Volume 619 Week 65 - Wednesday 25 August 2004 
Volume 619 Week 65 - Wednesday 25 August 2004 
[Volume:619;Page:15013] 
Wednesday 25 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Document—Question No. 8 to Minister; Tuesday 24 August 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday Judith Collins sought leave to table a document at the conclusion of question No. 8. I have been advised by the Clerk’s Office that the member has not tabled the document. I am keen to see the report that she mentioned because she said there had been an increase of 20 percent in the primary health organisation charges from Feilding. As there is no primary health organisation there someone is being misled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that when leave is given to table a document the document can be delivered to the House before the House rises. I refer to Speakers’ ruling 128/1. In Speakers’ ruling 128/2 leave to table a document is permission to table it. There is no legal obligation—perhaps there is a moral obligation but there is no legal obligation—on the member to use the permission given. It is entirely over to the member concerned. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This raises an interesting question. Frequently when members seek leave to table a document they make certain claims about its content. They say: “This document shows that X Y and Z …”. If the member then fails to table the document it becomes rather difficult to check whether “X Y and Z” was true; whether in fact the member either intentionally or unintentionally was misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might become difficult but that is just too bad. As I said it might be a moral obligation but it is not a legal obligation according to the Standing Orders. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Economic and Regional Growth 
1. JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any recent reports on economic and regional growth; if so what do these indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. The latest reports on economic development in New Zealand show that the New Zealand economy is among the best-performing in the world. Year-on-year growth to June as reported by the latest National Bank regional trends survey is at 4.3 percent. Regions like the member’s region of Wanganui-Manawatu and others like Otago and Southland which suffered negative growth under the previous National-led coalition are now averaging over 5 percent year-on-year growth. All regions in New Zealand are in positive growth mode under this Labour-Progressive Government. 
Jill Pettis 
: Do these reports suggest to him that economic development in New Zealand has meant that our economy is standing on the edge of a slippery slope as reported in Australia last week? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot possibly imagine who might have tried to mislead our Australian cousins in such a way. No reports based on fact could possibly suggest that conclusion. New Zealand’s annual economic growth has outstripped both Australia’s growth rate and the OECD average over the last 5 years of this coalition Government. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead our Australian cousins. Whoever is trying to malign New Zealand in Australia should I suggest give some real growth comparisons such as the fact that in the last 5 years New Zealand’s GDP per capita has increased by a cumulative 14 percent in comparison to 11.3 percent in Australia. In the previous 5 years of the National-led Government the figures were 16.9 percent for Australia and only 9.9 percent for New Zealand. I suggest that Mr Brash quit while he is behind. 
Refugees—Benefit Reliance 
2.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does the Government have any plans to review refugee numbers in light of evidence that nine out of 10 refugees are still dependent on a benefit after 2 years and that after 5 years eight out of 10 are benefit-reliant; if so what are they? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. The Government has no plans to review the number of refugees accepted into New Zealand each year under the refugee quota programme. New Zealand takes up to 750 refugees each year as part of its contribution to being a good international citizen. However the Government recently announced the National Immigration Settlement Strategy which has dedicated $62 million over 4 years to the settlement of migrants and refugees. Ensuring that refugees and migrants are able to obtain employment appropriate to their qualifications and skills is one of the three goals that the Budget package initially focuses on. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not the problem with this Government’s policy that the Government is bringing in more and more refugees who go on a benefit and are then able to bring in more and more of their family members who go on a benefit and who after a few years bring in more of their family members who go on a benefit so the cycle carries on and the taxpayers pay for it when the answer would be a cut in the number of refugees and to get them into a job? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Most New Zealanders would be proud of the fact that we take as part of our international responsibilities people who come from dreadful situations overseas—the fear and trauma of camps which is something that the member—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much shouting and too much comment. I want to hear the answer. A bit of interjection is all right but this is getting silly. There is one member in particular who is shouting the whole time. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: We take our obligations seriously. The fact is that we take people from places around the world where there is fear and trauma and where children are involved in circumstances that they should not be involved in. We are proud to do that as part of being an international citizen. However I should say that even though the interviews for the recent report were completed last September the latest figures I have state that since September 2003—as a result of good work from my colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment—364 refugees have been placed into employment 158 refugees have achieved stable employment and there has been a 33.6 percent reduction in the migrant and refugee unemployment register. That was a result of funding from the Budget last year and it is clearly working. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other services are available to newly arrived refugees? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Like all other New Zealanders newly arrived refugees can access Government-funded health housing and employment assistance. In addition the settlement package includes an extra $6 million over 4 years specifically for the Refugee and Migrant Service to help refugees to settle well in New Zealand. This Government is proud of its international obligations and of the way that it carries them out. It seems that the National Party although it used to be proud of them is not any more and would prefer to leave people in camps where it knows terrible things happen particularly to children. 
Peter Brown 
: Could the Minister noting the answers that he has just given inform the House what the cost has been to the taxpayer for refugees and illegal immigrants on an annual basis since Labour became the Government? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not have those figures in front of me. [ 
Interruption 
] Well he also mentions illegal immigrants. I am happy to break the figures down when I can get them and to provide the member with that information. But I need to point out to the member for his information that there is a difference between refugees and illegal immigrants. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Keith Locke. 
Peter Brown 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called only Mr Locke. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. The member will get a supplementary question eventually. We do the rounds. The member has been here now for all the time that I have been here—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh no he has not. For all the time I have been the Speaker the member has been in the House and he knows that we do the rounds of the other parties first. He can have a second and even a tenth go if he wants. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister consider increasing the $6 million for refugee settlement that he just referred to in the light of a much more serious situation disclosed in the report just released and in other reports—particularly in the area of increased English-language teaching for refugees and of work amongst employers to reduce the discrimination that refugees find when trying to get a job? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In response to that I firstly want to say—and the member has referred to the report—that it is a good report. It highlights some of the difficulties that refugees who have come out of very difficult circumstances have in settling in New Zealand. The Government has put quite considerable funding into things like English language courses as well as into employment matching. But the issues involved here are the kinds of things that I and the officials are working on in order to see whether it is appropriate to go back as part of the Budget round and look at whether we need to make some improvements in this area. It is a very good report and I commend it to all members of the House. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: As there are over 20 million refugees in the world many of whom are highly skilled why does this Government insist on taking unskilled refugees who are destined for the dead-end of welfare? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now this is the one warning I am giving each day: there will be no interjection during questions. It is the democratic right of all members to ask their questions in silence and I will uphold that right very strongly. During answers there can be a bit of interjection but I was displeased with that interruption. I will ask Dr Newman to read her question again. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: As there are over 20 million refugees in the world many of whom are highly skilled why does this Government insist on taking unskilled refugees who are destined for the dead-end of welfare? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is extremely frustrating to have to answer a question like that and I suggest that if the member reads the book she will get some understanding of that. The reality is that a large number of the refugees who come here are well skilled and the document points out the difficulty that those people have in finding employment. That is nothing to do necessarily with their skills but is to do with the issues of their trying to get into work in New Zealand. I suggest that the member reads the publication so she may understand the refugee problem a little better and that she gets off her ACT hobby horse from which she seems always to be attacking people who are in worse conditions than herself. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Minister tell the House that New Zealanders would be proud of the Labour Government’s record on refugees when 90 percent of refugees are on welfare after being in the country for 2 years and 80 percent of them are still on benefits after 5 years; why would we be proud of that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start of course the member does not understand the figures. This is a report of a sample of interviews with 400 people and it is really important to see that not only—[ 
Interruption 
] It did not just talk about that; it talked about the fact that they were pleased to come to New Zealand where people were friendly and welcoming and where it was democratic. I suggest that instead of that National Party bagging refugees its members should try to help those people to get jobs. That would be a responsible thing for the National Party to do and I think it should be ashamed of backing away from the international contributions that we have made over a long period of time. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister consider introducing reforms to the immigration system to tackle the fiscal burden that the appeals decision process for refugees and asylum seekers places on the New Zealand taxpayer—yes or no? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I wonder whether the Minister would now answer the question that Muriel Newman put to him which was this: there are 20 million refugees in the world according to the official UN refugee agency many of whom are highly skilled able to speak English and would fit into New Zealand society but this Government insists on taking illiterate Afghani camel drivers and bringing them into this country; what is the point of that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was not actually a question there but I presume the member is asking the Minister to comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think I did ask a question. I asked why the Government is insisting on taking—[ 
Interruption 
] The member who said that shows obviously that he does not do any constituency work. I can assure him that I have had many refugees coming to see me who could not speak English who had no education at all and who had no chance of ever getting a job in this country. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start many refugees cannot speak English because some of the really terrible spots in the world do not happen to be in English-speaking countries. I hope the member will acknowledge that. Secondly the selection criteria do look at a whole range of things but it is important that we do not close our doors to people who have been in traumatic situations who have been living in camps and who then find the opportunity to come to a welcoming country start again and bring up their families with confidence surrounded by people who care. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that 14 boys who were refugees from the MV  
Tampa 
 have reportedly been able to bring at least 109 family members into the country and that—based on the Government’s own report—most of those people will be dependent on welfare and neglected by this Government for at least the next 5 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not know the actual numbers but it is fair to say that people who do come here are able to bring in some family members. [ 
Interruption 
] They have always been able to. For 9 years under the previous National Government that policy was in place. It was no different then and why is it still in place? It is because we think that if we bring some people here and they want to bring some family members that helps the settlement programme and there should be nothing wrong with that. The reality is the important thing about the report is that it states that while people like being here they have difficulty getting into employment and we have to do better to help them do that—and we are. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is any thought being given to training an illiterate Afghani camel driver for the vacant position of Leader of the Opposition? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that question is out of order. While we can inject a little humour into the situation I think that went a bit too far and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Gas—Offshore Exploration 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What steps if any has the Government taken to encourage offshore gas exploration? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The conditions of the package were announced on 14 June. I have announced today that the Government is removing the 183-day tax obstacle to gas exploration in New Zealand. That means that non-resident offshore rig operators will not be liable for tax until after the end of 2009. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How will those actions assist gas exploration? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Currently non-resident offshore rig operators become liable for taxation if they are resident for more than 183 days. Of course what that tends to mean is they leave New Zealand within 6 months and drilling is delayed. So removing that obstacle will mean our interests are served by keeping the oil rigs drilling. 
John Key 
: If the Government is so confident that those measures will be successful why has it been necessary for taxpayers to provide a financial guarantee to the bankers of the State-owned enterprise Genesis Energy for the proposed combined-cycle power plant at Huntly in the event that it is unable to get gas supply in 2012? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is incorrect. No financial guarantees have been given to the bankers backing the investment. 
Police—Offence Report Auckland 
4.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did the police respond to a call from 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002; if so what was the nature of the offence reported? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that the nature of the incident was burglary. 
Ron Mark 
: What investigative actions did police take as a consequence of that call and did those investigations identify Phillip Layton Edwards as the prime suspect for an alleged aggravated burglary? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police did identify Phillip Layton Edwards as the person they were interested in. 
Ron Mark 
: Did the police discuss the incident at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue prior to their deciding not to prosecute Edwards on this count with the Minister’s office the Attorney-General’s office the Minister of Justice’s office or the Prime Minister’s office? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Ron Mark 
: Why did the prosecution not use the Shaw/Edwards incident in the recent trial when it so clearly could have rebutted the defence case by establishing a modus operandi and clinched a murder conviction? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As the matter is still before the court awaiting sentence it would be improper for me to comment on that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your clarification. There has already been a conviction in this case. The court now has all the evidence that this alludes to at its call. The defendant is just awaiting sentencing. I did not find that an acceptable answer. I think the Minister can answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may not have found it an acceptable answer but it addressed the question and I did find it acceptable in terms of the Standing Orders of this House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing what you have just said but I think you might be of assistance to the Minister because if he believes that the Standing Orders prevent him from answering the question I think he is mistaken. The court would clearly not be influenced because a conviction has already been entered and it cannot possibly affect the sentence. The reason we have a rule about not commenting on court cases is in order to make sure that there is not an injustice. I do not know anything about this case but it would appear there is no possibility of that. The question is really about the conduct of the police not of the defendant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct. 
Schools—Deficits 
5.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Can he confirm that the total combined deficit incurred by schools doubled from $14 million in 1995 to $29 million last year with the average secondary school deficit increasing by 70 percent from $55624 to $94631 in that time; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes but I can also confirm that the overall financial position of schools has been improving under the Labour-led Government. The collective surplus generated by primary schools has increased from 1.1 percent in 2001 to 1.8 percent in 2003. The surplus generated by secondary schools in the same period increased from 0.8 percent to 1.2 percent. Over the past 3 years the total number of schools operating a deficit in excess of $60000 has actually decreased from 153 in 2001 to 137 in 2003. The percentage of schools in deficit went down from 43 percent in 2002 to 39 percent in 2003. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Were some of those deficits incurred to pay for the 3797 teachers employed directly by schools without Government funding or does he think that additional teaching staff are a luxury that is most appropriately funded by schools raising half a billion dollars themselves through foreign students selling chocolate or even buying and selling cattle as reported in this morning’s Christchurch  
Press 
? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is no I do not think that it is a luxury. The answer to the third series of questions around schools and fund-raising is that of course fund-raising has always been part of what schools do but the people in Canterbury who say that they are raising money to employ teachers through selling cattle for schools of course are not being accurate in saying that. Schools are supplied right throughout Canterbury with a large number of new teachers as part of this Government’s policy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why may schools record a deficit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Schools may have money in the bank but still record a deficit for the year. It may be planned. For example a board of trustees may decide that it has more money in the bank than it needs so it will spend it on something like new equipment. It may also be the result of major unforeseen problems like an employment dispute or an equipment failure. Those sorts of deficits are obviously concerning to a school but in general schools can cover any unplanned costs out of their savings and they will return to a surplus in the following year. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with Chris France the head of the School Trustees Association and Don McLeod chairman of the Principals Council that an array of hidden costs imposed on schools by this Government including health and safety requirements holiday entitlements collective agreement provisions and support staff costs have pushed more than a third of schools into a position where they simply cannot balance their budgets? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not. What I would agree with is that school operations grant funding has increased by over 26 percent since 1999. When adjusted for inflation and roll growth that amounts to an increase per pupil in real terms of 10 percent. The Government has also greatly increased the amount of “in kind” support it provides to schools such as free software licences and laptops for principals and teachers. That “in kind” support amounts to $346 million per year—equivalent to 34 percent of additional operational funding—which is more than the National Government did in the 9 years when it had a chance to do something. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it not true that since the current Minister has been the Minister of Education schools’ operational funding with the exception of the redistributed bulk-funding moneys has increased by no more than the rate of inflation meaning that purchasing power has remained static and deficits have continued? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The figures that I have here show that when adjusted for inflation and roll growth the increase amounts per pupil in real terms to just over 10 percent. That is in the operations grant alone. It does not count the $346 million per year that comes in kind in various ways. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister accept that if schools did not take on foreign fee-paying students many more schools would be reporting funding deficits; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Many schools choose to take on a small number of overseas pupils but I remind the member that since this Government has been in power we have had an increase of over 26 percent in the operations grant alone. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Why has the number of secondary schools with deficits of over $100000 doubled from 21 to 42 since 1995 and does the fact that those schools range from deciles 1 to 10 indicate that the current equity funding system is not working? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is of course a small number of schools amongst a large number we have in the country and what happens whenever a school is in that kind of deficit is that it receives individual treatment from the ministry until it is in the position of being back in the black. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister accept that the need for schools to hire teaching staff out of their own pockets is a problem of the Government’s own making since it has guaranteed non-contact hours in its agreement with the teachers’ unions but clearly has not stumped up with the money to cover them; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not. I want to give one example of how many teachers are being put into the system. If I take for example Simon Power’s Rangitikei electorate more than 52 extra teachers and an extra 42 management units have been provided by this Government. That gives the schools there the flexibility to pay teachers more for recruitment and retention purposes and to recognise extra responsibilities. That is what this Government has done. 
Domestic Purposes Benefit—Paternity 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many sole parents receive a reduced benefit because they refuse to name the father of their children or refuse to fill out a child support application? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Currently 19443 sole parents receive a reduced benefit under section 70A of the Social Security Act because they refuse to identify the other parent they do not apply for child support or they fail or refuse to testify on the matter as required under section 122 of the Child Support Act. The penalty under section 70A of the Social Security Act reduces the benefit by $22 in respect of each dependent child. Section 70A penalties should not be applied in cases of incest or rape but this can occur only if victims of crimes are able to tell Work and Income about their circumstances. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain why on his watch the number of sole parent beneficiaries who will not officially name the father of their children has increased from over 13 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2002 and close to 18 percent as at July 2004 over a period when the total number of sole parents has remained largely static? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: By my calculations the number of section 70A penalties doubled under the National Government to reach 15000 by 1999. Since doubling under National the number of section 70A penalties has risen by about 1000 a year but I point out that 1500 of those were established during a sweep through penalties when we became the Government to clean up the administration left by the member’s Government. 
Moana Mackey 
: What has the Government done to encourage more sole parents on benefits to fulfil their obligation to apply for child support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has introduced a range of new activities to encourage sole parents who are on a benefit to apply for child support. For example we reviewed old sole parent cases where no liable parent contribution and no section 70A penalty applied. These were left to us by the previous Government and we found 1500 of them. We introduced one-on-one targeted interviews with sole parent beneficiaries subject to the penalty to ensure they were aware why the penalty applies and what their obligations are. We changed the forms so that the applicants had to state whether they had a private child-support agreement— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Changed the form! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will just repeat that for Mr Ryall. We changed the forms so applicants have to tell us whether they have a private child-support agreement. We will send letters to all section 70A clients. In the last Budget we introduced a range of measures including increasing the penalty under section 70A of the Social Security Act. I am looking forward to Mr Ryall’s support on that very matter. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Would the Minister please reconcile his refusal to force mothers to name the father of their child when they claim the domestic purposes benefit with his support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which is to be debated this afternoon that requires the naming and racial profiling of all sperm donors; where is the consistency? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government will never force all mothers some of whom have been raped or have been part of incest to tell us the name of the father. We will do more than the National Party however to get people who should front up to their obligations to do so. That is what we will do on that matter of section 70A of the Social Security Act. 
Katherine Rich 
: Incest rape and domestic violence aside can the Minister explain why his Government accepts a situation where 21 percent of all sole-parent beneficiaries who receive a reduced benefit have the name of their children’s father stated clearly on the Work and Income file and still his Government will not allow the collection of child support from those dads? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We do not like it; that is why we are changing the law and I hope the member will support it. 
Heather Roy 
: When will he admit that this is just a rort so that fathers can dodge child support and why should taxpayers always have to pick up the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is a rort and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations and we will make sure they do as much as we can. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain why on his watch the proportion of Auckland’s sole-parent beneficiaries aged between 16 and 24 years who will not officially name the father of their children so that child support can be collected has risen from approximately one in five beneficiaries to one in three? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot explain why the number doubled under the National Government. Under this Government we have cleaned up the records and that has brought more people into the pool. We have changed the rules—we are doing something about the problem; they did nothing. 
New Zealand Flag—Referendum 
7.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she give thorough consideration to holding a referendum at the next general election to give the people of New Zealand the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to change the official New Zealand flag? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am aware that a group is pursuing a citizens initiated referendum on the subject. I am not presently convinced that it is possible or desirable to address the issue in the time frame suggested by the member. 
Rod Donald 
: Does she agree with the New Zealand Chef de Mission in Athens Dave Currie that “our uniforms identify who we are but our flag doesn’t” and is she concerned that it was hard for overseas Olympic watchers to distinguish between the New Zealand and Australian flags behind Sarah Ulmer and that only the Union Jack was clearly visible behind the Evers-Swindell twins when they were presented with their medals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The flag of course would be only one of three elements at such a ceremony that state which country the athletes represented. The national anthem would be played and it clearly is a New Zealand national anthem. The athletes would be dressed in a distinctive New Zealand uniform. Then there is also the flag which of course bears marked resemblance to the Australian one but none the less with the colour configuration is distinctively New Zealand. 
Rod Donald 
: What have been the significant societal and constitutional developments in New Zealand since our flag which incorporates the Union Jack was adopted in 1902 particularly with regard to our relationship to Great Britain? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In 1902 New Zealand would probably have been correctly described as a compliant if not somewhat subservient Dominion. Today we would regard ourselves as proudly independent—at least this Government would. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that a country’s flag is a potent symbol of its national identity and would she like to see New Zealand adopt a new flag that is as distinctive and iconic as the Canadian flag introduced there 40 years ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The flag is certainly a symbol of identity; whether it is potent is a matter of opinion. I welcome debate about the flag and as I said at my press conference on Monday no doubt the time will come for formal consideration of whether the flag we have represents the contemporary reality of New Zealand. The Union Jack in the corner of course relates to our past; it does not particularly relate to the future and at some point that needs to be addressed. 
Roading—Investment 
8.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he accept that investing $2.4 billion on our roading network will increase GDP by $1 billion a year by 2012 as found by the Allen Consulting Group; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received no report to this point on the accuracy of the modelling undertaken so I really cannot comment on that particular aspect. The general proposition that roading will increase GDP is clearly common sense which is why the Government has announced an $18.7 billion investment over 10 years to improve land transport. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given the common sense of increasing investment in our roading network will the Minister commit to increasing the investment in roads to the average of what it was in the 1990s as a percentage of GDP; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do note that between 1993 and 1999 the value of our roads as a proportion of GDP declined by over 19 percent. This has increased by some 9 percent. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: When the Minister has familiarised himself with the energy substitution social accounting matrix methodology that has been used by Allen Consulting which shows benefits all round in terms of GDP increased tax reduction of loss of life on our roads as well as being environmentally friendly and if he has assured himself that the findings are correct will he immediately authorise the fast tracking of those projects so that New Zealand can receive the benefits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course there is an enormous difference between arguing for a general connection and arguing for a specific connection in terms of specific roading projects. I am aware of particular projects that probably do not meet a national interest test in that respect. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think perhaps the Minister could just add a little bit more. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Maybe the Minister does know that four very detailed specific projects are recommended in the report. I am asking: if he believes in the validity will he authorise them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Finance does not make decisions about specific roads. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share the New Zealand First view that it is an absolute disgrace as identified by the Allen report that for the past 11 years the total revenue collected on road-related taxes and user-charges has exceeded the spending on roading by a massive 42 percent and as a consequence this country has suffered immeasurably? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Briefly no. To expand as no doubt the member might invite me the fact is that the cost of the roading system overall to the economy exceeds just the cost of building roads. That is often missed out in terms of the equation the member refers to. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister be seeking any analysis of the effects of peak oil and resulting fuel crises on the economic projections in the Allen group’s report and is he concerned that by 2012 those new roads could be largely empty as people turn to more cost-effective alternatives? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly I would expect to get a report and no doubt that will include sensitivity analysis around some of the assumptions. But even if we all take to bicycles we will still need roads to go on. 
Deborah Coddington 
: If his Government is as committed to road safety as it claims will he give back road users more of what he takes away from them and invest just $213 million in rural passing lanes an investment that this report shows will return nearly $900 million in benefits to road users? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In general terms the priorities are not set by the Minister of Finance. There is a whole process around national land transport strategy and the implementation of that by the Government’s implementation agencies. So it is not for me to comment in that specific sense. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the report has identified four proposed road infrastructure packages and that it asserts that the Tauranga strategic roading network package will result in the greatest net benefit ahead of the Auckland package; if so—if he has read that—will he give more consideration to helping the Tauranga community which contains New Zealand’s No. 1 export port? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point a great deal of what makes Tauranga New Zealand’s No. 1 export port actually arrives by rail rather than by road and I certainly have no intention of getting in the middle of a Tauranga-versus-Auckland argument over roading priorities. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Government commissioning a parallel study to that of the Automobile Association’s lobbying document into whether even more wealth would be generated by completing Auckland’s public transport infrastructure and improving and extending rail infrastructure and services for both passengers and freight? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not anticipating another specific report but as I have said many times those are not exclusive alternatives in Auckland. It needs public transport and it needs new roads as well. Particularly given the limited geographical spread of the rail network within Auckland a great deal of transport will have to go by non-rail means. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister see more effective ways of spending the $1.5 billion of public money associated with the eastern highway—the severely pruned eastern highway—as announced today by the outgoing Auckland mayor John Banks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am always wise enough to leave those kinds of decisions to the voters. 
Tertiary Education—Initiatives 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to support major initiatives in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister responsible for the Tertiary Education Commission) 
: 
 Yesterday at the University of Auckland the Prime Minister announced up to $10 million for the Starpath student mentoring scheme and $10 million for a $32 million Institute for Innovation in Biotechnology. These latest initiatives from the Tertiary Education Commission’s successful Partnerships for Excellence programme join a range of other strategic initiatives across the nation’s universities polytechnics and industry training organisations that the Tertiary Education Commission has funded over the past 12 months. Applications for the next Partnerships for Excellence round will be called shortly but I doubt whether the National Party can or should apply. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Is this indicative of a general approach of targeting funding towards specific initiatives rather than just funding enrolments and is there broad support for this approach? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. We have already targeted industry training funding and Modern Apprenticeships. We have targeted the Performance-based Research Fund. We have targeted research centres innovation and e-learning. We have focused on links with business and a range of other quite specific funds. We are now profiling all funders which will allow us to better target that funding for student tuition. This has received widespread backing throughout the community including the express support of the very talented Hon. Maurice Williamson who was unfortunately viciously attacked in the House for that support yesterday by Bill English. 
Simon Power 
: Why should taxpayers trust the funding initiatives of the Tertiary Education Commission when it approved funding of $15.3 million to run a computer course at Christchurch Polytechnic that only 3 percent of students completed; and why should we trust the Minister to sort out this mess when he has failed to make good on his promise that the Tertiary Education Commission would be accountable for retrieving the money that it paid for these dubious enrolments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I can just explain to the member who I think was National’s education spokesperson that courses such as this are approved by the council of the institution. Luckily we have the Tertiary Education Commission which is now beginning to be able to get a hold of this kind of funding—and that is something that simply did not exist under the National Government. Thank goodness it does now. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the Associate Minister doing to ensure inexpensive legal mechanisms for students who have been short-changed by tertiary institutions such as those at Southland Institute of Technology to gain refunds of costs for programmes that have been misrepresented or inadequately delivered? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Following consultation with the entire tertiary sector the Ombudsman was given the task of providing that kind of complaints mechanism for students. The member will know that in the case of the Southern Institute of Technology the Ombudsman reported that the $21000 that students paid in fees should be returned to them. I agree with that absolutely. I have met with the Ombudsman. He has given me advice on what steps he thinks should be taken and I certainly intend to consult the whole sector to ensure we have integrity around his decisions. 
Schools—Funding Formula 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he satisfied that the Government’s funding formula for schools is providing enough money and flexibility to provide the standard of education expected by parents and caregivers; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes this Government continues to be committed to ensuring that schools are resourced adequately. School boards have the flexibility to allocate their staffing and operational funding as they wish which enables them to focus on the educational priorities of their particular students. 
Simon Power 
: If the current funding arrangements are so satisfactory why do public schools throughout the country engage in community fund-raising and other money-making ventures in order to finance 3800 extra teachers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not know why they do that. I will quote somebody whom the member will know who said in answer to the question about whether schools should be fund-raising that they were “awash with cash and we do not think throwing more money at these schools is going to solve the problem.” Bill English said that. 
Helen Duncan 
: How does the Government support schools financially? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Since 2001 schools have been provided with nearly 2100 extra full-time teacher equivalents at an annual cost of $127 million over and above the number of teachers required for roll growth. In addition operational funding has been increased by 10 percent per student in real terms—that is over and above inflation—since 1999 and discretionary funding for which schools are eligible to apply has also increased considerably in recent years. The Government has increased funding of in-kind support to the tune of about $346 million per year which is equivalent to 34 percent additional operational funding. 
Simon Power 
: If he believes that State funding is sufficient to provide for all educational needs why do Ministry of Education figures show that almost half a billion dollars of school revenue is garnered from local funds including from international students’ school fees and fund-raising efforts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member knows that fund-raising has always been a part of the school scene. In his own electorate he is enjoying 52 extra teachers above roll growth. There are 42 extra management units in his own electorate. He should be on his knees grateful that he has a Labour-led Government. 
Simon Power 
: I ask the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Have members had their last warning? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has finally absolutely exhausted my patience. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for making a comment that was a deliberate attempt to influence me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Simon Power 
: Why does he expect parents to support the use of education funding to pay union members $500 in hush money for signing a new collective agreement when those very same parents are having to delve into their own pockets in order to ensure schools have enough teachers to begin with? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This is not hush money. If it occurs it will be part of the settlement. Parents want settled schools which they will get. Once again that member should be on his knees—grateful that his schools will settle and get on with teaching kids. 
Small Business Advisory Group—Reports 
11.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received from the Small Business Advisory Group? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 This morning the Small Business Advisory Group released its first annual report. Drawing on the members’ experience as small-business owners and advisers and information provided by business people at the series of 24 regional small-business days the advisory group has provided the Government with recommendations that it believes could genuinely enhance small-business growth in New Zealand. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Minister see this report as an important contribution to small-business development in New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Absolutely. This Government is committed to engaging directly with the engine room of this economy. We do not presume that we or the self-appointed lobbyists know best. That is why we have engaged in such an open transparent manner with the sector. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is the Minister “up for it” to measure and publish the accumulative costs of compliance with regulations passed by this Government in the last 6 months as recommended by the Small Business Advisory Group given his press statement: “I will be proud to take this report to my Cabinet colleagues and to enlist their support for its recommendations”; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am delighted to have received 19 very good recommendations from the Small Business Advisory Group. It has given me 12 months to report back to it and there is a wide range of work going on to achieve that. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any other reports informal or otherwise that affect small business that illustrate its concerns about aspects of the Holidays Act for example and its downright nervousness of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill; if he is aware of such reports what does he intend to do about them? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am not aware of such reports. 
Environment Court—Resource Management Act 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How did her Government’s decision to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 last year by removing the Environment Court’s power to grant security for costs help reduce the problem of frivolous and vexatious objectors? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The removal of the Environment Court’s ability to award security for costs was designed to eliminate the barrier to worthwhile appeals proceeding to court in the public interest; it was not about frivolous and vexatious objections. We have taken other action to reduce that problem such as properly resourcing the Environment Court which was so badly neglected by the National Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister read the analysis by the Ministry for the Environment stating that 10 parties out of 26 had not paid the costs awarded by the court—one for $424000—and given that advice does she now accept that her amendment to ban security of cost orders was another of her legislative boo-boos? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Not only did I read the paragraph that the member read but I read the third paragraph following that which noted that there were better alternatives in order to meet both goals than security of costs: the need for community participation and the need to limit vexatious and frivolous objections. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen about outcomes from public interest groups raising environmental concerns? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Taieri Plains environmental protection society was given funding to raise issues at the Environment Court about possible environmental damage. The court upheld the society’s submissions. In spite of that Katherine Rich wants to abolish the fund so that groups like that cannot raise legitimate environmental concerns. That is more evidence of National’s policy of development at any cost and of hearing only one argument at a time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that prior to the amendment applicants were threatening legitimate participants that if they took part in the process at all they would have to put up $30000 as security before the case even started and that public interest groups that could have brought useful information to the process were being scared off? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes we did have those concerns which is why we removed the Environment Court’s ability to award security for costs. As various Environment Court judges have noted the process for deciding resource consents is better when others can make submissions. But in spite of that the National Party wants to cut the public out of decision making. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Resource Management Act is being used to extort money from developers and indeed even State-owned enterprises; if she is not concerned why is she not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I would be concerned if I had proof of that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the problem of frivolous and vexatious objections be reduced by the addition of another layer of bureaucracy in the resource management process such as the expansion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to create a new environmental protection authority; and has the Minister seen any media reports on how business reacted to that idea when it was proposed by the National Party spokesperson on the environment? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it would not solve the problem and yes I have seen a report from Simon Carlaw of Business New Zealand in which he said that turning the Environmental Risk Management Authority into an environmental protection agency as promoted by Nick Smith is a daft idea. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that the ministry’s advice was in support of the removal of security of costs when in fact the ministry said: “The awarding of costs is therefore not a deterrent to following good practice during court proceedings.” and further said: “Security for costs upfront would go some way to prevent failure to pay costs.”; does not that quite explicitly say the Minister got it wrong? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The paragraph below that which I draw to the attention of the Hon Nick Smith says that the alternative to including the ability to seek security for costs is to leave it—the Environment Court—to use case management to limit vexatious and litigious participants. That could occur with the court’s new case-tracking systems the new higher filing fees and daily hearing fees together with its ability to award costs post hearing. It is also possible that setting a scale for cost awards would assist to defeat the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My having noted that the same paper specifically says: “Some Ministers have specifically requested that the proposal for security of costs to be awarded in the Environment Court be put back on the table.” which Ministers were being referred to and does the Minister now accept that those Ministers disagree with their dopey decision last year to amend the Resource Management Act in that way? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to ad hominem arguments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is—[ 
Interruption 
] If I were to rule out every such comment I would be ruling out quite a few. I do however think the word “dopey” was a silly thing to say in the context of the question because it did not add to but subtracted from the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The questioner would acknowledge that I am not going to reveal what took place in robust debates inside committees except to reveal that the arguments prevailed about which was the most effective way to deal with vexatious and frivolous objections. 
Preventive Health Care—Health Research 
13.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that the Government’s investment in health research is consistent with its concomitant commitment to preventive health care? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Generally yes but we continue to strive to do better. 
Judy Turner 
: Why is the Government abandoning a full trial of the “polypill” which has been tipped to have a greater impact on the prevention of disease in the Western World than any other single intervention and does she agree that when a pill is calculated to prevent up to 88 percent of heart attacks and 80 percent of strokes the Government’s inaction is totally inconsistent with its apparent commitment to preventing heart disease; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In relation to the health portfolio Pharmac will fund medicines only once they are approved by Medsafe. At the present moment the “polypill” is not approved by Medsafe and should such a pill be approved for use in New Zealand then Pharmac would consider funding it on the same basis as every other medicine. But I need to tell the member that the five components in the proposed “polypill” are already available in their individual forms fully funded in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Government continue to invest in new medicines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Considerable investment is being made in new medicines. We spend more than half a billion dollars a year on subsidised medicines and that amount is set to grow over the next 3 years. Pharmac this year alone will be adding nine new medicines to the subsidised list and I am pleased to tell the House that today Pharmac has announced it will be funding a new medicine to treat type 2 diabetes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the dramatic increases in the breast cancer rate over the past 20 years why is the Government not investing in health research that looks at the underlying causes of cancer—in particular whether there is a link between breast cancer and the prevalence of oestrogen-mimicking chemicals in our food our houses and our environment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not necessary for New Zealand to carry out all research and we must use the money we have to target the areas that are of the most use to us. A lot of international research is carried out and we have the benefit of that as well. 
Judy Turner 
: What specific instructions has the Minister given to the Minister of Research Science and Technology to ensure that the Health Research Council prioritises research on preventive health therapies such as the “polypill” in line with the Government’s $1.7 billion commitment to primary health care? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not give instructions to my colleague. I work with my colleague and with the Health Research Council to ensure that the priorities and terms of health research relate to the priorities in the New Zealand Health Strategy. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that the Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies report has found that: “The level of funding available for health research in New Zealand has decreased over the past decade is now well below international standards and is in serious danger of falling below a level necessary to sustain a functioning health research system.”; if so as a Minister in a Government that boasts of a commitment to biotechnology will she be lobbying the Minister of Research Science and Technology for the estimated $34.3 million needed to bring health research up to the level of other OECD countries? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes but I need to say that report does not take account of funding that comes through the New Economy Research Fund the Marsden Fund various foundations and the funding that comes from the Ministry of Health itself. 
Business of the House 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for members’ notice of motion No. 3 in my name be taken at the conclusion of the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a reference to the members’ notice of motion about the Southern Institute of Technology. Leave is sought for that action to be taken. Is there any objection? There is none. So that will come after members’ order of the day No. 2. 
General Debates 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The parlous state of this Government is reflected in this pathetic Order Paper before the House that shows how lacking this Government is in having any sort of agenda or vision for New Zealand. Let us look at the bold new ideas from the Government this week for taking this country forward. It is another dose of PC pathetic nonsense from this nanny State Government. The latest idea is from George Hawkins Minister of Internal Affairs. Not being satisfied with taxing the heck out of New Zealanders with his speed cameras or his ticket-an-hour quota for the police he has now come up with an initiative to save New Zealanders. 
Opposition Member 
: What is it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is fences around paddling pools. Despite not having a single fatality in 5 years his Department of Internal Affairs will now require every family in New Zealand with an innocent paddling pool to spend $5000 on a fence. If any unsuspecting New Zealand family does not provide the fence required by George Hawkins’ department it will be up for a fine of $500. 
The petty bureaucrats of this Labour Government are again constraining the freedoms of New Zealanders. There is no limit to the petty control-freak elements of the Ministers in this Government. There is no vision for the economy. There is no vision for what will take New Zealand forward. Instead the answer is fences around paddling pools. Is it any wonder that there are podgy children when the Government makes this one of its priorities? But the Government will not stop there. The Minister of Transport not content with trying to control the roads now wants to put the same sorts of petty controls on those New Zealanders who dare go off-road. That provision is in a sneaky transport bill that was not announced to any member of this House. Harry Duynhoven and his bureaucrats now want to control four-wheel drive enthusiasts those involved in the outdoors and farmers by introducing a new set of controls and petty pathetic laws. The police will now give out tickets not just when drivers are on the road but also when their cars are in their driveways at home. 
Is there any limit to the extent this Government will go to regulate and take away the freedoms of New Zealanders? Will Harry Duynhoven get to his feet and explain why the Government wants to ticket people involved in events like those that would have involved Possum Bourne? Possum Bourne would turn in his grave at the notion that this Government wants to put those sorts of regulations on those who use their vehicles off-road. There are absolutely no limits to the extent to which this Government will go to try to control every nook and cranny of New Zealand life whether it is those involved in organising the Rally of New Zealand or those families with paddling pools. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: It’s too hard too savage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Maharey whether he supports fences around paddling pools. I know there is hardly a member in this Government who has children but perhaps even those members who do might accept that fences around paddling pools shows in effect the stupidity of this Government and how far it will go to take away the freedoms of ordinary New Zealanders. The country has had enough of the pettiness of the bureaucrats and regulations that this Government would have us follow in order to control every nook and cranny of New Zealand life. People are looking for a different vision. They are looking for the sorts of policies that National has—policies that would get the Government out of people’s lives—rather than the petty nonsense we see from this Labour Government. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 We really know the National Party is in trouble when the Hon Nick Smith National’s one-time deputy leader leads off the general debate. He must be the same Hon Nick Smith who featured in the latest  
North and South 
 and who described himself as having been “screwed” by his colleagues. Nick Smith was asked by the interviewer how it felt to have been “dorked” by Don Brash and he described in intimate detail the treachery of his colleagues. 
National is a party that is in desperate trouble. It is in so much trouble that some members are walking right out of Parliament. Roger Sowry and Lynda Scott promising young middle-of-the-road members of the National Party are walking away from a once-great party that is on its way out. Then we have the disappointed humiliated and angry Simon Power the only whip ever to have sat on the front bench of a political party in this Parliament. The once-promising Simon Power is on his way down. Then there is Wayne Mapp who has been demoted time and time again. 
I have some advice for Don Brash: he should watch his back. John Key is counting the numbers and why would he not? The public are providing the numbers. In every monthly poll for the last 6 months Don Brash has registered diminishing confidence with the New Zealand electorate. Every month over the last 6 months the National Party has gone down in the polls—down 9 percent since February this year. Is that any wonder when we get headlines like “Bumbling Brash loses the plot” which was in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 last weekend? But we do not have to go as far back in history as last weekend. John Armstrong wrote a comment in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today under the headline “Home or away Brash is losing”. The National Party has a real dilemma. If it does not put Don Brash in the House people say it is because he cannot front up and does not have what it takes to be the leader. When it does put him in the House he proves that point. As John Armstrong wrote: “When he fronts up he is being slaughtered.” 
The National Party is in desperate trouble. It is no wonder it is in desperate trouble when its leader Don Brash has twice this year gone to Australia to bag his country—to run it down. He did that in March when he told the Australians that New Zealand was not pulling its weight in defence. What about our people in Afghanistan? What about the role we have played in East Timor in Bougainville and in the Solomon Islands? That man should be proud of his country. He should be proud of the servicemen and women who work on behalf of this country—a country that more than pulls its weight in international affairs. Then just last week Don Brash stated in the  
Australian Financial Review 
 that New Zealand is a failed Pacific Island State. It has been some failure! Every country in the world would like to fail in the way that New Zealand has failed in the last 5 years. New Zealand is at the top of the OECD in terms of growth rates. A regional survey by the National Bank shows that our annualised growth rate at the moment is 4.3 percent. We have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD—4 percent which is down from double figures under the previous National Government. New Zealand is a country that Transparency International has consistently rated in the top three countries in the world in terms of good governance and a lack of corruption. Yet Don Brash when talking to a business audience tried to lower confidence in this country thereby betraying and undermining his country. 
New Zealanders will not tolerate behaviour of that nature. It is no wonder that the National MPs sit silently with their heads down because they have a leader whom they are deeply ashamed of. I tell John Key he should not wait until after National has lost the election but should claim the leadership now. The numbers are there. There is no confidence in Don Brash as leader of the National Party or as a potential leader of this country. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Clearly after listening to that speech one can only come to the conclusion that Phil Goff is a woman not to be trifled with. He reminds me of a blowfish trying to puff himself up into far more importance than he actually has. The blood pressure was rising the rhetoric was pouring but there was nothing worth listening to. 
During the general debate I want to talk about an issue of huge importance to rural New Zealanders. About 2 weeks ago they were dismayed to get  
Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors 
 which is a discussion paper from the office of Jim Sutton. Just in case anybody is unsure of who Jim Sutton is he is the advocate within Cabinet for rural New Zealand. He is the advocate for rural New Zealanders. What did he do? He put out a discussion paper about how the Government can trample over the rights of every New Zealander who lives in the rural sector and who happens to have a waterway. 
I ask what Jim Sutton has in common with Robert Mugabe. I will answer my own question: they both take property rights away from white farmers. I emphasise “white farmers” because what is proposed in the document will not apply—shock horror as though it might come as a surprise—to Parekura Horomia who is sitting over there or to his lands. It will apply only to people of European origin. That is simply an outrage. 
But why should we be surprised? I must add this little bit in too; this is a little pearler. In one of the discussion documents that he sent back to Cabinet the Minister said: “This issue around Maori lands needs more work. The rest of it is not a problem but around Maori land it needs more work.” What is more disturbing about this—and I totally agree with a Treasury paper that I have here in which Treasury stated and as I have said—is that this question is not about access but about a thing called property rights. I tell the Minister that one either has property rights or one does not. It is a bit like being pregnant: one either is or is not. One cannot have it both ways. This is about property rights. 
I would like the Minister to take a call and answer this question. Why is he not taking the land around the Avon River in Fendalton for example? There is no access for anybody including any member of this House or any member of the public to at least one-third of the properties on the Avon River. Why does this right apply only to rural land? If one wants to be fair about it why does this Government not apply access to all waterways in this country? Those waterways include the Avon the Heathcote and the Styx where one cannot get access to one-third of the properties—but the Minister has ruled that out. 
I am all for access. The ACT party is all for access to anywhere but we have to face a certain reality including in this very place here. Members of the public cannot walk around this home of democracy—this very House this very Parliament. Access is strictly controlled. That is for an extremely sensible and valid reason. These days we cannot given matters of security—both internal and external—have people wandering all over and anywhere just because they feel like it. Yet this Minister for Rural Affairs says it is OK because it is only farmers. There are only 40000 farmers in this country. The Government does not get their votes and is not going to get their votes so it will take their property rights and give them to what is known as the recreational lobby—350000 votes. 
That is the purpose behind this paper. It is not about some great notion of ensuring the continuity of access which is given by 92 percent of the farmers in this country. They give access freely and regularly. They do not hinder access at all but this Government comes along and asks how it can “appropriate”. That is a nice word for “thieve” or for “steal”. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I would like to endorse the comments made by the Hon Phil Goff. It is a sad day in Parliament when the National Party has to dust off one of the brat pack the Hon Nick Smith the member for Nelson who as he was correctly quoted in  
North and South 
 was 
“screwed” by his colleagues over there on the Opposition benches. Is it not an interesting day? 
I take a very serious view of the way that the Leader of Opposition conducts himself with regard to the upholding of the dignity the integrity and the credibility of our constitution. The Leader of the Opposition must uphold a constitutional entitlement that underpins a great institution called Parliament. What is that? What is one of the greatest obligations of a Leader of the Opposition? It is to front up to Parliament to come down into this House and to put his or her position. The Leader of the Opposition can oppose or propose things but he or she has to be here in order to do that. National members have to understand that the onus on the obligation of and the duty of the Leader of the Opposition Dr Don Brash is to come down into this Parliament and earn his money—earn his keep—by standing up for the constitutional entitlements of Kiwis out there who need to have a strong Opposition leader. 
What do we have? Don Brash does not even turn up in the House. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does not need to raise a point of order. Reference must not be made to a member’s absence at all. This is coming off the Minister’s time. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The reality is that that is a fact. Moving on I point out that in terms of the constitutional requirement of a Leader of the Opposition Don Brash has just sunk that requirement. Around this very Chamber we see reminders of the great battles that Kiwis have fought in. We have to uphold that right and that entitlement but we have a Leader of the Opposition who will not do that. That is a constitutional outrage and the Kiwi heartland has to know about it. 
What is worse than failing to upholding that requirement is for the Leader of the Opposition to go off shore shrouded in the constitutional entitlement and right of his office and to go and bag his homeland. Kiwis understand that there is an institution here that the Leader of the Opposition has to use. Kiwis understand that they can come down into this House and have a go. Kiwis understand that. They will not accept a Leader of the Opposition shrouded in this constitutional entitlement going off shore and telling Aussie business people—one of our largest markets—and the Australian communities that we are a basket case that we are a banana republic and that we are no better than the Solomon Islanders the Papua New Guineans or anybody else. On every measure this country and this Government shape up. New Zealand stands up; it pulls its weight. It is in the top three of the OECD in terms of economic performance yet we have the Leader of the Opposition going off shore and laying a dagger into the heart of this heartland. Kiwis do not like that and the Opposition members know that. They cower and hide behind their very seats when the Leader of the Opposition walks into the House just as they do right now. 
More important not only is there a lack of leadership and a lack of capacity capability integrity and credibility about the constitutional shroud that must be upheld but when we look across the front bench of this Government we see it is dominant. To give an analogy on the Government’s front bench here we have the congregation of the bishops whereas over there on the Opposition’s front bench they are apprentice altar boys at best. When our front-bench members walk into this House on every capability that it takes to run each Government ministry they dominate. They dominate on policy on intellect and on engagement with our communities. When we look at the opposite side of the House we see it is no wonder that the National members are going down the gurgler in the polls. Where is their capability their competence and their policy? National has Simon Power on the front bench for goodness’ sake. Those members have no experience—nothing. National’s major finance spokesperson has not been here in the House any more than 24 months. How bad is that? Kiwis will start to question not only the lack of leadership in that particular party but also the lack of competence of that motley mob in the Opposition. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 One of the worst indicators in the social report that the Minister has just referred to is our rates of obesity which are amongst the worst in the world and getting worse all the time. I was therefore astonished at the summary dismissal by the Minister of Health yesterday of the very well-researched positive report on obesity by Diabetes New Zealand on fighting the obesity epidemic. Its key recommendation is that the Government investigate—just investigate—a tax on high-sugar soft drinks and high-fat food. The Government’s outright rejection of the report and its key recommendations show that despite all the lip service this Government pays to the obesity epidemic it is simply not serious about tackling it or perhaps it is just too worried about getting off side with the food industry to take any serious action to combat it. 
The new report contains frightening statistics that New Zealand children are amongst the fattest in the world and that we have a higher percentage of overweight and obese children than the United States for heaven’s sake. That is hard to believe but is fuelled no doubt by the relentless saturation targeting of unhealthy food and drink at our children and adolescents by the food industry through television advertisements in schools at bus stops on packages and even in school diaries like the one I have for a college in Wellington that advertises McDonald’s. Indeed it is everywhere that one turns. 
The saturation marketing of unhealthy food and drink to our children has become so pervasive that trying to reduce obesity in the present environment is a bit like trying to treat an alcoholic in a town that has a bar on every corner. Surely a Government that is serious about trying to change this environment would seek to protect our children from these pressures by banning the screening of advertisements on television that promote unhealthy food by getting soft drink vending machines out of our schools and by investigating a tax on soft drinks. 
The Government’s own Ministry of Health estimates that twice as many New Zealanders die from dietary-related risk factors than they do from smoking so why do we not have the same strong action on obesity as we do on tobacco? We have a tax on tobacco and alcohol because of the harm they cause to the individual consumer and to our society. Why then would we not consider at least investigating a tax on fizzy drinks? The consumption of high-sugar fizzy drinks causes tremendous harm to our children and our adolescents. We have an epidemic of rotting teeth we have escalating obesity rates diabetes and so forth and costs to the wider society in terms of the health costs of obesity diabetes and other diseases. But despite the tremendous harm that they do to our health the consumption of fizzy drinks has risen by an astonishing 45 percent over the past 5 years. Surely a Government that was serious about obesity would want to reduce the consumption of soft drinks and would at least investigate a tax on soft drinks as just one way of doing that. But no our Government has stubbornly refused to take any action that could get it off side with the food industry and its key strategy—we could call it its “King hit”—is a voluntary accord with the food industry which it will announce next Thursday. 
There is nothing wrong with working with the food industry to try to get it to make improvements in the food it sells and markets to young children but frankly it is simply naive to expect the industry to curb its highly profitable promotion of fatty sugary foods and drinks to our children voluntarily. The Government knows this. Experience with the marketing of tobacco and milk industries has shown that voluntary approaches are ineffective and it is quite simply naive to expect that our food industry will voluntarily give up its relentless targeting of unhealthy food and drink at children in our society. 
The food industry is thrilled with this voluntary accord because it sees it as a wonderful public relations opportunity and as a way of avoiding regulation. It will make all the statements in the world. It will be full of platitudes but short on action. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In a year’s time Helen Clark will make New Zealand history by becoming the first-ever Labour leader to emerge from three general elections to lead our country as Prime Minister. If the National Opposition denies that let its members tell us who will lead them to victory at the next election. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don Brash! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Will it be Mr Brash who goes overseas and slags his own country? Will it be Gerry Brownlee who cannot even get on with the Christchurch City Council or will it be Nick Smith or Simon Power? I do not think so. 
The truth is that Labour will not win a parliamentary majority on its own next year. It will be assisted as it has in the last 5 years to govern in a coalition Government. Over the 5 years that I have represented parties in coalition with Labour we have—[ 
Interruption 
] That may well be something that the National Party could study—how does one actually win elections? The National Party has no idea but we have. 
Over the last 5 years we in this Government have reached out case by case to serious Opposition parties to enact legislation that is forward-looking. We have pursued laws that enhance the prospects of job creation. I am proud of the fact that New Zealand now has the lowest levels of unemployment that it has had in a generation. 
I would have thought that when leaders of the National Party go overseas they would trumpet that fact and be proud of it. For example we have a lower level of unemployment than Australia but no we are not told that. We are told by the National Party that we have no forestry initiatives in this country while Australia has dozens of them. That came from Mr Nick Smith. I tabled in this House a list of forestry initiatives mounting to nearly $600 million. A wood processing strategy is being developed and investments have been made and are being made in New Zealand as I speak. That was tabled in the House. I do not think that Mr Nick Smith said anything further but the National Party leader went to Australia and said that no forestry investments had been made in New Zealand in comparison with Australia. I know that he would never be able to find out what is tabled in the House because he is never here. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows that he cannot refer to the absence of any member. He will withdraw that remark. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The truth is that our unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the entire OECD group of rich nations and it is well below that of Australia. Why would the leader of the National Party go to Australia and not tell Australians that? The cold hard fact is that every single region in this country is in positive growth mode as I speak. Why would the leader of the National Party not want to tell the Australians that? Why would he not want to tell the Australian community that this country has averaged a higher growth rate than Australia for the last 5 years? Does Mr Smith know that that is true? Why does his leader not know that that is true? I wonder whether he would have told the Australians that the average growth rate in the 5 years before that when there was a National-led coalition Government was well below that of Australia. It has been well above that of Australia for 5 years under a Labour-led coalition Government. 
Those are the facts that I would have thought any member of this Parliament going overseas and talking to people or writing for an overseas audience would mention. In truth that is the situation that New Zealanders are confronted with. They are confronted with a leader who aspires to be the Prime Minister of a country who should ordinarily at least be proud of that country and be a salesperson for it rather than someone who writes articles slagging his country in an overseas country that is our largest market for manufactured goods. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s criticising the Government. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Actually he is criticising his country because if he were telling the truth about his country which I would think any New Zealand parliamentarian would he would say that our growth rate is higher than that of Australia. Why did he not say that? It is true but it does not fit the gloom and doom image that he wants to present—as though the country would do better if he were presiding over it when it is actually doing better than it has done for many many years. That is something that I do not think that Don Brash is coming to grips with. One cannot go around New Zealand or the world telling everyone how badly the country is doing when everyone knows it is not true. Everyone knows it is not true that we are not doing well and Don Brash insists on telling people what they know is not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report of the New Zealand Forest Industries Council pointing out that 21 new timber-processing plants are being built in Australia and none in New Zealand. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Phillip Layton Edwards on the face of it is just another example of the failure of the Government and society to deal effectively with and rehabilitate a criminal delinquent. Phillip Edwards started out as a small-time crook in 1997 with 16 convictions for typical entry-level crimes such as unlawful interference with a motor vehicle. Over a short space of time he graduated. He then started to appear in the courts according to his rap sheet here for assault stealing vehicles burgling homes carrying offensive weapons threatening behaviour more counts of assaulting women jumping bail breaching police bail and failing to do periodic detention. Finally he was put away in jail for 18 months on a range of convictions. He served 5 months having served 4 months on remand and in his time in jail he was assessed and identified by staff of the Department of Corrections as being dangerous and highly likely to reoffend. 
On 9 July 2003 he was released on parole without conditions under the understanding that he would be living with his auntie. In fact he went out on to the street to live under bridges. On 13 July 2003 5 days after he had been released he offended again by fighting in a public place. On 16 July a week later he offended again and on 18 July he was convicted and discharged again to go back living on the streets. Can anyone see a problem here? Well firstly I would say that this case quite clearly shows that the Government’s belief in parole is misplaced. Parole does not rehabilitate and nor do short sentences. But there he was—on the street. Sadly within 2 days of that conviction he killed David McNee. 
But we now know that on 12 September 2002 he became the prime suspect in a reported aggravated burglary of a judge’s home. He invaded the home of a member of the judiciary yet despite extensive investigations a DNA strike and a confession he was not charged. The question is why. What were the consequences of his not being charged? I can tell the House that the failure of the police to prosecute him on that offence and put him in jail meant that he went on to commit a further 11 crimes against the public culminating in the murder of David McNee. 
Some say that McNee got what he deserved. In fact I have one such letter from a member of the public here saying that McNee was just a cruising faggot and that Edwards should get a medal. Well here is the point: regardless of what views some people out there might have Edwards’ track record shows that quite clearly he was on a pathway to murder. The point is the victim could have well been an auntie or a nana of anybody whose home he was burgling who just happened to get in the way. It could have been one of us whose car he was stealing who happened to get in the way. 
So what went wrong? Well there are serious questions that must be asked and I would ask these of the Minister. Why did the police not proceed with the prosecution of a count of aggravated burglary of the Shaw residence? They had the evidence they had a confession they had a man locked up in jail already and they could have proceeded with that charge. Authoritative people have said that Phillip Edwards would have got 3 to 5 years on that count. That would have ensured that he was in jail and he would not then have gone on to kill David McNee. Why did the police not proceed? Why did Mr Shaw not front? He used the excuse purportedly of trauma. Well we know about trauma: policemen firemen firewomen and ambulance officers deal with trauma every day yet they still give evidence when required; women who are raped and children who are molested still face that trauma and give evidence as part of their responsibility to uphold the law. The police had evidence that a man had broken into the home of a member of the judiciary yet they failed to prosecute and uphold the law. There are those out there on the streets who say all those players are directly responsible for Mr McNee’s death. 
There are other questions. Did the police receive any instruction from on high? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 New Zealand is a great country. In fact in my view it is the best country in the world to live in. We have strong economic growth. In fact we are one of the key successful economies in the OECD. We have the lowest unemployment for nearly two decades—the unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the OECD. We have low inflation. We have growing household incomes. For the first time in our country’s history more than 2 million New Zealanders are employed. Our Working for Families package which we delivered in our last Budget gives significant financial support to 60 percent of all New Zealand families with children. Our social report shows that we are in the top half of the OECD for the majority of the key social indicators. 
So given that we do live in the best country in the world and we all know it why would anyone—any New Zealander—go overseas and attack our country? Why would any New Zealander go to Australia and attack our country? Well the public and the media response to Dr Brash’s attack on our country has been consistent and strong: going overseas to attack New Zealand is just wrong. 
Some of the best lines from the media are worth repeating to the House. The  
Dominion Post 
 stated: “Dr Brash has no obligation to follow or promote a government line. It would be odd if he did. But nor is his role to go overseas and bag and belittle the country in which he wants to be prime minister.” The Christchurch 
 Press 
 stated of the National Party leader: “It is all very well to carp and criticise but voters need more on which they can judge whether the party would be a potential alternative government. … Brash fails to state clearly what National would do to improve on the Government’s performance.” John Armstrong said: “Don Brash’s assertion that New Zealand risks becoming ‘just another Pacific island state’ not only bordered on the ridiculous it was silly politics to boot.” Fran O’Sullivan said: “… the National leader’s article relies too much on insinuation without adequate factual underpinning to justify the doom-casting.” and he provides “no roadmap for the future.” She also said: “National’s leader would have made a much more useful contribution if he had spelled out where his party stood on the single market and other measures which will avert his prediction of a failed state.” She described his presentation as “little more than a summation of why he came into politics. … What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.” The  
Manawatu 
 Standard 
 Simon Power’s own local paper stated—and I am sure he agrees with it—that it is “not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and to effectively bag his own country”. Nobody in New Zealand would disagree with that. It is just not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and bag our country. 
No wonder the tensions within the National Party are now so obvious! Simon Power has been described by Dr Brash as having very good networks in his caucus which I think is code for “He’s got the numbers so he has to stay on the front bench even though I demote him.” John Carter has missed out on the Speaker’s job because of the “Brash-McCully” deal with Clem Simich. Maurice Williamson has to stay down in the back row despite being one of National’s rare flashes of talent because of the brat-pack influence. Linda Scott and Roger Sowry are leaving and more resignations are rumoured. John Key is counting the numbers. John Key is brash and ambitious rather than “Brash and dull”! 
The National Party former leadership has become increasingly embittered and mean-spirited. Bill English who used to be a pleasant chap has become increasingly bitter and mean-spirited to the point that he moved a resolution in the National caucus that no National Party MP would be allowed to go to John Tamihere’s book launch. How petty how bitter and how mean-spirited can one be! Those members missed a fine book launch. I am sure that not fronting up saved them from feeling envy. I do not think anyone could have put it better than Jane Clifton when describing the reshuffle. She said there were two ways to read National’s reshuffle: either it is brave and far-sighted or it is a desperate fig-leaf arrangement. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have a very simple message to give those who are listening to the debate in the House today. Jim Anderton stood in this House and said that after the next election Helen Clark will enjoy her third term as Prime Minister of New Zealand. Let me put him straight: the only thing that Helen Clark will enjoy after the next election is being remembered as a small footnote in New Zealand’s history. No chapter will be written about Helen Clark. She does not deserve a chapter in New Zealand’s history because all that Helen Clark and her Government are interested in is inch-by-inch day-by-day political management. They have no political vision no vision for New Zealand and no economic foresight as to where this country is going. 
We looked at the Order Paper to see what sort of visionary legislation was being proposed by this Government. George Hawkins’ Police Amendment Bill (No 2) has been sitting on the Order Paper since debate on the second reading was interrupted on 27 November 2001. What has George Hawkins been doing for the last 3 years other than have his police officers issue speeding tickets? Actually he has been thinking up ways to fence paddling pools in New Zealand’s backyards. Instead of dealing with issues like gun control burglary and violent crime he has been saying to families: “Let’s fence some paddling pools.” As my colleague John Key rightly said why not just go straight to the chase and have a whole lot of bureaucrats run around New Zealand fencing puddles? We should just fence off all the puddles on the sidewalk and in the middle of the road because that is the next logical step for a small-minded Minister in a small-minded Cabinet that will only ever be a footnote in New Zealand’s history. So small-minded is this Government that it is unable even to organise Dianne Yates’ bill to restrict docking of dogs’ tails. That bill has to go under the line on the members’ bill order form because the Government is not capable of getting agreement on dog-tail docking. Instead it is concerned with fencing paddling pools. 
The Government’s current strategy is to do nothing have no vision keep its head down and micromanage every issue day by day. Ministers in this Government roll over at the first sign of controversy. Phil Goff was vowing to change the law to allow compensation payments made to inmates to go to their victims but that was not before Tony Ryall had raised the issue in Parliament. However immediately upon Tony Ryall raising the issue in Parliament all of a sudden Phil Goff the great justice visionary went into micromanagement political control. 
What will the Labour Party look like after the next election? For a start its members—what is left of them—will be sitting on this side of the House. Helen Clark will be a footnote. Mahara Okeroa will be gone. That seat will be won by Tariana Turia’s party. Dover Samuels will be gone. His seat will be won by Tariana Turia’s party at the next election. David Parker will be gone. He will be absolutely wiped off the face of the earth. Not only that; Jill Pettis is staring down the barrel of defeat in the Whanganui electorate. That is the word on the street and everybody in Wanganui knows that that seat will be gone. All those members will end up as footnotes under the footnote that is Helen Clark’s legacy. What the Government will do to try to save the day is begin the process of jacking up collective-bargaining agreements with its mates in the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) so that $500 goes to every member of the PPTA. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 In a caring and sharing way I want to assist Simon Power. He has been receiving overt counselling and mentoring from Murray McCully. Mr McCully has been spending a lot of time with Mr Power since he became the senior Opposition whip. I think Mr McCully is trying to instil a bit of mongrel in Mr Power. I hear that Mr McCully is National’s strategist but I have yet to see any evidence of that strategy working. Mr Power’s strategy should be to keep well away from Mr McCully. He is likely to suffer from whiplash with him in the front and poor Mr Tisch at the back—whip No. 1 in the front and whip No. 2 at the back—from the semaphore signals and signs that will be going on. Mr Brash with this new strategy has got the whips sitting apart for the first time in the history of this Parliament. I guess he has a strategy there somewhere but we are yet to see it. 
I also say to Mr Power that the road to hell is littered with the bones of young men in a hurry. In direct contrast Mr McCully is an old man who pines for the Muldoon years of dark plotting threats and revenge. After all he is the Rasputin of the National caucus. 
First of all Mr Power is not the only one in the National caucus who is confused. I shall help him with Standing Order 43 as to when the House sits. Mr Brash has been in the Chamber for only 2 hours and 20 minutes over a 2-week period. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Simon Power 
: No I will not be seated. I am raising a point of order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I am dealing with a matter— 
Simon Power 
: You do not know what my point of order is. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. It is up to the Chair to deal with a matter that is against the Standing Orders. The member will withdraw the reference to the member’s absence. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes most certainly I do withdraw. I just want to help Mr Brash. Standing Order 43 sets out the sittings of the House. It is on page 28 right at the top of the page; he will not have to read much. “Tuesday and Wednesday: 2 pm to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm” and “Thursday: 2 pm to 6 pm.” Other members might like to draw his attention to that Standing Order as there is not much to it. He should just pop in every now and then because he has not been here much. 
Mr Brash had the whole of last week to prepare for the appropriations debate on Tuesday. There was plenty of time for a lie-down in-between because it was an adjournment week. He finished his speech 1½ minutes early; he plopped down exhausted and could not go the whole hog. He should keep taking the iron tablets—he must be low in iron. He reminds me of a Paul Simon song. I was talking to my Mulcher FM on air this morning in Hawera about the Paul Simon song “Slip Sliding Away”. The more Mr Brash is nearer his destination the more he is slip sliding away. 
I also tell members on the other side that their caucus is so absolutely riven with division that it must be terrible working out which of those three factions they must align themselves with. I say to John Key that before he does the numbers before he has those nice shots taken of the family at home he should get rid of those ostentatious ornaments on the mantelpiece. Just one of those ornaments would feed one of my constituents for a year. That is not a good look. The ordinary New Zealander could not relate to those ornaments so the member should get rid of them. They kind of destroy the “down home on the farm boy” look. 
The economy in my electorate in the Manawatu-Wanganui region and in the Wanganui district in particular is absolutely fantastically successful. 
Darren Hughes 
: Booming! 
JILL PETTIS 
: It is booming as my colleague said. It is so fantastic that we had a full page in the  
Independent 
 a good story in the  
Listener 
 and a half-page story in the  
New Zealand News UK 
 that my daughter sent me. She was very proud to see her home city featured in it. The  
New Zealand News 
UK 
 states: “In this context the robustness breadth and integrated nature of economic activity in Wanganui are assets that bode well for the future.” This Government is working towards all of New Zealand’s future. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 We have read a lot in the papers of late about people being programmed and I have just heard Jill Pettis trying to re-programme the Leader of the Opposition. I have been thinking about the programming of people and I have been thinking about us as lawmakers and whether we try to programme people. The answer has to be categorically: “Yes we do.” Let us take one simple example—a traffic light. Why do we stop at a red traffic light? The answer is that we are programmed to stop when the light turns red. I know that there is no greater power in the colour red than there is in the colour green. The light in itself has no power to stop a car. So we all operate in the knowledge that we have or in the light of how we have been programmed. 
Our parents taught us when we were very young—or they should have done—not to touch hot things. Some of us did and we got burnt. However we were still programmed. Our parents instilled us with values and we learnt the consequences of taking wrong actions. Therefore it is not so much the laws we pass but rather how we have been programmed that stops us. It is not the law that stops us at a red light; rather it is the consequence of what might happen if we do not stop. It may be that we imagine we would get a large fine. Maybe in our mind’s eye we see a horrific crash. So it is the consequences of our actions that prompt us to stay within the law. 
But what happens—and I want to challenge the House with this today—when the programming is wrong? What will happen to a society that re-programmes its people suddenly telling them that things that have proven to be wrongs in the past are now rights? 
Let us go back to my example of the traffic lights. What would happen if I taught my son to drive in a rural area which I actually did and he had never seen a traffic light and I programmed him to believe that when he finally came to a traffic light he goes when he sees it is red? I tell members that I would not like to be going through that set of traffic lights when they are green and he approaches his first red light. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is your son colour blind? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: No he is not colour blind. However if no one else is at the intersection when he goes through the red light in reality would it make any difference? No it would not. But we must always make laws for the good of society as a whole. It is for those reasons that I encourage us to be generational politicians because unless we think of how the laws in this land will affect our children and grandchildren we will miss the plot. 
I have seen too much legislation in the 2 short years I have been here such as the Civil Union Bill and the Prostitution Law Reform Act where the focus is on only one generation and we do not consider the adverse effects these laws will have on our children and our grandchildren. For the benefit of those who use our roads we have traffic lights to tell us when to go and when to stop. Just because my belief system has been programmed to think that going through a red light will not harm anyone it will in no way prevent the reality of the major disaster that must eventually happen. 
Let us as legislators again understand that marriage is to families what traffic lights are to the smooth flowing of traffic on our roads. Instead of watering down marriage we should understand it and place a greater emphasis on it so that young children grow up in our society in the safety and security they deserve. I believe that all children deserve to have a dad who loves them and a mum who loves them—parents who care for them and who will train them in ways that will benefit both them and the society they live in. This will happen by giving marriage the green light and the Civil Union Bill the red light when we debate that legislation in this House. 
I really want to stand here today and say that yes we do programme people and we need to be aware of that as we pass legislation in this House because there will be a consequence to every law we pass. Today we have heard in the debate the ridiculous example of swimming-pool fencing around paddling pools. We do not want to pass ridiculous legislation; we want to pass legislation that makes sense. We hear the debate about the left side of the House and the right side of the House. Well United Future is down this end of the House right in the centre and we really want to try always to bring a sensible viewpoint to all of these things. 
We hear National saying that the light is red and we hear Labour saying that the light is green. The debate goes backwards and forwards which is great and encouraging. But let us get one thing right: marriage in this nation has to be talked about focused on and given a green light because it is the backbone of our nation. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to talk about leadership and about the concepts of leadership. There have been some great leaders in this Parliament throughout its history. Leadership is about energising the troops. In this country leadership is about being a patriot—about standing up for one’s country and being proud of one’s country. 
However we have a person over on the other side of the House a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel of New Zealand politics—they seek him here they seek him there they seek him all over—Don Brash who wants to be a Prime Minister and a leader of this country yet who goes overseas to Australia to talk about the economy but will not talk about it in New Zealand. Heck no; he will not talk about the economy here! I think he had quite a good tactic. He would not talk about the economy or front up to the economic debate in this country because the growth figures the unemployment figures and the economy are all doing well. He knew that if he shifted the debate on to the economy in this country he would lose. 
So what did he do? He picked the scab off the race issue and went for law and order. That is what he did domestically in this country. Then he went across the ditch to Australia. What did he do over there? Suddenly he was the fount of all knowledge about the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society. What did he say to our Australian cousins? They are our best mates whether or not we like them. On the footy field they are our biggest competitors; they are also our biggest trading partners. What did he do? He put the boot into New Zealand when talking to foreign investors in Australia. That is what his contribution to the economic debate has been about. 
There is a wonderful Australian expression which I know from having lived in Australia for a while. Do members know what it is? It is “gone troppo”. The Leader of the Opposition has gone troppo. He has gone completely troppo. That is what Australians and New Zealanders think of his contribution. It shows he has gone troppo. 
What do we have today in the general debate? Well we have the walking dead in Lynda Scott and Roger Sowry. They are out to grass; they have had a gutsful; they are gone. We have Georgina te Heuheu. The boot has been put into her by the National Party and I am sure there are a few people in this building who would testify to that. She has been treated poorly. 
I want Don Brash to front up to the debate. Look at yesterday—at the people over there who were cowering behind their desks. He was crippled. Every commentator in this country every editorial knows that when he steps into this place he is a beaten man. The best those members opposite can do is to stand up as Tony Ryall did and take limp points of order to try to defend a leader who is not up to it. They made a blue; they should have kept Bill English. 
Even the deputy leader of the National Party will not front for the debate. For 2 days he has not fronted. Will he defend his leader? I do not know why he has not fronted for the debate. Maybe there was a special on at Burger King. Maybe there was a pie-eating contest somewhere that he could win—I do not know. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Many members have talked about a member’s absence. It is not on. The member will withdraw the reference to a member’s absence. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did take some advice from the Clerk. I am advised but I am in your hands to be corrected that referring to a member who has not fronted for a debate is slightly different from referring to the absence of a member from the Chamber. But I withdraw and accede to your wishes. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member made reference to a time and that is what was wrong. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. So what we have here is the Scarlet Pimpernel of New Zealand politics. The only person on that side of the House who looked happy yesterday when Don Brash was being mauled—when he was being roasted and when his feet were being put right on the hot coals—the one guy who looked as though it was the happiest day of his life was “Johnnie” Key. 
Simon Power looked aghast because the touch of death is upon him. Don Brash has nominated him as the next leader of the National Party and that is the kiss of death. His throat has been cut he is on the hook and it is over; the carcass is up there waiting to go to the works. But “Johnnie” Key is on that runway ready to taxi out ready to spread his wings. As I said some weeks ago he has not made an enemy in the National caucus. He just sits there quietly ready to go—but there is poor old Simon Power. He once thought he would be next off the blocks. The only block he is on now is the chopping-block. He knows that John Key is going to leapfrog him so he is history. 
Then we have Nick Smith the great defender of the faith. He is the man who has a conviction. He is the man the impact player of the National Party who today in this Parliament and in this general debate has been told to front up and give it a bit of guts. I say that Don Brash should show some grit get into this debate defend his own team and show some leadership. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a first time. 
 E tikaakeanoi roto i te tunei ki te mihi akeanoi a koutou o Ngati Awa motoratou kaha i te tae kaha akeanoiteneiwa e whakatu hoki akeano te ahuanei o te kaupapa. 
I send my best wishes to the people of Ngati Awa for the effort they have put into the bill and for the sterling effort they have made in getting here today to present this bill to the House. At the appropriate time I will move that the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report by 1 December 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill establishes a new governance entity for the iwi of Ngati Awa for the purposes of receiving and administering the Ngati Awa claims settlement assets and other redress for the benefit of iwi members. The legislation will give effect to agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa concerning the reconstitution of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. Importantly it will also be responsible for representing Ngati Awa’s interests in the future. 
I am privileged to have been asked by Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to sponsor this bill. It is cause for celebration that they have reached this important milestone. I wish to congratulate Dr Hirini Mead chief negotiator and the negotiating team on their leadership—all those people who were involved. I would like to mention the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who along with her team has tried very hard in working towards this point. The efforts of Te Runanga should also be acknowledged in developing the new governance entity that will take Ngati Awa into the future. Whilst Ngati Awa have asked me to sponsor this bill I must acknowledge the efforts and time that Mita Ririnui has put into settling this claim both as local MP for Waiariki and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Again along with Margaret Wilson it has been a great effort. 
On 27 March 2003 Ngati Awa signed a deed of settlement with the Crown to settle its historical treaty claims. As I have mentioned this bill is closely linked to the settlement. It is crucial that it proceed through the House in a coordinated manner with the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which implements the agreements that have been reached. This will ensure that the new entity will be established to receive the settlement redress upon enactment of the settlement legislation. I understand that a 3-month report-back time will be sought for the settlement bill. Thus in order for these bills to remain coordinated I am also seeking a 3-month report-back date. 
The proverb of te Runanga is: “He manu houahau he pikarere.”—“I am a new bird that has just taken its first flight.” This proverb seems very apt when we consider that this bill marks a new era both for te Runanga and for Ngati Awa. This entity has been developed in close consultation with Ngati Awa members. Te Runanga are to be commended for this. I believe that successful governance arrangements and robust processes need to take into account the cultural requirements of the people it represents. This has certainly been the case in this instance. 
Te Runanga is currently a Maori Trust Board established by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988 and is subject to the provisions of the Maori Trust Boards Act of 1955. The Crown considers that post-settlement governance entities should be directly accountable to their beneficiaries and for that I applaud it. Therefore while the new governance entity will still be called Te Runanga o Ngati Awa it will manage assets on behalf of all descendants of Ngati Awa hapu nga uri o ngahapu o Ngati Awa. As the present Te Runanga is set up under legislation Ngati Awa representatives consider it vital that its new governance entity also be established by statute and be known as Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. This has been provided for under this bill. The new entity will be representative of its members have transparent decision-making and dispute resolution procedures and will be fully accountable to its members. As such it is consistent with the Crown’s principles of post-settlement governance entities. It will be established as a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under the provisions of this bill and the charter that is also provided for in the bill. 
In operational terms the key provisions of the new legislation are those provisions that establish the new governance entity and specify its functions rights and powers and those that relate to the charter of the new entity. The bill requires that the charter must require Te Runanga to hold its assets on trust for the benefit of the current and future members of Ngati Awa specify the duties and obligations of Te Runanga in administering the assets specify the manner in which the representatives of Te Runanga are elected and require Te Runanga to maintain a register of members. The charter has been approved by members of Ngati Awa through a postal ballot and adopted by the current runanga. 
The development of the governance entity under this private bill has been subject to lengthy and rigorous discussion both internally with iwi members and with the Crown. This ongoing consultation culminated in the Ngati Awa negotiators presenting the proposed governance entity to the iwi members for final approval in January 2004. This was accepted by them and consequently this bill is before the House to give effect to their aspirations. 
In summary this bill will establish Te Runanga o Ngati Awa—Te Runanga will remain the same body as established by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988 but will cease to be a Maori Trust Board; specify that Te Runanga will represent Ngati Awa and hold its assets in accordance with the charter; make Te Runanga a body corporate and give it full rights and powers to carry out its functions; and provide for what the charter must and may contain and for its amendment and availability. 
I wish to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of Ngati Awa in advancing their claims and negotiations to these final stages. Since its establishment in 1988 Te Runanga has facilitated the continued negotiation by Ngati Awa in its treaty claims. They have been tireless in their efforts and this legislation now before the House signals that the final stage of that long long journey is near. I wish Te Runanga every success in providing a new opportunity in a new era for all their people. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
Tenatatou katoa. Tenakoutoutokuwhanaukua tae mai. He mihi aroha mai i te whare o te Heuheu iteneirawhakahirahira. No reira tenatatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to us all and to my family who have arrived. Loving regards from the house of te Heuheu on this wonderful day. So greetings to you all 
. ] 
I wish to add my greetings to Ngati Awa and my congratulations to them on reaching this point in a long saga of seeking restitution from the Crown for the confiscations and other acts that were done to their people in previous times. I want to say how proud I am to be here still in the Parliament to witness this day which basically starts a process to enable Ngati Awa to put behind them although never to forget those things that have happened to their families whanau and iwi and to look forward to a future that they will determine in accordance with their own preferences. My humble greetings to them and to us. 
As the Minister has said the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill puts into place the entity by which Ngati Awa will receive and manage the assets that will come to them upon the passing of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which has been tabled in Parliament but is yet to have its first reading. I have no notice of when that might be but I am hopeful that it will be in the near future and I am hopeful that the Minister will use his good administrations to ensure that essentially these two bills might be progressed as one. 
I have spoken to the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee today Nanaia Mahuta and as deputy chair I would be very supportive of the select committee process being managed in a timely way so that the saga that has preceded this bill might quickly be brought to its conclusion and that the passage into law of the settlement of Ngati Awa might also proceed in a timely fashion. 
As the Minister has basically set out the provisions of this bill and particularly of the new runanga that will be created I want to make some comments about the process. I am pleased we are here today for the first reading because with regard to the Ngati Awa negotiations and settlement process I do not think either the previous Government or this Government can feel at all happy with the length of time it has taken to get to this point. Ngati Awa started negotiating their claims as far back as 14 years ago I think and no doubt have some very potent things to tell us about the way the Crown negotiates with claimants as to whether those negotiations are always in good faith between parties which after all is the only way that these settlements will be concluded. 
As I say their claims process and settlement process would probably make reading for those of us who say—and all New Zealanders say this—that we would like these historic claims put behind us. It probably behoves us all to come to grips with what this tribe has had to go through to get to this point today. Of course the negotiations started under Sir Douglas Graham when National was in Government. They were not quite completed by the time we went out of Government and the deed of settlement was finally signed off in the term of the current Government. As if that had not taken long enough Ngati Awa had to face the hardship of starting to engage with the Crown on the entity that they might have to manage their assets. 
I understand that when the Labour Government first came to power notwithstanding the fact that the previous NgaiTahu and Tainui settlements had resulted in the setting up of special legislation to establish their governance entities this Government seemed to me to be reluctant to allow that course of action to follow with subsequent settlements. I understand that Ngati Awa has for the best part of the last 2 years had to deal with officials and Ministers of the Crown to get this special legislation here today. As I say I think it is a bit of an indictment on this House that having acknowledged wrongdoing on the part of the Crown vis-à-vis the iwi the process is further dragged out by discussions over whether Ngati Awa should have their governance entity in the form of legislation already available—such as a charitable trust—or whether they would be entitled to have an entity of their own choosing. 
It is a proud moment to be here today but it is also with some regret that I voice the fact that it has taken so long for this to occur. When the Minister congratulates Ngati Awa they certainly deserve to be congratulated. The untiring patience of iwi—in this case Ngati Awa—to keep plodding along and pursuing these things when there has long been an acknowledgment that the Crown has done them wrong in the past I think is an example to people other than those of us in this House. 
I heard the Minister congratulating Mita Ririnui as the electorate MP. Whether those congratulations are due I am not sure but no doubt it is proper for him to say that. But what I would like to think and I have raised this issue with the member several times now is that Mita Ririnui is using his office to bring to bear positively on this whole governance structure issue—first of all with the mandating and then once the settlements are about to pass that he might apply his thinking to making this process a lot easier than it has proven to be in this case and something that will stand us in good stead into the future because there are still a number of settlements to go. If he would do that then maybe we will have learnt something and maybe we will pay proper tribute to Ngati Awa by making sure that no other iwi has to go through the drawn-out saga that they have had to so as to conclude their settlement and have their preferences embodied in the bill that sits before us today. I would like to think that the honourable Mita Ririnui is using his power and his authority such as it is to see whether we in this place can come up with a format that is a lot more respectful of iwi Maori and that achieves the outcomes we all desire in a much more timely fashion. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
:  
A te meatuatahimaku me mihi atu ki a tatou e huihui mai i roto itenei o tatou Whare iteneiahiahi. Greetings to us all who have gathered to meet and speak in this House today. 
A ki a koutou Ngati Awa tena koutou kua tae mai nei ki te whakarongoingakorero e whakawhitiwhitianaiteneira. To Ngati Awa greetings to those who have arrived to listen to the toing and froing of the debate and the speech-making in the House today. 
Let me begin by relating the key elements from the bill. The settlement represents the result of extended negotiations conducted in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation and compromise. It is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Awa. It is not possible to compensate Ngati Awa fully for all loss and prejudice suffered. The foregoing of compensation by Ngati Awa is recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of New Zealand. The decision of Ngati Awa in relation to the settlement is one that Ngati Awa take for themselves alone. It does not purport to affect the position of other tribes. 
Let me go back into a bit of history at this point. Modern history probably begins with the year 1479 BC and treats as epic that time in the story of our race which we may call the era of territorial imperialism. For 34 centuries all political ambition whether of individuals or races has aimed at geographical extension and the subjugation of neighbouring tribes and peoples. There have been other theories in men’s minds—dim adaptations of new concepts of human society—ideas of nationalism of republicanism and of self-determination. 
But all have had as their basis the occupation of land. The different social organisms have been separated one from another by more or less clearly marked geographical frontiers. The Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill originated from the era of territorial imperialism and since then has had dim adaptations again. 
Today it seems that we stand on the verge of a whole new order in which the division of mankind is no longer. Then again I am reminded that New Zealand First is still concerned about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as up to this date no one has made them clear. I say to Ngati Awa that their proud heritage has brought them all to this point in time and the spirit of their ancestors abound here today. Patience has been Ngati Awa’s virtue supported by endurance. Their whakapapa has been the driving force and to this end hopefully their concerns and the concerns of their whanau hapu and iwi will finally be settled. 
As a recipient of land handed down from generation to generation I understand only too well that feeling of being a caretaker. But let me remind us all that it is not only the beginning—when our placenta and pito are buried—that symbolically ties us to our turangawaewae but the forward-moving motion of what Ngati Awa is going to generate for their up-and-coming generations. That is what will matter. The general public will scrutinise and on occasion be critical but Ngati Awa must go forth and do the best they can and be accountable not only to their past but to their present and future as their heritage demands that of them. Let not the weevils of discontent erode their ability to achieve and be an example of the highest order for their whanau hapu and iwi. The name of Awanui a Rangi expects nothing less. I remember a saying that I was quite fond of when I was lecturing at the Waikato Institute of Technology. It was given by one of the Rangitira of Ngati Awa Hirini Moko Mead: he toiwhakairo he mana tangata; where there is artistic excellence there is human dignity. I am sure that with the leadership Ngati Awa has that will come to fruition. 
No reira e hoa ma tena koutou kua tae mai neiiteneiahiahi ki te whakarongoingakorerokuaputaiteneira. Ahakoakaoreano kia whakahokia mai te whenua katoa kei a koutou tenainaianei. Greetings to Ngati Awa who have come together gathered and listened to this debate this day. New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee and hopefully with the direction guidance and ideas that will be given and shared there the bill will come to its completion. E hari e koaanangakaui a matou o Aotearoa Tuatahi. Within our hearts New Zealand First is happy that this bill is before the House this day. 
Engarikaua e wareware ki o koutou mahi ki o koutou tamariki mokopuna o Ngati Awa. I say to Ngati Awa not to forget the responsibilities they have for their children and for the mokopuna of Ngati Awa. 
When I look ahead and hear about the other claims now on the waiting list I stand in humility because there is this one that is finally going to be settled. Let not the weevils of discontent erode the ability of Ngati Awa to achieve and to be an example of the highest order for their whanau hapu and iwi. The name of Awanui a Rangi expects that to happen. In conjunction with that name I quote that whakatauaki again—that proverbial saying: he toiwhakairo he mana tangata; where there is artistic excellence there is human dignity. 
No reira kuamutuneiokuneikorero. I have come to the end of my speech today. Ki a koutou ki a koe e te Minita tena koe e awhi mai nei koe o matou whanaunga o Ngati Awa. 
[ 
And to you the Minister greetings to you for embracing our relatives of Ngati Awa. 
] 
Tena koutou Ngati Awa e noho mai nairungana. E hari e koaana te ngakaukuawhiwhi koutou etahi o nga taonga ingaro. Tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
To Ngati Awa greetings and for the gifts that have been returned to them: tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
Tena koutou nga mihi nui ki ngahapu katoa me ngawhanau hoki o Ngati Awa. I give greetings to all of the people of Ngati Awa. 
Let me begin by making it clear that the Greens support this bill because we support Ngati Awa in their attempts to get redress for injustices perpetrated against them historically by the Crown and others. It is clear that Ngati Awa have worked extremely hard to get to this point in the settlement process and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has already made mention of that and spoken of it in some detail. 
I understand that the formal process began in 1988. There were Waitangi Tribunal hearings in 1994 and negotiations were entered into in 1996. Eight years later their legislation is finally coming to this Parliament. It is coming in two bills: this governance bill which is before us today and the settlement bill which will have its first reading next week. As the Hon Parekura Horomia has said this bill establishes a governance structure for the management of Ngati Awa settlement assets. This is a significant issue and there has been a lot of debate about the proper form of post-settlement governance structures. 
I remember the hui in Taupo—I think it was last year—where there was quite extensive debate about what form post-settlement governance structures should take and that will be the subject of ongoing debate but I understand that Ngati Awa did not want themselves to have to develop a new bill to establish a governance structure. My understanding is that they wanted to use the structure that had already been established in legislation in the 1988 Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act and there are issues there. The runanga is currently a Maori trust board under the Maori trust board legislation. That means it is accountable to the Minister of Maori Affairs and that is something that cannot continue. 
The way that Maori trust board legislation is written has been a source of some mystery to me for some time. In particular I have always found it somewhat patronising that a Maori trust board needs to have ministerial sign-off before it is accepted as a Maori trust board. So it is good to see that this will mean that the runanga will not be accountable to the Minister of Maori Affairs and will not need the Minister’s sign-off but it will be accountable to ngahapu me ngawhanau of Ngati Awa. That is a good thing because clearly that old configuration was not appropriate. But it seems that having a separate bill in the way this bill is separate could have been avoided by having a little bit more flexibility in the way that the Office of Treaty Settlements approached the issue. We think there could have been an amendment to the Maori Trust Boards Act where those accountabilities could have been rectified on a broader front which would have made some sense. But it seems that the Office of Treaty Settlements has bullied Ngati Awa into an unnecessary legislative process where a separate bill is going through to formalise the governance structure at the same time as the settlement bill is going ahead. 
It is interesting that the Office of Treaty Settlements was happy to negotiate with the established runanga which had received assets from the Crown in the past but refused to accept them as a governance entity for the settlement and I sometimes wonder at the pressures and imperatives on the Office of Treaty Settlements. I understand that the Office of Treaty Settlements wanted Ngati Awa to establish a private trust which would have meant that the assets would not be collectively owned in law but that there would have been individual entitlement and clearly that approach would have been a cause of major problems. Ngati Awa quite correctly did not want to go down that path because they wanted their assets to be collectively owned and that I understand would be correct according to tikanga. 
This highlights the difficulty the Crown has in dealing with concepts of collective ownership and it is the same difficulty we have seen in its approach to the seabed and foreshore legislation where concepts of ownership governed by tikanga rather than by fee simple and individual title is something the Crown finds very difficult to grapple with despite the ability of other jurisdictions to deal with those issues. Notably Canada has been able to recognise those customary collective ownerships but in New Zealand it is something the Crown has great difficulty dealing with. So we are concerned that instead of working with Ngati Awa to look at how to develop the best governance structures that are appropriate for the iwi the Office of Treaty Settlements has tried to fit a round peg into a square hole. We think this is a classic case of the Office of Treaty Settlements attempting—and fortunately failing—to impose its own views on iwi forcing them to squeeze into models dictated by the Crown and we believe failing to operate with the best interests of the iwi in mind. 
What is of particular concern is that once again the costs of the delay and the obstructionist positioning by the Office of Treaty Settlements on behalf of the Crown are being borne primarily by the iwi. That is the standard practice and it is most unfortunate that this is the case because the iwi has incurred enormous time and fiscal costs that we believe would have been absolutely unnecessary if the Office of Treaty Settlements had been prepared to work with iwi instead of against them and had been prepared to show some flexibility and fluidity in the way it approached those issues. 
So in supporting the progress of this bill—and we do support it and want to see this come to a speedy resolution—the Green Party thinks it is also an absolute disgrace that the Government is taking up time on a members’ day for this bill when we believe it should have proceeded alongside the settlement bill as part of the Government legislative programme. We believe that the two bills could have been one bill which could have gone through the process and then if necessary it could have been separated at the third reading and there are many many examples in this House where that process happens. We think that it is a slight to Ngati Awa that this is the case and that their governance entity legislation which was required of them by the Office of Treaty Settlements was not considered important enough by this Government to take up a slot on the Government’s timetable and we wonder whether this is the quid pro quo for Ngati Awa pursuing the best governance structure for Ngati Awa. We think the Government should be ashamed of its bullying tactics in this regard. We do not believe that it had to be dealt with in that way and we believe that Ngati Awa should be congratulated on refusing to accept the Crown’s one-size-fits-all approach and demanding that the best results for their own people should be what determines their own governance structure. We support them in their expression of their rangatiratanga and we congratulate them on working so persistently and so hard to bring this matter before the House. We look forward to the House passing this legislation forthwith. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf the ACT party to address the first reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I do not know what the ACT party’s position will be on this bill. At this stage I can give a few indications of the sorts of things that we would hope a select committee report on this bill might address but I have to say that the bill seems to me to exhibit that kind of patronising contempt that George Bush has called “the bigotry of low expectations”. This bill looks like legislation in the same way that plastic pistols look like real ones. But when one looks at the words one sees that it is legislation in form only. I believe that when article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi said that Maori were to get the same rights and privileges as British subjects the people who entered into the treaty assumed that Maori would not be patronised with pale imitations of real law and real legislation. 
As a lawyer when I look at this bill and try to work out what it is doing I cannot tell what that is even with the explanation. The definitions that usually start a bill are circular. For instance clause 3(1) provides that: “charter—(a) means the charter of Te Runanga; and (b) includes any amendments made to the charter”. The only definition of charter is that it is something that has been adopted by postal ballot of the adult members between 26 January and 1 March. It says what the charter must have but it does not say whether it always has to have those characteristics. It is essentially embodying a charter or blessing a charter in legislation but it might be amended the day after members pass this so that all those protections mean nothing. 
 Clause 3(1) states: “customary rights—(a) means rights according to tikanga Maori … ”. That is a circular definition—what else could they be? Further in the definitions listed the clause states that the people who are to benefit from this bill are those: “(A) descended from a Ngati Awa tipuna: (B) a member of a hapu group family or whanau referred to in paragraph (b);” and I see that paragraph (b) then cross refers to the previous paragraph. 
The quality of drafting in this bill is utterly insulting. I assume it is deliberate that the Minister is not unaware of it and that it is intended as some kind of smokescreen but there is no indication to the House as to why. This House has a whole range of mechanisms that draw on the 150 years of accumulated experiences of New Zealanders and better than that on the accumulated experiences of people struggling with the age-old problems that face all human institutions all around the world. When we draw on those experiences we know some of the things that every human institution faces. We know what some of the more successful solutions are—and they can only be probabilities—and we know some of the things that do not work. 
This bill says absolutely nothing about how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with and nothing about how nepotism is to be dealt with. It says nothing about the kinds of accounts and what scrutiny they will get or what kind of independent audit there will be. This bill says nothing about the utterly essential element of every power structure—and a runanga is a structure for organising and coordinating collective assets—succession. All those matters are dealt with in any responsible legislation that sees some people entrusted with the custody of assets on behalf of others. 
This bill should define what good stewardship is and we know that is what the Crown set out to insist on. We know that when the hopeless Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations entered into office 5 years ago she too was determined to draw on the good work that Te Ohu Kai Moana had done on appropriate governance models. That office had drawn mandate requirements because it knew the kinds of things that happen when money is “easy come easy go”. It knew that all around the world those kinds of redress sums disappear not necessarily through fraud but because the governance of other people’s money when one has not earned it oneself is one of the hardest things for any body to achieve. 
It is very hard to sustain an organisation. This bill seems to deliberately reject the Companies Act as a model. It seems to reject the Charitable Trusts Act Co-operative Companies Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act models. It seems to reject every possible model that could be drawn on as a guide to the sorts of things that make for robust long-term governance. Instead we have a fake bill. That is typical of this Government’s approach to Maoridom. It sucks and crawls and pretends it is acting in the interests of Maoridom when it is acting only in the interests of a tiny elite who have their hands on the levers of power. That is what happens when no retirement and succession mechanisms are specified. That is what happens when nothing in a bill states when a charter deed or constitution cannot be changed. When people in companies who have their hands on assets have the power to use them for their own purposes or to cement themselves in power they do so because they are human. Maori are not exempt from that. Sir Apirana Ngata and the others who worked all those years ago to try to create modern governance mechanisms for collectively held assets—to get away from the dreadful problems of trying to coordinate collective asset holdings when tribal entities had lost their power—did not ask for some Clayton’s imitation of a governance model. 
This desperate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has entered into a deal because she has given up going for quality and will now do a deal with a governance entity that Parliament has absolutely no way of assessing. Nothing in this bill tells us what will happen if beneficiaries decide that a small clique has power and is running away with it. Nothing in this bill tells us what duties and obligations Te Runanga o Ngati Awa has in administering its assets. But the bill pretends to deal with that. Clause 8 states what the charter must have. It has a nice little list of desiderata but it does not state what model or kind they are nor how one can change them. They have been taken out of the purview of the Maori Trustee presumably because of historical hostility to the interference—as some would see it—of the Maori Trustee which itself was patronising. But governance is for others; stewardship is for others. Since time immemorial in all cultures and all societies stewards have run away with assets unless someone has kept an eye on them. This bill does not tell us who will keep an eye on those stewards. It does not even tell us how we can identify the stewards who they are and what they will be doing. 
The bill states for example that Te Runanga o Ngati Awa must hold assets on trust for the benefit of members. Does that mean all the members? Exclusively the members? Just some of the members? It does not say. It states that it must specify the manner in which the representatives are to be elected. Is that for all time? I ask the Minister what the purpose of this bill is. When the Minister of Maori Affairs sponsors a bill like this one would assume he could answer those questions and that the select committee will give us a report that will explain clearly why this one-off imitation legislation has come before the House to implement a settlement that should require a proper governance entity. 
One day this House will debate yet another round of settlements and Ngati Awa will argue that the Government ought to pay them again because they lost that money and it was utterly predictable that they lost it because the Crown allowed it to go to an entity that had no proper constraints. The next generation will argue that the Crown has set up a situation whereby it must know in all probability that the governance of the entity does not fall into any pattern that has been tried and tested by experience. The governance of this entity will fall into the hands of a self-interested group and will be predictably—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. The Hon Parekura Horomia said: “Like companies”. Companies fail and that is why we refine company law year after year. Year after year governance is refined and this House considers amendments so we can draw on the lessons of experience. Now the Ngati Awa are being thrown into limbo. Ngati Awa will be free to relearn all those lessons. But the money will be gone. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I extend a welcome and greetings to the people of Ngati Awa and congratulate them on their achievement in this bill and the bill that will accompany it. In particular I thank them for their graciousness in accepting a settlement from the Crown that inadequately compensates them for their losses. How can the Crown compensate for the mana of those who have already passed on? How can the Crown compensate in any adequate fashion for the loss of land that Ngati Awa suffered? United Future is delighted to support this bill and delighted that what is the third-biggest settlement I understand after those of NgaiTahu and Tainui has now come to fruition. This bill represents further substantial progress in our resolving of all historical treaty claims. 
The historical treaty grievance process is weighted against Maori. Indeed some could say it is unfair and unjust. But in the settlements that have been enacted Maori have accepted with graciousness the reality that it is impossible for the Crown to fully compensate for the losses they have suffered. I pay tribute to Maori in general for their approach in doing that their willingness to reach a resolution in terms of grievances and their willingness to accept an apology and compensation that is substantially less than they deserve. 
Normally it is the wrongdoers who come to the person who has been wronged to ask what they need to do to put things right. They ask what they can do in terms of full recompense for the losses suffered and what they can do to provide additional compensation for the hurt feelings and lost mana suffered through the wrongs they have done. 
 The Crown does not act like that. The Crown puts very tight restrictions in terms of what it is prepared to offer and offers a “take it or leave it” basis. The Crown admits it has done wrong but in terms of compensation and redress it dictates the terms upon which it will put it right. Those terms fall into a number of particular categories including who the Crown will negotiate with and in particular its requirements that the group it negotiates with will be iwi or large natural groupings when very often the wrongs that have been done have been wrongs against hapu whanau in some cases and individuals. 
The Crown first dictates and says that it will not necessarily compensate those people who have actually been wronged. Instead it wants to deal with large natural groupings. That is the first restriction. 
The second is with regard to the maximum sum the Crown will be prepared to pay. It says that although it recognises the substantial degree of losses and the substantial compensation that would be required to put that right it will pay only a small percentage of that. The Crown sets a finite limit and says that is the bounds within which it will negotiate and if that is not accepted then it will not be able to negotiate. 
Third the Crown dictates which confiscated property is to be returned. In some cases the Crown has alienated the property and put it in private hands and it is difficult to give it back to the iwi and hapu it was confiscated from. Nevertheless the Crown then dictates the terms and says: “Well this is the property on offer. If you want compensation this is all we have available for you to take and you must accept that.” 
The fourth area which this bill particularly addresses is the governance entity. In the past the Crown has tended to say it will dictate the form of governance entity to manage the settlement proceeds. It says: “These are the models which are Western-constructed models in the British tradition that you are to use and that is what is required of you.” I am delighted that this bill is one of the few examples where the Crown has been prepared to allow Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to dictate the sort of governance entity that they want in order to manage their own assets. The Government has allowed this bill as a one-off in order to reflect what Ngati Awa are wanting to achieve. 
Certainly there are some bottom lines I think for the sake of Maori generally for the sake of Ngati Awa and their descendants and for the sake of the country as a whole that need to be met. This includes provisions for democratically elected representatives to manage the funds so that the people do indeed have a say as to how that should be done and the need for some accountability with regard to the settlement proceeds so that they cannot be frittered away or taken away without the people’s knowledge and consent. 
That accountability is necessary and in the area of accountability this bill is particularly distinctive in so far as the current situation with Te Runanga o Ngati Awa and the situation with some of the other settlements is concerned. In the past those entities were required to be Maori trust boards under the Maori Trust Boards Act of 1955 and were thereby accountable to the Minister of Maori Affairs and by that to the Crown. So the accountability of the iwi was an accountability to the State. I think that is wrong and I am very pleased to see that in this bill accountability is to the people of Ngati Awa instead. 
In our Western society and in our inherited British systems there are structures such as companies trusts and incorporated societies that are accountable to their own members—not to the Crown—with regard to the assets owned by those members. It is not the Crown’s money once the compensation has been paid and it is very appropriate that the Crown does not then hold the strings and say: “Well you be accountable to the Crown and if you are not managing it correctly then the Crown will step in and make decisions.” 
Once the Crown has paid the compensation and returned the assets to Ngati Awa it is entirely appropriate that Ngati Awa should then be in control of those assets. If the people of Ngati Awa are not happy with the way things are happening then they are the ones to whom the accountability is directed and can take control take up the issue and make changes themselves. I am aware that the runanga has been reconstituted rather than a new body being formed and I think it is good that that continuity has been able to be built into the legislation so that it will avoid problems that would otherwise have arisen in a legal sense by deconstructing one form of entity namely a Maori trust board and the construction of a new entity as proposed in this bill. 
Clearly these issues have been carefully thought through by Ngati Awa. The huge level of support in terms of the governance entity is a reflection of that and I am delighted there has been such a high level of registration of people and also that there was no opposition to the bill’s provisions from those who had registered. It bodes very well for Ngati Awa that it has been given control over its own destiny as far as these assets are concerned. 
United Future has been pleased to support the Government’s intention to shorten the time for the select committee to deal with this issue so that the bill comes back to the House sooner than it would otherwise. Given the huge level of consent for the bill and the lack of opposition to it it should mean that the select committee is well able to consider the bill and report it back in speedy time so that it can be passed reasonably promptly and certainly before the end of the year. 
As I have said United Future is very supportive of what is happening here. We congratulate Ngati Awa on its achievements and we wish it well in terms of its management of these new assets. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a 5-minute contribution to this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenatatou katoa. Tuatahiteneiahau e mihi kauana ki ngamorehu o Ngati Awa koutou ko ngatini mate e pikaunei e koutou irungai o koutou neipokohiwa e kaweanei e rataui roto itenei Whare tena koutou. Ki a tatau tenatatau katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to us all. I stand here and extend a greeting to the survivors of Ngati Awa in the first instance and then to the many deaths that are upon your shoulders that you bring with you into this House. Greetings and greetings to us all. 
] 
I rise to speak on the first reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. As members are aware this is a member’s bill sponsored by the member for Ikaroa-Rawhiti who is also the Minister of Maori Affairs and I think it is an appropriate measure given that he is going to cut the apron strings with regard to the Maori Trust Boards Act. This bill is sponsored by the member as a transitional step to ensure that Ngati Awa has a governance entity that can receive and administer settlement assets from the Ngati Awa treaty claims settlement. A lot of work has gone into preparing this bill and it is most certainly worth congratulating the people of Ngati Awa—Professor Hirini Mead—and Andrew Hampton at the Office of Treaty Settlements on constructing this bill. 
The establishment of a governance entity for Ngati Awa has a unique and distinct history. My humble recollection of events is that up until about the 1980s there was no central entity to represent the particular interests of Ngati Awa. In previous representations to Parliament and the Board of Maori Affairs they were asked to consider this matter but historically that was to no avail. I have looked at the Ngati Awa website and seen that it shows that upon the advice of Sir James Fletcher to ErueraManuera and Hirini Mead it was recommended that Ngati Awa go ahead and set itself up as a trust board. It did that as a charitable trust incorporated in 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. So basically Ngati Awa had to do that all by itself. That was agreed to and confirmed at a hui-a-iwi on 16 November 1980 at Puawairua Marae in Whakatane. 
It was at that point that work was commenced to advance Ngati Awa’s raupatu case. I guess that people on the Government side of the House with a long enough tooth will recall that in 1983 Ben Couch made the first offer of a settlement which was turned down by Ngati Awa and the iwi has that story to tell. Perhaps the most difficult part of the journey to advance the raupatu case was for Ngati Awa to gain confirmation of its governance entity as a trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act. Other trust boards already in existence received some type of annuity in recognition of prior injustices caused by raupatu or the land confiscations that occurred in 1863. So trust boards emerged such as WhakatoheaMaori Trust Board the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board and in my own area the Tainui Maori Trust Board for the very reason of advancing claims against the Crown for the injustices of raupatu. That was not the case for Ngati Awa. It was some 8 years later in 1988 that Te Runanga o Ngati Awa was established by statute as a Maori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act with a statutory pardon included in recognition of historical grievances committed by the Crown against Ngati Awa dating back to the early 1860s—the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 and the subsequent confiscation of Ngati Awa lands. 
It is important at the first reading of this bill to remind members of the House of the statutory pardon that is in this Bill. It reads: “He panuitenei ki te motu katoa ka tutukianatenei Ture koinei te wa e whakahokiaai ki a ratou te ihi te mana te tapu o nga tangata o Ngati Awa imauhereheretia iwhakawakiai te tau 1865 ki o ratouwhanau hoki ki o ratou iwi tae atu ki a Ngati Awa whanui. Ka wetekinakatoatiangawhiu o te ture i pa ki a ratoui roto ingapakanga whenua o Te Tau 1865.” 
[“ 
It is hereby declared that after the passing of this Part of this Act the character mana and reputation of the persons of Ngati Awa descent who were arrested tried and labelled as rebels in or about 1865 is restored to them and their whanau and to the iwi of Ngati Awa as a whole and a full pardon is hereby granted to them in respect of all matters arising out of the land wars in 1865 
.”] 
The English translation of that is actually in the bill and members will get to see it in the Maori Affairs Committee. It is a carry-over provision and it is an important provision that should not be overlooked by members. 
The members who preceded me have outlined what is in the bill. Of interest to members will be the issues around the question of the charter that Mr Franks raised. The fact that the charter is not in the bill provides greater flexibility for Ngati Awa basically to determine issues for itself. People are quick to talk about breaking the shackles of dependency but then they want to try to legislate and regulate everything within the governance entity legislation. That is simply not on. We accept that there is some way to go. We also accept that there are some issues to discuss at the select committee level. I look forward to hearing from Ngati Awa as to its views on this bill. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 E tuakeano au ki te mihi akeanoi a koutou Hirini ngatupakeke o te wahii a koutou e tae kaha akeanoikoneiituimuai te kaupapa e Joe koutou e Hune koutou katoa tena koutou. 
[ 
I rise once again to acknowledge you all Hirini the elders Joe Hune for the part that you all had a hand in as well as the strong presence shown here at the reading of this bill greetings to you all 
.] 
To the learned elders and the people who have come here today I thank them very much. I thank the previous speakers for the support they have shown for this bill which proposes the establishment of a new governance entity for Ngati Awa. My honourable friend Nanaia Mahuta has certainly summarised the essence of this bill very well. People have said this has taken too long and that Ngati Awa would have done better if they had been there. Well they were not. There are certainly people who want to mirror the progress of Maori through the narrowness of companies that are accountable only to their owners and their directors and that issue is not too dissimilar to that. 
Stephen Franks 
: What about trust? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I want to make sure that the trust that I have in the leaders of Ngati Awa and in the people who have been quite clear on their succession plan and their progress towards it are the reasons why I have sponsored this bill. The days of Maori being patronised and looked down on—dare I mention it at times by this bastion of supposed knowledge—are over. 
This bill is about freeing up people to do what they wish to express themselves and to undertake development for their people—those who are here now in contemporary times and those who are about to come. Most certainly the distrust that is espoused at times by people who are over-endowed with legalistic constraint is something that I always shudder at. It is more important to understand that Maori people know what they want. The people of Ngati Awa have put a lot of effort into this bill and they sure as hang know where they need to go. They do not need to hang on to the apron strings of a Minister of Maori Affairs or of anyone else. I have faith in their courage. I appreciate and recognise that they want to do the best that they can for their people. I remind the member Stephen Franks who is trying to interject that they are no different from his companies which look after themselves. 
I wish to reinforce that the new entity will provide a structure that is accountable to its beneficiaries—to the people. The benefits that have been squared off are the benefits that were tuku-ed to those people not to that member and to everybody else who wants to keep this issue in the quagmire of deficit and deceit. This bill is about Ngati Awa going forward. It has to be about transparent decision-making procedures and a dispute resolution process. There are ups and downs amongst the iwi and at times there are tensions. That is no different to the situation of a whole lot of Pakeha companies which try to take one another over. 
Stephen Franks 
: Exactly! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Let us not make believe that those things only happen in certain people’s cultures. 
It is most certainly more important to understand that the new entity and the settlement it will administer are major milestones for Ngati Awa. I respect and pay real recognition to Ngati Awa for its patience. I am proud to support Ngati Awa through my sponsorship of the bill and I remind that member and other members that they need to watch this space because Ngati Awa is going forward. It is not that the iwi has stopped. However this legislation should help Ngati Awa to determine and define the better way forward for its people. I am confident that Te Runanga o Ngati Awa will continue to prosper under the new structural arrangements. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee present its final report by 1 December 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Health Committee on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. 
 I welcome the return of my bill back to the House after 8 years. I certainly hope that no one says that this bill is being rushed through the House. It has had a very long gestation period. I think it probably nearly died of oxygen deprivation on the way. I know that there have been attempts to clone it as well with the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill which was produced by the previous Government. 
I promised in my maiden speech in 1993 that I would introduce this bill. I did so in 1996 and in 1997 the year that Dolly the sheep was created it was unanimously referred to the Health Committee. I remember that the Speaker at the time the Hon. Doug Kidd was rather amazed when I said that really this was the bill to save men because it would take only eight men with strong sperm counts to maintain the population of New Zealand with reasonable diversity. 
Hon Member 
: What? 
DIANNE YATES 
: Only eight men! Some of the members of the House at that time were unaware of the existence of human reproductive technologies and that not only were in vitro fertilisation—which means “created in a glass dish”—techniques in use but that genetic engineering was possible in humans as it is in corn cabbages cows or sheep. The questions that had been asked in the United Kingdom in 1990 when that country passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act were that if such technologies were available how should they be used by whom and at what costs; and what controls if any needed to be put in place to prevent a modern eugenics movement to protect women from becoming baby factories and children and men—even dead men—from exploitation to be cautious about genetic changes to humans and to put in place checks and balances about who should make decisions and in whose interests? I think that the ministerial advisory committee and ethics committee may be now in this bill as we have revised it a little weak on catering for the interests of children. 
The questions around reproductive technology are huge ethical questions including what it means to be human and they have ongoing and intergenerational consequences. Many of the changes made by the Health Committee to my original bill and there have been many—it has basically been revamped and the bill was based on the British bill—ensure that the legislation fits within New Zealand’s medical and health systems. I personally would have preferred some of the controversial matters in clauses 36 and 37 to be under a tighter regulatory framework rather than the flexibility of an advisory committee to the ministry. Examples of these are the donation of embryos embryo splitting which mainstream churches objected to in submissions gametes derived from deceased persons—and the controversial United Kingdom case of Mrs Blood who used sperm from her deceased husband is a case in point—requirements surrounding informed consent selection of embryos using pre-implantation and genetic analysis and the import and export to and from New Zealand of in vitro - donated cells of embryos which could leave us open to abuse of abortions of women from Third World countries. But the latter may receive more attention at the Committee stage of the bill. 
The bill does require public consultation on these matters but not regulation and regulation would mean a stronger penalty regime. Guidelines I believe can be ignored or overridden even though those who are professionally involved could face deregistration. 
Other aspects and changes to the bill on the keeping of records and the recognition of genetic inheritance or whakapapa are an improvement. The bill is clear that children should know their genetic inheritance and the New Zealand select committee was clear on this although there is some controversy about it internationally. 
While the bill covers consent for the use of human gametes and embryos for research the use of embryonic stem cells is still in a greyish area and will be included in overlapping legislation. Some research is also under the guideline area rather than a regulatory framework and I have some concerns about that. 
Other matters in which the bill has been changed include the use of embryos and gametes for 10 years to enable the users of reproductive technologies to plan families over time using frozen gametes from one operation and I believe that that is an improvement. It also makes clear that sex selection for other than medical reasons is not appropriate and that the possibility is there for regulating around consent. I admit to liking the United Kingdom consent processes as I believe that consent processes for reproductive technologies are important to ensure protection of all parties to ensure independent counselling and to avoid complex court cases later which may be detrimental to the children born from these processes. 
The committee was informed of United Kingdom Canadian and Australian laws. The Canadian legislation I believe spells out the intention of the law more clearly and the Australian Commonwealth legislation is much more specific on what processes are clearly banned. No doubt there will be test cases that may require future changes to this law. I am just wary that we are dealing with human babies and irreversible technologies and I personally while not wanting to prevent the use of the science and the technologies believe that we cannot be too careful. We need to use a precautionary approach especially when we are talking about New Zealand children in vitro fertilised babies and as we have seen 20 years on those who are seeking to find their genetic parents. 
We have had submissions—and I know that other members of the committee will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers—from at least one of those children calling for a voluntary registration of donors to cover this matter and with some retrospectivity. It will be important to constantly review the legislation to ensure it meets our present needs and the future needs of human assisted reproductive technology children. 
I believe this bill should proceed and proceed with some haste at this stage now but consider that some areas could be more specific and that we could have tighter regulatory frameworks. 
I wish to thank all those who have been involved in the preparation of the bill and its revisions and all those who made submissions—the people and the organisations. I particularly want to thank Debbie Angus who assisted with the original draft when I came with barely an idea of what should be done and with the British legislation. I also want to thank Ian Wilmut—I did go to the trouble of going all the way to Edinburgh to meet him and sadly Dolly the cloned sheep who was a grandmother has died—and all those who have been involved. 
I want to thank the clerks of the Health Committee who have been extremely patient through the elections and then with a new select committee; the select committee staff; and the ministry staff and advisers. I want to thank people in my own electorate who have been very helpful particularly the scientists the medical professionals the ethicists and those who have kept me up to date with information and who have done a good deal of the background reading. 
I particularly want to thank the scientists at AgResearch in the Waikato for the tremendous amount of help and advice they gave initially and for a lawyer friend who shall not be named who went through the original bill saying “Well this is all very fine scientific language but would it stand up in court?” and gave very practical legal advice on the original bill. 
So once again I do thank everybody who through this long 8-year period has come through a bill that started off in an embryonic form and has been through many stages. It has not only been born but it has crawled walked and now I think is just about to start intermediate school. But for those who have all been involved in this bill I look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading and hopefully we will have it passed by the end of this year. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This bill has clearly been a long time coming and Dianne Yates has shown a great degree of perseverance and indomitableness over the time from 1996 when she first introduced the bill. Subsequent to it 2 years later came the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill introduced by the Hon. Douglas Graham. I well remember as a practising gynaecologist with a particular interest in infertility reading an article by Professor Robert Janson an in vitro fertilisation specialist. He commented on Aldous Huxley’s  
Brave New World 
 and pointed out that Huxley in his book particularly warned of the dangers of too much central control. One thing we must remember in this rapidly changing world of technology and scientific discovery is that that message is salutary. Clearly this legislation has been subject to large changes through a Supplementary Order Paper. Unlike reproductive technology legislation in many other countries and I think particularly of Britain and Canada the mechanisms in this legislation do provide clear primary legislation to prohibit procedures that are clearly unacceptable but contain opportunities for certain secondary and tertiary legislation through Order in Council so that the legislation does indeed have a degree of flexibility and can be relevant to the future. 
Just recently we heard from Lord Robert Winston who pointed out that in his view the British legislation needed changing already and that in some ways it had become obsolete. One of the great strengths of this legislation is that in many respects it looks to the future. Indeed the legislation does cover issues that are technically complex and highly ethically complex and for that reason it has taken so long to come to fruition. 
However I must say that the select committee worked incredibly well together. I pay tribute to the many extremely thoughtful submissions from researchers Fertility NZ and organisations such as the Law Society. I note that the society concluded that the bifurcated model proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper whereby the supervisory authority is divided between ethics committees and the advisory committee is misconceived and in the society’s view will not adequately serve the needs of regulation compliance. It believes that because of the complexity and importance of the ethical legal and policy issues endemic to that area of medical technology regulation at the highest achievable level of official supervisory oversight is necessary in order to provide appropriate leadership and to control the potential for abuse. 
I am very glad that the committee chose not to follow the views of the Law Society because it has taken a much more appropriate approach to the realities of biology and technological change. However some have asked why have any legislation at all and the ACT party in its minority report suggested that sentiment. We do know that over the last 15 years or so in New Zealand where we have really had no specific legislation in that area things have run reasonably well. But clearly there are areas and issues that in my mind do require clear legislation. 
Already in the schedules we can see contentious issues like prohibiting actions that include to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a cloned embryo. … Artificially form … a hybrid embryo. … Implant into a human being an animal gamete or embryo.” and the list goes on. There is no doubt in my mind that those issues should clearly be scheduled and indeed they are. As was mentioned by Dianne Yates stem cell research and issues relating to it will be introduced at another time through the Human Tissue Act. That will be of huge importance because of its overlapping interest with this legislation. 
Indeed the Supplementary Order Paper does provide for a ministerial advisory committee to provide advice on human assisted reproductive technology and associated research develop guidelines and monitor established procedures. It also provides an information-keeping scheme for the collection retention and access to information about donors and donor offspring based on the model in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. Huge thought has been put into that area and a publication  
Navigating our Future 
 
of some years ago was extremely helpful in bringing out the purposes and principles that underpin this bill. 
I do believe that a little bit of political correctness has been added where not only does the committee recommend that the bill is intended to protect and promote the health safety dignity and rights of all individuals but particularly women and children in the use of those procedures. Men have been intimately involved in those procedures and if one has had a testicular biopsy one would certainly know that. But more so is the deep emotional involvement that all people involved in those areas have and undoubtedly it is hugely important that that is recognised. 
But there is the issue of openness that is promoted in order to allow donor offspring the opportunity to meet their biological parents. Clause 4(e) states “donor offspring should be made aware of their genetic origins and be able to access information about those origins:”. Clearly the legislation is prospective and in future that will be quite possible. However for those in the past again quite properly because of the rules of anonymity it would be inappropriate to put in retrospective legislation to override that. 
However in Australia there is a very successful model of a voluntary register. Consequently I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper today that would introduce the possibility of a voluntary register. It has been well supported by groups throughout New Zealand including donors and donor offspring. I certainly hope that it will have support from the various parties around the House. 
The bill has explicitly outlawed commercial surrogacy and that is a good thing along with commercial dealing in embryos or gametes. The tradition of keeping a donation altruistic is hugely important. Sadly the realities in countries like the United States is that commercial surrogacy in dealing in embryos can lead to horrific legal entanglements and human misery. However one of the problems of openness is that it is now much harder to find sperm donors. That is the sort of balancing trick that has to be arrived at through the legislation. 
The ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee are of huge importance. I think that they are too big. Perhaps the composition is that they are too full of lay people. These are highly technical areas that do require a very well-based knowledge in terms of getting wise results. But one thing about the ethics committee that I am very pleased about is that the select committee has recommended the requirement that the ethics committee act expeditiously. There is no doubt that the biological time clock ticks on and as a practising clinician I can say that time and time again we saw patients waiting for procedures that were held up purely because of the time delays by the ethics committee. 
I am not in the least concerned with the final words of members of the Green Party who say that they are concerned that the ministerial advisory committee may be able to issue guidelines allowing embryo selection for blue eyes etc. and they say that that kind of eugenics is anathema to New Zealand values. I say that that sort of scaremongering is anathema to New Zealand common sense. 
Finally I strongly support this bill. It has demonstrated a great amount of evidence of how parliamentary select committees can work together. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise today in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill a members’ bill in the name of Dianne Yates MP for Hamilton East. This bill introduces long overdue comprehensive legislation to regulate assisted human reproductive procedures and human reproductive research in our country. 
I give my special thanks and the thanks of the Government to Dianne Yates. She first introduced the bill back in 1996 as Dr Hutchison has said and she is to be congratulated on the considerable time and effort she has invested in bringing this legislation about which she obviously cares very deeply to fruition. I would like to add my appreciation also to that which Ms Yates has already passed on to Health Committee staff and their advisers for their very detailed work and professionalism in this most complex and important area. 
The bill currently before the House is an amalgamation of Ms Yates’ original bill and the Government amendments that update and build upon her earlier work. The Government amendments reflect changes in scientific knowledge and technology over the period since the development of the bill changes in the legislative framework for the health sector generally and overseas developments. 
I would also like to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the Health Committee to the development of this bill. The long history of the bill is testament to the complex ethical issues raised by assisted reproduction. I thank the committee for its report and recommendations which are unanimous. 
The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill establishes a robust and flexible framework for the regulation of current and future assisted reproductive practices and research. In an area like assisted human reproduction where science and technology are rapidly changing it is important to establish a system that is both adaptable and rigorous but not so overly prescriptive that it will quickly become outdated or redundant. I am confident that this bill strikes that appropriate balance. 
Although other countries to whom we often look for guidance have opted for licensing regimes I believe that the framework set out in the bill is the most appropriate regulatory approach for this country. The bill sets up a system that is compatible with the New Zealand health sector generally and that is also appropriate for the small number of fertility service providers in New Zealand. I am confident that the regulatory framework set out in the bill is robust and achieves a level of regulation that compares well internationally. 
The bill is also appropriate for New Zealand in that it acknowledges that there has not been a sense of discussion or debate in this country about many assisted reproduction activities including the complex ethical issues they pose and the opportunities and risks they present. The bill requires public consultation and expert advice on matters of significant public interest prior to decisions about the safety and acceptability of new procedures. 
The bill also prohibits outright a number of activities that are deemed to be unacceptable in this country. Most countries that have legislation in this area have a similar list of prohibited activities. The bill bans activities such as human cloning for reproductive purposes the implantation of a human embryo into an animal and vice versa and the genetic modification of embryos. Most people would agree that those are at the extreme end of the spectrum of assisted reproductive technology and would support banning such activities. After hearing submissions the Health Committee considered there was also a broad level of support for adding further prohibitions on activities such as sex selection for social reasons and the use of gametes and foetuses for reproductive purposes. 
The bill makes an important distinction between the use of techniques for reproductive purposes—that is for the purpose of forming a child—and for research purposes. Certain techniques like cloning for example are prohibited for reproductive purposes but their potential use for research purposes is preserved. This reflects the general approach of the bill which is to be cautious but to preserve the potential benefits and opportunities of reproductive technology. It also reflects the Government’s overall approach to biotechnology policy which is development—but with care. 
The bill establishes a new ministerial advisory committee. This committee will consist of experts from a range of different disciplines and half its members will be lay people. It will provide policy advice to the Minister on new and established procedures and monitor developments in assisted human reproduction. It will also issue guidelines for permitted activities which will be used by ethics committees to consider individual applications. The bill also provides for regulations to be made for any assisted reproductive procedure or research. 
An important part of the advisory committee’s role will be to consult with the public on assisted reproductive technology. In response to concerns from submitters the Health Committee has added a number of provisions that clarify how public input and consultation will be achieved and the transparency of the working of the advisory committee enhanced. The bill separates responsibility for developing policy from the consideration of individual applications. 
The advisory committee will develop policy advice and the bill requires that an ethics committee be designated to consider individual applications. That will be a significant improvement on the current situation where the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction is in the unsatisfactory and often difficult position of having both to set policy and to consider individual applications. Ethics committees are widely used in the health and research sectors to consider individual applications within the parameters of guidelines. Under this bill ethical approval will be mandatory for all non-established procedures and all human reproductive research. The ethics committee to be designated under this bill will consider individual applications in accordance with guidelines laid down by the ministerial advisory committee. 
A significant feature of the bill of which New Zealand can be particularly proud is the comprehensive information-keeping scheme. It is important that this part of the bill is acknowledged because it is an area in which I believe we lead the world. As the experience of closed adoption has shown secrecy around issues of identity family and genetic heritage can have devastating consequences for individuals and families. The information-keeping provisions in this bill give legislative recognition to the importance of openness and knowledge about one’s genetic heritage. 
The bill establishes an information-keeping scheme that enables people born as a result of donated eggs or sperm to access information about their genetic origins. Fertility service providers will be required to collect retain and pass on certain information about donors and donor-offspring to the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages. The Registrar-General will administer a new information register that will be able to be accessed by donor-offspring guardians of donor-offspring and donors. Donor-offspring will be able to access identifying information about their donor from age 16 and non-identifying information if they are under 16. 
The bill also acknowledges that donors have an interest in children conceived from their donation. Donors will be able to find out whether a donation resulted in the birth of a child and access identifying information about any donor-offspring with the offspring’s consent once 18 or older. The bill even contains provisions for information sharing about siblings who have the same donor. 
This bill before the House today will provide important new safeguards around assisted human reproduction. It prohibits practices that many people find ethically unacceptable and establishes processes for ethical decision-making that will serve us well in the future as science and technology continue to develop apace. The bill secures the benefits of assisted reproductive technology and research for individuals and society while taking appropriate measures to protect human health safety and dignity. 
Again I extend my thanks to all of those involved in the development of this important legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation. Right at the outset we must acknowledge the tireless work of all the Health Committee advisers who assisted with the many amendments. They helped us to make those amendments and then ensured that their implications were made very clear to us. 
I must acknowledge too the work done in the select committee by the promoter of the bill Dianne Yates to ensure that all aspects of this legislation were as good as they could possibly be. I also thank Dr Paul Hutchison who is the only member of the select committee with practical working expertise in this area. 
We know that until now legislation has been totally non-existent for human reproductive technology and that it has been governed by regulation only. In the past regulation has been sufficient thanks to the responsible attitudes and practices that fertility service providers have undertaken. There has never been any evidence of any harm. However that does not mean that there will never be any such incidents. 
This bill is very complex and very technical which is perhaps one of the reasons it has been on the Order Paper for so long. Dianne Yates said that it had been there for 8 years. The bill however will form the basis for any amendments that need to be made at some later date when technology and scientific knowledge develop further in this field. 
We are all aware too that fertility is a very personal issue and can be very stressful for all of those involved so it is pleasing to see that this legislation is very balanced. It provides a very consistent regulatory environment as well as a very cautious approach. After all we are dealing with humans and legislation must be as sound as we can possibly make it for today and for the future. 
It is pleasing to see in this bill that any reproductive research that is not an established procedure and all research applications are subject to mandatory ethical review by an ethics committee. That is exactly how it should be. The fact that the designation functions and duties of the ethics committee are very clearly prescribed in the legislation should ensure that everyone is aware of what is happening and also of what is to happen. Like Dr Hutchison we were also pleased about the time limits imposed on the ethics committee; we do know that everyone’s biological clock is of a limited time-span. 
We are pleased as well about the advisory committee that is to be established by the Minister. The members making up the advisory committee and all their qualifications are very clearly set out and specified and that committee will be working in conjunction with the public and hearing submissions as appropriate which is exactly how it should be. So we welcome these strengthened requirements for public involvement particularly any new procedures or the giving of advice to the Minister. 
I was very interested to read recently in the newspaper—this week actually—about the shortage of sperm donors. I would like to caution all those men who are thinking about assisting with the problem of that particular shortage that one of the requirements of this bill is that donors at some later time in their lives may be contacted by offspring. One of the features of the bill is that offspring 18 years or older will be able to access identifying information as will guardians of donor-offspring under 18 years of age. I would like to say that responsibility is now a big part of this donor process—it is definitely not a small responsibility—and I think the honourable Minister David Benson-Pope outlined that requirement in his speech prior to mine. 
We are only too aware of the health risks to children born as a result of assisted reproduction technology procedures as they are generally higher than for children who are conceived naturally. So we were very pleased earlier in the year that common sense finally prevailed with in vitro fertilisation funding. The Government announced in July that it will increase funds for in vitro fertilisation and also provide a second cycle to people who meet certain criteria. 
Single embryo transfer is now to become standard practice in most cases and fertility treatment is one of the issues for which New Zealand First has called on the Government to revise its funding policy as a matter of urgency. It has been fairly obvious for some time that funding the implantation of multiple embryos in one cycle only to maximise the chances of success was increasing the adverse affects on the health of many of the children who were born as a result of that procedure. All members know that care for premature babies is costly and intensive. We want to see healthy children and that is the outcome that parents want in particular for their children. 
New Zealand First was especially pleased with the provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans—I think every party has acknowledged that. The bill also prohibits the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than the treating or prevention of genetic disease. The last thing we want to see is the growth of a designer baby industry. That is not something we want to see in New Zealand at all and this legislation clearly outlines that that cannot happen here. Schedule 1 clearly outlines the prohibited actions and the penalties that will be imposed on people if they transgress what is outlawed by the schedule. We have always believed that cloning should be banned and that ban is clearly outlined in the bill. 
We know that human-assisted reproductive technology is a challenging issue and we are pleased that this legislation will give some very clear direction to those involved in that area. We did want to see some legislation there as previously there was only regulation. New Zealand First supports this legislation. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill because it prohibits the worst excesses of artificial reproduction—namely the genetic engineering and cloning of human beings and sex selection for social reasons—and because the regime it sets in place is better than the totally unregulated free-market approach to assisted human technology that we have at present. 
Having said that I tell members that we are bitterly disappointed the Government refused to follow the approach set out in Dianne Yates’ original bill which would have set up an independent statutory authority to regulate fertility clinics and researchers similar to those in existence in the United Kingdom Canada and Australia and which would have required researchers and fertility clinics to get licences to carry out research into assisted human technology. 
While we are delighted that we have managed to strengthen the public consultation requirements of the bill we are also extremely disappointed that Government and most Opposition parties would not support our amendments to strengthen the bill and instead opted to set up one of the weakest most permissive regimes for assisted human reproductive technologies in the Western World. 
This regime relies on guidelines that do not even have the force of regulation that are likely to be pragmatic rather than based on fundamental ethical issues and that are so vaguely worded they will be difficult if not impossible to enforce. It is a regime that allows the ministerial advisory committee to approve controversial technologies without any parliamentary scrutiny. That is extraordinary! It is a regime that delegates unprecedented and virtually unlimited powers to an unelected and unaccountable committee to determine policies about reproductive technologies that could literally change the future of the human race. 
By setting up a framework for policy to be made in a committee that is not directly accountable to Parliament the bill breaches the well-established parliamentary principle that matters of policy and substance should be dealt with by Parliament and that only technical issues should be delegated to other committees outside Parliament or even to committees in Parliament. In our view at the very least guidelines issued by the ministerial advisory committee should have the force of regulation and should require approval from Parliament before they become policy and we will be moving amendments to that effect. One submitter summed up his frustrations about the weak regulatory regime in this bill by saying: “Dr Frankenstein would have found in the regulatory regime proposed in this bill ample opportunity to argue for the creation of his monster.” 
We are frustrated too by the fact that spending more and more money on assisted human reproductive technologies is being touted as the solution to growing fertility problems in Western societies when no resources are being allocated to research into the underlying environmental and other factors that have caused a dramatic drop-off in human fertility over the past 20 years. Declining sperm counts in men and an epidemic of endometriosis in women have been linked to environmental factors such as the dioxins hormone-mimicking pesticides and chemicals that are widely ingested in our food our water our homes and our soil. But instead of tackling these environmental causes of infertility we would rather focus on high-tech magic bullet technologies that are scientifically exciting. Proponents of these technologies paint a rosy picture of a future where they can be used to overcome the limitations of the human body but these same technologies can equally be used to create a horrific future—a future where more and more conception takes place in the laboratory and where we are constantly engineering humans in a quest to eliminate imperfections create the perfect person and improve the human race genetically just as one might a specialised breed of horse or dog. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: As I was saying these same technologies which can have such a power for good can also be used to create a horrific future—a world where those who can afford it can take evolution into their own hands redesign the genetic information of their children’s cells and ultimately create a master race of human beings while those who cannot afford to do that are left behind in the race. Already we have scientists like Lee Silver openly espousing the use of reproductive technologies for eugenic purposes for the creation of what he calls a post-human master race. He looks forward to a future divided between the “GenRich” who have been enhanced by having synthetic genes for healthy bodies increased creativity and so forth and what he calls the “naturals” who will be left behind still plagued with obesity heart disease alcoholism and mental illness. Another scientist Professor Joseph Fletcher proposes creating a hybrid species by mating apes and humans so that they can form an underclass in society that would be prepared to carry out the menial tasks that he believes humans deeply resent doing. 
Those scientists may seem way out on a limb at this point in our history but a recent survey of leading British researchers found that almost all the scientists were convinced that genetic engineering and the cloning of humans would soon be under way. Already our scientists are routinely cloning and genetically engineering animals with no questions asked or without any debate about it and many scientists eagerly anticipate a world where we have become essentially artefacts of technological creation and where we select our children’s genes literally from a catalogue. 
Officials rationalised the weak and permissive framework this bill sets up by insisting we had to put in place a flexible regime that could allow for changing social values and rapidly changing technologies. But the danger is that without a strong regulatory regime or parliamentary scrutiny this bill will permit medical technology to continue to race way ahead of the rest of us into uncharted and ethically troubling territories. 
One example of that is that the bill sets no limits on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis other than for sex selection. This technology of course allows fertility clinics to select embryos for specific disorders and only implant embryos without genetic fault. As such it offers hope to thousands of families affected by conditions like cystic fibrosis haemophilia and muscular dystrophy and we welcome its use in that way to prevent serious genetic disorders or diseases. 
But this technology also allows scientists to select embryos with “desirable” genes and eliminate embryos with “undesirable” ones for social rather than medical reasons. An amendment we put to try to change that was unfortunately defeated. By refusing to prohibit this technology for social reasons other than sex selection and by failing to draw a line between what is an acceptable and an unacceptable use of pre-birth selection the bill opens the way for this technology to be used for essentially eugenic purposes—to select embryos for athleticism or other characteristics that may become diagnosable by genetic pre-implantation technology in the future. 
That leaves the way open for an advisory committee to decide what genetic defects would be eliminated from the human population by embryo selection and what would not. That is why we are proposing an amendment that would provide clear guidance as to where that line would be drawn. We propose that the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis should be allowed only in order to select against severe genetic diseases. 
There are many other contentious issues that this bill fails to deal with such as genetic tourism—the importation and exportation of embryos—embryo-splitting and the derivation of gametes from dead persons. Under this legislation all of these intensely ethical and controversial issues will be left to an advisory committee and will not even be required to be scrutinised or debated in our Parliament. We find that absolutely incredible. It will all be left to an unaccountable and unelected committee of so-called experts. 
The other threat of course is that as we remove disease and genetic disorders through these technologies there is the potential for the erosion of human rights and in particular the rights of persons with disabilities. If we allow the technology to advance slowly but surely to the point where parents are allowed to design their children’s genetic inheritance we threaten those with disabilities and we threaten their right to be born in the future—as several impassioned submissions from the disabilities sector pointed out to us. 
We are pleased that the bill bans commercial surrogacies and that it stipulates that offspring of new reproductive technologies should be made aware of their genetic origins. We will be pleased to support the new amendment proposed by the National Party. 
Finally we would like to congratulate Dianne Yates for her vision and her foresight in getting this bill to the Health Committee. It is not her fault that the bill has been watered down to the extent that it has. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. The proposer of this bill Dianne Yates must be very pleased to see this day here at last after the very long and sometimes tortuous route this bill has taken to get back to the House. It does in fact cover many moral and ethical issues and the submissions reflected this. For this very reason ACT is considering this as a conscience issue and we will be voting accordingly. 
The submissions were very passionate interesting and informative. We saw at select committee the full spectrum of issues arising from that whereby some submitters felt that absolutely no legislation was necessary particularly in relation to the reproductive technology component of the bill right through to the very strict control in legislation that some people wanted to see imposed. Some wanted heavy regulation and the bill to be extremely prescriptive. 
The bill does cover both reproductive technology and research and that in itself presents some problems. Many of the issues are in common with both parts of the bill but there are some that I think are very specific to the individual areas. For this reason I think there would have been some merit in perhaps dividing the bill into two separate pieces of legislation—one to cover the reproductive technology and the other to cover the research. However that is not how the legislation has come before the House so we have what we see in front of us. Most of the publicity concerning the bill has been around the area of infertility. Again coming back to the reasoning I have just proposed perhaps it would have been wise to separate the reproductive technology from the research component. 
One particular part of the bill that ACT took issue with was the outrageous suggestion that parents of children born with the assistance of reproductive technology will be legally obliged to tell their children how they were conceived. This was well documented in newspapers around the country when the bill was reported back to the House. I will quote from one newspaper clipping where a man whose wife had had two children conceived thanks to a sperm donor said that this new clause in the bill would unfairly discriminate against infertile people. He said: “There’s so many naturally conceived children who don’t know about their dad because their mum can’t or won’t tell them but the Government isn’t saying it wants to look at that”. This is something that ACT is very concerned about and we will be putting forward an amendment to rectify it. 
It is also very instructive to look at what the experts in the field have to say. Richard Fisher the director of New Zealand’s biggest fertility clinic Fertility Associates said that the bill “generally struck a good balance”. I would agree with him there. But he went on to say that he was also concerned at the unfair targeting of infertile couples. He said: “Aside from being totally unenforceable I get agitated at a law that says one thing for infertile couples and another for fertile couples.” Again I agree with him there. 
 Good law should be enforceable and routinely enforced and I think that this component of the bill is totally unenforceable. I will explain why. Firstly it is true that for many children in this country the father they have grown up with to know as their biological father is not their biological father at all. It has been unethical to research that fact so we do not know how many children grow up in those circumstances. The reading I have done suggests that the lowest figure is perhaps around 4 percent of children who grow up in that situation but it may be that there are as many as 10 percent. In practical terms that is not of any importance; what is important is that children have parents who love and care for them. 
But this legislation is saying that those people who have children with the assistance of reproductive technology are legally obliged to tell them so when the onus to do that is not on parents who have children naturally but who know that the biological father is not their children’s known father. This law is not enforceable at all so what will the punishment be and how will it be enforced? Do we anticipate people turning up at somebody’s home expecting a DNA test to be done? Will somebody go around and police whether a child has been told at the age of 18 that he or she was conceived by artificial means? That of course would be totally impossible to do and for that reason we take exception. 
Another issue arises too and it is a social welfare issue. Around 33000 children in this country do not have a father named on their birth certificate but before us we have legislation saying that sperm donors must be named. The anomaly that exists in this case must be recognised. 
I want to move just briefly to the research component of the bill. Many speakers before me have gone into this in a good deal of detail and I do not have a great deal more to offer. But as somebody who has been involved in research in a previous life I have come to know ethics committees well. In fact there are about 13 or 14—I cannot remember the exact number—such committees in the country and if one wants to conduct a nationwide trial at the moment one must apply to each ethics committee individually for permission to do the research. That really puts terrible time constraints on the research and it is a terribly time-consuming and cumbersome process. That is what we have in place at the moment. But in relation to this reproductive technology and research we will now have one ethics committee—which is a vast improvement on what exists currently. It is hoped that the process will be very timely and certainly a great deal less cumbersome—and less costly I should say—to all those wanting to make new advances in reproductive technology and undertake new research. 
We will also see a ministerial advisory committee put in place in order obviously to advise the Minister. This committee will have a balance of experts and laypeople. Personally I would like to have seen the balance tilted slightly towards having more experts but what we will have is a vast improvement on what we have now. I agree with Dr Paul Hutchison from the National Party who said he felt that both the ethics committee and the ministerial advisory committee are probably too big and therefore will be slightly cumbersome. I agree with him; I think that smaller committees usually achieve a lot more in a more timely fashion and in a more efficient manner. I too would like to see those committees not quite as big as they will be but again they will be a vast improvement on what we have at the present time. 
The thing I am most pleased with is that guidelines will be determined by the ministerial advisory committee for the ethics committee to work with. There was a good deal of talk during the select committee process about regulation and I have to say that I personally as well as several others in the medical field who are on the Health Committee were adamant that we should have guidelines as opposed to regulations. 
Flexibility is the key to the success of this legislation. We have a very fast-changing area and there are so many advances in science and technology that it is difficult to keep up with them. What we do not want is prescriptive legislation made for today that does not take account of the future. The flexibility that can be maintained under guidelines is very very important for both components of the bill. 
As someone who has worked in the area of research as I said previously I am very pleased with most of the provisions of this bill. I felt that the select committee worked very constructively and very hard to get to this point and I am satisfied that we have reached a flexible framework with which we can move forward into the future. Because of the moral and ethical issues arising from this legislation ACT members will vote on the bill according to their own consciences. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I am not sure what the record is for a bill that has had the longest passage through the House but this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill must be a high contender for gold for that particular record. It started out as a member’s bill based largely on legislation in Britain and Canada. It has passed through the hands of several Governments it has been changed and rearranged considerably and it arrives in the House today markedly different from the original proposal in Dianne Yates’ name. 
I would like at this point to commend Dianne Yates for her thoroughness and commitment to this whole bioethics issue. I want to express my own personal disappointment that the bill as it has now arrived in the House largely overturns Ms Yates’ efforts. Dianne Yates’ bill covered a licensing regime that meant policy development remained firmly in the hands of Parliament. I believe that when issues under consideration are purely medical then medical experts are best left to get on with the job. However when issues being considered have major social implications then Parliament should be setting the policy platform. 
The system proposed by Ms Yates also made very clear distinctions between situations when someone was breaching the law as opposed to situations when that person was breaching professional standards. My belief is that regulations are clear and a lot less ambiguous. My other concern is that with the system this bill puts in place the exceptional circumstance ends up setting policy perimeters. That really is a concern. Most significant is the fact that the ongoing development of birth technology has been so substantial during the same time period this bill has been in process and that the very scope of the bill has ended up being far more extensive than first envisaged—to the point where the very title of the bill is now questionable. In vitro fertilisation accounts now for only a fraction of the procedures involving embryos that will be covered by this bill and the conditions under which embryos can be used for purposes other than reproductive purposes are included. Suffice to say this bill is aimed at covering the handling and treatment of embryos outside the body. Other Acts cover the treatment and health of embryos inside the womb. 
All activities that fall within the parameters of this bill fit into one of three categories: permitted activities prohibited activities and those activities that require case by case approval. It is that third category that is of greatest concern to me. United Future has made it very clear in our minority report in the commentary on the bill that we are not wanting to hamper the progress of medical science to develop new ways of alleviating suffering. The concern is that we have to be very clear that the means by which we achieve our medical breakthroughs are as ethical and desirable as the intended outcomes themselves. That means that the policy base underpinning regulations should not be handed over to experts but remain in the control of society’s elected representatives. The licensing regimes that operate in other jurisdictions are based on clear regulations that are prescriptive. Exceptional circumstances can be considered case by case but exceptional circumstances do not set the bottom line or precedent and are not used to benchmark standard practice. The progress of medical technology has not been hampered in those countries that use such an approach. 
New Zealand along with other Western societies is very consumer-driven. We have an existing track record for taking medical advances and applying them to non-medical priorities. Let me give members an example. In the 1980s two drug companies were awarded patents to market human growth hormones to a few thousand American children suffering from dwarfism. The market was considered small so the Food and Drug Administration gave that human growth hormone drug orphan-drug status. Within a few years though human growth hormones became one of the largest-selling drugs—not because there was an increase in dwarfism but because of the increase in numbers of parents who wanted their short children to be taller. 
The argument that science and in this case medical science should not be micromanaged by politicians is used to justify establishing special advisory groups to reduce the active scrutiny of the laity which in this case is elected members of Parliament. What concerns me is that the focus of bioethics rarely addresses the larger issues about the impact of such procedures on society as a whole; the attention is usually directed to questions about the individuals involved instead; for instance did this person sign a consent form is this procedure safe or is the information recorded and stored appropriately? 
In this bill we would manage the use of developing technology through a ministerial advisory committee that makes recommendations to the Minister and then with ministerial approval would set guidelines for ethics committees to use when approving individual applications. However in New Zealand to date that kind of process has already had some questionable practices. For instance on 15 November last year the  
Dominion Post  
ran an article headed “Designer babies for $16000”. The article went on to talk about pre-implantation genetic diagnosis which is a process whereby a woman’s eggs are harvested fertilised outside her body and two cells are removed from each embryo tested and analysed for chromosomal abnormalities and for gender. When abnormalities are discovered those embryos are discarded and then one or two of the other embryos are implanted and the rest are frozen for future use. New Zealand fertility clinics admit that they have regular queries from patients wanting that service and that many of those queries are for social reasons for instance sex selection. Six days after that article appeared the Minister sent a reply to a member of the public stating that she had already given approval in principle to the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and had asked the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction to draft ethical guidelines. The concern that I have is that while the bill has been strengthened by requiring the ministerial advisory committee to consult the policy is no longer truly determined by Parliament. 
The decision to overturn Dianne Yates’ member’s bill is on one hand understandable considering the immense development in technology that has happened in the last 8 years but on the other hand I am saddened that the Government has moved towards a system that focuses more solidly on medical safety and individual consent processes at the expense I believe of the many social concerns that that technology presents. It is of interest that in the last week the New Zealand media has recorded the fact that current in vitro fertilisation figures show that about half the clients using this service are women who have no apparent intention of giving the resulting children fathers. I suspect that this social trend was never a consideration of those who 20 years ago set out to help infertile couples have children. 
United Future like other parties has a variety of opinions on this issue. By the third reading we will probably be treating this as a conscience vote. At this stage we have real concerns about the system that is being put in place. I understand Ms Yates’ concern that something is better than nothing but we are not so sure that this something is good enough so we will be opposing the second reading. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill today. As the member in whose name this bill is has said it has had a long gestation. But I believe that good robust legislation always finds its time and place. I think in the years since 1996 when the bill was first introduced until our consideration and hearing of submissions we put this bill in the framework of a health environment that is now far better placed to manage the huge issues that this bill proposes. 
We also looked at Doug Graham’s bill which was submitted and first introduced in 1998 and in the first term of this Labour Government we had to consider the very difficult technical issues of what we would do with two bills how we would put them together whether we would drop one and which one would we drop. We eventually agreed with the support of a Labour women’s caucus supported by the Ministers Margaret Wilson the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Annette King that we should advance this bill and get it to the House. 
The bill was introduced in a framework in which there were no legislative protections at all for the ever-rapidly advancing field of assisted reproduction technology. I used to be in charge of a women’s health service and we used to collect specimens of sperm from men whom we would phone up and ask: “Would you give us a specimen? We need it today.” They would bring it into the clinic in a jar and we used to inseminate in the clinic. We kept no details. We had absolutely no protections for the donor and we had no protections at all for the women receiving the sperm—there was nothing. In that void women in this country became quite concerned about the need for legislation and a legislative framework. 
I want to point out the difficulties that the Health Committee had to face concerning carrying over the old licensing provision approach first proposed in Dianne Yates’ bill into the context of the framework in which the health system works today—that is the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act which looks at the regulation of clinics and providers. The licensing model simply did not fit comfortably with the legislative framework that we had moved the health sector into when we first got into Government in 1999. It was also very important to consider other legislation surrounding the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—bills like the Medicines Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It was very very important for us to look at that legislation and how it would impact on the technologies the research and the licensing of providers in this field. 
We looked at the Canadian and the UK models and we were very aware of international legislation that was developing around the world. After looking at those overseas approaches I do believe we now have the best approach which covers new technologies and gives us flexibility as Heather Roy suggested as to how we manage the new technologies that are occurring every day out there in the world of science. New research is coming into being and we knew that with issues like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis surrogacy and infertility services we had to consider this bill in the context of a very complex field. 
I want to thank those on the committee who worked so well on this bill and I particularly want to acknowledge the input of the two doctors Dr Lynda Scott and Dr Paul Hutchison and that of Heather Roy with her research background. I believe that is where the tension in this bill really began. Some of us understood comprehensively the health context in which this bill was being proposed. We understood the research. Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott understood how the current fertility clinics are run. They understood informed consent and the development of new technologies and quite frankly without that expertise on the committee I would have worried about the robustness of the legislation and about what sort of bill would arise. 
I really want to acknowledge that of all the bills that have been before the Health Committee since we came into Government in 1999 this was by far the most technical. We had to have help with it and I think we have to remember that as a committee we had advisers on science health and law—it was very very complex. Not many committees have to have three different ministries come in and give them advice. We also had to have several briefings. We had to have briefings on the science behind this bill and a lot of us still scratched our heads and had to go back for more briefings. We needed briefings on the genetics in this bill and on the technologies that are used and then we needed legal briefings on how they fit into the legal framework. I think that is where the tension of the Green Party’s minority report came from and that simply causes me great concern. 
 These are not simple matters that need to come back for parliamentary scrutiny; these are matters that one leaves to the experts in the field. The bill sets up a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee to look at consumer input and the development of guidelines which are very complex to develop. Quite frankly if we brought a guideline to the House for parliamentary scrutiny I would hate to have to instruct and inform 119 colleagues about what was behind it. If we as politicians needed that amount of detail to get our head around the technologies and science in this bill we should not expect politicians ever to understand what is behind the making of guidelines that will guide this whole industry and the whole sector. I think that is where the tension really arose. 
This issue is hugely complex and we needed to set up two different committees. The ministerial advisory committee can have eight to twelve members—it is a big committee. We have split it down the middle; half will be lay people and I am very pleased with that involvement. I hope the lay people representatives will be advocates for the donor child and also for the consumers going through the service. One lay member must also have a legal perspective and I think that is very important. On the other hand the ethics committee will consider individual applications for every non-established procedure. It will work only within the guideline constraints set by the ministerial advisory committee. 
We have set up a very robust model. I reaffirm that we need to trust the experts in the health field. With consumers beside them and legal advice I have every confidence in them. I find it rather sad that the conspiracy theorists would come into the House and talk about an horrific future of unbridled management of human-assisted reproduction technologies. We do not want to worry the community. We want to give people confidence that this bill sets up a robust legal framework that is flexible and meets the demands of New Zealand society. I think this is a wonderful bill and I thank the members of the committee for their hard work on it. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I too want to give credit to Steve Chadwick who chaired the Health Committee. This is a comprehensive and difficult bill that has been in the select committee process since 1996. It is a hybrid of two bills: Dianne Yates’ Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and Doug Graham’s Assisted Human Reproduction Bill. A Supplementary Order Paper based on Australian Canadian and UK legislation was introduced to give a real update to this bill. 
Some of the heat has been taken out of this debate because we have followed other parts of the world in what we have been doing. We certainly need this legislation. In science fiction if one can think it up then generally man can turn round and do it. When Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1997 scientific cloning became a reality. There was then a huge push for legislation because the ability to clone human beings became reality at that point. 
I want anybody listening to this debate tonight to know that schedule 1 of this bill has very clear prohibited actions. The first of those is to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a cloned embryo.” Cloning is totally and utterly outlawed in this bill. Artificially forming for reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo is banned. The implantation into a human being of a cloned embryo is banned. The implantation into a human being of an animal gamete or embryo is banned. There is a list of nine things that are banned. 
A system has been set up whereby this country can move forward the ability to have assisted reproductive technology. For those people in this country who suffer infertility it is a huge burden. Nobody who has not been in that position will know what it is like to want a child and not be able to have one. For 35 percent of infertile couples the problem is with the male for 25 to 35 percent it is due to tubal damage or to the gametes not being able to get up the tubes for 20 percent it is due to the woman’s ovulation problems and for 15 percent the cause is unknown. For those men and women who really desperately want to have a child and cannot do so being denied that right is a huge tragedy in their lives. This bill allows for things like surrogacy—but not commercial surrogacy. It allows for non-commercial surrogacy in vitro fertilisation and some research that allows men and women who wish to have a family to be able to proceed to do so. In this country over the last 15 years there have been huge advances and developments in our ability to help infertile couples become pregnant. 
It is unfortunate that in this country at the moment we fund only one cycle of in vitro fertilisation. That is being increased to two but many countries have more cycles available than that. Those women who suffer infertility suffer a huge cost. This bill will help enormously in that regard. There are five or six clinics at the moment in New Zealand that do this work. Initially the first bill that Dianne Yates introduced looked at a licensing regime based on the UK model. It was superseded by the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act in New Zealand. The clinics no longer need specific licensing as a hospital because that is all taken care of. 
So the main debate in terms of this bill came to be how we would make decisions about what was happening in the field of cloning and how we would decide on sex selection embryo splitting experimentation and stem cell research rather than how to license clinics. That was an extremely interesting debate and I really enjoyed my time in the select committee looking at that. 
There has been evolutionary growth in the technology of in vitro fertilisation and the gamete intrafallopian transfer programme. Donors in New Zealand for the last 10 years I think have always been named. When they have donated an egg or a sperm they have had to be prepared to give their name and all their genetic details to the clinic. 
As I said in schedule 1 there is a list of prohibited activities. The debate then raged around those activities that have become common those that are developmental and those that occur when one person presents a very unusual situation. A young woman who has cancer of the ovary might be under what was previously the consent age but may still want to harvest cells from her ovaries to be able at some time in the future to have the potential to have a child of her own. That is something that can occur now but in the past it could not. If that young lady had to wait a year or two to go through an ethics committee what would happen? The harvesting could not occur because her cancer would have needed to be treated. That is an example of some of the cases that have come before ethics committees. There needs to be a really timely response. 
We have set up a system whereby there is only one ethics committee—that was the recommendation from the select committee—and also a ministerial advisory group that can advise the Minister on new technology. As I said there has not been as much heat in this debate in New Zealand as there has been in other countries because basically we have followed those countries and that has led to a real understanding. Although it has taken since 1996 to get this bill to this point today it has probably been a good process because other countries have moved ahead of us and had the debates and we have been able to learn from their examples how to deliver good legislation. 
 We actually have three bills that all overlap. They are this bill which is the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill plus the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation plus the medicines legislation. The lines of somatic cell gene therapy germ-line genetic modification and embryonic stem cell therapies using genetic modification all overlap between these three bills. It will be interesting to see how they are dealt with. 
I mentioned surrogacy before. In the United States one can have commercial surrogacy but in the New Zealand bill it has been decided that that will not be the case. The fees for having a child plus the cost of having time off work can be met by the couple who want the child but commercial surrogacy will not be allowed. 
The age of consent for obtaining information about a donor sperm or egg was of great debate. In the end we decided that at 16 years and below one could get information on genetic heritage but not the name of the donor and that from 18 years one could have the name of the donor. Donors often are known to the family and a child needs the maturity to be able to handle that information when it is given. But the genetic information is essential. All of us want to know where we came from. People say that maternity is never in doubt but paternity always is. Most children in this country do know who their parents are and it is a very sad situation if they do not. We have encouraged and we would like to see great openness and transparency in the system when a child is born as a result of a donor egg or donor sperm and we would like the family to tell the child right from the beginning—to have total openness about that process. So the age of consent was the cause of great discussion. 
There has been debate about the expert advisory committee and the ethics committee taking away—and Steve Chadwick talked about this—some of the parliamentary scrutiny. That will I think be a continued area of debate in the Committee stage. The Health Committee as Steve Chadwick said had two doctors on it and a nurse and someone experienced in research but it still had difficulty with this bill given its highly technical nature. There was a lot of debate and there were a lot of briefings but the committee felt that to actually bring back to Parliament some of the decisions that would need to be made would slow the process too much. 
So I will be supporting this bill at this point. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 One of the points I want to talk about tonight on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill is the Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison has very kindly put together for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of people who are born as a result of the technology that this bill seeks to regulate. 
One of the issues that Paul Hutchison has correctly noted is that the bill does not have a retrospective action in relation to children who were born before this bill. He wants to set up a voluntary register for the donors of sperm for instance so that their biological children can find out their whakapapa. 
Before I came to this House one of the things that I was involved with at one stage was in relation to adoption and particularly those adoptions that did not go so well. What this brought home to me was the absolute need that most people have to know where they come from. They want to know enough about their biological start in life so that they can look at something in themselves or at some part of their personalities or features and say: “Well I know where that came from.” Certainly for those of us who were brought up by our biological parents it is a great privilege that we do pretty much know our whakapapa and that is very important to us. 
A continuing theme that I constantly go on about is fatherless children and the fact that children need to know where they come from and they also need to know this as adults. They need to know it whether they are 40 or whether they are 50 because all of us are our parents’ children and in that sense we all need to know where we come from. 
I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the House. I am hopeful that there will be sufficient support from the Government and other parties to be able to allow this very very good amendment to be part of the bill and to form part of the legislation. 
Certainly I have been contacted by people who have been born as a result of the donor sperm procedures that have happened over the years in a very unregulated environment who say they desperately wanted to have something so that should the donors or biological fathers wish to be made known to them they could contact their biological fathers. When the first donor sperm systems were set up it was all very very secretive and the approach was: “We don’t need to know anything about you because you are not the father.” Those donors were not the father in terms of bringing up the children but they were certainly the biological fathers. 
Certainly with the technology that we have today we understand just how genetics play such an important part in people’s health issues and it is extremely important that wherever possible people have the ability to know their genetic make-up. For those people it is very very important not only in terms of whom their own spouse should be but also in terms of what diseases they may have or assistance they need for their own health care in taking steps to minimise any genetic issues they might have or could have inherited. 
But apart from the health side people do need to know. It is for their own well-being. It is for their mental health issues as well as their physical health issues that I commend Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper to the House. I hope that the Supplementary Order Paper can get the support of all of the House because it is a generous and kind move that is brought about by the very real needs experienced by people born under the programme. It takes into account not only the needs of those people but also the needs of the donors. If the donors wish to remain private they can but it allows a system of knowing where their sperm ended up which is something that as they grow older—as we all do—they probably would like to know. It is something I would like the House to support and I hope the Minister can see her way free to doing so. 
The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill was greatly enhanced by the fact that Dr Paul Hutchison was able to be on the select committee at various stages and was able to assist given his background in this area. It was also one of those bills where there was broad cross-party support for its mechanisms although with a couple of exclusions. 
There was general acceptance of the need for these procedures to have some form of regulation. Over the years they have grown up willy-nilly one could say without any great regulation and often as a result of patients’ needs. Certainly with the advent of cloning and such procedures we need to have some mechanism to deal with those issues. I think that most people would find the concept of cloning humans to be somewhat bizarre. We are told of instances of this happening in the world today and it has certainly happened with sheep. 
I have looked at the minority reports and I see that not all parties agree. The ACT party thinks that some of these provisions do not need to be regulated for but I think that overall we do occasionally have to not only embrace new technology but also be aware that it does set up whole new systems within our society and we need to address some of the issues those new technologies set up. 
I commend the bill to the House. I was able to be on the Health Committee for a little part of its deliberations and I was very impressed by the degree of technical expertise brought to bear and the assistance given to the committee. As a result of the very good work of the committee and its chairperson we were able to work on the bill in a very positive manner for the benefit of the people of New Zealand and those yet to come particularly under these provisions. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for a party to cast votes on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that process to be followed. Is there any objection? There is none. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill do now proceed. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill has been before this Parliament for some time. It was introduced in early 2001 at a time when I think it is fair to say the Government was dithering on the issue. There was growing public concern about a law that did not; allow the growing of industrial hemp. The arable division of Federated Farmers had expressed support for the idea and the Government was considering what to do about that growing pressure. The bill was introduced in early 2001 and between its introduction and first reading the Government announced that it would proceed with 2 years of trials of industrial hemp. That was a very positive thing and similarly to my Clean Slate Bill it basically forced the Government’s hand and required it to make up its mind one way or the other about where it would go on the issue. To the Government’s credit it took that as a positive move and got behind industrial hemp in so far as allowing the trials to proceed. I have to take at least some credit for that along with Rod Donald the co-leader of the Greens who had also been agitating on the issue for some time. 
The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee. I said at the time that I expected it to be amended—in particular to allow the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to create regulations by Order in Council. I had 2 weeks to prepare the bill between the selection of my Clean Slate Bill and the next ballot so the drafting of it was fairly rushed although it is a simple bill. The bill went to the select committee and I fully expected that in spite of fact that we had trials going ahead the select committee would hear submissions and perhaps use the submissions from the industry as a way of helping to develop the regulation of those trials. Unfortunately the select committee took the view that we would allow the trials to go ahead before hearing submissions and I went along with that. 
We had the first year of trials and the evaluations were extremely successful. No security issues were identified by the working-party. There was a small problem with bird strike because birds love hemp seeds and for many years that had been the main object of growing hemp seeds—for bird food. The select committee asked for an environmental evaluation in light of that and it was quite proper for it to do so. At the end of the next year there was also an extremely good evaluation of the trials. There was no problem with bird strike in the second year that I am aware of although that may have been the case and the environmental evaluation by the working-party showed that there were no significant issues to be addressed in terms of any environmental risk posed by the growing of industrial hemp. Of course that makes a lot of sense—it is a light-loving plant it is highly palatable to pretty well any animal that comes across it and the seed is destroyed in the animal’s digestive tract. So it is not likely that it would pose a great risk. Nevertheless that did not stop some members of the committee from making much ado about nothing and basically not letting the facts get in the way of a good story as they say. 
I think there was an abuse of process because at the end of the second year of trials the select committee announced that even though it had said it would hear submissions at the end of the trials rather than at the beginning it was then making the decision not to hear any submissions at all because we had just had 2 years of trials. That is very very unusual. In fact it is possibly an unprecedented thing for a select committee to have a bill before it and not even call for submissions on it. That is quite extraordinary and I think it is also quite an abuse of the process. I have to highlight in particular the contributions made by some Government members—Dover Samuels Janet Mackey and Damien O’Connor—by Gerrard Eckhoff from ACT and by Phil Heatley from the National Party. They went out of their way to be as obstructive as possible on this issue. To be fair the chair David Carter behaved very reasonably and addressed the issues. Doug Woolerton of New Zealand First also behaved very reasonably. Both those members actually wanted to look at the evidence. However it is fair to say that some of the members of the committee to their shame saw they could gain more political mileage by providing an obstacle to the development of a viable hemp industry and the political capital they could gain from having a bit of a kick around on the issue rather than by actually standing up for farming people. Gerrard Eckhoff is often proud of what a farmer he is. Standing in the way of farmers having the opportunity to do what they have asked this Parliament to allow them to do which is to grow industrial hemp is to the shame of those members. 
As a result of the select committee’s unwillingness to do a bit of work and hear some submissions we now have the ridiculous situation that hemp is being regulated by Medsafe. I think if members of the committee had heard submissions they would have heard a pretty much unanimous view from the hemp industry that Medsafe is entirely the wrong body to issue those regulations and that it should be done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. To be fair to Medsafe I think that Medsafe does not particularly want that role either; it has just ended up in Medsafe’s lap. When we go to Medsafe’s website and look at what its mission is—this is the body that is to regulate industrial hemp which is an industrial crop used for building products for cloth such as this and for other products—we see that it is to enhance the health of New Zealanders by regulating medicines and medical devices to maximise safety and the benefit gained from them. It is absolutely bizarre that that body has been put in charge of regulating the hemp industry. I was scratching my head about that issue so I asked some of my friends why they thought that should be the case. The obvious answer came back that when it comes to evaluating the use of cannabis for medicine and we need medical advice on that we go to the police and judges so it stands to reason that if we want agricultural advice we should ask a doctor. There is a great logic in that. It is a slightly Orwellian logic but I can see that there is logic in that. 
There was a lot of concern about the draft regulations put out by Medsafe and that is not Medsafe’s fault. Industrial hemp is just not Medsafe’s area of expertise so we would not expect it to get that particularly right. It was a concern that when Rod Donald and I met with some of the Medsafe people it became clear to us that they simply were not aware of many of the uses of industrial hemp. Food products in particular were the things they were unaware of—food products produced overseas quite happily and legally for the health benefits of people in Canada all over Europe and in places such as that but products that we cannot have in this country. However I am pleased to see that the Government and the regulatory body have responded to the comments on the draft regulations and I am pleased to say that there is an attempt to address at least some of concerns. I commend the Minister and Medsafe on that. I understand the new regulations are due for release in January. I have a question concerning the people who want to plant industrial hemp this year: where will they be left with regard to the regulations? 
There is a big issue outstanding which is the hemp seed issue. The then Australia New Zealand Food Authority rejected hemp as a food despite the overwhelming international evidence of its nutritional value due to its profile of amino acids and essential fatty acids gamma linolenic acid and the like. The Minister to her credit got an exemption for New Zealand that allowed us to produce hemp seed oil and so now we have New Zealand - made hemp seed oil—cold-pressed hemp seed oil pressed by a company in Ashburton. That is very good to see. But one of the problems is that New Zealand is not able to be competitive with other countries because it cannot use the other by-products from that. We can produce the oil but we cannot use the seed cake as a by-product. Farmers in Canada can grow hemp for food—they can make pasta out of the seed cake. We cannot do that because it is illegal in this country. I think that the Government should look at addressing that issue with some urgency and I hope to see the Minister of Health do that. 
The Greens are unhappy and I am unhappy that this bill will not proceed. Clearly it will be voted down by this House and we think that that is a shame. It is still the most sensible way to deal with hemp—to allow it to be regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rather than by the Ministry of Health; it does not belong in there. But I am pleased to see that hemp is in production in this country and is being grown. We have products available as a result—food products insulation and various other things. There is a great future for papers and building products as well. The long-term future is looking particularly good for the industry. I have to pay tribute to the people who drew the attention of this country to hemp in the early 1990s for the first time. Initially they were people like Mike Finlayson Chris Fowlie Rob Uberfeldt Gina Thompson Marion Barnes and myself and later people like Brian Slight Mac McIntosh and others. I say good on them for their work. This country is the better for it despite the complacency of this Parliament. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Labour supported this bill’s referral to the select committee. However due to my announcement on 27 April 2001 on the cultivation of industrial hemp under strict guidelines this legislation now proves to be unnecessary. I would like first of all to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did on this bill and I particularly commend the chairperson. He was an extremely good and credible chair and I thank the committee members for the work they did on this bill. 
I would like to say to Nandor Tanczos that I agree that his bill did act as a catalyst towards us having agreement on allowing hemp trials in New Zealand. He can take credit for that. I heard his speech tonight and he is not happy that we are not regulating hemp under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. He would like to have seen it go in as a crop alongside any other crop and grown in the same way that we would grow any industrial crop. However it is the decision of the Government that we ought to with a new crop such as this—one that does have some risks—regulate it under the Misuse of Drugs Act rather than under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That is the decision we have made and we have gone about putting in place regulations to do that. 
I have to say that I support the Primary Production Committee’s recommendation that the bill do not proceed. This bill did seek to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act by inserting a new definition of industrial hemp and excluding industrial hemp from the definition of a prohibited plant. The changes would mean that any plant of the cannabis species that contained less than 0.3 percent of THC would no longer be a controlled drug. In effect anyone could grow industrial hemp without a licence and this would have had major implications for enforcing the Misuse of Drugs Act. 
Hemp seeds as the member knows cannot be distinguished from seeds with high THC without growing them and testing the resultant plant for THC. Only scientific testing can measure the levels of THC in plant material to distinguish between hemp and cannabis. So it would have meant that police and the Customs Service would have had to undertake scientific tests on every plant seed or cannabis preparation imported before a charge could be laid in relation to a cannabis offence. So when we looked at this issue and looked at where we go to in the future I believe we needed to take cautious steps. 
In the future things may well change I say to the member. Who knows? But in allowing the cultivation of hemp we believed we needed to do it carefully. We needed to do it in a considered way and we needed to retain good controls over it. I do share the member’s surprise however that he received such a hard time at the select committee from ACT—the party that believes in free enterprise the party that believes in agriculture. ACT was not even prepared to give hemp a go when it comes to an industrial crop. I say to Gerrard Eckhoff that I hope he never applies for a licence to grow hemp should it be successful in New Zealand. Maybe he would not qualify under the good character provisions! However he will give us his assurance tonight that he will never grow it even if it is a boomer crop for New Zealand and provides many many benefits. 
I think one of the important things is what has happened since we decided to carry out the trials. The trials have been carried out in New Zealand on hemp growing since 2001. Nandor Tanczos outlined some of the problems they had in the very early trials with bird strikes and some people who did not follow the rules. There were a few issues like that that had to be addressed. But in the main they have been successful in terms of looking at the way one would regulate. What we do not know is whether hemp will grow well in New Zealand and whether it will become a very lucrative crop right alongside the rest of our agricultural crops. 
The trials did give us a very good idea of how we could regulate this particular crop at this time. We worked through what sort of regulatory framework we would have. The proposed regulations that we have will control where hemp is grown what seed cultivars can be grown what THC testing is required what records are required to be kept reporting requirements security requirements for seeds and plants provision for destruction or requirement for harvest and audit and inspection. So a lot of work has been going into what those regulations will be. I think one of the important things was to draw up the regulations and then go out and consult with the industry as to whether it thought the regulations were workable. The industry was very cooperative in working on the regulations and they are planned to be in place by 1 January 2005. 
To those who want to grow this crop under the regime that this Parliament is putting in place I say that I wish them well. I think there will be a place for the products from hemp should it be a successful crop because I for one am a regular user of hemp hand cream from the Body Shop. I can recommend it to members. Some of my colleagues over there are nodding their heads. My tube is empty but should those members go down to the Body Shop tomorrow they too could have the smoothest hands in New Zealand—and that comes from the use of a product that could be grown in New Zealand. Having said that I point out that it will be grown under a regulatory regime that is more severe than the member wanted. But when we are looking at a crop that does have potential dangers and risk I think we must be careful. Over time we can look at how that proceeds how well it is going and how those risks are being managed. 
I am sorry that the member is not happy with all that has happened but I know he is happy that he has acted as a catalyst for opening the way for growing hemp in New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. I do that as a member of the National caucus and of course as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. I thank the Hon Annette King for her kind words at the start of her contribution to this debate. I always worry about what I have done wrong when the Minister of Health congratulates me and thanks me for my involvement. I thank her also for her display of the well-worn tube and for extolling the virtues of hemp oil and I note the Minister’s smooth hands. 
In debating the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill it is significant that it is in the name of Nandor Tanczos. I have some advice on this occasion for that member. He should make sure that his time in Parliament is not publicly associated with one word: “cannabis”. That man has come into Parliament and said quite publicly that he wants to have cannabis legalised and now he is associated with another piece of legislation—to allow the industrial use of cannabis sativa for the production of oils creams fibre etc. I say to that member that he needs to be aware of the difficulty of being a single-issue member of Parliament. In the brief time that he may still be here he needs to take the opportunity to widen his horizons and be prepared to debate more than one issue. 
As the Minister herself so adequately put it this legislation is now completely superfluous. It would have been irresponsible for the select committee to come up with any other recommendation than that the legislation not proceed further. I listened to the excited words of the Green member of Parliament when he was before our select committee and at the time we were deliberating the legislation and I felt that although he certainly took the opportunity to express his disappointment he was agreeable that that was the most positive and responsible course of action. The reason this legislation is superfluous is that between the time it was drafted and the time it came into the House the Government moved to allow a trial of industrial hemp. 
I would like to go through the report we received from Ministry of Health officials prior to us making our recommendations and I shall comment on one or two of the issues that needed to be examined through the trial process. The first was the issue of security. We received reports from officials noting that the local police and growers liaised well and in fact there were no issues of security. There was certainly an issue involving two particular crops where the THC level went above the permitted level of 0.35 percent. That required the immediate destruction of those two crops and to the best of my knowledge that particular operation was also carried out without rancour or ill will. Nandor Tanczos referred to the third problem—that of bird strike which resulted in farmers having to consider the added costs of covering the crop or purchasing a bird scarer which is no cheap compliance cost for a crop such as that. 
I recall one issue at the select committee that would be of interest to the Green member and that was the sourcing of seed from overseas. I well remember two or three members—Gerard Eckhoff our esteemed ACT member being one of them—picking up on the issue of whether the Green member was able to assure New Zealand that the seed we were then importing for industrial hemp had not actually been genetically modified somewhere overseas before it entered New Zealand. Certainly that question was put to the officials and they had no ability at all to assure us that there had been any testing of the seed that came forward and was then planted in the trial. That was an interesting minor conflict of interest that the Green member had to suffer the indignity of as the select committee examined that issue. 
The real problem that stuck me in the industrial hemp trial—and it was not discussed or brought to us by the officials—was the issue of the economics of growing industrial hemp. No information was presented to the select committee in that regard at all. Nor should there have been. However I suspect that the primary question to be asked by the less-dedicated triallist in this area is: “How does the cost of cropping industrial hemp compare with any of the more orthodox crops available to farmers to choose?” That I suspect will be the issue that determines hemp as a future alternative crop for farmers of New Zealand. 
I shall comment on one particular person whose name I must admit eludes me at the moment. He is a man whom Mr Tanczos referred to in his contribution as being from Ashburton. He came to see me and I thought: “Here goes another guy a bit of a crackpot involved in this industry.” He was a most impressive young man who had set up a significant business for the processing of industrial hemp into oil. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Bruce Hill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Bruce Hill was his name. He was a very impressive man and I must say that that particular meeting which occurred at my electorate office significantly influenced my attitude to this particular crop and its future. 
In closing I repeat that the bill is now superfluous. I am surprised by the agitation of the member who promoted the bill but as he has done a significant amount of work in the early stage I imagine it is of some disappointment to him to note that the Government has moved forward with industrial hemp trials making his bill completely superfluous. That is the basis on which the National Party will be voting for the legislation not to proceed further. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a short turn on this bill. I want to hearken back to my experience with Mr Tanczos the proposer of the bill when we were on the cannabis inquiry. We heard submissions from people in Opotiki a very deprived area who said that if we gave them a decent crop they would grow it. Those cannabis growers knew how to turn their hand to produce a horticultural crop that was against the law and they said that if we gave them a decent crop that would give them an economic return and that would survive in local conditions they would grow it. They said that they needed to make money out of their toil. And here that crop is: hemp. I find it very interesting that the Opposition still carries a little bit of weighted concern about hemp linking it with nothing but problems instead of seeing nothing but opportunities from that crop. 
I congratulate the Minister of Health on supporting the trials for the growth of hemp. I refer to an article in the  
Independent 
 in June this year on the enormous opportunities from hemp. Mr Tanczos mentioned them but the  
Independent 
 stated that the fibre in the bark of hemp is as strong as fibreglass and could be used for surfboards skateboards and all sorts of products. In fact Mercedes-Benz uses it for dashboards and door panels. It is much better than other plastic composites. Hemp is a product that we in New Zealand must look at in more depth Along with the trials that we agree to we do need to do more research. The only unfortunate thing is that hemp has to be grown to see its cannabinoid component and it then needs to be tested to see whether it exceeds 0.3 percent. That is our problem at the moment. 
But hemp is an opportunity waiting to happen. I am glad that the Minister leant her weight behind the trials. I think we will see a great economic opportunity for New Zealand in the future. I hope hemp turns round the prosperity of areas like Opotiki. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I rise in the House this evening to speak on this bill sponsored by Mr Nandor Tanczos. I am sorely wounded by his remarks that I somehow inflicted agony upon him when he came before the Primary Production Committee and promoted this bill. It might surprise that member to know that I actually came down to the House this evening after talking with my colleagues to vote for the bill. Now I face a dilemma. I have been mortally wounded by this man and his remarks about me. I am faced with an appalling dilemma in that I want to vote for the bill—and I will give my reasons for that—but now after being chastised severely by Mr Tanczos for my comments I am not so sure. 
Mr Carter was quite right: I did ask the officials who supported this bill whether this product had had proper biosecurity clearance. What was the answer? They looked at the roof they looked at the floor they sort of shuffled their feet and they said: “Well actually no.” If any one of us brought an organism into this country that had not gone through the proper biosecurity checks and environmental impact reports we would be strung up by our thumbs—and rightly so. So my question was how on earth did this product get through the system. Nobody seemed to know. As a farmer who is totally aware of the importance of environmental impact reports and those sorts of issues I do not think it unreasonable that I exercised my right to be terribly concerned about that particular aspect. 
Then after thinking long and hard about this I asked myself: “Well what is the THC level—the chemical level?”. When I asked the question of Mr Nandor Tanczos he replied that the level was so low that it would have no effect. In fact—and this is the salient point—if this product crossed in the wild with marijuana plants which are illegal it would destroy their chemical potency. I then wondered whether that would be a bad thing and came to the conclusion that I did not think it could be. Imagine it: we should be spreading hemp seeds all over the country to destroy the illicit growing of marijuana. All over the North Island we should be bucketing out hemp seeds instead of 1080 and destroying the marijuana crop—once they cross-pollinate of course as they inevitably would. I think that would be a very very good thing. 
As I have no understanding of the marijuana plant—I have never grown the stuff—I asked Mr Tanczos earlier today to tell me what the visual difference is between industrial hemp and the illegal plant. He told me there is a significant difference in appearance. My concern was that individuals could grow the illegal plant marijuana in the middle of hemp fields throughout New Zealand. With the help of the Global Positioning System they would know precisely where their plants are and the authorities would not know the difference. But Mr Tanczos assures me that those who know about these things recognise that there is a significant difference. I thought that his answer was pretty good and that there did not appear to be any major problem in that sense. 
I reflected deeply on that and I reflected deeply on the fact that probably the impact of such plants on our environment could not be worse than that of gorse broom or indeed kiwifruit. I am told that in areas where kiwifruit for example is grown it is rife throughout our native forests. The seed has blown in amongst our native forests causing all sorts of problems. I am told that the hemp plant will not cause those sorts of huge problems in our communities. That seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable and a reasonable reason to allow this measure to go through. 
But I have to say that as a farmer—as a woolgrower—there is an extremely good reason to ban hemp: good taste. Here we see before us a pure wool merino suit and there we see Mr Tanczos in his hemp suit. I ask members which they would prefer to own. I say to the House—perhaps with my tongue firmly in my cheek—that hemp should be banned for one reason and one reason only: good taste. And for the perpetuation of the merino industry which as everybody knows produces the finest-quality suits and materials in the world. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why doesn’t the member wear polyester suits? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I cannot hear what that carrot-top is saying. 
Hon Member 
: Polyester suits. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: No no—that is for Labour Party people. We over here wear the genuine McCoy—and they drive second-hand Skodas as well. So I have to say as an ACT party man who is very much in favour of choice that if somebody wants to wear a hemp suit then it is not for me to say he cannot. But I will stick with my merino suit. 
I talked to my colleagues about this bill. We discussed it and they said it was actually pretty hard to say no. But I make the observation—and I think Mr Carter made it as well—and I make it in all seriousness that had this bill been sponsored by Craig McNair or perhaps by Marc Alexander who is sitting in the House this evening then I think it could have had a different outcome because the issue of marijuana hemp illicit drugs and so on is unfortunately associated with one person in this place. There is I think a natural inclination not to vote for things he promotes. That is probably unfair but I think it is the reality of the situation. 
I do not know whether this might destroy Mr Nandor Tanczos’ role in the Green Party—his career and his promotion of drugs—but I say that the ACT party is going to vote for his bill. Perhaps he might like to take a short call and recant those brutal words he uttered about me earlier on this evening. However although my speech this evening has been a little bit flippant to say the least this is a serious business. I know that there are a number of very responsible farmers who want to grow hemp. I certainly cannot grow it on the hills at 5000 feet in Roxburgh but that is OK; I am sure there others who can grow it. It is a little disappointing that it looks as though the House will not vote for the bill this evening. But the bill has been an exercise in democracy and quite an interesting one for me because I was quite determined not to vote for it but on reflection and after chatting with others I thought we should give it a go. So I am delighted to tell the Greens including Mr Tanczos that we will vote in favour of his bill this evening. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 It was very interesting to listen to Mr Eckhoff’s speech. It reminded me a little of watching the New Zealand basketball team compete in the Olympics. At one stage while watching that team I would get all excited because it was ahead and the next thing it would get behind. Then I would become excited all over again when it got ahead once more. Fortunately on a few occasions right at the end the team was able to win but on others it unfortunately lost. I was riveted throughout the whole of Mr Eckhoff’s speech. I was thinking: “Yes he’s going to vote against it!” then “No he’s going to vote for it!” and again “Yes he’s going to vote against it!” and then “No he’s going to vote for it!” We heard quite a bit of confusion from Mr Eckhoff in that speech and I believe from the ACT party. Right up until the last minute it all hinged on whether Mr Tanczos said something good about him after Mr Eckhoff’s rather harsh responses as far as his actions in the Primary Production Committee were concerned. 
 I have a degree of respect for Mr Eckhoff and I am not trying to badger him for any reason but I was very interested in one thing that he said. He did not say that he got his information from any other source but he did say that he had asked Mr Tanczos today whether one could tell the difference between the cannabis plant and industrial hemp if one walked through an entire field of plants. He got his entire information from Mr Tanczos. I am not saying that Mr Tanczos is wrong and I am not questioning what he said to Mr Eckhoff. But having said that I suggest to Mr Eckhoff that especially on the issue of hemp and cannabis and on related issues he should look things up and get both sides of the story. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I disagree with Mr Eckhoff. Mr Eckhoff says that Mr Tanczos is the only authority in the House on cannabis issues. I bitterly disagree with Mr Eckhoff on that. I think a lot of people in this House have a great deal of interest in the repercussions that cannabis hemp and the wider drugs issue have on our nation’s young people and I say that respectfully to people who are on both sides of the argument. 
Turning from that issue I say that back in 1997 when New Zealand First was part of the coalition Government the issue of industrial hemp was raised. At that time a lot of questions came to the forefront regarding the whole issue. One of the issues was the fact that as the plant generations go on—as time goes on—the chemical level in hemp strengthens. That was one of the concerns that a lot of politicians had at that time. There were also a lot of other issues such as the one I have just raised about being able to tell whether cannabis is hemp or hemp is cannabis or of knowing what a plant is—being able to tell the difference between plants in the field. There are lots of other issues in that regard. Also as we saw in the Primary Production Committee and in this current Parliament there is a concern—and this is a concern that I hold personally and I am sure it is no surprise to Mr Tanczos or to anybody else in this House—that if we support this legislation and it does go through the House we may be dumbing down this Parliament and dumbing down the legislation with regard to cannabis law reform. A lot of people especially the ones who are on the pro side of the debate would say that no parallels whatsoever can be drawn between the two plants. They would say one is an agricultural issue and the other is a health issue. But I would say on behalf of New Zealand First and also especially from my own point of view that they are run parallel with each other. They are very close issues. 
Simon Power 
: What? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: An Opposition member said: “What?”. To a member of the Opposition it is very clear that cannabis and hemp are very closely related. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. 
New Zealand First has always stood firmly on its principles and will not support any legislation that supports marijuana in any form. How can we endorse legalising hemp when that plant is a known part of the marijuana family? That is without mentioning that the police as I said are busy enough without having to wander around hectares of hemp fields testing for THC levels. [ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick interjects. After listening to her speech I honestly could not understand why she will be voting against this bill because the whole time she basically supported the fact that it should pass. Then right at the end of her speech she said she had to vote against the bill. I honestly thought that at least she would be voting for it. Steve Chadwick’s speech was unlike listening to Mr Eckhoff’s speech when I was thinking I was watching New Zealand’s Olympic basketball team in the middle of the night and seeing the game go one way and then the other. At least Steve Chadwick was not confused; she spoke in favour of the bill. But right at the end I think she showed that she was confused. 
I will close by saying that New Zealand is the sheep producer of the world. We all know that exciting and innovative things are happening in the wool industry in New Zealand and that they are continuing to happen with regard to that valuable and plentiful natural resource. We have an advantage in terms of wool. As Mr Eckhoff said—and this is one thing that I agree with him on—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right; he is displaying it. New Zealand wool is a very marketable product for which New Zealand is well renowned. New Zealand should concentrate on what it does best and on its best natural resource. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 After that garbled interlude we now resume normal programming. I rise on behalf of United Future to address the debate and give a contribution on the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately and regrettably United Future did not have a member on the Primary Production Committee so we have had a little catching up to do on the issues contained in the bill. Fortunately there is not much to talk about in this bill. I was interested in Nandor Tanczos’ earlier contribution. He spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the passage of hemp seeds as they coursed their way through the intestinal maze of birds. I had the idea that either he was a bird watcher or he was just watching to see where the birds were going to go so that he could pick the seeds up off the road roll them up in a newspaper and smoke them—which is probably closer to the truth. I was also interested in the contribution from the Minister of Health who talked about all the different products made from hemp such as food rope soap oil and also hand cream. I think that that should be passed on to the Minister of Finance so that he has smoother hands to relieve the public of New Zealand of their tax dollars through their pockets. Again I was also quite interested in the testing of seeds from the plants with lower than 0.03 percent of THC and also of those with higher levels. I am sure if there was a job available in differentiating one from the other Nandor Tanczos would be eyeing it after his career in Parliament is all but over. [ 
Interruption 
] Will the member be joining them? No. 
There is not much to talk about on this bill because other members have made all the points that are relevant. However the one thing I will note is that hemp is actually a very viable commodity. I think that down the track it will provide quite a lot of jobs and earn quite a lot of income from overseas and from the goods that it can produce. Hemp does produce nice cloth despite the objections of the ACT member Gerry Eckhoff. It does produce good rope and all the rest of it. I think there is a lot to be seen here. Despite the garbled contribution from the New Zealand First member Craig McNair there is a vast difference between hemp and the marijuana that is used for illicit drug purposes. I do think we should go down the track of having trials to see whether hemp can be contained and whether it can be a useful crop for the future. Hemp does have a future in this country and I think there is an industry that we could look to pursue. 
Unfortunately this bill is not a vehicle that United Future can support. There is a more viable alternative. This bill has become superfluous so United Future will not support it. However I think there should be a sense of gratitude for the fact that the bill has been brought forward and for the fact that hemp will be discussed in the future as a viable crop for this country. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Apart from a pair of trousers made from the stuff I actually have no association with hemp. I have never used it and I did not know what it looked like. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Annette King 
: You need to get a decent hat. 
MIKE WARD 
: My suit is actually wool as well. I tell members however that when I go down the street with Nandor Tanczos and he is in his hemp suit and I am in my woollen suit I am invisible. People do not look at me at all for some reason so obviously hemp has some advantages. If I have any passion at all I suppose it is to make life a whole lot more enjoyable and to make sure that this planet of ours continues to support us. Hemp has a role to play in that. Peak oil will hit us before too long—that is where the oil supply starts to run down—and we will need biomass as one of the things to fill the gap. Of course industrial hemp produces a lot of biomass very quickly and we will need it. We are removing forests from our planet at the rate of something like the equivalent of two football fields per second. That makes the equivalent of 7200 football fields of forests per hour. We need something to replace the fibre that comes from those forests and industrial hemp could be one of those products. 
Gerry Eckhoff talks about biosecurity tests. That is a red herring. Of course if there were no biosecurity tests there should have been and we would be at least as concerned as Gerry Eckhoff and anybody else in this country if that happened. If there are tests to be run there are organisations to do that and Medsafe does not seem to be the appropriate organisation to run the tests concerning hemp. If there needs to be regulations then the regulations should obviously be administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Nandor Tanczos was prepared to amend his bill to permit that. There has been talk that industrial hemp could be used to shield the growing of marijuana. Nobody has a greater vested interest in ensuring that that does not happen than the passionate people in my neck of the woods who have been involved with test crops of the hemp plant. The last thing they want to do is to imperil the future of the industry by letting marijuana be grown in the midst of it. 
Are we dumbing things down? Is this measure a move towards accepting marijuana? Again that is a nonsense; this issue has nothing to do with marijuana. We are way behind the rest of the world. There is only one other country in the world that has the same regime as us and that is the United States of America. France which has very strict rules on cannabis permits the growing of industrial hemp. If we were prepared to allow people to go to the expense of testing the stuff then I have to ask what we have found out that we did not know before that would tell us we cannot continue and allow the stuff to be grown commercially. I cannot see that we have learned anything we did not know before that should prevent us from telling those good people—who have put a lot of energy time and their own money into hemp because they are passionate about it—to go ahead grow it and we will put in place the kind of regime to make sure the community’s concerns are met. 
Hemp is an enormously valuable product. It produces fibre food and biomass. It produces a livelihood. But many people I have spoken to are just passionate about the idea of a planet that grows the stuff as a means of meeting a whole bunch of our needs in an environmentally friendly way—in ways that many of the products that we currently use do not do. This is a short call as this is not my issue but I congratulate Nandor Tanczos. I know that a lot of people around the country congratulate him on putting this bill up getting the issue out there and getting hemp planted as a test crop. We would hope in a very short time to hear this House say that it is time to enter the 21st century to go along with the rest of the world and to get some benefit from growing a crop that has huge value commercially and environmentally. Hemp is something that could produce jobs and livelihoods for people in this country as it has done in other parts of the world. I visited the Wool Bloc insulation factory in Nelson some time back and watched hemp being mixed with wool. It produces an excellent insulation and the acoustic properties of the insulation are enhanced enormously by adding hemp. The hemp that was used was Chinese hemp. The factory has also tried the local hemp. Hemp could be used in most of the pulp mills in the country as the situation stands right now. We have pulp mills that could use it with very little adaptation—we could use it tomorrow. 
I say well done to Nandor Tanczos. I am sorry the rest of the House does not see fit to support this bill. It is good legislation and I hope that before too long members will see the error of their ways and come up with something that will do the trick. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Motions 
Southern Institute of Technology—Ombudsman's Recommendations 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note that the Southern Institute of Technology has rejected the recommendations of the Ombudsman in respect of its dispute with students enrolled in a social service course; and calls on the Southern Institute of Technology to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. 
 It gives me no joy to move this recommendation with regard to a tertiary institution in my electorate. Furthermore I am also acutely aware that it is an unusual practice for Parliament to allow a motion to be debated and I want to thank the House for the leave that was granted this afternoon. I see this as a very important matter indeed and one that does demand the attention of the House because of what I see as a major constitutional issue that has been thrown upon us by the Southern Institute of Technology’s steadfast refusal to do the decent thing after the work done by the House’s representative—the Ombudsman. He investigated a complaint by six students in respect of a course in which they had enrolled in Invercargill where they reasonably expected to complete a nationally recognised qualification. They found out on completion of the first year’s study that in fact the course was not to continue any further. The time and effort they had invested in their study—not to mention the money they had to pay to undertake the study—had been totally wasted. 
The issues involved in this are very clear indeed. The first is that Parliament’s man made a decision having investigated the facts. To get to see the Ombudsman in the very first instance one must have exhausted all remedies before asking him to do his work. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the students had exhausted their remedies and had nowhere else to go but to seek redress from the man we appoint by motion in this House and to ask him to have a look at the activity of this particular State institution. That is the role of the Ombudsman—to protect citizens from the excesses of State-run institutions. In 15 years of there being an Ombudsman in this country never has any institution or any officer of State refused to abide by the Ombudsman’s recommendation. 
I ask the House to consider this: a member applies to a Minister for a release of documents under the Official Information Act. That release is refused by the Minister so the member goes to the Ombudsman who says to release them. The Minister then in my view if that particular precedent is allowed to stand can say: “No. I am not giving it to you.” There is a tension between the Ombudsman and the executive—as there should be. Furthermore there should be a tension between those who are officers of the State and those who use their services when there is a dispute. It is a healthy tension; it keeps our public service honest. For the Southern Institute of Technology to thumb its nose at the recommendation of the Ombudsman is wrong in the extreme. 
Not only that but the institute was given every opportunity to comment on the Ombudsman’s recommendations before they were finalised and it chose to ignore it. I do not accept the protestations from the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology that she had not seen the papers. 
I note that she instructed lawyers in Auckland when there were perfectly good lawyers in Invercargill who had represented the institute for a long period of time. But the galling part of that situation is that the students had to go and find out of their own meagre resources the skerricks to actually defend the matter before a Master of the High Court in the first instance. They had to do that out of their own pockets. On  
Morning Report 
 the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology had the gall to say that it had not cost the institute one cent because its legal expenses had been met by its insurers. 
I ask members of this House to consider the power imbalance in that situation. The power imbalance is absolute. Those students who had to borrow to get the money to pay their fees in the first place faced the loss of their homes and ruination of their families to try to protect their rights. When they were told by the Master of the High Court that in a legal sense they ran a good chance of losing in the court they simply could not afford to continue. 
There were more than six students. Most of the students dropped out because they could not afford to go even the first step in taking on the Southern Institute of Technology. There was an editorial in the  
Southland Times 
—and it is not often that the  
Southland Times  
and I have found ourselves on the same side—that made the following comments about this matter: “Doing the right thing is seldom a luxury. In the long term it tends to prove a necessity for any individual or organisation reliant on holding good standing with the public. In the case of the six students who were stranded on the path towards their qualification goal because the SIT abandoned the academic programme the right thing to do is compensate them. … Now the Ombudsman has ruled that on the grounds of natural justice it should pay anyway. Ms Simmonds has declined to act on his finding. This is from a national perspective an audacious act of defiance. … If people are suddenly prepared to give the Ombudsman’s decisions the flick a law change may indeed prove necessary.” 
If a law change is necessary for the Ombudsman to be able to do his job it is on the Southern Institute of Technology’s head. I wonder whether that institution wants the ignominy of that rested upon it. It is an institution that prides itself upon being a progressive institution yet it seeks to defy the Ombudsman. Well I hope that tonight Parliament will send it a message: “If you want to defy the Ombudsman defy Parliament too.” That I think would be a very serious thing indeed. 
I have absolutely no regrets about raising this matter today. The reason that we have an honest and reliable public service and strong State institutions is that they are open and accountable through several pieces of legislation and I am not about to sit and watch a recalcitrant organisation in my electorate hold the rest of what we hold so dear in our parliamentary and constitutional processes to ransom. 
This House must send a strong unanimous resolution to the Southern Institute of Technology so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding about the abhorrence that this House holds its actions in in rejecting what the Ombudsman said should be done for six students. It was $21000 that was taken from those students—not public money as Penny Simmonds likes to protest—money taken I would say under false pretences and the only decent thing for the institute to do is to admit it was wrong to do what the Ombudsman told it to do and to give the money back. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 This is a very serious matter and in my short time of nearly 5 years in this Parliament it is an issue that when members read in detail the report of the Ombudsman raises a series of issues relating to tertiary institutions which frankly go well beyond the situation at the Southern Institute of Technology that Mr Peck referred to. That was a very odd situation indeed where students wishing to gain a diploma as a qualification were required to complete 2 years of study successfully with the first year being the certificate programme. They then found themselves in a situation where they were unable to complete the second year of that programme and had to leave with just the certificate and presumably without the opportunity to complete the diploma. 
Now the Ombudsman’s report interestingly says that prima facie the qualification those students undertook—the certificate—was of itself a qualification for which they were enrolled as a stand-alone qualification but the impication that the students made very clearly as part of the case they put was that it was always their intention to go on as part of the 2-year programme and complete the diploma qualification. As Mr Peck rightly said those students attempted to exercise their rights by way of application to the High Court. As that point—I think I am right in saying this—the Master at the first instance advised the students that their chances of success in the application were shall we say limited at the least. 
So the students sought recourse to the Ombudsman which again in itself is an odd course of action to take. It is a very odd course to take because from my limited experience in law I would say that one would ordinarily only in very limited circumstances have recourse to the Ombudsman when legal remedies that were available did not meet the outcome one desired. The Ombudsman to my way of thinking is more usually responsible for legislative and public sector indiscretions or for looking for rulings of fairness and equity rather than dealing with specific legal issues. So in that sense the report is quite extraordinary. 
But the issue that Mr Peck raises should not be seen in isolation to the Southern Institute of Technology because the bigger questions that must be asked as part of Mr Peck’s motion are: where were the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission and what were those two organisations doing in the background as those types of issues arose? Now the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in my view should have been far more on top of that issue from the beginning. I guess that the one thing we on this side of the House would say is that in difficult situations like this Parliament is on balance probably obligated to support the Officer of Parliament who has made the finding as the Ombudsman had in this case. 
 That does not necessarily mean that the Southern Institute of Technology got it wrong in the eyes of everybody but it does mean that in the end Parliament has to make a decision as to whether it will back the parliamentary-appointed position of the Ombudsman or the institution. I have to say that regardless of whether members agree with the preliminary view of the Ombudsman contained on page 9 of the report the one thing that caught my eye as I read the report earlier today was the sentence the Ombudsman inserted into his report under paragraph 8 on page 9 which was his final view. At that point the Ombudsman felt compelled to say this: “The institute did not respond to my preliminary opinion as I had invited and consequently I confirmed it as my final opinion.” 
One would have thought that the Southern Institute of Technology was very clearly given the opportunity to respond to the Ombudsman’s preliminary view but it did not take that opportunity and I guess the only word to describe that particular course of action or inaction is “unfortunate”. I think it is unfortunate that the Ombudsman was unable to offer up to the reader of the report the Southern Institute of Technology’s response to his preliminary view. As I read through the report I thought that was a bit of a glaring gap. 
So I guess the question then becomes what type of move if any will the Government take from here? The penultimate paragraph of the report states: “The Prime Minister has commented that it is of serious concern to her and the Government that the Southern Institute of Technology has declined to accept my”—that is the Ombudsman’s—“recommendation.” The report goes on to state: “She has asked that I and the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary) meet to discuss how better protection can be given to students in cases such as this.” 
Now the question for this Parliament is what will the Government do to follow the advice of the Ombudsman in this particular set of circumstances because the Prime Minister also said in those final paragraphs that neither she nor her Ministers were empowered to direct the Southern Institute of Technology in matters of this kind? That may well be the case but does it solve the problem in the long run? So this is not a particularly pleasant motion to be speaking to but it is an important motion for members to have a view on and that is the reason the National Party allowed leave for this matter to be debated in the first instance. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First sees this issue as being something much larger than just this particular case. I think we need to look at some of the details of the case so that listeners really understand what we are dealing with here. 
A group of students enrolled at the Southern Institute of Technology in what they thought was a 2-year diploma programme. They were told that the first year would lead them to a certificate then the second year would lead them to a diploma. It was very very clear. That is not disputed. The promotional material that was presented to them stated: “The National Certificate is a programme designed as the first year of a 2-year Diploma in Social Services.” Following the completion of the first year the Southern Institute of Technology decided that it did not have the capacity to deliver the diploma programme. In fact it found out that it would require 2 more years and that it did not have the personnel the staffing or anything else. Therefore it said to those students: “Sorry you are going to be left with a certificate and we are not going to compensate you.” 
Something that needs to be remembered here is that one of the offers that was made was that the students could enrol for free in some other course or programme. The institute was prepared to make the financial contribution that the Ombudsman has now asked it to make but it had to be in the form of some other programme and that is really what we are dealing with. 
Mr Peck has very eloquently pointed out some of the constitutional issues here but to New Zealand First it is also—and probably primarily—an issue of justice and access to justice. As we went through the commodification and commercialisation of the tertiary sector in the 1990s—in fact it started in the 1980s—it was always assumed that consumer guarantee laws would protect students when there was misrepresentation poor delivery of programmes etc. What has been found since then is that the consumer guarantee legislation is not cogent enough or potent enough to be able to provide such protections. For example the Southern Institute of Technology argues that because somewhere else in its book there is a waiver on its programmes it is not obliged to offer up what it has now provided. That is like getting some gadget in a box and one side of the box says what the gadget is supposed to do but the other side says that if the gadget does not work: “Sorry. We take no responsibility for it.” That is what the Southern Institute of Technology is asking those students to comply with. There was a very interesting answer to a question in the House today given by the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) Steve Maharey. Obviously there has been recognition that the current consumer guarantees law is not strong enough to be able to protect students in what Mr Peck has rightly said is a David and Goliath struggle with institutions that are resistant. 
Therefore the sector itself has got together and said it will allow the Office of the Ombudsman to be utilised. That was the agreement. Yet when the office was used in this particular case this institution said that no it was not going to take on board the recommendations that the Ombudsman had made. That is very very much a matter of justice because what access to justice do these students have if not through such mechanisms? The Southern Institute of Technology is actually challenging a mechanism that has been put in place to provide fair treatment of students who as it stands are in a very weak position. New Zealand First believes that if the Southern Institute of Technology continues to stand out in this particular case it will be necessary to take up the issue that the Prime Minister has talked about and to make laws that ensure that when there are decisions like this there is no way out for the institution. 
I tell the institution that we are talking here about $21000. We are talking here about the same costs that the institution was prepared to offer to those students when it found out that there had been a mistake and it could not deliver. Yet now for some reason the Southern Institute of Technology is prepared to challenge Parliament’s officer—the Ombudsman—who has looked at the case looked at it fairly and come up with a conclusion. 
So New Zealand First does support this particular motion. We believe that it is a motion that goes to the heart of as Mr Peck said constitutional issues but it also goes to the heart of what we consider to be justice in a democratic society. People should not be precluded from access to justice because they do not have the big guns the big pockets or the big purses. That is exactly what has happened in this particular case. We would like to take the opportunity to commend the students because they themselves through their resilience their courage and their commitment have created a test case—that is this most unusual situation in this House of Parliament tonight as we debate this motion. 
 We are throwing down the gauntlet to the Southern Institute of Technology and saying that if it continues with its stance then it is challenging Parliament. I hope Parliament will vote in a way that states very clearly to the Southern Institute of Technology that that is what will happen if it continues with its stance. To the students and their parents we say “Good on you!”. We recognise them and pay credit to them for their courage and commitment to certain principles. In this particular case we in New Zealand First believe that as a consequence of the trauma they have gone though—because obviously they have gone through enormous trauma and as Mr Peck has said some of them were not able to cope with the hardship they incurred—one way or the other some fair procedures and mechanisms will be put in place for students who are provided with misinformation about their courses or are provided with substandard courses. 
New Zealand First will support this motion and we congratulate Mr Peck on bringing it to the House. We remember that the institute is in his own electorate yet he saw fit to take the case because he saw that it is more than just an electorate issue—it is in fact a national issue an ethical issue and an issue about the way we operate our society. We encourage other parties to vote in favour of the motion. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this motion. I think the House has been extraordinarily generous to Mr Peck who of course will be leaving this House because he has announced his retirement from politics at the next election. I do not wish to comment any further on that other than to say that this is a legal issue that has been turned into a political issue and that is inappropriate. 
It is a legal issue. As I understand it this matter was brought before the court and an opinion was given that the matter would not proceed and that the students would not win their case. The students then sought advice elsewhere and received different advice. We can all feel some sympathy for those individuals but if they were and if they feel short-changed their recourse is to the court not to Parliament. It is because Mr Peck is retiring—is being shafted by his own party and has been forced to retire—that he has brought this case. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Madam Speaker I can shout longer and louder than any of those— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to be heard. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I make the point that if anybody tries to shout me down I will win any time of the day or night. There is a certain irony—if Government members care to listen for a moment—in that when such matters come before the House at question time Government Ministers stand and say: “That is an operational matter and I cannot or will not comment further”. That is the standard reply from this Government. Now it is giving Mr Peck— with the generosity of the Opposition—a last hurrah so that he can get a headline in Southland and bag his own Southern Institute of Technology an enormously successful organisation. 
I have listened at every opportunity I could to try to understand both sides of this case. I have heard both sides put. I am not capable—and neither is anybody in this House—of making a judgment call because we are not conversant with all the facts. The facts should be put before a properly constituted court—not before those who feel or fancy themselves to be some sort of quasi-lawyer. The court not this Parliament is the appropriate place to debate such an issue. As I said I think it is very generous to give Mr Peck this opportunity for his last hurrah. The ACT party will not vote for this motion. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 Each of the previous speakers bar one has upheld what I think is a very very serious matter. As has been put to us and from the report we have before us there is virtually no option other than to support the report as it was put out. Otherwise the consequences will flow across the country. Those consequences could allow gaps and allow for other idiosyncrasies which could mean this Parliament would then have to do even more than it is asked to do now. That would not be correct. The processes are there and we want to uphold them. 
I know the motion that is before the House is very difficult and by the way there are mixed emotions within me too just as there are in anyone else here who is struck by this motion. I think one of the worst parts of this matter is that the Southern Institute of Technology has really made some great headlines in New Zealand since the 1990s. It has really stood out in a number of fields and this motion comes across and blurs that image. It is sad that the matter has got as far as this—that it could be placed at this level. I think the institute was the first in New Zealand for instance to introduce a zero fees scheme. I am not sure but I seem to remember that. I think that was a marvellous thing. It brought people into Southland. It brought in a lot of new people and a lot of dollars. I was told somewhere in my reading that up to $23 million was brought into Southland per annum on recent figures. That is a lot of money. The institute has been a lot of help and it has kept young men and women in Southland. In a rural area one of the greatest distractions is young people going off to tertiary training elsewhere so keeping them in Southland has been beneficial. 
Even with those sorts of mixed emotions the fact still remains that we have a very serious matter of justice and ethics before us that needs to be upheld by this Parliament. We in United Future support this motion and we trust that the message will go out loud and clear around the nation that natural justice is being reinforced through this Parliament. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I intend to take a brief call and to tell Mr Eckhoff that the Office of the Ombudsmen is there to protect citizens against abuses by arms of the State. Those arms of the State— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: So are the courts. You as a lawyer should know that. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am a lawyer so the member should listen. Those arms of the State include institutions established under the Education Act like this polytechnic. There are many parties to disputes be they through the court or through the Ombudsman who disagree with the outcome when it goes against them but they have to accept the outcome. The Southern Institute of Technology must abide by the decision of the Ombudsman. This is a matter of principle that Parliament cannot let go unchecked. The Southern Institute of Technology needs to pull its head in and do what the Ombudsman says it should. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 9.49 p.m.