002 before the election. The ending of the moratorium was known to voters. 
I wish to thank the biotechnology industry. From 2000 to 2003 there has been a real brake on that industry for 3 years—a compulsory stop in fact on its genetically modified research. But this bill does not mean that there will be an instant acceleration to 100 kilometres per hour. This is a heavily regulated industry—far more so than in any other country in the world including the countries in the European Union. 
There were three ways New Zealand could have gone. One ban work on genetic modification in the field for ever which is the Greenpeace plan; two allow some work but make that decision on a case-by-case basis; three leave totally unregulated which is how the early genetically modified crop work has been done overseas. New Zealand has chosen the middle way the cautious way and this bill strengthens those precautions. 
Like chemistry like physics and like surgery there are risks in genetic modification but there may be benefits and some claim benefits already. Improved soil health through less ploughing to eliminate weeds less volume of and less toxic pesticides used new forms for the ingestion of medicines using food new pest controls to attack possums or flystrike and warning indicators for landmines or arsenic in water. 
Yes there are risks. But how can anyone be so sure of risk that he or she denies others the opportunity of exploring possible benefits? Galileo was hounded by the church because his observations told him that the planets including earth circled the sun. That upset the then current world views that the sun and planets circled the earth with man at the epicentre—and I note “man”. Are we so certain that we know everything about ecological change and adaptation? Could there be more that we do not know? Is it so terrible to ask questions and to test the hypotheses? It would be terrible if in so doing—in testing the hypotheses—we endangered people. But in New Zealand we do not. When it comes to food any food on sale in New Zealand has to undergo rigorous and robust safety testing. People have a choice whether they eat genetically modified food. Any genetically modified food is labelled. There may be research work progressing on potatoes but that does not mean that genetically modified potatoes or any other genetically modified fresh food will be on sale in New Zealand for maybe at least 5 years and then only after food safety approval. So New Zealanders will not be forced to eat genetically modified food. They will have choice when and if genetically modified fresh food is ever offered for sale in New Zealand. 
Organic growers want assurances that their crops will remain free of genetically modified organisms and in this legislation we provide for conditional release. The conditions set will take into consideration research findings on pollen drift and on foraging bees including the 8-kilometre distance for bees asserted by a GE-free group today in one press release that I saw. Like the royal commission this Government believes that we can allow organic crops conventional crops and genetically modified plants and animals to coexist. No one’s rights have to be curtailed. May I remind the House that an application cannot be granted if risks outweigh benefits or needed answers cannot be given. 
In life there are people who say “No” and there are people who say “Yes”. New Zealand needs to say “Yes”. New Zealand needs to do research. New Zealand needs to add value to its bioeconomy. Without such growth we will not be able to pay for environmental clean-ups for education for health improvements for restorative justice or for public transport. This is about growth and innovation about preserving choice about saying “Yes” to opportunity and about moving forward. This legislation is about doing so with caution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are four bills. At the end of the debate the question by the presiding officer will be put to each bill separately. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The passage of this legislation which regulates genetic engineering in New Zealand is extremely important for a variety of reasons. Firstly it is a litmus test as to whether political parties listened to the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification a commission that was well regarded around the world for being comprehensive and thoughtful in its recommendations. But secondly it is also a litmus test as to whether New Zealand will allow a rational evidenced-based scientific approach to prevail in New Zealand. 
National is supporting this bill but with reservations. We are supporting it because we view it as fundamental that we approach biotechnology in its widest sense with the best tools available and that we are cautious but that we use best-practice risk analysis following that evidenced-based scientific approach. 
We are also supporting it because as a country that has depended on agriculture and horticulture for well over 100 years it is vital that we remain at the forefront of biotechnology. There are many reasons for this. The reasons are not only to progress and advance our primary products and add value to them but also to apply the most contemporary technology to the very real biosecurity risks and threats we are faced with every day in this country. If we look back to Captain Cook in 1769—I think it was his second trip—when he introduced the buck and the doe rabbit to Queen Charlotte Sound we see that we have had more serious threats to our biosecurity imposed during the 200 years since then than world-researched GE technology will ever present to New Zealand. 
The possibilities of biotechnology in a huge range of areas are vast. Not only does it encompass agriculture horticulture medicine and pharmaceuticals but it also provides very important tools to enhance and protect our environment. The royal commission absolutely explicitly drew attention to the fact that being GE-free in New Zealand was impractical and it is quite wrong for the Greens—or for that matter the Sustainability Council—to pretend that such a status for New Zealand is practical realistic or in our best interests. In the field of medicine alone if GE technology were not available to the thousands of diabetics in our country they would have to rely on pig insulin with enormous associated risks. In my own field of gynaecology women requiring reproductive treatment would have to rely on preparations made from pooled post-menopausal women’s urine rather than a highly purified GE-recombinant DNA preparation. In the case of the diabetics they would be highly likely to be exposed to the sort of infections we have with mad cow disease. 
The opportunity costs of making research difficult in this vital area of biotechnology should not be underestimated. In the first reading of this legislation Jeanette Fitzsimons as usual made great claims about food safety that she just cannot substantiate. She wants epidemiological studies that are not possible; no other foods have been subjected to the sorts of ridiculous studies she is calling for. It is curious that while the Greens want zero tolerance for GE foods and vaccines they themselves are happy to bring in herbal remedies willy-nilly and all sorts of other foods that have had absolutely no testing. I note that Mr Ewen-Street made fun of a certain cannabis compound—and he should not have. The Greens rationality and sincerity in this area just does not stack up. 
It is important to re-emphasise the findings of the European Commission which stated that after 15 years and 400 trials GE food was as safe as if not safer than conventional food. That finding was co-signed by 3500 scientists 13 Nobel laureates the World Health Organization the Royal Society and a whole variety of other highly reputable organisations. 
But what is important is the way forward. The royal commission emphasised that research is critical to New Zealand’s future. Even this afternoon in question time the Minister for the Environment shied away from the fact that medium and high-risk GE medical research in New Zealand will be made so much harder because of the added compliance costs she has insisted on. Labour has not only insisted on imposing compliance costs in the Resource Management Act but the Minister is making this legislation the biotechnology equivalent of the Resource Management Act. 
The Government has failed to listen to reasonable suggestions or to accept a comprehensive Supplementary Order Paper from National to diminish compliance costs and hurdles but instead has insisted on widening the call-in powers of the Minister to include cultural spiritual and ethical issues. That is over and above the royal commission’s suggestions of installing the Bioethics Council Toi te Taiao and the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Maori advisory committee Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao. 
I am deeply concerned that the very thorough efforts of the Sustainability Council may backfire on New Zealand. It should listen to the mainstream producers in New Zealand who have supported the lifting of the moratorium and I cite Fonterra the forestry industry the meat producers Federated Farmers and many others. I do acknowledge that Zespri Heinz-Wattie and Sanitarium have a different view. However it is extremely important that options are kept open that we proceed with caution in a rational manner and that we do not resort to blunt instruments such as moratoriums. The Sustainability Council should take note that while Canada was increasing its area of GE crops to 15 million hectares its exports of beef to “highly sensitive to GE” Japan went up tenfold. That is the reality of the situation. 
Of course it is absolutely vital that we are extremely cautious with the possibility of any conditional release. This legislation underpins the fact that that caution will occur. The hurdles in this legislation are quite extraordinary and the reality is that commercial release will not happen without a compelling case. Given the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and of AIDS a few decades ago we should certainly have legislation and research in New Zealand that keeps open the possibility for us to be able to respond to that sort of outbreak in a rational scientific way. It keeps us at the forefront of this hugely important field of biotechnology. 
I end by saying that the National Party has consistently supported an approach that is evidence-based and that looks to science in a highly rational way. National is very conscious that it is hugely important for our New Zealand agriculture horticulture and biosecurity and for the enhancement of our environment to have legislation that is not entangled by the hurdles and compliance costs that I believe the Labour Government under pressure from the Greens has succumbed to. I welcome this era in New Zealand in which we at least have a rational evidenced-based scientific approach to biotechnology. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I just point out that there is not a Labour Government; there is a Labour-Progressive coalition Government. 
This afternoon I wish to pay tribute to the leadership shown by Labour on this difficult and potentially divisive issue. The debate has often been coloured by misinformation and manipulation and it is not easy for a political party in Government to deal with those matters. I respect Labour for showing leadership on an issue that involves cutting-edge science and tremendous potential gains for medical treatment in particular and humankind in general. 
However it may come as a little surprise to the House that the Progressive party does not believe that this legislation has got it right for our nation at this time. We support many aspects of this legislation but we believe that the current moratorium on GM releases should be further extended for any genetically modified organisms that could possibly enter the human food chain. As many will know in 2001 my colleague Matt Robson and I supported the motion of our former colleague Phillida Bunkle to impose a temporary moratorium on the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. It was an honour and source of some pride that two other parties—Labour and indeed New Zealand First—supported our party’s position at that time. We made it clear then that we did not believe in setting an arbitrary date on which the moratorium should be lifted in the future. 
Consistent with that earlier this year the Progressive party reserved its position on that issue within the Cabinet process. We wanted scientific and economic considerations to influence our planning and the moratorium to be lifted only if a majority of this Parliament was of the view that that should occur so we have this debate today. 
Back in 2001 of course ACT National United Future and even the Greens all voted against the moratorium for their own separate and in my view somewhat peculiar reasons. Labour and New Zealand First voted with us then. We voted in favour not because we accepted that 29 October 2003 was necessarily the best time to lift the moratorium fully but rather because we were voting for the moratorium to be imposed in the first place. 
In the Progressive party’s view as ratified by our recent inaugural conference consumer resistance to genetic modification or to genetically modified foods appears to be hardening around the world and more and more food suppliers overseas are seeking foods that can be guaranteed GM-free. What alarms us is that that is particularly true of the wealthier markets of Japan and Europe. Some New Zealand exporters tell us they are currently benefiting from promoting New Zealand’s GE-free status. They tell us that by changing the perception—and therefore potentially the reality—that New Zealand is no longer a GM-free food producer we risk losing the edge that our current status affords us and it could cost us jobs and export sales. The Progressives are not convinced therefore at this time that the potential gains from releasing genetically modified crops into the environment have been conclusively demonstrated in order to sufficiently outweigh the known benefits of sticking with our GM-free marketing advantage. 
I personally am disappointed not to be voting with my Labour colleagues today. It is not common as everyone knows for Labour and the Progressives to take different positions in Parliament. Since the last election only a small number of issues out of the hundreds that we consider every month have resulted in our adoption of different positions. Tertiary fee increases and poker-machine numbers come to mind but we totally reject the bumper-sticker politics that say “Keep New Zealand GE-free”. There is a high degree of simplistic sloganeering about such proclamations and I stand 100 percent with the coalition Government as a whole in favour of science in favour of rationality and in favour of an evidence-based future for New Zealand’s economy. 
The Progressives are pro-science so we support the provisions in this legislation that streamline laboratory research. We agree with the rational evidence-based approach to this issue. Like our partner in Government the Labour Party we are also pro - economic development and pro - high-quality jobs. It is just that at this time we are very concerned that some of New Zealand’s exporters who rely so heavily upon our clean green image are given protection from any negative perceptions by overseas consumers in rich economies. We fear that such perceptions will arise the moment overseas news reports start stating that New Zealand is a GM food producer. We are dealing with overseas consumers’ fears. Perhaps some of them are irrational; nevertheless in business the consumer is pretty important. 
The Progressives have carefully evaluated the experience of GM food - producing countries around the world and considered the views of New Zealand’s food producers. While some exporters are benefiting in real terms from promoting GE-free food we have not been convinced that significant numbers of New Zealand primary producers are losing market share because they cannot use GM technology in the paddock. We respect Fonterra and Wrightson but we also respect Zespri the Sanitarium Health Food Co. ENZA and Heinz-Wattie among many others. 
Todd Muller of Zespri New Zealand’s largest horticultural exporter has said that Zespri’s preference is for New Zealand to remain a GM-free food producer—at least until the uncertainties of GM technology are resolved and consumer safety concerns are answered. Kim Stirling of Sanitarium has written: “We propose that the bill be amended to delay the release of any GMO food crop for at least 5 years to allow for the demand in productivity impacts of any release to be more clearly determined. New Zealand as an island is in a unique position to benefit from the demand shift toward GM-free produce as we do not have the cross-pollination difficulties of other countries. Yet it seems we would throw away and tarnish our clean green environmental image on a highly speculative gamble that only the passage of time will serve to clarify.” ENZA’s chief executive Michael Konig wrote: “In summary it is ENZA Food’s view formed from regular ongoing market contact that New Zealand does not have to be and should not be in any hurry to implement release of GM organisms into the environment.” 
The Progressive party finds that the line of reasoning being advanced by these significant New Zealand companies is rational reasonable and pragmatic. They are not saying that things will not change in the future; I have no doubt indeed that they almost certainly will. The point is that for now we have concluded that the likely costs to New Zealand’s food export markets—as a result of the perception that we can no longer be guaranteed GM-free—are greater than the benefits of current GM food technology. 
We will not be voting for this legislation in its final form because a vote for conditional release is still a vote for release. As we oppose release conditional or otherwise of GM organisms that could possibly enter the food chain we cannot support the core purpose of this legislation. In the Committee stage we sought amendments to the legislation that would have made it acceptable to us but as these amendments have not gained sufficient support it remains in a state that is unacceptable to us. 
We believe that there is a need to go back and look more closely at the trade-offs involved in this issue. The equation is simple. In our view while gains from GM remain marginal and uncertain our GM-free status is much more valuable to the New Zealand community. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Today is a day of shame for the Green Party. Within this very hour the Green Party having made no mention of planning to do this in its manifesto—not a mention—voted for the Supreme Court Bill. Without those Green votes the Government could not have passed that legislation. The Green Party has been prepared to support the Government on an issue that it never told the public it would support. What the Green Party told the electorate prior to the 2002 election was this: “If the Government proceeds to lift the GE moratorium we will bring the Government down.” That is what the Greens said and many people voted for the Greens on the basis of that solemn pledge. A number of Green MPs are in this House only because they gathered those votes and Metiria Turia is an example. 
So on the very day that the new organisms and other matters legislation is to be passed what do the Greens do? Do they make it uncomfortable for the Government? Do they say: “Put that new organisms and other matters legislation through and do not expect us to vote for any more of your legislation.”? The Greens held all the bargaining chips over the Supreme Court legislation. Why did they not use those bargaining chips to ensure this legislation did not progress? Why are they meekly allowing this legislation to pass and at the same time on the same day providing the Labour Government with critical votes to pass legislation about something that they had not mentioned to anyone prior to the last election? The Greens simply have lost any semblance of credibility over this issue. 
Following the royal commission New Zealand First took the position that New Zealand needed to proceed with extreme caution. We are a country that is dependent upon the export of agricultural and grown goods. It is as risky to the future well-being of New Zealand to put our heads in the sand as it is to rush ahead in a gung-ho fashion with this relatively new technology so New Zealand First supported the imposition of the moratorium. We believe that within its recommendations the royal commission implied the need for such a moratorium in order for certain work to be carried out so that a more robust set of regulations were in place prior to the first application for commercial release being submitted—and members must remember that the critical issue is commercial release not research which has been proceeding right through the era of this moratorium. 
However New Zealand First was very clear that prior to the lifting of the moratorium we would reassess the situation. We have carried out such an assessment and we have three serious concerns with the current situation. The first is around applications for commercial release of GE foodstuffs. I never thought that I would be agreeing almost point to point with Jim Anderton but I did agree with his previous speech. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It’s a free country. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes it is. We know that any such application is not likely within the next 2 years—that is the first thing. We know it is not likely; it is very highly unlikely. We also know that consumer behaviour is determined by perceptions not necessarily by rigorous scrutiny of scientific evidence. It is also clear that if people particularly in Europe and Japan believe our food chain could be contaminated by GE product that could have serious negative consequences for our economic well-being. 
Considerable economic modelling suggests that there is a significant level of risk. Therefore New Zealand First asks this question: if there is no chance of an application being submitted in the next 2 years why do we not make it clear to overseas consumers of New Zealand foodstuffs that there is no risk of GE contamination whatsoever? New Zealand First is also unconvinced that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has developed a robust process to determine the risk to the economy of any such application. The Minister tells us that the methodology will be prepared by 30 October—in other words “trust us we know what we’re doing”. The authority has had more than 2 years and it does not inspire confidence that such a methodology still has not been developed and has not been able to be scrutinised. Moreover the Minister has already told this House that she will almost certainly use her call-in powers for the first applications relating to foodstuffs. Do members remember the Prime Minister’s statements about not wanting to be trapped like a possum in the headlights? The Minister seems to be saying: “Come on car.” She seems to be saying she is quite happy to step into the middle of the road in the dark. 
New Zealand First is disappointed that its amendment to retain a moratorium on commercial release of GE foodstuffs for only another 2 years was lost. That was a pivotal point in our final decision whether to support this legislation. I can say here and now that New Zealand First is in the process of developing a member’s bill to re-impose a moratorium on applications for commercial release of GE foodstuffs. The legislation has already been drafted it is going through its refinement process and we hope to have it ready by the next ballot. 
Our second concern is around the mandatory buffer zones recommended by the royal commission. It is true that the royal commission said that these should be on a case by case basis but I am sure that what it meant was not: “We will wait until an application is received and then we will consider what the zones should be.” The Government has belatedly funded some work on this issue through Lincoln University but that will not be reported back until late 2004. It is too little too late. 
The issues around buffer zones are critical to the principal of preserving opportunities which was highlighted by the royal commission. I say to Dr Paul Hutchison that we listened. It hardly inspires confidence to be told: “Oh we’ll think about those matters when we get the applications.” I say to the Minister that that is not a satisfactory position to take and it lends weight to New Zealand First’s proposition that applications for foodstuffs should not be allowed until there is a framework within which the best management decisions can be made. 
The third matter in this legislation on which New Zealand First has serious concerns is the way in which local government has been completely sidelined. At best guess what we are left with is a legal framework in which local authorities have responsibility for the environment within their defined boundaries and in which they have to take into consideration economic and social issues. However when it comes to GE local authorities have been completely sidelined. It would appear that they can bring in anti-GE bylaws but if they ever impose those bylaws they will inevitably be sued and would almost certainly lose with a subsequent loss of ratepayers’ money in the process. 
Local government has been put between a rock and a hard place. It will require a court case and a legal judgment to determine what local authorities’ powers actually are. It is totally unsatisfactory to set up legislation the designers of which cannot say clearly what it states. It is simply just not good enough by a long shot. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this legislation. It cannot. Those are not our only concerns about this legislation. Our other concerns revolve around the additional grounds for ministerial call-in. There are two aspects to our concern. The first relates to the ministerial call-in powers around cultural ethical and spiritual issues. Traditional Maori beliefs are for example that all objects both animate and inanimate have a life force a mauri. As I have pointed out such a philosophy—animism—is not dissimilar to the beliefs of Druidism which is a set of religious beliefs from Western Europe and Britain around the time of the life of Christ. However the concern we have is that although in our public thinking we have moved on from such a set of beliefs while supporting the right of people to hold them in a private sense this legislation allows for such thinking to re-enter the public domain and we believe that that is a nonsense. 
Our second concern about the Minister’s call-in powers is that people seem not to recognise that the call-in powers create a two-edged sword. Most people read the legislation as saying that if there were a particular risk the Minister can have an even more rigorous process. Within a certain number of days the Minister can call something in and then put his or her own people on the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s panel so that when the authority reports it reports to the Minister who will make the final decision. That sounds good—it is an extra risk-management process but it is a two-edged sword. Let us suppose that an application came in that had the potential for economic gain but the Minister considered that the Environmental Risk Management Authority might come down too heavily on the side of environmental risk. In that circumstance the Minister could call in that application and the final decision would then be in the Minister’s hands. Members should think about that. 
I do not believe that National and ACT which are voting for these bills can possibly be comfortable with them in their present forms. They need to ask themselves what good and what harm the legislation would do. If they were to apply the risk management model to this legislation they might come to some different conclusions from the ones they have. 
To reiterate our position New Zealand First has supported all the work that has been done—from the work done by the royal commission through to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the setting of the moratorium and the establishment of a conditional release through to this legislation. However our assessment of where we stand at this particular point in time is that we do not believe we have a rigorous enough regulatory process in place to be able to receive commercial applications for GE foodstuffs. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the ACT party. We support these bills because we never supported the moratorium in the first place. The moratorium was just another example of political sitting on the fence. The Government shelved it—kicked it into touch as my colleague Ken Shirley said—while it dealt with the Greens and got their support on things like the Supreme Court Bill. Now that the Greens have supported the passing of the Supreme Court legislation we can go ahead and pass these bills. That is not the only thing. I go further than the Hon Brian Donnelly in criticising the Greens and say that the Greens like doing those dodgy sleazy deals with the Government. They traded with this Government on the transport legislation which will be to the detriment of the country too. 
While I congratulate Labour members on passing this legislation and pushing it through I ask them what the difference is between now and then when the moratorium was first put in place. There is no difference in the science. The Greens demanded that commission of inquiry into genetic modification and they got it. What happened? In July 2001 the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification handed its four-volume report to the Governor-General. I will look at the quality of the members of that commission. They included the Anglican bishop the Rt Rev. Richard Randerson the reproductive biologist and south Auckland general practitioner Dr Jean Fleming the Maori health expert Dr Jacqueline Allan and it was chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. They held 15 public meetings 11 hui 29 workshops one youth forum and listened to 107 presentations over 13 weeks. They also received more than 10000 public submissions and conducted a public opinion survey of 1153 New Zealanders. 
I am one person who read that report when it came out. In essence its advice was to go forward with care because “continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future”. The report recommended that field trials should proceed on a case by case basis. It is ridiculous to say that the Greens have principles on this issue. They have no principles at all. They just cling to some irrational beliefs. Everywhere that this issue has been debated in the public forum—in Parliament in front of the Environmental Risk Management Authority out in public—the Greens’ case does not stack up. They and the anti-GM lobbyists cannot justify a ban on GM or GE. The anti-GM lobbyists rely on clever marketing which uses the very tools of capitalism that they claim to despise. One could argue that the Green argument on this issue is what is known around the world as a “watermelon”—pink on the inside and green on the outside because it is an argument against progress. No matter how many naked bodies are shown with four breasts being pumped for milk and no matter how many pink bras are displayed in Parliament that still does not add up to fact-based evidence. They have falsely claimed that the Canadian economy is struggling because of GE. That is disputed. It is absolute rubbish. They have scaremongered about foods such as baby formula. It is the same with organic food. Organic food in the supermarket is half as expensive again as non-organic food and if life is so sweet for people that all they have to worry about is whether their food is organic or genetically modified life must be pretty good. There are people in this country who worry about getting food on the table let alone whether it is genetically modified or organic. 
At the third reading stage I acknowledge the integrity of the chairperson of the New Zealand Life Sciences Network Dr William Rolleston who has consistently remained the calm voice of reason in the midst of hysterical and irrational debate which has sometimes been very personally abusive—he has had a pie thrown in his face. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Before the break I was talking about the stand of the anti-GM lobbyists—the Green Party included—who cannot justify their ban on GM and GE. They talk about zero tolerance for GM in this country but that is a nonsense for a start. There are already numerous GE ingredients in imported processed foods that are for sale in New Zealand. We have been eating and ingesting those for quite a while. There are soups sauces breads margarines confectionery peanut butter cordials and soft drinks biscuits and yoghurts. Some ingredients such as yeast in an enzyme used in cheesemaking have been used in this country for a decade. Most of us as I said have unknowingly ingested them and nobody has come to harm because of it. So GM is already here to stay. That is why it is obvious that people who oppose this legislation are opposed to progress. 
I recall that I also acknowledged the chairperson of the Life Sciences Network Dr William Rolleston. As I said he has been the calm voice of reason in the midst of all this debate. I think I got to the point of saying that he has suffered things like having pies thrown in his face and that is about the level of intelligence one would expect from people who oppose progress. We have seen the Wild Greens rip up crops destroy the life’s work of scientists and destroy the work of a PhD scientist. I was pleased to learn recently that that potato crop is back on track. I applaud the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs who said when talking about that crop that New Zealanders will not find GM crops out there growing everywhere this summer next summer or the summer after. She said that they might find a few paddocks somewhere with some conditions set around them and that we do not want GM because we are buddying up to Monsanto in the US but because we want it for us. She went on to talk about it paying for health and education and to say that it would make New Zealand a more prosperous country. On its own it will not get us back up into the top half of the OECD and we cannot rely on this Government to do that but the world is not going to end on 30 October. 
I would like to talk about the issue of cultural and spiritual values that have been taken into account by some people in this legislation. It is hypocritical for people to oppose GM in foods but support it in medicines. Both food and medicines go into us and for both GM in foods and GM in medicines at some stage the research has to leave the laboratory. I refer members to an excellent article in a magazine I have which is written by a very good journalist who unfortunately is no longer in journalism. This journalist did a story on a whanau in the Bay of Plenty whose members had almost been wiped out by stomach cancer. An excellent scientist in Dunedin discovered they had a stomach gene that made them prone to stomach cancer and that genetic modification could save those people’s lives. That is what we are looking at but for genetic modification to save people’s lives the experimental matter has to leave the laboratory and go into field trials. In medicine these are called clinical trials—[ 
Interruption 
] Well if members support that they have to support clinical trials or field trials with food too. They have to be consistent. We know why some members are not consistent. They would not get one vote if they opposed trials to help people suffering from multiple sclerosis diabetes or stomach cancer. If members opposed the access of those people to field trials and clinical trials of genetically modified organisms they would not get one iota of support. They should be consistent and support GE or GM in food research too. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This last debate on this legislation is like the final act of an inexorably unfolding Greek tragedy. The protagonists push ahead blindly on their predestined paths deaf to the cries of the chorus and to forebodings about the consequences that could follow. The audience can only watch and warn having done everything possible to wake the characters from their sleep—to jolt them into awareness of the destiny awaiting them—and to no avail. The audience is angry because it is their future their children and their economy health and environment that are being put at risk. 
As I keep saying this is the bill that makes the lifting of the moratorium operational. Without it we would not need a moratorium. There would be no release because the Government now knows that no GE organism could meet the minimum standards for release in the Act as it stands. The warnings have continued and amplified ever since the curtain went up. The evidence has accumulated that the risks are real. 
Since the royal commission ended there has been no good news for GE. The Greek chorus includes scientists who warn that the process of genetic engineering is random and uncontrolled and that the organisms that result are likely to be unstable and certainly unpredictable. We know from laboratory work that they are capable of producing new toxins and new allergens. We know from the UK’s 3-year field trials that they can have damaging effects on wildlife. We know from the few tests done on soil that the bacillus thuringiensis toxin remains in the soil for many months after plants are dead. We know that we need far more work on soil as the royal commission itself said before we will know what we are doing. We know that the glyphosphate herbicide without which herbicide-resistant crops will not grow has health risks and exposes crops to a much greater risk of fusarium mould. But this Government has not listened to independent scientists—only to those who work for industry. 
There are economists in the Greek chorus too. They are more recently arrived than the scientists but come with a warning we should heed. We have the Business and Economic Research Ltd report that states clearly that reduction in market demand for our agricultural exports because of market resistance to GE will have a much greater impact on the New Zealand economy as a whole than any productivity increase that might be postulated for GE crops. A really huge productivity increase is needed to outweigh a small reduction in market demand through consumer resistance yet we know that consumer resistance is real and that productivity gains are still hypothetical. We have the University of Otago Trust and Country Image report that warns that the prospect of genetically modified farm animals producing milk or meat for food and the feeding of such animals on genetically modified pasture plants provokes an almost universal highly negative reaction. Those were the words of the report but the Government is not listening to economists. Treasury even changed the conclusions of the Business and Economic Research Ltd and Lincoln reports to fit its story. 
Another group to emerge from the audience is the media. Over recent weeks the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
Dominion Post 
 and the  
Sunday Star-Times  
have editorialised that we should hold off on the release of GE. It is just too soon to be sure of its effects. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is supposed to be about risk management. That is a dangerous approach to take when the risks we are supposed to be managing cannot be known and are unpredictable. 
But if we are to become involved in risk management we should listen to those who specialise in it and whose money is on the line if they get it wrong. The insurance industry has popped its head up in the chorus and said that it will not insure against the risks of GE because it is not possible to do the actuarial calculations. It is up there the industry says with severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) terrorism and nuclear mishaps. The potential consequences are so large and the probability of their occurring so impossible to calculate that there is no way of setting a realistic premium. So it will not insure at all. 
Surrounding those expert voices in the chorus are the people of New Zealand. They have been telling the Government for years that they do not want GE organisms released outside a contained laboratory. That is not a public reaction like yesterday’s “flash in the pan” on the Supreme Court Bill which was whipped up by a last-minute campaign that could not even get a respectable number of signatures on a petition and which had to resort to misinformation from a radio station to make the public angry. That storm will be gone as quickly as it arose but on genetic engineering the public has been committed and vocal for years—and increasingly well-informed. 
 They were committed 4 years ago when 92000 of them signed my petition for an inquiry and a moratorium. They were still committed 3 years ago when 11000 of them made personal written submissions to the royal commission of which 92 percent opposed release outside the laboratory and which was simply ignored. They were still committed in September 2001 when some 10000 people marched in the streets of Auckland in the rain. Again in November 2002 a similar march in Auckland showed that people had not changed their minds. 
Last weekend at least 15000—some say 25000—people marched in Auckland again as well as thousands in four other cities determined that the blind and deaf players in the tragedy should hear their voices. That was possibly the largest-ever march in New Zealand’s history. I am aware of none larger even in the days of Vietnam the nuclear issue or the Springbok tour. Queen Street was full from Customs Street to Myers Park and still they came. They came with enormous creativity and hope that even at this stage the Government would listen. They came with banners with costumes with children and with animals; they came to celebrate all that they hold dear and to plead with this Government not to put it at risk. 
Maori are particularly aghast at the process of genetic engineering which is disrespectful of life of whakapapa and of the living things to which we are all related. This legislation throws Maori a crumb by legislating for what already exists. Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao the advisory committee to the Environmental Risk Management Authority has no decision-making power is not appointed on the nominations of Maori and cannot even elect its own chair. At one stage the committee favoured making at least those two small changes but in the end it was not supported by Government members. 
The tragedy grinds on impervious to the growing sense of the awful destiny that could be waiting for us. There were many opportunities for the Government to listen and make changes without losing face. Amendments have been moved to extend the moratorium for 5 years to strengthen the precautionary principle in the Act to exempt food from the moratorium to continue the cautious approach to living vaccines that might live in the soil and to extend strict liability to cover cases where the law is not broken but the organism turns out to be dangerous. The Government in its arrogance has rejected them all. The only amendment of substance that the Government accepted was my proposal to require the Environmental Risk Management Authority to consider the economic costs as well as the benefits. 
It was interesting to see the Progressives breaking ranks with their Labour coalition partner in voting to extend the moratorium. It is significant that Labour cannot get the support of its coalition partner on this issue and I commend the Progressive members for taking a stand although it was most disappointing that they chose not to speak on any stage of the legislation—not even to alert us to the existence of their amendments. 
What is most interesting in voting on this legislation is the grand coalition. It should be a warning to Labour on how far it has moved that its position is now so close to that of National and ACT and so far from that of the Greens and its own coalition partner. I have news for Labour—the big objective is to get GE off the political and electoral agenda. The game is to pass all decisions to the Environmental Risk Management Authority—an unelected quasi-judicial expert committee—so that when things go wrong the Government will not be to blame. It will not succeed. Labour will be held accountable by the people for any harm that comes from the release of GE. 
In the meantime I pay tribute to all the people who have raised public awareness and done everything they can to alert the Government to the risks it is taking. I want to thank everyone who has marched made submissions visited his or her MP written letters and postcards and voted on the www.take5.net.nz website and on the numerous other petitions that are circulating. I thank Greenpeace GE-Free New Zealand the Sustainability Council Friends of the Earth Mothers Against Genetic Engineering PureFoods New Zealand Zespri ENZA Sanitarium church groups organic farmers and all those who made submissions on the legislation opposing the release of GE. We have a lot to celebrate—we have made GE a front-page issue; we have delayed release into the environment and into the New Zealand food chain to the point where much more information is available and the mood of the Environmental Risk Management Authority is more cautious. I do not believe that it will ever allow the release of canola after the overseas experience of pollen-spread. 
This legislation is not the end. There is a strong public movement that will not go away. We will oppose every release into the environment while welcoming all that biotechnology can do for us in a contained lab. We will continue to tell stories from overseas. We will continue to be a watchdog on the Environmental Risk Management Authority. We will continue to challenge the Government. We will fight in Parliament in the fields and on the streets until people stop messing with the fundamental processes of life itself. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to support the third reading of this legislation on behalf of United Future. It simply puts in place the legislative and environmental framework needed to deal safely and efficiently with the reality of genetic technology. GE is here to stay. Denying the reality of GE is to forgo all its potential benefits while we bury our heads in the sand and let it sneak up on us incrementally anyway. I have spent the last 3 weeks in Europe where particularly during the last week I met with various people in the UK and Holland to discuss the issue of GE and GMOs in Europe. Many of them were envious of our regulatory regime. This legislation completes the process and gives us one of the most secure regulatory processes of any country in the world. A number of people commented with envy that we could analyse applications on the basis of economic considerations and they were certainly envious of the Minister’s call-in powers which would give even more flexibility in handling cases on a case by case basis. 
Many good arguments have been made here and many good comments made in the debate. I want to focus on a couple that really struck me from my time in Europe. Many here in New Zealand are quick to suggest that New Zealand could do well by selling its product as GE free and by cashing in on being one of the few GE-free nations in the world. First of all we have to ask ourselves whether we can promote ourselves as GE free. While there is no certainty about any contamination of GE sweetcorn in the 2000 “corngate” affair there is definitely evidence of contamination last year in sweetcorn grown here in New Zealand. So no one can with any integrity stand and declare New Zealand to be GE free. It amazes me that those who are so opposed to the lifting of the moratorium because of all the supposed environmental risks of releasing GMOs into the environment are prepared to overlook the fact that we have already had some of it growing. If it is so bad it must have already spread beyond containment in this country. 
If we have survived this in terms of any effects to our markets then surely we can also survive any potential consequences of approved releases on a case by case basis where all care will be taken to avoid contamination of neighbouring crops. The growing of potatoes or onions—if these are the first applications to be approved perhaps later in 2004 or 2005—is in reality unlikely to create the kind of economic damage the doomsayers are predicting. Where is the integrity of those who are running around with their clothes off demanding New Zealand remain GE free when we all know that it has not been GE free and therefore technically can never be again? [ 
Interruption 
] I agree with the member. 
Over the last few weeks I have had many discussions with credible people in the UK and the Netherlands and no one gave me the slightest impression of believing that opposition to the development of GMOs was likely to be successful in Europe. It was not considered feasible nor desirable. The people currently opposed—and I am glad to say they did have their clothes on—are likely to slow the introduction of GMOs in Europe but when the reason for opposition is analysed it has more to do with general mistrust of politicians and scientists based on some recent experience with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and mad-cow disease and even currently with the issues of the Iraq war. This will change in time as things often do. 
It is likely that gradually the majority of consumers will accept the facts about the technology and get on with life as we have done with past controversies and current ones. There is controversy around cellphones but we do not stop using them. There is controversy around microwaves—and in some homes in Europe people still refuse to use them—but by and large they are an accepted technology. Results of the farm-scale study—which involves the study over 4 years of four varieties of herbicide-resistant GM crops—will be released this week in England and it will be of interest to all of us who are following the GE debate. The results are being kept under wraps very tightly and no one with any knowledge of what the report contains is revealing anything. I tried my hardest to find out information but was unable to. 
Those who do have knowledge though are pouring scorn on claims reported in  
The Guardian 
 and repeated by the anti-GE lobby that leaks of information in the report indicated a negative result in the study. The speaker before me who claimed that the report states that there were negative effects did exactly what many of the opponents of GE are doing—acting without any integrity whatsoever—and tried to snatch a few headlines in the paper by saying that a report will be negative when in fact it has not yet been released. I find that to be reprehensible. Many people only see the first headline; they do not see the rest of the story and the facts that follow it. I am sure that those without much concern for the truth and the facts of the whole report in context will find something negative taken out of context to shout from the rooftops or spread on the Internet to continue the misinformation campaign. We should all wait until we can read the report for ourselves and know the facts. 
What I did hear from the National Farmers Union executives I met with just last week was that the anecdotal reports from farmers who have been involved over the 4-year period of the trials were that their overall experience with the crops has been generally good. 
A lot has been said about the refusal of the UK supermarkets to stock GE food because of the public’s opposition to GE food. The question we need to ask is whether UK and European supermarkets will be able to keep GE produce off the shelves indefinitely. While it has been easy for the major supermarket chains to respond to consumer concern over GE products by refusing to put them on the shelves it is my opinion that this will become increasingly more difficult to do. The requirement for labelling of any food item that has more than 0.9 percent GM content makes life problematic for the retailers now in the European Union. The requirement to label will force suppliers to either identify the source of all their ingredients with absolute certainty or engage in the expensive process of testing everything. 
The first option is problematic as the percentage of GM crops increases worldwide. The possibility of some low levels of contamination occurring in neighbouring crops increases with it. The recent revelations concerning the number of Brazilian farmers who had ignored their country’s ban on GM organisms and purchased GE soy seeds from neighbouring Argentina is a case in point of how difficult it is becoming for anyone to be absolutely certain about food being completely GE free. 
In November the European Commission will have to vote upon whether it approves some releases of commercially grown crops in the European Union and any release in any one country that is approved will apply to the whole European Union. Many I spoke to believe that that vote will proceed and that the pseudo moratorium that exists in the European Union communities will no longer be in force. 
Supermarket chain stores that value their integrity may be rather reluctant to risk the consumer backlash that would occur if they labelled products as 100 percent GE free that then may turn out to have low levels of contamination. Instead I think there will be a growing tendency to take a safe and more pragmatic approach and attach labels that state “This product may contain GM at less than 0.9 percent.” Consumers who want greater certainty than that may find it more and more difficult to source their desire for guaranteed GE-free products. They will find them costing considerably more not just because of the savings made by growers by the efficiencies gained by GM organisms that could reduce the cost of GM produce but also because of the increased cost that will be passed on to the consumer the cost of tracking the source of products and the testing of the products as I stated earlier. 
There may be a positive spin-off for some conventional farmers and organic farmers for a time as people are willing to pay higher prices for what is guaranteed to be GE-free food. But it is likely that without any forthcoming proof of any dangers to health from consuming GM organisms the percentage of consumers who will pay more will decrease. After at least 7 years of consumption of GM organisms by many millions in the US Canada and Argentina there is still no evidence of any negative health effects. That does not mean that there are none or that there may not be in the future but there is no reliable evidence of any negative side effects yet so far and none on the horizon either. 
The question is for how long will consumers refuse products when their choices may cost them more at the cash register. We know that smoking is harmful but 20 percent of New Zealanders continue to smoke and Europeans seem to do so at an even higher percentage. We have been told of the negative effects of eating too much fast food yet we continue to consume it. It is not credible to suggest that in the absence of any proof of negative consequences European consumers will boycott New Zealand agriculture products in the long term. Even in the short term potential consequences of any economic consequences seem remote in my opinion. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to support the changes in clarification of the Environmental Risk Management Authority processes that make this bill more acceptable to many people. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I was nearly caught off guard there after that brilliant contribution by the member from Hamilton East—particularly the length and breadth of it just about caught me out! Tonight we will talk about the legislation at some stage but I start by drawing the analogy I did when I spoke in the Committee stage about what happens when new technology is developed and people do not understand it and they are motivated more by fear than an understanding of the science. I draw the analogy of Henry Ford when he introduced his first mass-production assembly line back in his home country and started producing the model T car. The people of the area rose up and belted on the side of his factory with sticks went to the media and protested up and down the country—I am not sure whether they were clothed or unclothed but they protested. 
Their argument was that the contraption that he was going to mass-produce would rattle frighten the horses and it would kill thousands of people. Do members know what? The protesters were absolutely right. His rattling contraption did frighten the horses and it did kill thousands of people. Guess what? Not one member of the Green Party arrives in Parliament today on a horse or with a horse and cart. On a skateboard yes but not a horse and cart. The analogy was totally confirmed for me when I went to visit my old mum in hospital and came out too late to get a meal and decided to go through the drive-through of KFC which is multinational. [ 
Interruption 
] Potentially it is genetically engineered food; I am not sure. 
Simon Power 
: It’s horrible. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a dreadful place. My colleague says it is a horrible place and he is right. It is dreadful food it is likely to kill someone it is unhealthy. I had better be careful—I do not want to denigrate them too much. Of course we will go in and enjoy it in great quantities. But the thing that really struck me was as I pulled into there in a great rush as one does and joined the queue that the Japanese import in front of me that was belching clouds of smoke had on the bumper sticker “Vote Green and save New Zealand from GE”. It was belching out smoke—I had to turn the fan off because we were blasting it all into our car—and it had: “Vote Green and save New Zealand from GE”. 
Here we go. We have a multinational here in New Zealand a car that is so environmentally hazardous that it should not be on the road—it probably will not be when the new regulations come in—and there is no guarantee at all that the food that we would consume from that outlet is in any way healthy. Potentially it is genetically modified as well. I would not know about that. We enjoyed a great feed of KFC chicken and went home happy to have KFC in New Plymouth. 
But the analogy is absolute when we look at that. Clearly we have to take note of the findings of the royal commission which were: to proceed with caution. Clearly there are some concerns and there will be some hazards. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues here are trying to draw me into the issue of old “Fergies”—I will get there in the finish. The reality is clearly there are some risks. But if we do not base on good science good research the analysis of whether to proceed then what do we base it on? On what basis can we proceed with anything? If we do not allow properly controlled research to take place both in the field and in the laboratory then how will we ever know? Will we wait until somebody else finds what we probably already are halfway down the road to discovering with regard to some of the major breakthroughs that I predict will take place in medicine? Will we wait for somebody else to discover that and lose all the benefits of that? Will we or will we proceed with caution? The National Party is of the view that after a long period of investigation after a long period of consultation after the work has been done by the royal commission and after the work has been done in making sure that the Environmental Risk Management Authority requirements are robust and the research is robust then we must proceed with caution. 
My colleagues keep tempting me to raise the issue of the old “Fergie”. Well the Ferguson tractor is a major piece of technological advancement. The Ferguson system designed a machine that allowed the plough the tractor and the cultivator and all the other implements that fit on to it to be one device. When we moved from the horse-drawn implement to a mechanical device that was all one—and much more manoeuvrable—that was the Ferguson tractor. It is an offensive piece of machinery of course; it is a very disorderly piece of machinery and one gets charged with an offence if one drives it! But if one is protesting against GE and strips naked and lies down on the front lawn of Parliament that is not disorderly—no charges are laid! 
So I understand from this that the Ferguson tractor itself is disorderly. It is that old Ferguson tractor that is disorderly. That has to be clear to most people. It is a horrible thing to have a Ferguson tractor an iconic piece of agricultural equipment with a New Zealand flag flying from it on the steps of Parliament. That is a heinous crime and a morally reprehensible thing to do. There is no question about that. But backing up to the front gates of Premier House with a truckload of dirt and tipping that in front of the gates of Premier House so that the whole of the Labour caucus and Cabinet cannot get out is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Simon Power 
: That’s insightful! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is leadership! But they should have dropped off 10 truckloads of dirt and blocked it for a couple of months. That would have been useful as well as insightful and showing leadership. That is not a crime. Of course they would not have a “Fergie” tractor to climb over it so they would be trapped there for a long time. That would have been useful and a great thing. 
Clearly we have a double standard in terms of what is important and what is not. Clearly we have a double standard in terms of the way this Government responds to different protests. Clearly we have a double standard where farmers are not welcome in Parliament and their protest is described as “foolish and stupid” but anything goes when it comes to putting up an argument against GE even when the Government is supporting the issue because those who are opposed just happen to be the group that supports the Government with its vote on most things—like changing major constitutional issues to do with this country’s access to the Privy Council. That is the difference; that is the double standard and I am absolutely opposed to that. 
We must proceed with this legislation but with caution: with science-based and carefully analysed research about where to go. Let us look at some of the opportunities that may arise from this. Certainly there will be opportunities in increased production. We are not sure how great they will be. We are not sure whether they will be commercially viable but we will never know unless the research is done. We will never know unless we are leaders instead of followers in some of this. We will never know unless we allow some of that carefully considered research to take place. 
We do not know what may come out in a medical sense. New Zealand has been a leader in this area. We do not know what may come out of that. An example was drawn earlier about using pig insulin versus some of the more synthetic or more modified approaches that we have now. What we do know is that forms of genetic engineering and genetic modification have been going on for thousands of years. Today we are just moving to the next wave of that technology—carefully. We will be doing it carefully and cautiously and with tight regulations and careful consideration. 
Let me explain how one can get caught out politically. The Prime Minister said we would have “zero tolerance” for genetic engineering in this country. Then we found out that some corn that had been imported may or may not have been contaminated. So we went through this extensive testing process and of course all the scientists would have been able to tell her straight out and probably did that we can never guarantee zero tolerance; that there will always be a tolerance level. The only way we can guarantee zero tolerance is to test every single corn seed and thereby destroy every single corn seed. So there is no way of guaranteeing zero tolerance. There was an example of the Prime Minister being caught out by not studying science and listening to scientists. We need some consistency in this whole debate. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is good legislation. New Zealand will keep its edge as a leading developer of medical and agricultural research that is vital to New Zealand’s economic future. I am pleased to support it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker who has provided me with ample rebuttal material! 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: But you agree with us. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes I know. Wonders will never cease! As the two preceding speakers for the Opposition side of the House have indicated the National Party supports the passage of this legislation and will be supporting the third reading. When speaking on this legislation on a number of occasions I have said that the issue it addresses has been very difficult for many members of the New Zealand public and for many members in this House. I guess I could say many of us have not found this legislation to be particularly digestible in the sense of being able immediately to fall into a position of overriding support for it. For that reason I think that members on all sides acknowledge that this issue has raised emotions and views to very high levels. Frankly the issue is of such significance that it has spanned across the political divide in a way that is quite unusual. Not only do most of the parties in the House support the passage of the legislation in some shape or form—though it is always difficult to know with New Zealand First; we are never quite sure exactly where it sits on an issue but no doubt it will come around in the end—but also as I have said previously in the debate on this legislation colleagues of mine friends of mine whom I could only describe as being pretty right wing and who consider the ACT party to be a bit soft have raised with me issues relating to GE and food labelling. So this issue does span across the traditional economic spectrum of political recognition in terms of where a party sits on those issues. 
This has not been legislation that I have been comfortable with in the sense of how it is drafted—not at all. I have raised that on a number of occasions in the Education and Science Committee process. Some of the drafting is appalling so I think problems are just waiting to arise in respect of the interpretation of different clauses. During the remainder of my contribution I want to highlight the three matters I have raised on a number of occasions during the course of the debate on this legislation that I think the courts will be dealing with for quite some time. 
The first issue relates to the pecuniary penalties provisions and in particular to new section 124B(3) of Part 7A inserted by clause 48. The burden of proof for the applicant in the event of a breach of the Act is set at a very high standard—a standard that is quite different from the standard that was originally envisaged in the legislation as introduced. As I have said before it was envisaged that the burden would be this: the court would not make a penalty order if it was satisfied that the person involved in the conditional release did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach. That was changed and the burden has increased substantially. Subsection (3) now states that the court must not make the order if the person satisfies the court that he or she did not know of the breach and could not reasonably have known of the breach. That is a higher standard than ordinarily would be the case in criminal matters and in civil matters as well. 
We noted in the select committee that the officials said there was no good reason in respect of GE as to why liability or pecuniary penalties or in fact burdens should be treated any differently in this case than in any other legal scenario. That advice was ignored by the majority of the select committee and it pressed ahead lifting that burden in a way that is inconsistent with that basic position. 
The second issue which I raised during the Committee stage and continue to have concerns about relates to the Minister’s call-in powers. That provision does worry me substantially. As I have said previously the fact that the Minister may direct that an application be called in if the application will have significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international or spiritual effects will only benefit one group in New Zealand and that is the lawyers. The lawyers will have a field day with this stuff trying to work out what a cultural an environmental or a spiritual effect is and I can tell members that there will be many many more Mercedes-Benzes parked outside district law societies’ annual meetings when lawyers have finished interpreting this mess. That is the best and kindest way I can describe drafting that attaches such importance to innocuous and bizarre terms such as “spiritual and cultural effects”. There is nothing certain in those provisions and the one obligation of this Parliament is to provide clarity and certainty in the law. What we will see from that particular clause is more judicial activism—more lawmaking by judges who are not interpreting clear clean law but are making law—and by what happened earlier today in this House most of those judges will have been appointed by Margaret Wilson. I take no comfort from that at all—not for one moment. I will be watching the effect and the interpretation of those provisions very carefully indeed. 
The last of the three points that I want to raise relates to the effect of this legislation and its interpretation on local government. I have raised that issue many times during the course of the debate on this legislation. This legislation is extremely unclear with regard to local government’s ability to effect GE-free areas within territorial authority boundaries and does nothing to clarify that issue. That issue was raised by members of this House during the select committee process. We told officials that the advice they gave us on that point was not good enough that the legislation was not clear enough and that units of local government would be left in an uncertain position for the future when declaring or wishing to consider GE-free areas within their own territorial boundaries. The majority of the Government members on the select committee pressed ahead on the basis that they were not concerned about what that meant for local government or about the way in which this legislation would be interpreted by local government. Others on the committee signalled that they were unhappy with that lack of clarity and certainty in the legislation and I do so again now. 
Let me just forecast if I may one thing. The uncertainty in the relationship between this legislation and local government will cause havoc. There will be districts and territorial authorities that wish to consider the issue of GE-free districts within their boundaries. This legislation does not clarify that issue. That will end up costing ratepayers and taxpayers money when those issues have to go to the High Court the Court of Appeal or God forbid to Margaret Wilson’s Supreme Court to have the matter determined. It is just not good enough to put law through this House that is so uncertain and unclear that it will end up creating another wave of judicial activism. I see the chairman of the select committee nodding at me and I am not sure whether that is reassuring. 
But I think the main point here is that this legislation has been poorly put together. Whilst members on the Opposition side of the House agree with the principles in it will be supporting it and have done so throughout the process the inability of this Parliament and of Government members on the select committee to rectify and tidy up the issues raised during the select committee process and the Committee stage will unfortunately mean that this debate is far from over. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the member who has just resumed his seat I would like to say that this is good legislation. We are proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. That is a responsible approach I would have thought. I support the legislation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Counter-Terrorism Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a second time 
. I want to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of the bill and the amendments recommended to it. The commemoration over the weekend of last year’s bombing in Bali is a tragic reminder of the ongoing threat to the safety and security of New Zealanders posed by international terrorism. New Zealand is committed on every front to combat terrorism. This legislation is a further step by this Government to ensure that we have in place a full range of measures to prevent or respond to any effort by terrorists to operate here in our country. This bill supplements the Terrorism Suppression Act. It is the result of a whole-of-Government review of relevant offence and penalty provisions and investigative powers to identify gaps that might be exploited by terrorists. It amends the relevant legislation to ensure that New Zealand has the ability to deal comprehensively with terrorist offending. 
The bill firstly implements in domestic law the requirements of two international conventions relating to the physical protection of nuclear material and the marking of plastic explosives. Those are the final two of 12 terrorism-related international instruments that New Zealand has yet to ratify and with the passage of this bill we will be fully compliant with the United Nations’ requirements. 
Secondly the bill contains new offences designed to deal with terrorist-type activity. The following become offences: first harbouring or concealing a person who has carried out or intends to carry out terrorist activity; second causing sickness or disease in animals intending to endanger the health or safety of an animal population and cause major economic damage such as by deliberately bringing in foot-and-mouth disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy; third contaminating products such as food water or crops intended for human consumption intending to harm one or more persons or cause major economic damage; and fourth threatening to do or falsely communicating information about an act that is likely to cause risk to the health and safety of one or more persons or major property damage or major economic damage intending to significantly disrupt the civilian population infrastructure the administration of Government or commercial interests. 
Thirdly this bill makes terrorism an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. When a terrorist is convicted of a criminal act it provides that when murder occurs in the course of terrorist activity as defined by the Terrorism Suppression Act 17 years will be the starting point in the judge’s determination of an appropriate minimum non-parole period. 
Fourthly the bill gives the Customs Service the power to detain property intercepted crossing the New Zealand border where there is good cause to suspect that the property is owned or controlled by a designated terrorist entity or by an entity that is eligible for designation. 
Finally the bill creates investigative powers needed by the authorities to deal with terrorism and other serious crimes. Those powers are not terrorism specific but are necessary to ensure that the police are not hampered in their ability to investigate such offences. The bill provides for the use of tracking devices by police and customs officers subject to safeguards such as warrant requirement and reporting obligations. It establishes a requirement to assist computer access in the course of a warranted police search by providing reasonable and necessary access information such as the computer password. The bill provides that the existence of separate interception warrants for serious drug offences and other serious offences will not result in the exclusion of evidence that is fortuitously but lawfully obtained under an interception warrant as long as the evidence relates to a serious criminal offence for which an interception warrant may be obtained. The bill was also amended at the select committee to provide for terrorist designations to be updated so that the details of an already designated entity can be corrected if necessary in accordance with new information issued by the United Nations. 
While this bill is titled the Counter-Terrorism Bill it contains provisions that are not terrorism specific. The provisions relating to investigative powers that provide for the use of tracking devices a computer access requirement and the admissibility of evidence obtained under an interception warrant will apply to a whole range of criminal investigations. Wherever possible terrorism should be dealt with by applying and where necessary amending the general criminal law. That is because terrorist acts are usually criminal offences such as intimidation property damage and murder but are committed with an ideological political or religious motive. In the criminal law generally motive is only relevant to sentencing. It may not be possible to distinguish between crime that has as its main motivation terrorism and other crime until an investigation is complete. It would be utterly impractical to create a distinct regime governing certain investigations simply because the motive may be ideological political or religious. There are exceptions for certain terrorism-specific provisions primarily contained in the Terrorism Suppression Act that New Zealand has been required to implement in order to comply with its international obligations. 
Some submitters were concerned that persons who exercised their democratic right to protest or otherwise dissent from the majority view may be designated as terrorists. That concern was debated at some length during consideration of the earlier Terrorism Suppression Bill. Considerable efforts were made to draft the relevant provisions in the Terrorism Suppression Act so that unwarranted designation does not occur. The legislation also provides safeguards such as being able to apply for a review of designation. 
Some concerns were expressed about new section 307A of the Crimes Act which in broad terms is an offence of threatening to cause serious kinds of harm with a view to significantly disrupting the population or commercial or Government interests. In response to submissions that section was substantially redrafted to specify particular kinds of threats and targets of disruption. The threats of harm must be very serious and intended to result in large-scale disruption before the section will apply. Some suggest that this kind of disruption is excusable because of the cause for which it is committed. The Government and I believe New Zealanders generally do not believe that serious criminal acts can be justified on that basis. 
Submitters were also concerned to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck between preventing terrorism and minimising unreasonable interference with the activities and freedoms of law-abiding citizens. The Government is very conscious of the need to maintain that balance which I believe the bill does. Crown Law provided advice on the compliance of this bill with the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Attorney-General took the unprecedented step of appearing in person before the select committee to answer questions. The only New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue identified by the Attorney-General in the bill related to the tracking device provisions. She was satisfied that the regime proposed included substantial safeguards such as warrant and reporting requirements that struck a reasonable balance between law enforcement and privacy expectations. International guidelines on human rights issued by the United Nations and the Council of Europe have been taken into account in the bill’s development. The bill is consistent with those guidelines which recognise that terrorism itself is such a fundamental incursion on human rights that it may justify more rigorous measures than would be normal in response. 
I believe that this bill strikes the appropriate balance between protecting civil liberties by putting in place effective measures to deal with terrorism and at the same time minimising undue interference with the lawful rights and freedoms of New Zealanders generally. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is interesting to note that today’s Order Paper started off with this bill as No. 9 in the list but by this afternoon it was No. 6. One must ask what association that has with the upcoming APEC conference and the various meetings—and dare I say it lunches—that the Prime Minister is to have. I also wonder whether the words “benign strategic environment” will pass her lips at any stage. At least I would have to acknowledge that the Minister himself recognised that the situation is no longer benign—or rather more accurately no longer as benign as it was. Even he is not willing to fully backtrack on that. But the reality is that the situation is not benign. 
As we know terrorism is increasing throughout the world and it is necessary to take stern measures to rebut it. National supports this bill and it is a necessary key part of the components of the war on terrorism. However I want to point out some particular issues that come through in the bill. The Minister referred to the designation of terrorist groups. Everyone would agree that designations should be updated. How many people however would know that New Zealand does not designate Hizbollah as a terrorist group? We do not designate a group that explicitly undertakes terrorism almost on a daily basis as a terrorist group. One may think that maybe we forgot to do so. In June of this year Australia specifically designated Hizbollah as a terrorist group. 
Surely that is one of those situations where one would expect the two countries to be thinking alike on terrorism yet once again we see the two countries diverging. Australia is taking one path—a much more forthright approach against terrorism and a much more extensive list of designated entities. But New Zealand is taking its own isolated path. Even if the Minister says that the environment is not quite as benign as it was the Prime Minister still in the depth of her heart has not changed her thinking. Our defence forces have not been updated to recognise the threats of terrorism. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh rubbish! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The chief Labour Party whip might say “rubbish”. I would like to say this to the Government: when one sends two frigates to the Gulf of Oman this year leaving our entire region without any frigates at all surely that must tell the Government something. Surely that must tell the Government that it needs to have more than two frigates when they were both sent to the Gulf of Oman. Surely the war on terrorism tells us that we need to have three frigates. 
The Government should be making those kinds of practical decisions and it is failing to make them. It is failing to make the adjustments necessary in order to do real combat against terrorism. The Government spends a great deal of time telling New Zealand what has been done in relation to the defence forces but it is not taking the necessary steps. For instance one would think that one of the lessons the Government would have learnt from East Timor and peacekeeping in the Gulf and elsewhere is that New Zealand needs to have more people in the Army. Do we have that? The answer is no we do not. The reality is that the Government is not taking the crucial steps that are necessary. What we get instead are platitudes. 
We simply get the law—that is easy is it not? Anyone can go and ratify international conventions because that is the sort of thing one would put up as evidence of being a good international citizen. The real test is taking the serious practical steps that go beyond the law and have a meaningful effect on the war on terrorism. That means the appropriate designations. I have to ask and I would expect one of the Government speakers to explain to this House why Hizbollah is not designated as a terrorist organisation. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why don’t you? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Can Mr Cosgrove tell this House why this Government does not designate Hizbollah—a known terrorist organisation that bombs civilians on a daily basis almost—as a terrorist organisation? That is not a case of some sort of guerrilla war fighting group. When we ask serious questions on the Opposition side of the House about the practical steps that have been taken we deserve answers and we are not getting them. We are just getting inane interjections from the chief Labour whip. 
I wish to turn to another particular point in this legislation and it is a matter that has concerned me substantially. It is referred to in the commentary on the bill under the heading on page 3 “Consideration given to dividing the bill into terrorism and non-terrorism specific bills”. Members will be aware from the Minister’s explanation that the bill does two things. It implements some international conventions—everyone supports that—but it also changes the law generally for all crimes and offences or virtually all serious crimes offences and misuse of drugs offences in relation to tracking devices. That is also a good thing. My concern however is this: the bill was presented to the public of New Zealand as the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The Law Society the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand and others were not put on notice by that title that the law was being changed generally in relation to tracking devices and the interception of computer systems. It seems to me that when a major change is being made to the law as is the case in this instance then there really is an obligation upon the Government to inform the public of that in the description of the bill and the various public notices of what the bill is actually about. Anyone reading the bill or seeing the initial reports on it would naturally assume it is about nuclear materials plastic explosives and the designation of terrorist groups. No one was put on notice about the issue of the interception warrants and the tracking devices. 
I fully accept those matters are necessary steps in the war on terrorism. But I also believe that the Law Society the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand and others should have been specifically notified perhaps through the title of the bill that wider and general changes were being implemented. The reason is this. It is not just a question of properly informing citizens of changes to the law; it is also that when one restricts or gives additional police powers surely there is an obligation on the Government to properly notify people that that is taking place. I am disappointed that the Government did not split the bill into two. On the Opposition side of the House we somewhat reluctantly accepted given the explanations we received that we had to pass the two parts of the bill together. But I would like to stress this point. I would like the Government to ensure in the future that in bills of this nature that include an omnibus section the title of the bill the explanatory note of the bill or the general publicity about the bill indicates to the public and to interested parties what the bill is about. 
National supports this bill. We do however ask serious questions not so much about the law that we pass but about the practical measures that the Government takes alongside our friends and allies to make the real changes—the designations of terrorist groups and the revamping of our defence forces—so that it actually has the tools not just the legal powers but the real tools that will help civilised nations to defeat terrorism. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise briefly to support the bill. For those outside Parliament who did not realise who the previous speaker was that was allegedly the foreign affairs spokesperson for the National Party. He spent 10 minutes rubbishing the bill then told us he was going to support it. 
I support this bill. It implements and beefs up counter-terrorism measures after a wide-ranging review in the post - September 11 environment and gives a whole series of new powers including the power to detain property intercepted across the border beefed up investigative powers and others. 
Mr Mapp made some comments about defence and the lack of resourcing. I remind him that under his Government the defence vote was cut by in excess of 20 percent—the biggest cut in the history of this country. Yet Mr Mapp has “Ronald Reagan-itis”—“I do not recall; I have amnesia.” It is a bit rich for that member to get up and talk about beefing up defence resources after his Government made the biggest cut in the defence vote in the history of this nation. He should pipe down and explain to the people of New Zealand why he did that before he makes any comment on this bill. 
This is a good bill. Who would have thought that the provisions in it would be contested by the Opposition in a post - September 11 environment? We have to put this legislation through. We have international obligations to put this legislation through. We would be an irresponsible Government and Parliament if we did not enact the measures in the bill. Finally instead of that member making cheap political points and forgetting his own history he and his party should be responsible and support the bill. They should give it a critical examination but should support it in a bipartisan way—as Mr Dunne and others do on these sorts of bills. I support the bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to indicate first that New Zealand First will be supporting the passage of this bill as I think all sane-minded New Zealanders would want us to do. This bill is one of those bills on which we can play politics for quite some considerable time and the temptation arises right now to remind people— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: You’re pretty good at that. 
RON MARK 
 The member cannot resist can he. I have to congratulate certain members in the Government. They have really come a long way and this bill probably indicates their maturing. I recall being a young soldier in Anzac Day parades when certain members of the Labour Party were activists in peace movements and were vigorously expressing their points of view on defence issues. They were taking it out on servicemen who had done precisely what their country had required them to do; they were spitting throwing paint throwing themselves down in front of servicemen who were marching abusing them their families and their children abusing anyone as a “baby bayoneter” and doing those sorts of things. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s not true. Stop making it up. 
RON MARK 
: Lianne Dalziel says I am making it up. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I didn’t throw myself in front of servicemen. 
RON MARK 
: I did not say you did Lianne Dalziel. She is a little sensitive. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
RON MARK 
: I did not say Lianne Dalziel did. However large numbers of Labour Party people were actively involved in organising those demonstrations. Large numbers of Labour Party people had a different view of defence in those days. But today this Government and many of those people are waking up to the realities of the world and that is a good thing. It is a shame that it takes events like September 11— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s a shame you can make up nonsense. 
RON MARK 
: She really has lost her rag today. The  
Holmes  
show must have been quite bad I gather. 
Peter Brown 
: It was terrible. 
RON MARK 
: There we go; that explains it. It is good that the bill is here and it is good that it follows on the heels of the Terrorism Suppression Bill. Once again I remind the House that other terrorists who reside in this country need to be dealt with in the same way. They wear gang patches. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Who are they? 
RON MARK 
: Mongrel Mob Black Power Highway 61 and the Filthy Few. Does the member want me to keep going? How long does he want me to keep going? [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove is such a silly lad. He deserves to be ignored. The bill has— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That member was in Government for 2 years and did nothing. 
RON MARK 
: They really do lose their rag do they not. It has been a bad day for the Government. It has been a bad month for the Government. At a time when I am trying to compliment Government members—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I am responding to the interjections which I am permitted to do. As long as those members wish to fuel the fire they will wear the heat. It is as simple as that. On a day when the Government is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members on my right of Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which says that running commentaries are out of order. If members wish to make a speech they can take the next call. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you. The bill is good and it is necessary. We will support it. I also compliment people who have problems that I do not have; people who see in the bill all sorts of things that they fear in terms of encroachments on human rights. Mr Locke has fought very hard and long for the Green Party expressing his view; his minority report is there for everybody to read. I do not have a problem with the tracking device clause. I do not have a problem with the extra powers that the Customs Service has been given. I do not have a problem with the extra investigative powers that the Minister spoke of in his speech. The provisions are necessary. The threat we face around the world is greater than us. We no longer live in a benign environment. We have had bombings on our doorstep and are likely to have more in the future and legislation like this is necessary. 
Just like other members I would like to think that this Government and Governments to come will reinforce our defence and security capabilities by increasing defence budgets—as New Zealand First has recommended—to 2 percent of GDP so that we are able to play a stronger and more positive role in the suppression of terrorism internationally. We cannot continue to advance the Labour Party’s view that we should enter the global market and the global economy with free-trade agreements and ignore our responsibilities to the world in which we seek to trade. We cannot ignore our security responsibilities and sit back and expect everybody else to provide that umbrella of protection. Adhering to the requirements of the UN resolutions in respect of dealing with and suppressing terrorism is something that we must live up to and slowly we are getting there. But it takes more than that; it takes a solid commitment to the establishment of competent capable and meaningful defence forces and that includes personnel and as a nation we have failed to live up to our commitments in that area. We live in a time when our police force outnumbers our Defence Force and that is a curious fact. There are 7000 uniformed and non-uniformed staff in the police force and we would be lucky to scrape up that number in the Defence Force. 
Stephen Franks 
: The enemy is within now. 
RON MARK 
: One could say that. As we march towards securing the “People’s Democratic Republic of New Zealand” we could believe that that is happening right now. 
I compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the work that has been done on the bill and I compliment the staff. I compliment the entire select committee. The debate was long and the consideration was long. There were discussions on human rights issues that absolutely seemed to go on for year after year. My only comment would be that we can sit here and discuss those human rights issues but we should talk to the families who lost people in Bali about human rights issues—bearing in mind that we have just seen remembrance services held in Bali for that sad occasion. Sadly there will be more bombings in the Western World and more people in the Western World will die. That is not something we can completely prevent but legislation like this might well arm us with the tools necessary to prevent it from happening here in New Zealand and hopefully along the way protect some of our friends and allies be it Australia Britain Singapore or whomever. The bill is a good bill. Let us get it through and get it voted on. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against this bill. Although the bill has some good provisions it also contains several provisions that undermine our civil liberties. I was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered the bill and I presented a minority report which I shall be explaining and elaborating on. 
For a start the Greens believe that to call this bill the “Counter-Terrorism Bill” is wrong because it includes several amendments to the Crimes Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act that have no specific reference to terrorism. Members of the public who wished to comment on some of those amendments might not have known that amendments of that character were in the bill because of the misleading title. Also in the atmosphere of today where people do not like to be seen as soft on terrorism people might be reluctant to criticise the contents of a bill that is called the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”. The Greens did attempt unsuccessfully to have the bill split into two bills the first one concerning amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act which could have been called the “Counter-Terrorism Bill” and the second one amending the other Acts which could have been called the “Crimes Amendment Bill”. 
Perhaps the most dangerous change is the proposed new section 307A of the Crimes Act in clause 7 that could lead to heavy penalties for people threatening to engage in forms of protest action that cause “major economic loss to one or more persons”. Let us consider the current debate over the foreshore and seabed particularly over consents for marine farming. Various Maori spokespeople have talked about the possibility of taking direct action. Under this provision if Marlborough Maori even so much as threaten to conduct some protest on the water that might affect the establishment and functioning of a marine farm they could get up to 7 years in jail. The same applies to groups that threaten to pull out GE food crops planted after the moratorium is lifted. 
 Trade union strikers could also be hit by this law. Unions often threaten industrial action if negotiations break down. There is a so-called comfort clause new section 307A(2) which provides that threatening a strike “by itself” is not criminal. But that does not stop threatening a strike from being against the law if it will cause major economic loss. We all know that the aim of strikes is to cause the maximum economic disruption of a workplace in order to get the employer to negotiate more reasonably. Section 307A(2) is clearly a threat to the right of protest and free speech. 
The bill also has provisions enabling further intrusions on our privacy. One section gives police the broad power under warrant to put tracking devices on people or their cars in relation to any suspected offence. The police need only to suspect that an offence “will be committed” at some time in the future for a tracking device to be installed and it may be installed even prior to any warrant application. Given the technological sophistication of tracking devices and their small size and the ease with which police could install and operate them this could lead to substantial intrusion on our privacy not only for the actual target people but for any people they happen to visit. The Privacy Commissioner was aware of how intrusive tracking devices can be and suggested that at least it be made illegal for the general public to use them unless the person being tracked gives consent. He even provided the text of an amendment to the bill to this effect but the select committee did not accept it. The Greens will be moving the Privacy Commissioner’s amendment during the Committee stage. We do accept that tracking devices can be useful in society—for example for taxi-drivers to monitor their fleet—but this tracking is done and morally should always be done with the knowledge and consent of the drivers concerned. 
Privacy is being threatened also by the proposed new section 198B of the Summary Proceedings Act in clause 33. In this high-tech age we all have so much of our lives on the hard drives of our computers. All sorts of personal correspondence our innermost thoughts and much of what we have been doing over the past few years are recorded on the computer. Yet under this new section when the police are searching premises under warrant for any offence they can demand full access to everything on a person’s computer. Specifically this means that person has to provide any passwords or encryption keys to the police. As submitters to the select committee pointed out this goes right against the age-old common law right to avoid self-incrimination. 
The bill was supposedly improved in the select committee by the addition of a subsection that allows a person to withhold information tending to incriminate but this qualification was then rendered null by the next part of the section subsection (2C) which says that this right of refusal does not apply to information sitting on a suspect’s computer. This provision could lead to fishing expeditions to check for any evidence on people’s computers of criminal behaviour. The new section 312N of the Crimes Act and the new section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act could also lead to fishing expeditions because they allow communication interception warrants issued for one purpose then to be used to search for evidence on a wide range of offences. 
There is a part of the bill that is actually related to counter-terrorism and the Green Party supports those amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act that bring New Zealand into compliance with the Nuclear Materials Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention. However we are opposed to other amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act on such matters as harbouring terrorists because they are based on a flawed process in the original Act for designating who a terrorist is. The designation process is done by a politician—the Prime Minister—not a judge using an overly broad definition of terrorism and even drawing on secret evidence that the person or organisation so designated is not allowed to see in any subsequent appeal process. 
The dangers of secrecy and labelling people as terrorists are illustrated in the current Ahmed Zaoui case. Mr Zaoui suffers in gaol and is not allowed information on the charges against him despite his being cleared by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. This new bill even subverts this designation process allowing customs officers the right to seize material from people not yet designated as terrorists but whom they consider might become so designated. There is simply no demonstrated need to grant the Customs Service such a power. 
The Green Party challenged the definition of terrorism in the original Terrorism Suppression Bill when it was debated in the House last year. We said it could easily catch New Zealanders engaged in international solidarity work with West Papuans Acehnese or Palestinians whose use of arms may be deemed terrorist by those who rule over them. Nelson Mandela and Xanana Gusmao were once considered terrorists for using arms in their liberation struggles and the New Zealand Government of the day—the Muldoon Government—tended to go along with that definition. Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter is often a politically vexed question and should not be left to a future potentially vindictive Prime Minister—as it is in the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
The broad definition in that Act which is applied to the amendments in this bill is also a threat to the right of protest or the right to strike in New Zealand. Under this bill there is no need for protesters or strikers to intend to cause death or injury by their actions for them to be defined as terrorists. Their activity needs only to be on the scale of the major protests that occurred during the Springbok tour or a strike in a hospital for it to be deemed to cause “serious interference with or serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life”. Members should note the word “likely”; the provision does not require an intention to endanger life. The actions also need to be political and to “unduly” compel a Government to do something. Governments often believe that activists are unduly compelling them. 
There is growing recognition in New Zealand and around the world that the so-called war against terrorism is being used for unjustified restrictions on civil liberties. We can see that in many countries we can see it at the US base at Guantanamo Bay and it is very disappointing to see the New Zealand Government going down that track with this bill. We do not need to undermine civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. To do so is to concede a point to the terrorists whose aim is to restrict civil liberties not increase them. I think that we should not under the guise of counter-terrorism—as in this bill—introduce general changes to our criminal law that restrict and undermine the civil liberties that we have long enjoyed: the right to avoid self-incrimination; the right to privacy in our life including today privacy of our computer files; the right not to be tracked throughout our travels; and the right to freedom of speech and protest without being subject potentially to designation as a terrorist by a political figure such as a Prime Minister under the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and I do so as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which examined the legislation. I say to the previous speaker that one of my pet bugbears in life is having to queue up to go through the metal detector at airports. I do not like it I think it is an intrusion on my freedom I find it an affront to my dignity etc. I think it is probably unnecessary but I accept that in today’s environment where international terrorism is of such a scale that we had not contemplated 2 years ago those affronts to my dignity are the small price that I have to pay unwittingly unwillingly but necessarily in this environment. I say that to that member because that is the distinction with this bill. 
I think we can have very prissy debates about where the line is drawn between individual freedoms and collective obligations and I have some sympathy in an ideal world with a number of the things he has said and has argued for at the select committee. We know now to our sad cost that if we ever did we certainly no longer live in an ideal world. It might have been easy to say of September 11 2001 that those events occurred far away that flying aircraft into the symbol of United States capitalism was probably a protest directed firmly against the United States Government and that we in New Zealand have no particular cause for concern even if we were shocked and horrified by those events and the tragedy that ensued. 
 If that was our view we certainly could not have repeated it one year ago last weekend when a much more indiscriminate bombing took place in Bali. Paddy’s Irish Bar and the Sari nightclub were hardly symbols of international capitalism or the great struggle of the Western world against Islam or any of the other symbols that people like to portray. It was random it was indiscriminate it was murderous and it was close to home. We know that because of the New Zealand citizens who lost their lives there. If September 11 was no wake-up call surely Bali was. 
An event like that might not occur in our part of the world in the foreseeable future. It might never occur in our country but “might” is the operative word. I would have thought that the options we face are pretty clear. We can revert to the attitude with which I began this speech of saying: “I don’t like it I don’t want to be part of it it inconveniences me I’m not prepared to accept any wider responsibility until tragedy strikes” or we can take a preventive attitude. I look at the Counter-Terrorism Bill and at the Terrorism Suppression Act that it supplements as being part of that preventive attitude. That is why I believe it is in our best interests. 
There are valid points to be raised about the limitations on individual freedom and whether the powers contained in this bill when handed to unscrupulous Governments create an intrusion into the rights of ordinary New Zealanders that we would find intolerable. In response to that argument I say that it has been raised many many times over the years in many different circumstances. With the exceptions of perhaps the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 and the waterfront strike regulations of 1951 the reality of this country has been that we have been blessed with Governments and leaders over the years who have not so indulged. It is not part of the New Zealand character to become involved to that degree in the repression of our own citizens. While members may say that that is a remarkably complacent view it is a realistic one given our circumstances. Therefore when we paint pictures of what might happen and of what risks might be imposed on New Zealand safety we need to test them against the record. In that context the measures contained in this legislation are a small price—if any price at all—to pay for maintaining a degree of security and freedom in our world. 
I pick up a point that Dr Mapp raised. There is some validity in the argument that this bill as promoted as a counter-terrorism measure contains a number of other measures that go well beyond the sweep of counter-terrorist behaviour. Dr Mapp made the point that in such circumstances perhaps there should be a wider public debate. I note that we received some 25 submissions on this bill and only 11 of those submitters chose to be heard. The issues were canvassed widely but the issue that he paints as the base of his concern has some validity. It was a fine-run thing in the select committee as to whether we separated the bill into two bills or whether we proceeded with it as a single measure as it has been reported back. On balance the committee came to the view that a comprehensive package was better than two separate packages. 
There is one other element I will refer to and the Minister referred to it in his comments. This was the first time that the Attorney-General came before a select committee to discuss advice given under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I was particularly pleased with that because it arose from the committee’s consideration last year of legislation concerning the Kyoto Protocol. At that time we were in the somewhat bizarre position of being advised by the Minister what the decision was in respect of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but the Minister then indicated that she was unable to advise us what the content of the advice was because of some ancient 19th century legal precedent which created an absurdity. Here we were charged as a select committee with determining whether a bill was appropriate but with one hand tied behind our backs. 
It is to the credit of the Attorney-General and others that it was subsequently decided that that procedure was a nonsense and that Ministers could come before select committees and make comments about the advice they had received as to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I regard with some satisfaction that it was on this bill and before the same committee that that particular responsibility was exercised for the first time. I hope it will not be the last time because the discussion in terms of the implications of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for this legislation was a valuable one especially in terms of some of the things we have just been discussing particularly regarding the limitations on individual actions that this legislation might impose on the wider public interest. 
In conclusion I make the observation that in many senses this legislation is not about New Zealand. Thankfully we are not a hotbed of international terrorism nor are we likely to become such a hotbed but this bill is part of a package of measures that have been implemented around the world since September 11 in order to demonstrate firstly an international unity in terms of the abhorrence of terrorism and a determination to stamp it out and secondly some degree of consistency in terms of the procedures being adopted across nations and borders to try to eliminate that threat. I am under no illusion—and I suspect most members feel similarly—that this removes absolutely and for all time the threat of a terrorist outburst in New Zealand. That can never be the case. The best any legislative environment can seek to achieve is minimisation of the risk. I believe that in doing that this measure which supplements the work of the original anti-terrorism legislation is appropriate. It is something that the House is of a mind to support and I believe we should proceed to do so. We can hardly claim we are rushing this though. It has been almost a year since the bill was introduced. The Terrorism Suppression Act took just under a year after September 11 to pass. There has been plenty of time for the consideration of all the issues involved. The debate has been a reasonable one and it is now time to proceed with putting this measure into law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to comment on the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill as it has been reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The ACT party is not represented on that committee and the bill has been a very long time in gestation. I hope that in the Committee stage ACT will hear an explanation of some of the elements that are not fully explained in the commentary on the bill. While we are as concerned as any in the House—and as blunt—about defence matters and that primary duty of the State to defend its citizens we are also very aware that freedoms can be lost in the course of defending them. 
It is part of the objective of terrorists to so provoke democratic and free states that they repress their citizens or engender in their communities a loss of the values that so many terrorists hate including a loss of the respect for the individual and the view that the individual has rights that must be upheld for human dignity even at the cost of the collective. In saying that I am distinguishing our position from that of the Green Party. We share some of the same concerns but we come from a very different place. We may end up voting with the Greens on some elements of this bill because we are concerned about its implications for freedom but it will not be because we want to see the kinds of movements and groups that the Greens want to defend prosper and flourish. 
We will not be voting in favour of liberty in that provision because we think for example that strikers ought to have a privileged position and be more immune from the consequences of their actions than anyone else. We hope that the Committee stage which this bill is about to go through will explain why it is that even in the post - September 11 environment international obligations under conventions can appear to panic this House into allowing law to be passed that is not fully defined. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act which part of this bill refers to and amends incorporates offences by reference. Some of them are incorporated in a way that could be injurious to the legitimate freedoms of New Zealanders. We have to remember also that there are tyrannies that have been overthrown only by force and that there are tyrannies that New Zealanders have helped to overthrow by force. When I read through the definitions in this bill of a terrorist act it appears to me that there are things we honour New Zealanders for participating in that could now become matters on which a foreign State that does not respect our values or citizens could seek an extradition warrant. Mr Locke mentioned the struggle in East Timor and there have been many other struggles where violence—whether or not we dislike the necessity for it—is ultimately what the people had to resort to. It seems to me that in this bill we compound or endorse some of the faults of the Terrorism Suppression Act passed last year and I am sorry the select committee did not take the opportunity to revisit those provisions in a slightly less-fevered environment. 
We are concerned that there are some elements that deliberately extend the draconian provisions of that Act into our normal criminal law. There is something about terrorism that tends to produce the view that Mr Dunne just espoused. I think he said that he was impatient and he thought it was time to move on what was discussed in this House in respect of the Sentencing Act. Hate crimes generated the same kind of attitude. That may be because they are so irrational—or are so irrational to rational people. The victims are selected at random. They may have done nothing whatsoever to earn or to excite the attention of offenders and it may be that there is a special kind of evil about that which is quite properly reflected in the sentence. There are amendments to this bill to do that—to make the 17-year minimum sentence for aggravated murder for example available for what are defined as terrorism offences. 
I am reminded that Mr Goff refused to treat the hate-crime amendments to the Sentencing Bill as provisions for terrorism but now we have a definition that is very close to the hate-crime definition and we are doubling up already. We introduced special classes of people in the Sentencing Act who became entitled to special treatment. The groups given the special protection of the hate-crime penalties were obviously deemed to be more worthy of protection by the law than those who were not—and that was random. Now we are compounding that by amending the same section in the Sentencing Act in order to make the terrorism provisions apply when that could have been done in the first place. Mr Goff should have explained why it was not and why the law is not now rationalised. 
ACT will be looking to know what members of this House think is meant by the words “unduly compelled” in the definition of coercion of a Government which is part of the definition of terrorism. What is it that is “undue”? We will want to know why the “threatening harm to persons or property” definition has been amended to take out the reference to “known” and simply leaves the reference to “belief”. We will want to know why preventive intervention is now proposed in relation to the seizure of property and how we will protect New Zealanders from that approach—in other words: “We will get you for what we think you might be thinking.” How will that be prevented from infiltrating into other areas of our law? Just this week there has been a suggestion that we should be adopting the Australian approach to the seizure of assets whether or not they are involved in the commission of crime and that has been related to drug offences. 
On the other side I am interested to know why tracking devices are treated with such detailed attention. When a police operation is permitted to track people without any kind of express permission and when the police can use the expensive way of tracking—of humans taking over from each other when following people—I ask why we are so worried about tracking with a device. If it is a matter of intrusion into someone’s personal property or house there is an element of unlawful interference but if the tracking device can follow in a way that does not involve some other otherwise unauthorised operation I ask why there is all this attention to tracking. Certainly I do not share the Green member’s suggestion that the Privacy Commissioner’s urging in that regard should be picked up. The Privacy Commissioner is an enemy to freedom in many respects in this country and a grave nuisance. Nor do I share the concern about self-incrimination and I will look forward to hearing the argument on that topic. 
The ACT party wishes that we did not have to be hesitant about this bill but we think that there are evils to be addressed. The Government has been dilly-dallying. For example I have asked a series of questions of Ministers about whether security concerns have played any part in dictating our immigration policy. As far as I can tell from the answers the answer is “No.” We have populations in this country who may well be seen as potential harbours for terrorist activity and it appears that the Government has absolutely no concern about allowing the numbers of those people to be increased. We will look forward to the Committee stage for explanation. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This bill will be voted for by the Progressives but it could well behove this Parliament to listen closely to the analysis of Keith Locke and the Green Party instead of mounting the usual attack on Mr Locke for favouring terrorism. That attack is cowardly on the part of many people in this House. I personally know that Keith Locke is not and never has been a supporter of terrorism. The points that he brought up are very important. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Point of order— 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: If I could anticipate the member’s point I say that I did not mean to call anybody a coward. I withdraw and apologise if I suggested that any member was a coward. I say that the attack is unwise if people take that line. 
The points that Mr Locke brought up are very important. If we are to bring in legislation where there are stronger powers we need as a Parliament to put that legislation through the test of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the protection of the presumption of innocence—and to ensure that untrammelled power is not given. 
I can say that I personally have wrestled with this bill. I have come down in favour of passing the bill and I have advised the Progressives to come down in favour of passing it. But in this regard we will have a look at where it can be strengthened. There are two amendments in particular that I will be looking to in order to seek support for. One amendment is on the use of tracking devices. The Progressives support the proposal of the Privacy Commissioner that the offence of using a tracking device without authorisation or consent be included in this bill. 
 Secondly a tracking device can be used by one of the State authorities without a warrant for up to 72 hours before getting approval. I believe it is important to amend that provision to make it 24 hours and not to give that 72-hour period. I believe that 24 hours for an unauthorised warrant is a reasonable time to allow the authorities to carry out what they want to do. 
To return to my initial point I think it is unwise—because viewpoints have been brought up by Mr Locke on behalf of the Green Party—to follow through and say that Mr Locke is pro-terrorist or that he does not take account of the dangers New Zealand has faced because it really ducks the real arguments and becomes an ad hominem argument. 
We should cast our minds back to a very similar period when there were proposals to rush through legislation on the basis that there was a great danger—that was the cold war period. I disagree with Peter Dunne that we have not had periods in New Zealand history where we have encroached on civil liberties. Of course the framework within New Zealand particularly after the 19th century has been a parliamentary democracy. Therefore fundamental rights have been allowed. Nevertheless a parliamentary democracy has high standards—or should have high standards—and there have been many periods in our history where we have fallen below those standards. I will point to some areas now where we are falling below the standards of upholding the presumption of innocence and of the full gamut of rights being provided to everybody no matter who they are within New Zealand’s jurisdiction. 
In the 19th century there was a wholesale trammelling of rights. We had a Suppression of Rebellion Act which was used against Maori people who were legitimately defending their rights and we are now going through and recognising that they were standing up for rights that were being pounced upon or abrogated. 
Stephen Franks 
: They were rebels. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: They were classed as rebels exactly. They were defending rights that were being breached and since that time that has been recognised. That is one example from the 19th century. 
If we move to the period of the First World War we treated conscientious objectors abominably in New Zealand and violated their rights—rights that are now recognised in any civilised society. We did exactly the same in the Second World War when there were a number of breaches of the civil rights of New Zealand citizens. In the cold war period the atmosphere of repression generated in New Zealand harmed many people’s lives in areas such as promotion and in those people being able to exercise their full rights. One has only to think of the type of persecution that went on with Bill Sutch to realise that we did that in New Zealand. We have only to look at the excesses of the Security Intelligence Service so recently in the case of Choudhry and Small in Christchurch to know that in New Zealand society we let loose agencies that breach our rights as citizens. In New Zealand we are not squeaky clean. I think it is an important part of this discussion as we go through the Committee stage to look at where we should strengthen the bill in terms of protecting the legal rights of New Zealanders which in the end are everybody’s legal rights. 
On the cold war analogy I can say that when I first came to New Zealand I probably caught as a teenager the end of the cold war period. I can remember the atmosphere that was engendered. If anybody gave any criticism of New Zealand society then that person was usually told to go back to Russia. My criticisms were usually just that the All Blacks could not play football very well and I would be told to go back to Russia. The intolerant and intimidating atmosphere created in the cold war is being generated by conservative parties now about terrorism. They have a broad blanket approach to what terrorism is and if we are not careful then we will go into those areas of civil liberties that are so important to all of us and use terrorism as the excuse for passing legislation that is actually aimed at suppressing individual rights. 
In this bill through the committee processes we have already tightened up the definition of what is a legal strike and what are legal protest activities so they are not confused with any criminal activities. I agree in the main with Professor Matthew Palmer’s criticism that we have sufficient powers to detect wrongdoing—whether it is classed as purely criminal or terrorist criminal—in the criminal legislation that we have. Biosecurity is the only area in which I think we need to take these extra steps. That is the one area in which I think it does not harm us to take the extra steps suggested. But in the main without this bill if anybody plans a terrorist act in New Zealand then I think the authorities have sufficient powers under the legislation that we have now to undertake surveillance and investigation and they have the power to arrest people. It does not matter if people say they are carrying out acts because they are members of a particular organisation and that these are their ideological beliefs or if they have a purely mercenary criminal reason for doing it. 
In the House I have always been impressed when we have brought in legislation that increases police powers that it has been former police officers who have warned us that we often do not need the extra powers. I remember that Ross Meurant a former police inspector did so as a member of the National Party. I remember that the Hon Clem Simich who has police experience raised questions on whether we needed extra police powers. I remember that Sir Douglas Graham also gave the same warnings on the increase of police powers. 
The Ahmed Zaoui case is one in New Zealand where the question of terrorism has already led us to breach rights. There is no doubt about it. I have had talks with police in New Zealand about the threat assessment that was issued—which landed Zaoui in maximum security at Paremoremo—and they admitted that their threat assessment was a flawed document and inaccurate. The man has been framed. When he was in custody and before lawyers were able to deal with him he was questioned for hours by the Security Intelligence Service and the police without any warning that he could have a lawyer with him or being told what his rights were. 
At our border now customs are violating the rights of New Zealand citizens and residents. Muslim New Zealanders—particularly if they are originally from Iraq—or if they are Sikh are being stopped and detained up to 2 or 3 hours. There are three or four cases which I have put to Ministers now where people have been stopped and questioned and have never been told of their right to ask for a lawyer and that they do not have to answer questions. They are New Zealand citizens on New Zealand soil and that right was breached. 
My warning is that the bill is to some extent window dressing which we need on the international stage. A lot of it is unnecessary and we have the law now to enforce detection of wrongdoing whether criminal or terrorist. On balance there are protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we need to look closely at the amendments. We should take seriously any objections or thoughts that are put forward in Parliament that ask whether the bill is necessary because it is possibly breaching a right particularly the presumption of innocence. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I say to Matt Robson the Progressive member who has just resumed his seat and who has just delivered us a monologue on citizens’ rights that 2 weeks ago I stood beside the gaping hole in New York that was the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I say to Matt Robson and to Keith Locke for that matter what rights did the people have who had to jump out of those buildings 80 floors up—or however many floors it was—because they were being boiled to death and had no other choice? 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Don’t use that sort of argument. It’s cheap. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Matt Robson says that is a cheap argument. If the authorities in the United States of America had tracked those terrorists who had done nothing wrong at the time they entered the United States—they just had evil intent—then what would have happened to those people whose rights were totally destroyed as they threw themselves out into oblivion 80 floors up? 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Here we go! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Matt Robson says: “Here we go”. Can he imagine the horror of that? What rights did the people in those aircraft have as with terror they saw that they were going to be ploughed straight into those buildings and incinerated like that? In some ways they were possibly the lucky ones. The ones who threw themselves out of the windows would live for seconds before they were crushed to death on hitting the ground and those horrific seconds would have just been so awful. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Whose argument is that? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I say to Matt Robson that rights are a relative thing. I will stand for the rights of people to be protected from criminal terrorist activity—that is what this legislation is about. It is all very well talking about the niceties of the rights of people who would never contemplate these things but the kind of mind that is involved in terrorism requires special action. People like the Progressive Matt Robson and Keith Locke make me feel sick that they show such little concern for the rights of the Parker family who lost a son in Bali. What rights did those young people have as they were obliterated by that bomb? 
It is so easy to stand in this Parliament and rabbit on about the rights we should protect. Of course we should make sure that people’s rights are protected as far as possible but we should also make sure that our legislation can save this country from the effects of the kind of terrorism we saw in New York and Bali. We should make sure that our citizens never suffer from the absolute deprivation of rights that those people in New York suffered from. To stand beside that gaping hole to read what is written on those simple fences beside it is very very moving. I suggest that Matt Robson and Keith Locke go and do it and just reflect on the rights of the people who died that day. I suggest that they compare that with their concerns about people being tracked in this country should our authorities believe that those people came into this country with the kind of evil intent that the terrorists who went into America had. 
As we went through the select committee process with this legislation it was interesting to note that so few Government members had taken any notice of it when it was introduced. When people came along to make submissions it was quite a circus as Labour members suddenly realised that this bill had some quite wide provisions in it—that it enhanced general police powers especially their powers to track people and get access to their computers. It was quite amazing to see the way Labour members had not even realised that. It kind of shows the lack of coordination within the Labour Government that its own members did not even understand what its legislation was doing. 
To add to the circus on 31 July this year the select committee was about to deliberate on this legislation and I had to remind the Labour members that they had invited Professor Matthew Palmer to make a submission. The select committee had not even given Professor Palmer the courtesy of considering his submission. It shows the seriousness with which Labour members addressed their own bill when I an Opposition member on the committee had to point out to them that if they deliberated on it right then they would not even have considered Professor Palmer’s submission—after he had gone to all the trouble of responding to a Labour member’s request that he make a submission on the bill. 
Some provisions in this bill do enhance police powers and give them greater power to track people. It has some really important powers to protect us better against biosecurity threats. It is fascinating the way attitudes were flushed out as the select committee considered this legislation and we have heard it in the debate tonight. It is fascinating to read the commentary in the bill as reported back from the select committee especially the Green minority view. The Greens are concerned that this legislation might inhibit their mates’ rights to protest in this country in a way that causes major economic loss to one or more persons. What is amazing about that is that the Greens seem to believe that their rights to just trample all over other people’s rights should have priority. That is what they are worried about in this legislation. Keith Locke said it in the House tonight and it is in his minority report on page 13. It is right there in black and white that Keith Locke is concerned that this legislation might reduce his rights to trample over other people’s rights through protest action—that somehow the protest action of Green members is more legitimate than other people’s rights. 
I find that offensive but not as offensive as their lack of concern for the rights of people who have been the victims of terrorism. They have such distorted minds if they think their rights to protest in a manner that destroys other people’s well-being and other people’s rights should go uninhibited. If this legislation required them to think about causing major economic loss to other people maybe that would not be a bad thing. I have no problem with protest action so long as it does not trample over other people’s rights in this country. From a reading of the Green Party’s minority report that is something it does not seem to understand. 
Finally we have heard a number of people say they that would like to see the Privacy Commissioner’s draft amendment incorporated into this legislation—an amendment that would limit the use of tracking devices. The reason the select committee did not incorporate it is that it is a significant issue on which the public have been given no chance to make submissions. It is not that the select committee said the Privacy Commissioner was wrong; it is just that it believed that the public of this country should have the chance to make submissions on an issue as significant as that. I think the select committee recommended that the Government should pick up the issue for the future but before it is included in law in this country the public should have the chance to make submissions on it. 
While this legislation is not perfect National supports it because we believe it is important for New Zealand to carry out its international obligations with regard to the protection not just of the citizens of New Zealand but in a globalised world of all citizens from the evil of terrorism. This Counter-Terrorism Bill implements United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and various other international conventions that New Zealand is obliged to implement in its domestic law. It has the support of the National Party. We recognise it is not perfect but we believe in protecting people from the evil of terrorism. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party I rise to support this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the member who spoke before me. He has given me a great deal of material to consider in my contribution this evening and I thank him for that. The Counter-Terrorism Bill bill essentially reflects the unfortunate international environment we now live in. Although I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions and reported back I do have some fairly strong views on issues relating to this bill in two capacities: first as National’s defence spokesperson and second as somebody who stood on top of the World Trade Center in August prior to the September terrorist attack. Those photographs from standing on the top of those World Trade Center buildings are slightly eerie at best when I now look back on them. 
This bill is really about New Zealand doing its bit. This bill is about recognising that one of this country’s obligations in being part of the international community is to take a stand on issues that are serious and difficult and that require the commitment of the country. I often listen with great interest to those in this Parliament who promote multilateralism and are less concerned with the sovereign rights of particular nations. Those members believe that bodies such as the United Nations will be the panacea for all the problems that go on in the world yet when asked to front up to fulfil resolutions such as Resolution 1373 adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 September 2001 they do not believe that that is easily done. 
I say to those members they cannot have it both ways. If they believe in multilateralism and believe that organisations such as the United Nations are worthwhile and if resolutions are passed by those bodies then part of belonging to that international community of interest is to play one’s part and carry out the effect of the resolutions. I note that members in the House who speak against that type of activity are the first to suggest that if the ILO makes a recommendation this Parliament should plough into and pick up on those recommendations and implement them for New Zealand. If the human rights committee of the United Nations makes recommendations there are members in this House who would have those implemented in New Zealand lickety-split. 
I say to those members that this is the same thing because if they believe in the concept of multilateralism if they believe in the concept of the United Nations—it is no secret that I have serious reservations about the role of the United Nations in many respects particularly on security issues—they cannot have it both ways. If they believe that multilateralism is the way forward then that brings with it certain obligations that members of this House have to fulfil some of which they may find unpleasant. That is the nature of the beast unfortunately. One cannot take out just the good. 
I was not surprised to see Phil Goff on 6 September of this year finally concede a fact that members on this side have known for months and even years. He said to the Christchurch  
Press  
on 6 September that we no long live in a benign strategic environment. Well members will recall that this is an issue that I have raised several times during question time with the Hon Mark Burton. Finally—about 6 weeks ago if my memory serves me correctly— Mr Burton Minister of Defence stood up and used that time-honoured phrase of the Prime Minister’s that “things have moved on”; that the “benign strategic environment” no longer existed—on which the Prime Minister had based her entire international foreign policy which was of course grounded on completely the wrong premise. But Phil Goff on 6 September this year finally said: “Yes the world is a less benign place because of the rise of terrorism.” 
Well that means a couple of things. Firstly it means that the decision to scrap the strike wing of the Air Force was wrong. Secondly it means the decision to have our armed forces concentrate largely on being a peacekeeping unit is wrong. It means that there are some serious considerations that this Government should be giving to the armed forces and the way in which they operate when senior Ministers of this Government finally after 4 years of prying from this side of the House have conceded that we no longer live in Helen Clark’s so-called benign strategic environment. This so-called benign strategic environment which this Government refused to move from after September 11 is also a position it refused to move from after the Bali bombings. Only after the attacks in Jakarta did this Government finally decide that it was going to shift its view on whether we lived in a benign strategic environment. 
 What worries me most is that we now have an entire foreign policy built around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. We have defence forces and their capabilities based around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. Finally the Hon Mark Burton and the Hon Phil Goff have said either in this House or in the media: “Actually we got it wrong. We now concede that the world has moved on and that we do not live in a benign strategic environment.” In fact that brings with it a whole lot of responsibility that we should be encouraging this Government to take up and that frankly does not involve using our defence forces as an instrument of foreign policy when the Prime Minister makes a foreign affairs gaffe with the US but using thoughtful strategic planning when it comes to conducting our relationships with regional and international partners. 
I do have some concerns about the bill itself. I am a bit worried I have to say that the police will be able to force suspects to open their computers and reveal their passwords PIN numbers and encryption codes. That is not something I find particularly palatable. That is probably because of my short career as a criminal lawyer on the duty solicitors’ roster on a Monday morning. I am not sure that the police having that type of power sits comfortably with the overriding principles of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—the more foreign policy regional bilateral and international relationships that have to be honoured and indeed the relationship that New Zealand must continue to have with the UN. 
I was concerned to read that the Law Society the Society of Authors—less with regard to the Association of University Staff to be quite frank—all raised concerns about those libertarian issues that there are some civil rights that need to be looked at pretty carefully when this type of legislation is passing through the House. No doubt we will look at that carefully during the Committee stage. 
But I return to my main and opening point. I urge the Government to rethink its current commitment to its isolationist policy with regard to these issues and to think seriously about what this means for its responsibilities in the world. We simply cannot ignore the fact that we are not living in 1974 any more. There are not people walking around wearing beads and polo-necked jerseys sitting on beanbags and listening to John Lennon. Times have moved on. The simple fact of the matter is that if we are going to play a role play our part and if we are going to honour our obligations in those multilateral environments like the UN that members opposite hold so dear then I say to the Government that that comes at a price. 
The words are here for the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Let us now see some action in implementing those things in a way that is constructive and allows New Zealand to play a decent role in international affairs and foreign policy. I say to members of the Labour Government that it is not too late. They should stop fluffing around and make some spending decisions that will equate to the words in this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill introduces a number of amendments to the Copyright Act and it gives effect to Government decisions to implement a ban on the parallel importing of motion picture films to ensure the continued viability of the New Zealand motion picture industry and motion picture theatres. It makes changes to the onus of proof to assist owners of copyright of films sound recordings and computer programs to take more effective action against alleged pirated goods. 
This bill introduces a ban on the parallel importation of motion picture films. The ban will apply for a period of 9 months when a title is first released. The objective of the ban is to ensure the continued orderly distribution of films at the wish of the owners of the films and to ensure the continued viability of picture theatres. When the Government reviewed the impact of parallel importing in 2001 it was apparent that copies of major films were being parallel imported for rental ahead of the New Zealand cinematic release. This was seen as a factor in declining picture theatre attendance and this in turn threatened the future viability of picture theatres particularly in rural and provincial areas. We were also aware that the New Zealand film industry was increasingly exporting films and that this protection was necessary for commercial films made in New Zealand. 
The 9-month ban is intended to provide a necessary window of opportunity for cinematic release in New Zealand. It also aims to ensure that communities outside the major cities continue to enjoy access to a wide variety of film titles through their local cinemas. We believe that the New Zealand film industry will benefit from this as well as those who have made that investment into regional cinema complexes. 
During the select committee consideration of the bill submissions expressed concern to the Commerce Committee that a ban would affect the supply of educational films. This will not be the case. The ban applies only to films that are produced principally for cinematic release. It will not apply to films produced for television or educational purposes nor will it apply to films that are directly released on video or DVD where no cinematic release is intended. The ban will not apply to importation for a person’s private or domestic use. The Commerce Committee has however taken into account the concerns that were expressed by libraries and educational institutions. In reporting the bill back to Parliament the committee has recommended an amendment to clause 4 to clarify the scope of the ban and I am happy to support this amendment. 
The bill provides for the ban to remain in place for 5 years from the commencement of the legislation. The sunset clause is important. It provides flexibility to review the ban and its effects over time. 
The technology around film distribution is changing as is that around film production. It will affect the economics of the film industry and over the 5-year period the Government will be considering the effects of such changes and whether the ban is working effectively. The last National Government introduced permission for the parallel importation of films without looking at any of this work. We have been convinced that this ban is necessary for the well-being of the New Zealand film industry and it will not harm New Zealand consumers. 
I now turn to those amendments that deal with the reversal of the onus of proof. They reverse one aspect of the onus of proof. This change will apply to civil proceedings where it is alleged that an imported film computer program or sound recording infringes copyright. In such proceedings the onus will be on the defendant to rebut the presumption that an imported work is an infringing copy. 
The bill also introduces an objective knowledge requirement meaning that the defendant knows or ought reasonably to know that the imported work is an infringing copy. The current test in the Copyright Act is that the defendant knows or has reason to believe that the work is an infringing copy. These amendments aim to make it easier for owners of copyright in film sound recordings and computer programs to take civil proceedings. Our consultations with copyright owners indicated that they were reluctant to take court action because of the perceived problem with proving that the goods were infringing copies and proving knowledge on the part of the defendant. 
The amendments relating to the onus of proof and knowledge requirements apply only to films computer programs and sound recordings. These goods are particularly vulnerable to piracy and much of their value obviously is in the ongoing distribution. Around the world the current provisions of the Copyright Act will continue to apply in all other cases. 
I am aware that some copyright owners have sought more extensive changes to copyright law. These include changing the onus of proof in relation to other aspects of infringement in addition to the act of importing infringing copies. I have looked at this very carefully and I consider that it would be difficult to introduce more extensive changes. It is important to recognise that as a basic legal principle the onus of proof lies with the plaintiff. Reversing the onus of proof is a serious step. The bill therefore takes a prudent and measured approach. It targets importation because importers rather than rights holders are more likely to have access to information about the goods being imported. It establishes whether they are pirated or legitimate copies. This information generally relates to such things as the origin of the goods and lines of supply—the sort of information that reputable importers would generally keep as a matter of good business practice. I believe that the measures we have introduced are a practical step in dealing with copyright infringement which is an increasing problem around the world. The Government will be monitoring the amendments to determine their effectiveness. 
In closing I will now address two remaining aspects of the bill. The bill clarifies the scope of rental rights granted under section 9 of the Copyright Act confirming that the rental rights of copyright owners do not apply to parallel imported copies of films sound recordings and computer programs. The bill also makes some consequential amendments to the Trade Marks Act of 2002 which will ensure that our trademark and copyright legislation is consistent in the way each deals with parallel importing. 
I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has proposed some technical drafting amendments to the bill which I am happy to support. The bill introduces some pragmatic and useful measures to deal with the distribution of motion picture films and with copyright infringement. It is a vital area of the innovation and knowledge economy that New Zealand must be part of to improve our economic future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.