Volume 641 Week 53 - Wednesday 22 August 2007Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 641 Week 53 - Wednesday 22 August 2007[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11337. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 22 August 2007Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersWater—Drinking Water1. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to theMinister of Health: Has he received any recent reports on the cost of providing healthy drinking-water?Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes I have. I have seen a copy of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key to the AGM of Local Government New Zealand in which he said that the cost of providing healthy water to the community of Ōwaka in the Catlins would be $500000. He is wrong; the highest estimated cost is about $50000. I doubt whether Mr Key would have added the extra zero by mistake given his career as a global money trader. Therefore I invite him not to deal in irresponsible scaremongering around publicly funded essential services. Mr Key should try to stick with the truth.Ann Hartley: Is there agreement on the policies for the provision of healthy drinking-water?Hon PETE HODGSON: No; there is not agreement across the parties in this House on that matter. The reason for that is that there is not agreement within the National Party. One view is that no action is required at all in this area as it is “a totally non-existent problem”. Another view is that 24 percent of our water fails to meet bacteriological standards and “a coordinated plan with local government is required to progressively upgrade water supplies”. The first statement is from Jonathan Coleman from the National Party; the second statement is from the National Party’s Nick Smith.Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister concerned that the growth of irrigated dairy farming in Canterbury is posing a risk to water quality and to public health in light of the warning from the Canterbury medical officer of health about the potential for significant health effects from the proposed Central Plains Water irrigation scheme to irrigate 60000 hectares of farmland in Canterbury?Hon PETE HODGSON: There are many causes of poor quality or insufficient quality in New Zealand’s drinking-water—dairying being amongst them but by no means the only one. New Zealanders enjoy good drinking-water standards in cities and often nowhere near good enough standards out in the countryside. We have a lot of water-borne illnesses as a result of that.Nandor Tanczos: In that case can the Minister tell the House what he makes of a report from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research that proves a link between intensive dairying and drinking-water contamination by campylobacter cryptosporidium and E. coli; and is that the result of a 4-year Government sustainable water programme of inaction?Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure where the member is coming from. I thought we were on roughly the same page with the only difference being that I thought not all substandard water was due to dairying and some of it was due to other causes.Justice Minister—Confidence2.JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so why?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.John Key: Does she agree with the Minister’s statement in the House in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “the third-party provisions in the bill do not unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression”; if so are all the interest groups that are making submissions to the select committee to protect their democratic rights simply wasting their time?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly no one making a submission is wasting his or her time. Indeed I note that the Coalition for Open Government states it believes that the problems it sees with the third-party rules in the Electoral Finance Bill can be fairly easily fixed.Tim Barnett: Has the Electoral Finance Bill been designed with any overseas precedents in mind?Rt Hon Helen Clark: Indeed it has. One could instance the United Kingdom where the electoral finance period extends for a year prior to a general election and also in respect of the role of third parties in election campaigns in the United Kingdom they must register if they wish to spend more than a certain amount on campaigns. They may not receive anonymous donations; nor may they receive donations from trusts where those contributing to the trust cannot be reasonably identified.John Key: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister when despite constant questioning he cannot even answer questions on things as simple as the definition of election advertising?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Having seen and heard a number of those questions they are clearly trying to seek legal opinions from the Minister which would not normally be given at question time.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the motivation for this bill to remove the negative unfair and malignant influences of certain businesses from electoral campaigns and if the answer is yes then what is the evidence for there to be public concern on this issue?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly the motivation for the bill is to deal with the most regrettable influence of very big money on New Zealand election campaigns. I note in this respect that Mr Key’s speech today said that organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election—an interesting statement from someone who clearly was one of the bagmen for the National Party campaign. We can go throughThe Hollow Men and find all sorts of references like the one in Mr Key’s diary of August 2005 which stated he was scheduled to be “Meeting with loads of big donors in Northland with John Carter (full day and night).”John Key: If the purposes of the changes to the proposed Electoral Finance Bill were not to advantage the Government why did the Labour Party not consult the National Party the Māori Party and the ACT party?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: To the best of my recollection the National Party has been consistently pretty hostile to trying to rein in the role of big money because it has had so much of it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just a cheat.Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the allegation that Dr Smith just made and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise for it.Madam SPEAKER: The member has been asked to withdraw and apologise for his comment.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What do we call spending $800000 illegally on a pledge card if it is not cheating?Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order as the member knows. Please be seated.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that fund-raising up north all day and night may be just a temporary apparition surely the Prime Minister has more evidence than that for making the allegation that Mr Key was the bagman in respect of fund-raising for the National Party?Madam SPEAKER: No that is not within the Prime Minister’s responsibility for the activities of other parties.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect this issue concerns the involvement of big business in campaigns. That requires there to be a relationship and communication between political parties and big business. If we cannot even ask that question then how can we even discuss the issue—that is by the Prime Minister’s admission the motivation behind the bill?Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member; please be seated. The member is perfectly entitled to ask a question that relates to those matters but that question must be within the terms of the Standing Orders; in other words that there is ministerial responsibility for it. Is there another point of order? I was not encouraging one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have encouraged it because you allowed the Prime Minster to make a statement regarding evidence inTheHollow Men uncontested or disputed by anyone in this House so if the Prime Minister could refer to that why can I not ask questions as to whether there were other examples inTheHollow Men of such activity? That was the nature of my question.Madam SPEAKER: Yes but the whole purpose of your question did not relate to any ministerial responsibility. I think it was Mr Key’s question that did relate to ministerial responsibility and the Prime Minister was responding accordingly.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What reports has the Prime Minister received that justify the claims that she has just made to the House?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: CertainlyTheHollow Men is full of such references—for example Rob McLeod of the Business Roundtable approaching Dr Brash and Mr Key to help arrange a donation to National from heirs to the Spencer family fortunes; for example the dinner Mr Key apparently attended on his birthday which was hosted by Bill Birnie formerly of Fay Richwhite; and another one hosted by Rod Deane at which Mr Key is said to have been present. That is why I made the statement about Mr Key being a bagman for collecting very big money and I am sure it is still going on.John Key: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the Electoral Law Reform Bill given she chaired Cabinet and was responsible for the provisions of the bill as introduced into the House?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course I chair Cabinet; that is the role of being Prime Minister. I am also a Prime Minister who is always open to intelligent and informed contributions; I am waiting to hear one from the Leader of the Opposition.John Key: So is the Prime Minister telling the House that she has no responsibility for the provisions in the bill?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For the rather new parliamentarian opposite I just set out that of course I chair Cabinet. It goes with the job!John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not answer the question despite this being the third time I have asked it that she is quite simply embarrassed by a piece of legislation she knows should be ripped up?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over here we accept collective responsibility. There is little evidence of it over there.John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with the editorial in the latestNew Zealand Law Journal regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that states: “This Bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face: the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent government.”Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would like to name the editor of theNew Zealand Law Journal a certain Bernard Robertson a well-known right-wing commentator and guaranteed to take a position against the Labour Party anytime anywhere. I prefer the judgment of the Coalition for Open Government which states that the problems with the rules that it sees can be fairly easily fixed in the bill before the House.John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm for New Zealanders that that is exactly the sort of opinion she is trying to close down with the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill because she does not like it when people publicly say they disagree with her?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Most certainly not. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition I have never been to the editor of theSunday Star-Timesasking that Rod Oram be shut down—or was it the business editor of theSunday Star-Times?Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that our democracy is a precious thing owned by the people of New Zealand and that in light of the damning report of the Auditor-General and the implications of our electoral law reform in actual fact taking cheap shots across the House is not the best way to get the best law and the best outcome on this most important issue?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with the first contention of the member that democracy is a precious thing. The second point I want to make is thatThe Hollow Men showed how exposed our democracy is to big money in politics. Had the Leader of the Opposition come in here today and tried to make good on what he said in his speech about discussions around multiparty approaches he may have been taken seriously but his approach in the House today has been completely inconsistent with the speech he gave barely 2 hours ago.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Government received any reports from the Campaign for Better Government—which she will recall had so much to say about the 1993 elections when the elections were overt—comprised Peter Shirtcliffe his wife and his daughter who spent millions to try to skew the MMP choice in that election; is that the kind of business involvement we do want in this country?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think it is clear that New Zealand law on big money in politics has been far too open for too long. That is what there needs to be some genuine discussion about in this House.Australia—Migration Patterns3.PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Immigration: What was the number of permanent and long-term departures of New Zealanders to Australia in the year to July 2007 and what was the number of permanent and long-term arrivals to New Zealand in the same period?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of theMinister of Immigration: I am advised that the Minister has no portfolio responsibility for the departure of New Zealanders to Australia. I am however able to advise the member that figures from the Statistics New Zealand website show that the net permanent long-term outflow to Australia of New Zealand citizens departing for 12 months or more was 25500 in July 2007 and that in the year ended July 2007 therewere 82500 permanent long-term arrivals up 1800 or 2 percent from the July 2006 year.Peter Brown: Is the Minister satisfied that 25500 Kiwis—roughly 500 per week—are departing for Australia and is he aware that that is about 5000 more than last year; and does he share the concern that those departing to Australia are being replaced by a mishmash of migrants some of whom make little or no commitment to this country?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I can confirm the figures I have just stated from the Statistics New Zealand website. We all know that there is a global exchange of skills. Kiwis have travelled for many many years and many come back to New Zealand. I also remind the member that since the New Zealand Residence Programme has been in place 60 percent of migrants approved have been skilled. This policy requires a number of factors including the establishment of considerable specialist technical or management skills and work experience or recognised qualifications to name just some of the criteria.Peter Brown: Noting that answer does the Minister agree that rather than operating an immigration policy his Government and previous Governments have operated what is more like a replacement policy replacing our best and brightest with whomever we can find; if not how would he describe the current policy?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No. The Government has operated a policy that is aimed at attracting skilled migrants as I have said to New Zealand. I repeat for the member’s benefit that since the New Zealand Residence Programme was put in place 60 percent of migrants approved have been skilled. I say for the benefit of the member that the other criteria are a relevant job offer that requires the use of those skills and qualifications a good level of English an acceptable standard of health and a good character. In addition I note for the member’s benefit that our top source of migrants wanting to settle in New Zealand is the United Kingdom.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What number of the 25500 going from New Zealand to Australia as at the last count were short-term residency holders from abroad who had come to New Zealand and have now relocated to Australia; and if the Minister does not know why on earth would the department not be collecting those figures?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not have those figures in front of me at this point but I will endeavour to get them for the member.Electoral Finance Bill—Neutral Referees4.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in relation to matters of election campaigning in the Electoral Finance Bill that “A neutral referee is provided for in this legislation to exercise judgment on those matters.”; if so who is that neutral referee?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I do. The quote refers to the role of the Chief Electoral Officer in relation to determining whether publications by third parties and candidates fall within the definition of election activity. The Chief Electoral Officer will also be in a position to generally provide advice and guidance on what is and is not included in the bill’s definitions. In some cases that advice would be very straightforward such as in the case of publications by the news media. There is an exemption for the news media and it includes material that the news media disseminates on the Internet such as an online newspaper or a journalist’s blog.Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the role of the Chief Electoral Officer is absolutely unchanged by this legislation that the Chief Electoral Officer has always been available to offer that guidance and advice and that contrary to his statement to the House this legislation does not provide a new neutral referee; so why did he say it?Hon MARK BURTON: The member should be careful to be accurate. I did not say “a new neutral referee”. I said it provides a neutral referee; it does and it provides an extended role and responsibilities for the Chief Electoral Officer.Hon Bill English: Why is it that whenever this Minister is asked a question about this legislation he either does not know the answer or thinks he does and gets it wrong and occasionally just makes it up?Hon MARK BURTON: That has got to be the ultimate case of the pot attempting to call the kettle black. I have answered each question factually and correctly but frankly I say to Mr English the making-up is something we have seen as recently as in the last question the member asked.Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us whether he knows the answer to this question and if he does not know can he please not attempt to answer it. Can he confirm that unincorporated societies such as churches can qualify as third parties under this bill and therefore be allowed to spend over $5000 in election year only if all their members are registered electors and that therefore any church that has a member who is aged 17 or under is thereby excluded from participating?Hon MARK BURTON: The question the member raises is a matter of interpretation of one of the clauses in the bill. It is a matter that I have asked officials to look at because I think it is important that the intent of the bill is clear in all matters. That is of course why we have a select committee process.Hon Bill English: Now that the Minister has had 24 hours since I asked him about whether blogs on newspaper websites count as election advertisements can he now inform the House what his best advice is on that matter?Hon MARK BURTON: The member clearly did not listen to the answer I gave to his principal question.Hon Bill English: Can I give the Minister 24 hours’ notice of an answer to this question: is it correct under this legislation that regarding the Labour Party pledge card and the spending of $800000 which exceeded the expenditure limits at the last election the Labour Party would not be liable for anything if it did the same again and that the only person who would be is the party’s financial agent who would have to pay a $40000 fine but that Labour would be able to run the pledge card and not have to repay the money if it did it illegally?Hon MARK BURTON: That matter is not covered by this legislation as the member should well know. This legislation covers the activities of candidates in election campaigns not parliamentary activity. But if the member does want to put a question down for 24 hours of course he is eligible to do so. I have to say to the member that what this bill will not allow which happened at the last election is the $1 million rort that the National Party and Mr Key in particular actively knew about and encouraged—that $1 million rort at absolute odds with the sentiments of the speech that that member gave just 2 hours ago in this building.Hon Bill English: Can the member confirm that under this law he as the member for Taupo will be able to spend $65000 of public money next year promoting himself and anyone who tries to challenge him will be limited to $20000 expenditure for the whole year; and does he agree that even with a three to one advantage he will get trashed?Hon MARK BURTON: Yet again the member is factually incorrect on every point. As a member of Parliament like that member—although I do visit my electorate on a frequent basis—I will be entitled to continue to meet my responsibilities and expenditure related to those as a member of Parliament. I will not be entitled to spend any of that money in my capacity as a candidate in winning a sixth term to the Taupo electorate.Formaldehyde—Safety of Textiles and Clothing5.SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to theMinister of Consumer Affairs: Will the Government issue legally binding standards on formaldehyde in textiles and conduct an extensive investigation into the safety of clothing sold in New Zealand in the wake of TV3’sTarget programme last night?Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has opened an urgent investigation into formaldehyde levels in imported clothing and a swift comprehensive and appropriate response will be made once the results of the investigation are received.Sue Kedgley: How wideranging will the investigation be how many clothes will be tested and will she use her powers to recall any clothes and textiles that exceed the World Health Organization safety limit—and are therefore unsafe—and initiate the random testing of imported textiles and clothing?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I understand from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that it is looking at making a reasonably wide range of clothing available for testing. It has been talking with the Ministry of Health and the Environmental Risk Management Authority. It is also in contact with our Australian counterparts. I would like to point out that neither New Zealand nor Australia has a standard for formaldehyde levels in textiles and that the international levels vary wildly from those of Japan which has a level of about 30 parts per million through to those of some European countries which allow up to 10000 parts per million. So what we are also doing is looking for appropriate levels and appropriate testing procedures but we will do that as quickly as possible.Kate Wilkinson: Why is it that the European Union has had standards on formaldehyde in children’s clothing since 1999 the US has standards on formaldehyde in clothing and clearly the issue was raised in Australia in the middle of the year yet the ministry that she has been in charge of for 5 years has done nothing about this issue until this week when the TV cameras turned up?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: New Zealand has overarching requirements in the Consumer Guarantees Act which requires all goods to be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are sold. If any consumers have any concerns then they should complain first to the retailer and refer the complaint to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs or go to their general practitioner. We also recognise that formaldehyde is quite a common chemical. It is used in textiles to fix dyes and for the permanent pressing process. It is also used as a biocide and an anti-mildew process for goods that come here by sea. This is not a new issue and it is constantly reviewed. I believe that all New Zealanders should be assured that the Government does have very good processes but they also need to read labels and follow them.Sue Kedgley: How can New Zealanders have any confidence that the pyjamas and T-shirts their children are wearing are safe when on the one hand this Government encourages a flood of cheap imports into New Zealand from countries with poor consumer protection and safety regulations and on the other hand it fails to set standards conduct random tests and issue recalls of unsafe products leading to New Zealanders being exposed to toys with lead paint in them to toothpaste with industrial chemicals in it and to clothing and now blankets today that are contaminated with alarmingly high levels of formaldehyde which despite what the Minister has said is a known human carcinogen?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: New Zealand is a relatively small market so it is very difficult for us to dictate to the whole world how its manufacturers should work and what the standards should be. Indeed there are conflicting or different standards indifferent areas. What I can say is that New Zealand does have standards. The standard is absolute: every good must be safe every good must be properly labelled and every good must be suitable for the purpose for which it is intended. Every consumer has that assurance and anyone who is concerned about any good should go back to the retailer. There is a chain of responsibility from the manufacturer to the importer to the retailer and to the consumer. The Government has very good laws and very good standards which should be good protection for everyone.Shane Jones: What standards do exist to protect New Zealand consumers from imported products?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: We have absolute standards. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act all goods must be safe and fit for their purpose. That Act is in the first instance self-enforcing and the test is reasonableness. Under the Fair Trading Act goods must be adequately labelled as to fibre content care instructions and for clothing the country of origin—Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is it that a member can ask a question from a sheet give that same sheet to the Minister with the answer on it and then the Minister gives the answer? For goodness’ sake!Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. We will hear the answer in silence but the answer will be succinct.Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Under the Consumer Guarantees Act and under the Fair Trading Act a number of standards are set out but they are overarching standards and specifics where we know that products have been unsafe. We are concerned about goods from all countries but what we cannot do and what I do not want to do is to add massive costs to New Zealand consumers by assuming that all imported goods are unsafe. The vast majority of them are perfectly safe.Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It would help the House enormously in its judgment on that answer if Mr Jones could explain whether he wrote the answer or the Minister wrote the question on the piece of paper.Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. We are starting to be show ponies again.Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ roles which show the Minister can make mandatory standards ban unsafe products and recall—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Does the member have several documents?Sue Kedgley: Just a couple; that is all. I seek leave to table a release today showing that Superlux blankets are now being recalled after tests that—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document outlining the string of consumer complaints from Wednesday 22 August this year.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I seek leave to table the release from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs labelled “Investigation into Formaldehyde in Clothing”.Document not tabled.State Services Minister—Records of Environment Ministry's Discussions6.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to theMinister of State Services: Do the “Minister’s records” referred to in answers to question for oral answer No. 7yesterday confirm she first learnt of David Benson-Pope’s discussion with Hugh Logan regarding the employment of Madeleine Setchell on 3 July 2007; if so who told her?Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): No I did not hear of the discussion between Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Hugh Logan on 3 July as I have told this House before. At that time 3 July I was advised by Mr Rennie that an employment problem existed. To make it crystal clear to the member asking the question I repeat what I said in response to his question No. 3 on 9 August which is that I was first advised of the comments of Mr Benson-Pope to Mr Hugh Logan on 25 July.Gerry Brownlee: On what date did the Minister learn that Steve Hurring from David Benson-Pope’s office had phoned Hugh Logan to express concern about the appointment of Madeleine Setchell?Hon ANNETTE KING: I will have to come back to the member. I do not have all the times and dates in front of me but I am happy to come back very shortly.Darren Hughes: Has she received any reports on file notes that were made by the State Services Commissioner Dr Prebble?Hon ANNETTE KING: I told this House on 16 August that I have not asked Dr Prebble whether he kept file notes on his discussion or interactions with Hugh Logan regarding the Setchell affair. Such matters are now before the independent investigation by Mr Don Hunn. Yesterday Mr Brownlee tried to mislead the House by implying that I had seen a file note and that I knew about the issue of whether the file notes existed. I repeat that I had no idea whether such notes existed and that is a matter for Mr Hunn to investigate.Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the first she had heard of this matter was in the discussion she held with the Acting State Services Commissioner on 3 July despite the fact that the ninth floor of the Beehive knew the Ministry for the Environment knew the State Services Commissioner knew the Leader of the Opposition’s office knew and numerous journalists knew and had known of the matter for some 5 weeks; and will she further assure the House that none of her ministerial office staff knew of this matter before that date?Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes.Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister then agree that although from 30 May the ninth floor of the Beehive knew about this matter the State Services Commissioner knew about this matter the Ministry for the Environment knew about this matter David Benson-Pope and his office knew about this matter the Leader of the Opposition and his office knew about this matter and numerous journalists knew about the matter and were beginning to write about it she apparently did not know anything for 5 weeks and would have us believe that she did not know anything about David Benson-Pope’s intervention for some 8 weeks; and does not this make it look very much as if she is part of a “cover up until you are caught” deal?Hon ANNETTE KING: I can do no more than say that those are the facts. I was not informed about this issue until Mr Rennie told me in a routine meeting and he told me about an employment matter problem with the ministry. It was not a matter of going into issues about Mr Benson-Pope or Mr Logan as this member is trying to imply and I take exception to the idea that there was a cover-up. In fact I think that most people have had enough of that member trying to make out that the Public Service and senior public servants have been trying to cover up anything. I believe that that member does not have a feather to fly on but that he is trying to find one.Gerry Brownlee: If there was—[Interruption] What was that? Madam Speaker the paint is starting to peel off the walls; it is unfortunate that Mrs Pettis is back to her old tricks again.Madam SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?Gerry Brownlee: I do Madam Speaker. If there was no cover-up if there was no problem and if the State Services Commissioner is beyond reproach why is Don Hunn investigating this matter; and will his eventual report be just another part of the whitewash of this whole issue?Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Hunn is investigating so that we can stop the sort of kangaroo court and innuendoes that have been coming from the National Party for weeks over this issue.Gerry Brownlee: Just tell the truth.Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the comment just made by Gerry Brownlee.Madam SPEAKER: Exception has been taken. Would the member withdraw and apologise.Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On no fewer than eight occasions last week the Government screamed across to members on this side of the House: “Tell the truth.”  and no offence was taken. In fact there was—Madam SPEAKER: I understand what the member is saying—Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker it is important—Madam SPEAKER: Please would the member be seated. The point is that if members do take exception it is the convention in this House that the member withdraws and apologises. There is nothing to stop members from taking exception or not taking exception but when they do that is the procedure we follow. Would the member please withdraw and apologise.Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could convey that convention to your assistant Mrs Hartley who did not follow that through numerous Committee stages last week.Madam SPEAKER: No. The member knows that he cannot raise that in this context.Waitangi Tribunal—Te Wānanga o Aotearoa; Wai 12987.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to theMinister for Tertiary Education: He aha nga mahi kua kawea e ia hei tautuku i nga tutohutanga a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi mo Te Wananga o Aotearoa ara a (Wai 1298) i panuitia i te rua tekau ma toru o Hakihea i te tau rua mano ma rima a ahea te Kawanatanga tuku ai i te katoa o tana urupare whai tikanga mo ia tutohutanga?[What action has he taken to comply with the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal concerning Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Wai 1298—released on 23 December 2005 and when does the Government expect to release a full formal response to each recommendation?]Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): Discussion on a partnership agreement with the three wānanga has been proceeding for some time. I also expect to take a full formal response to the tribunal’s recommendations to Cabinet in the near future for approval.Te Ururoa Flavell: What strategies have been developed to ensure that consultation and negotiation with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa take place between the wānanga and the Crown at the level of the council the Minister for Tertiary Education and the Secretary for Education?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There have been intense and ongoing relationships between the Crown and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa over the last 2 years or more with the involvement obviously of the Crown manager and the commissioner. We have had frequent reports and engagement between the Tertiary Education Commission and thewānanga. I am confident that the wānanga is now on a very much more secure basis for future growth and development than it was some 2 years ago.Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that the aggressive growth strategies pursued by the previous chief executive officer of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa went way beyond the defined purpose of wānanga and placed that institution at long-term risk; and can he confirm that the current administration recognises this and has set in place policies that will strengthen the institution into the future?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is a very fair comment. I think it also has to be said and it was sometimes forgotten in the commentary on the wānanga a few years ago that any tertiary institution that grew at the rate that that institution did over such a very short period of time would have run into major governance and management problems. It went from well under 3000 equivalent full-time students to something like 32000 equivalent full-time students in the space of about 4 or 5 years. It is very doubtful whether any tertiary education institution could grow at that rate without creating very significant difficulties.Te Ururoa Flavell: What administrative and financial assistance will the Minister provide to assist Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in meeting the costs in carrying out the reviews audits and inquiries undergone by that institution as recommended by the tribunal in Wai 1298?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The wānanga has already had an extremely large settlement in relation to its Waitangi Tribunal claim in terms of the capital funding of wānanga. We are of course still in negotiations with Raukawa but we are approaching the completion of those in relation to its capital claim. Awanuiārangi has already had its payment in terms of the capital claim. The Government will not be funding the claims to the tribunal itself.Te Ururoa Flavell: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of having Mr Brian Roche and his team at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa has exceeded $3.2 million for the 2 years to 31 March 2007 is it likely to cost another $2400 per day plus GST for each day they are on site for the rest of the year and does he think that this is an acceptable cost to continue to be met by Te Wānanga o Aotearoa; if so why?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes I do because that cost and that activity have turned around the wānanga from a position where it was not so much collapsing as exploding and had entered into all kinds of strange activities to one that is now on a secure and safe basis for the future. The progress that has been made in conjunction with the council headed by Craig Coxhead and the chief executive of the wānanga means that we have some reasonable confidence that in fact Mr Roche should be able to be withdrawn before the end of the year.North Shore Hospital—Emergency Department Services8.Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to theMinister of Health: Was the first time he became aware that the North Shore Hospital emergency department is “[not] providing an adequate service” when the Prime Minister told him after her recent visit; if not when did he first become aware?Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I first became aware of problems at North Shore Hospital just over 12 years ago on 30 May 1995. On that day Parliament was advised that an elderly woman who had been taken to hospital by ambulance after breaking her arm was left to find her own way home in her nightie after staff ejected her at 1 o’clock in the morning.Hon Tony Ryall: Given that at that time the current Prime Minister Helen Clark promised she would fix that situation why after spending $5 billion and after 8 long years in office has the Government not fixed it?Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may not be aware that since the change of Government the people of Waitematā have moved from a situation where they had one hospital to a situation where they have two. An entire new hospital has been built in the Waitakere area. There used to not be a hospital under the National Government in west Auckland at all—no hospital for quarter of a million people.Ann Hartley: What advice has the Minister received about the health workforce of the Waitemata District Health Board?Hon PETE HODGSON: As I mentioned to the House yesterday 6 years ago the number of doctors totalled 320 and since then that number has increased to 570. That is a 78 percent increase in that district health board’s doctors—an increase of 250 doctors—in 6 years. As for nurses the increases are even higher. An extra 253 nursing positions have been created not in the past 6 years but in the past 3 years. That is what one can do when one does not have only tax cuts on one’s mind.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the situation with the North Shore Hospital emergency department occasioned by the huge drain on resources caused by that hospital having whole wards filled with people with Third World diseases and how on earth did that get to happen in our country?Hon PETE HODGSON: The health status of the people of North Shore City which is part of the Waitemata District Health Board area happens to be the highest in the land. But what is happening on the North Shore is that it is a very popular area to live it has very large population increases and it has even larger increases in the growth of its elderly population. That is why the funding increases for the Waitemata District Health Board are higher than those for any other district health board in the country.Hon Tony Ryall: Which other emergency departments are not providing an adequate service or is the Minister waiting for the Prime Minister to visit those ones first as well?Hon PETE HODGSON: At this time of year every year a number of emergency departments struggle. The Capital and Coast District Health Board said about 3 weeks ago that it had had difficulty and had moved into a sort of red zone. The Canterbury District Health Board moved into a red zone for several hours a few days ago. There are difficulties in Timaru. There were—but I do not think there are any now—difficulties in Waikato; they may recur. This is what happens when the flu takes hold and reduces the numbers of nurses and doctors available to go to work at the same time as it increases the number of patients who need to go to hospital.Hon Tony Ryall: In blaming the flu for the gridlock in our nation’s hospitals is the Minister aware of the comment of the current Prime Minister when in Opposition: “We know that winter brings an increase in health problems. It happens every year—some years earlier in the season some years later. But our hospitals must be ready to cope with the problems. It just isn’t good enough to have basic services break down as they have.”; and why after $5 billion and 8 years of endless rhetoric do we still have an 83-year-old woman lying on a trolley under bright lights at North Shore Hospital for 4 days on end and a woman with a broken shin and on a drip lying in the emergency department waiting room for 12 hours?Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me remind the House yet again that since the change of Government in December 1999 this country has been on a hospital rebuilding programme of a kind that has never been seen in living memory.Madam SPEAKER: The member gave his question in silence. Would members please give the Minister the courtesy of giving his reply in silence.Hon PETE HODGSON: New hospitals have been built from Kaitāia to Invercargill inclusive. Only a few kilometres from here an entire new regional hospital is going up in Wellington. If we go to Waitematā we find that an expanded emergency departmentat North Shore Hospital was opened by my colleague Annette King and that an entire new hospital was opened in west Auckland. That is the sort of thing one can do when one is intent on getting the rebuild under way and intent on addressing the infrastructure deficit that the current Prime Minister mentioned when in Opposition.Hon Tony Ryall: Does he think that patients at Palmerston North Hospital are getting an adequate service from their emergency department when an elderly man spent nearly an hour bleeding into a garden bucket before he was treated at that emergency department; and does he agree with the current Prime Minister’s pledge that a Labour Government would make sure that when someone needs a hospital bed that person gets it?Hon PETE HODGSON: I will repeat this for the member. The member wants to know where the money has gone. He seems to regret the fact that we have invested heavily in health so he decides he will say that nothing has changed. I tell him that we are on to our 28th hospital rebuild and we will continue that rebuild. When we are elected for a fourth term we will continue that rebuild until it is done. When it is done New Zealanders will have the hospital services that we need and we will not have to put up with the dereliction that was created right through the 1990s when all that that member could do was get out of bed and work out how to cut taxes.Jo Goodhew: Given the Minister’s answers to the previous questions is he concerned that despite all of that building and despite spending an extra $5 billion per year the public’s confidence that they will get treated in an emergency department is at the lowest level that it has ever been and the horror stories are more frightening than ever?Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member that I am not satisfied with the quality of treatment at the North Shore Hospital emergency department as it stands at the moment; neither is the Prime Minister and neither is the board of Waitemata District Health Board. It is not satisfactory. However if the member is going to get up in the House and say that public confidence in our health system is at the lowest level that it has ever been I shall introduce some facts into her prejudices. I am sorry to disturb the member’s prejudices but the truth is that we measure patient satisfaction with our hospitals and it runs at a high 80 percent approval rate.Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister received any reports that the last time Mr Ryall was a member of the Government of New Zealand the Government he was part of closed down 88 hospitals in this country and how did those closures help the New Zealand health system?Hon PETE HODGSON: Not only can I confirm there were hospital closures under the National Government; I can confirm that the National Government sought to reduce demand by charging people to go to hospital. I remember those days and I do not want to ever see them come back.Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question? We have a point of order.Jo Goodhew: I seek leave to table an article—Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I had called for a supplementary question and a member wants to ask one. The normal procedure is that we try to get through supplementary questions before members introduce points of order relating to the tabling of documents. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to tell me whether I have the score right: the National Government closed 88 hospitals—Hon Members: That’s not true.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —was it more—the fourth Labour Government closed 29 hospitals but the fifth Labour Government has opened 28 hospitals so we are onebehind on the Government side and 88 behind on the Opposition side where National is concerned?Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that requires an answer. [Interruption] Please be seated. I will take the member’s point of order. Would members please keep the level of noise down. It is really difficult to hear.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not know why on earth you ruled out that question because it simply asked for a statement of fact from the Minister. It seemed that because of the help of Mr Jim Anderton he had most of the figures at his disposal—first from Jim Anderton and now from myself. All I wanted to know was whether it was true or not true. The question should not be ruled out because those members cannot stand the truth.Gerry Brownlee: The member has asked for a factual answer to his particular question. Perhaps he himself should have used some facts in the first place because there have never been 88 hospitals in this country let alone 88 closed.Madam SPEAKER: We are now moving into debate not points of order. [Interruption] Please be silent; would you please be seated when I am on my feet. I will address the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order. He did ask a question it was in terms of the Standing Orders so would the Minister please respond.Hon PETE HODGSON: With pleasure. The fact of the matter is that I could not keep count of how many hospitals National closed so I am not able to confirm that there were 88. But I am able to confirm afresh that the current building programme in dollars in number of hospitals in number of beds in tonnes of concrete—by whatever measure one would like to take—is the largest in this country in living memory and this Government will be back in a year’s time to continue it.Jo Goodhew: I seek leave to table an article on Christchurch Hospital’s “Worst ‘red gridlock’ in hospital’s history.”Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a report showing that although 250 doctors have been employed by the Waitemata District Health Board well over 200 extra managers and administrators have also been employed.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Hon PETE HODGSON: I seek leave to table a document showing that in the last year although dozens of nurses dozens of doctors and dozens of ancillary health professionals were employed by the Waitemata District Health Board the number of support workers—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Dr Nick Smith: For the benefit of Mr Jim Anderton I seek leave to table a list of the 23 hospitals closed by Helen Clark.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Energy—Alternative Sources9.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports if any has he received on the establishment of a new contestable fund to help bring forward the use of alternative energy sources?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Last night the Prime Minister launched a Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund of $4 million per year. This will help bring forward the use of further renewable energysources such as bio-diesel from algae and sewage biomass and deep geothermal. There is no doubt that this Government is taking many significant steps towards carbon neutrality.Steve Chadwick: Is the Minister able to confirm that the Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund is additional to the marine energy fund launched with the Government’s draft energy policy?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes I can. The low carbon fund is additional to the $8 million marine energy contestable fund. The $800 million worth of sustainability initiatives foreshadowed in the Budget are making a real difference. Yesterday’s announcement also added $2.5 million for dealing with the impacts of climate change on our primary sector and infrastructure—yet more progress towards carbon neutrality—and there are more announcements to come.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is months behind on its work in developing an emissions trading system and that far from introducing legislation in October as promised we are again going to get another discussion document; and is not his reason for manufacturing these minor announcements to try to hide the nakedness of any comprehensive policy around climate change after 8 years in Government?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I cannot confirm the tenor of those comments. I can confirm in response to the concern expressed by some including the Greens that what is going to be produced in respect of emissions trading was only going to be a shell that the Prime Minister quipped that if it is a shell then it is the heaviest shell she has ever seen. There are complex technical papers that lie behind it that would weigh down a truck.Housing—Affordability10.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to theMinister for Building and Construction: What if anything is the Department of Building and Housing doing to improve housing affordability?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): As I advised the member last week in answer to the same question the Department of Building and Housing is working in partnership with a number of agencies in developing a range of housing affordability proposals including the investigation of shared equity. This is part of the Government’s wider work programme on housing affordability. Specifically the department has introduced changes to the building code as I said last week on energy efficiency to save families in new homes between $760 and $1800 per year on their energy bill. The department is also progressing a suite of reforms to transform the sector that include occupational licensing for building practitioners a review of the building code and the accreditation of building consent authorities.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the analysis by the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand that the single biggest cost difference between building a house in New Zealand and in Australia is the cost of consents fees and levies and its analysis that these have risen 900 percent under his Government; if so will he endorse John Key’s call for reform to get these costs down and make houses more affordable?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am aware of the chief executive of the Registered Master Builders Federation Mr Pieter Burghout claiming that 30 percent of the increase in the cost of a basic house represents regulatory costs plus 20 percent labour and material costs. The other 50 percent is the increase in land costs. I am advised that of the 30 percent I have quoted 15 percent are local authority infrastructure levies andfees—for example development levies that local authorities choose the quantum of to charge not the Government—and 15 percent are other local authority charges Resource Management Act and building consent charges and costs of delays in variability in the consenting process. The auditing and consenting of local authorities we are undergoing now will alleviate this.Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that the evidence submitted to the Commerce Committee by the Registered Master Builders Federation is that the time taken to obtain consents has quadrupled and that the average construction time to build a new house has gone from 12 to 22 weeks since the new Building Act came into force—a prime example of bureaucratic overkill—and does he intend to do something about it?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In answer to the last point we are. I am aware of delays in the building consent—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s getting worse!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I tell the member to just breathe quietly. I am aware of delays in the building consent process. The way to address organisational failure in any entity is to go through and organisationally audit the entity to find out whether it has enough staff whether it has enough resource and whether its processes are adequate and efficient. That is what one does. One does not do what the member opposite wanted to do in the legislation he tried to put through this House in which if a council did not meet the 20-day mark the person who wanted the consent got the consent for free and the ratepayer took on all the sunk costs. That bill which that member proposed was not endorsed by the National Party East Coast branch chairperson—I think her name was Seymour—who called it “daft”.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile the self-congratulatory statement by Lianne Dalziel yesterday in the House that the Government has led “the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen” with the statement by the Wellington City Council last week: “A typical house plan 4 years ago was three A3-sized plans and 30 supplementary pages. Now builders are required to file 12 A3-sized plans and up to 300 pages of supplementary documentation.”?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I remind the member that the 1991 building code which his Government passed—the national building code—sets permissive performance standards for buildings. The code leaves it up to local consenting authorities—that is local councils—to determine the actual rules and requirements for compliance with the code and the set of relevant charges attached to it. In essence the code leaves it to the local authorities to set those rules. That is why this Government is in the process of reviewing the building code in the first review since 1991. The second discussion document is out now and I invite the member to submit on it as other learned entities are doing.Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that according to the Registered Master Builders Federation drafting and specification work for a new house has quadrupled since the Building Act came into force and that builders are now drawing plans for the local authority rather than for the builder; and does he agree that in moving to regulation from deregulation we have swung the pendulum too far thus putting the cost of new houses out of reach for many young New Zealand families?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: For the member’s benefit I will quote again. I am advised that of the 30 percent Mr Burghout quoted before the committee only 15 percent of those costs were local authority charges Resource Management Act charges and building consent fees and charges. If we move back as John Key said he wanted us to do in his speech to the New Zealand Contractors Federation of 20 August—where he effectively said he would deregulate the industry again as the previous NationalGovernment did so that there were no rules anybody could pick up a tool belt and call themselves a builder and apprenticeships were done away with which this Government has brought back—then I say to that member: be it on his own head because that is how we got the leaky buildings scenario we are charged with fixing up now.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What action did the Minister take in response to the letter from the Registered Master Builders Federation to him on 20 October last year that states: “About $30000 of the cost of the average new home is attributable to unnecessary regulatory red tape” and does his failure to address these issues after more than a year not show that this Government is part of the problem of home affordability and not part of the solution?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Like all dutiful Ministers on this side I reply to letters. I say again to the member that these issues are why we are embarked on the first review of the building code since 1991. Under his Government in 1991 that member put in place a permissive performance set of standards for buildings that effectively said for the benefit of the House: “You must build a house that does not blow over in the wind. How you achieve that local councils is up to you. You local councils set the rules and we will set the performance standards.” That is why we are embarked on a review of the building code and if the member would like I am happy to send him a copy of the discussion documents so that he can put forward his view.Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document that will make an utter nonsense of the claims by Clayton Cosgrove that document being the speech made by John Key.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins saying that only Labour could claim credit for the—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the letter of the Registered Master Builders Federation to the Minister on 20 October last year saying that unnecessary—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Question time interrupted.Points of OrderSignage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall yesterday that the Business Committee indicated that the use of the boxes with the Labour Party display on them was permissible in the short term. I refer you to the Speaker’s ruling on visual aids on page 53. There is a ruling here that basically makes it very clear that such a visual aid cannot obscure a member from the view of the Speaker. I notice looking down at the back of the House that there is a member Ms Mackey who is completely invisible because of the box in front of her.Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order. The member knows that that matter has already been dealt with.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My real reason for raising that point of order was the assurance that unattended boxes would be removed from the House.Madam SPEAKER: It would be very helpful if the member would make his point of order clearly instead of trying to score points. As with all rules members have to beinformed of that through their caucus and after the break the rule will be strictly enforced.Question time resumed.Questions to MinistersPrisons—Cellphones11. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to theMinister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to restrict the use of cellphones in prisons?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Today the Department of Corrections has signed a formal agreement that provides the department with the ability to block the use of cellphones in prisons. The deal is a world first. Technology solutions will roll out nationwide starting within 6 weeks at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison. Between 20 and 30 available technologies have been tested and we now have a range of solutions that can be implemented across the prison system.Jill Pettis: What other measures have been introduced to prevent cellphones from getting into prisons?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am glad that question was asked. Preventing cellphones and other contraband items from entering prisons and apprehending those who do attempt to smuggle them in have been amongst my highest priorities. I am about to introduce amendments to the Corrections Act that will boost search powers and stiffen penalties for anyone who is foolish enough to bring communications devices drugs or weapons into prisons. We already have intelligence-gathering systems in each and every prison. We have doubled the number of drug-dog teams. We have 17 kilometres of new security fencing around our prisons. We have shifted towards a single point of entry at all our prison sites. We are moving on this international challenge.Simon Power: Will this new technology work at Mount Eden Prison?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Department of Corrections will be working with the telecommunications companies to ensure that cellphone jamming technology will be used as long as it does not interfere with legitimate cellphone users. It is possible to use it at Mount Eden Prison I am told and the Department of Corrections will work with the companies to ensure that that can happen.Ron Mark: Does the Minister not agree with New Zealand First’s view that part of the problem we have with cellphone usage in prisons and the smuggling of them into prisons has been the “wet bus ticket” approach that has been taken towards inmates who have been found to be in possession of cellphones; if he does agree that past approaches have been of the “wet bus ticket” types—that is no extra sentencing; no extra prison term—what will he do about that in the future?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are moving to amend the Corrections Act to ensure that anyone who is in possession of a cellphone on a cell site without full authorisation will be prosecuted be that person a staff member a visitor or a prisoner and that such a prisoner will receive an extended prison term if he or she is prosecuted.Consumer Affairs Ministry—Confidence12.KATE WILKINSON (National) to theMinister of Consumer Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs; if so why?Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): Yes; because it is a small but hard-working ministry. But I am sure there is always room for improvement.Kate Wilkinson: Why should we believe that the Minister is concerned about consumer safety when she has not recommended a single product safety standard for 2years when only six have been recommended in the last 6 years and when the formaldehyde content in textiles was raised as a concern in the Australian media 3 months ago yet nothing has been done about it until this week?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Because the legislation under which our consumer law operates—which was described by David Russell the former chief executive officer of the Consumers Institute as a fine elegant standard which is much admired internationally—has absolute standards. Every good must be safe and fit for the purpose for which it is intended. We have good standards and those standards are very well managed. However what we cannot do is stand by every consumer and tell them what to buy and what not to buy. We have to be active intelligent well-informed consumers. We have done a great deal. We have had mandatory recalls for hot-water bottles. We have had mandatory recalls for tongue studs. We have had many voluntary recalls including I have to say in the last 2 hours a voluntary recall of blankets by Spotlight Stores (NZ) Ltd when high levels of formaldehyde were found after voluntary testing undertaken in Australia. That affects 850 blankets. The system is working.Kate Wilkinson: Why should we believe that she is concerned about consumer safety when she has not recalled a single product in the last 12 months or that voluntary recalling of products is working well when in the last 12 months only 17 product recalls have been made compared with over 200 for the same period in Australia?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Wherever goods are found to be unsafe they are subject either to a voluntary recall or to a mandatory recall. The system is working very well in New Zealand and this Government has properly funded the Commerce Commission to investigate the Fair Trading Act. We have increased the number of staff in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. We are working closely with other ministries and other countries and the absolutely independent former chief executive officer of the Consumers Institute say that our system is both efficient and widely admired.Dianne Yates: Could the Minister remind the House when and why the Ministry of Consumer Affairs was established and what its role is?Madam SPEAKER: I hope the question is answered in a succinct manner.Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Certainly Madam Speaker. Since it was established by the fourth Labour Government the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has effectively maintained safety standards. For example its work covers the development of consumer policy consumer protection product safety and weights and measures. It provides appropriate accurate and accessible information education and advice to consumers and to businesses on consumer laws and issues. What is more the New Zealand market overwhelmingly works.Kate Wilkinson: Why is it that we have a product safety standard for toys relating to small parts yet we have nothing from the Minister on the hazardous chemical residues on children’s clothing and nothing on the lead content of paint used to paint those toys?Hon JUDITH TIZARD: All goods sold in New Zealand must be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are intended. We have very good standards and we see them enforced. The recalls are an example of the system working. I am astonished that the Opposition which despises all consumer support is trying to attack us and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for an excellent system that works.General DebateJOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well it really has been a bad week for the Government has it not? What a shocker! It is only Wednesday and it has been a bad week for the Government and I say that it will take more than all the formaldehyde in China to preserve that Government beyond 2008.One did not have to read about it in theDominion Post but as it turns out I did. I thought the front page was quite interesting: “Labour support crumbling”. The interesting bit in the story was from Michael Cullen who said: “I don’t comment too much on polls” and he believed that John Key’s honeymoon was over. Well if it is over when I am 20 percent ahead that is quite an interesting observation really is it not!It has been a bad week for a Government that has forgotten who put it in office. The Government does not care about the people of New Zealand any more. Last week when the financial markets were in crisis the Minister of Finance did not even know that the banks in New Zealand were having meetings to try to prop up liquidity. He did not know—which was my guess—that Nathans Finance was going to fall over on Monday because that Government is so out of touch with New Zealand. The Government is so out of touch with New Zealand and everyday New Zealanders that it does not care about the big issues any more. It is prepared to trade 10 years of a relationship with Australia over a simple attack job here domestically on me. The Government thinks that that is more important. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are looking at the Government and saying: “We don’t want them any more.” Because when one starts being prepared to trade one’s relationship then it tells one that things are going terribly wrong.The other thing that is going terribly wrong is the right of New Zealanders who want to have a chance to stand up and say what they think about politics in New Zealand. I tell members that the Labour members may not know much about the Electoral Finance Bill but they know more than Mark Burton the Minister who is actually running it does. My colleague Bill English has been asking Mark Burton questions and Mr Burton cannot answer any of them. It has got so bad that Bill English now has to give 24 hours’ notice so Mark Burton can scurry back to his office and try to get an answer.When we asked Helen Clark today what role she had played in this she thought that was a silly question and did not want to answer it because she knows that that bill will not last. New Zealanders are not going to support an assault on their democracy such as we are seeing from Labour. I am not surprised that Labour members are silent because they know that it is wrong. They know that New Zealanders are entitled to have their say and that that bill will stop them having their say. They will become second-class citizens with that legislation which does not even deserve to be called a bill.I will make this prediction: Mark Burton will be gone before that bill has gone but both of them are going pretty soon. That is what we know. Judith Tizard and Rick Barker will also be gone—actually anybody in the Labour Government with a name starting with a “B” is gone—Benson-Pope Barker and Burton are gone and quite a few others are going as well. They deserve to go if they are going to treat New Zealanders with disrespect.Earlier on this year my colleague Bill English made it quite clear that the National Party was prepared to be in consultation about electoral law reform. That is the way it happens. We do not have an Upper House in this country and we do not have a written constitution. New Zealanders rely on electoral law that is passed not with the intention of keeping the ruling party in power not with the intention of screwing the scrum and not with the intention of being the only bastion that will stop them from electoral oblivion. The reason we have electoral reform on a bipartisan basis is that we rely on that basis to pass good legislation. What is the intent of this legislation? It is to get the Exclusive Brethren and anybody else who wants to speak out against Labour and they did not consult us.Quite interestingly they did not consult the Māori Party or ACT either. On Saturday morning anybody watchingAgenda would have seen Guyon Espiner say that Helen Clark counts the Māori Party on her side of the ledger. So they are good enough to havemaybe in a future Government with Labour but they are not good enough to consult on this legislation!TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou. I have some awesome questions for my Māori Party colleagues because I suspect they will know some of the answers but there may well be others in the House who have the answers to these questions. I ask members to put up their hands if they have heard of the United Nations. Very good; well done. I ask them to put up their hands if they believe that New Zealand places a high value on our relationship with the United Nations. Well done; excellent. Last year New Zealand gave $7.7 million to the 2007 United Nations budget and on top of that we contributed $15.3 million to 14 UN peacekeeping operations and nearly $1 million to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. And it is not just about money; we have contributed largely in terms of personnel and services to many UN missions over the years.Has this high-value relationship just happened overnight I ask my Māori Party colleagues? No no—hell no. Some 62 years ago New Zealand took the plunge and we put up our hands to become a foundation member of the UN. Our Prime Minister at the time Sir Peter Fraser chaired the committee that wrote the trusteeship chapter of the United Nations Charter. We have been a member from time to time of a number of the key UN committees since 1945 including the General Assembly and the Security Council. Indeed New Zealanders have held some top jobs there. The Unesco World Heritage Committee is currently chaired by the Ngāti Tūwharetoa paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu Sir Lesley Munro was President of the UN General Assembly in 1957 we have been elected to membership of the Security Council three times Sir Kenneth Keith is a judge on the International Court of Justice and Mr Paul Hunt is the special rapporteur on the right to health.How seriously do we take UN calls to action? Let us take just one area. New Zealand has been a staunch supporter of the international campaign against terrorism responding rapidly and substantively to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 through contributions to political diplomatic legal intelligence and military initiatives. We have also signed up to Operation Enduring Freedom through the deployment of ground naval and air troops and we are now party to all 12 UN anti-terrorism conventions. So the big question is what will we do with the latest UN report on New Zealand from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also known as “CERD”?What are we talking about here? It is racial discrimination. Perhaps a definition we could start off with might be something like this: racism occurs when one group of people is perceived to be inferior and deviant and another group is perceived to be superior and normal. Well the UN committee identified that the New Zealand Government’s actions “tend to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Maori.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whom did they talk to?TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will get to that. The committee was concerned that only a small percentage of the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendations are followed by the Government depriving claimants of a right to an effective remedy. The committee was concerned by the discrepancy between the assessment made by the Crown and that made by non-governmental organisations on the foreshore and seabed issue. There are six pages of straight-to-the-point discussion and recommendations. The committee came up with 16 ideas for action such as renewed dialogue and consultation of which one part is our effort to have the repeal bill that is in our name put in front of this House.The committee talks about giving status to the implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi and granting the tribunal legally binding powers.Finally I ask the class of the mighty Māori Party how do members think the Government responded? Well it is interesting that the Rt Hon Winston Peters in addressing the UN committee stated: “New Zealand remains unwavering in its support for the United Nations.” That is what he said. But in talking about this report he said that it is meddlesome and that its authors were not experts on the issues they were dealing with. Dr Cullen thankfully had some supportive statements to make when he said that the report put the Government on notice to consider and consult carefully.Well we have been there before. Two years ago the same committee released its findings on the Foreshore and Seabed Act and our Prime Minister derided its work as being that of a “committee that sits on the outer edge of the UN”. That sort of response is pretty disappointing considering that people like Mark Solomon the Treaty Tribes Coalition and Joris de Bres amongst others also put a number of statements in front of the committee. They gave statements and supporting evidence. Some of those people are appointed by the Government so there we go.The longer-term effects of racism short-change everybody. Racism sets groups of people against each other and makes it difficult for us to perceive our common interests so we hope that this report will be taken very seriously.Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I have two issues to raise with the House today. First of all I have something that is not new; it is to do with Mr Key’s inability to hold to one line of a story—any story—for any length of time. However the second is new and I will come to it. Both issues involve Mr Key’s interaction with the electoral enrolment process and Mr Key’s public statements about where he lived at any point in time. The second issue involves additionally Mr Key’s interaction with the Companies Act and with the New Zealand Companies Office.Five years ago in June and again in July 2002 Mr Key stated publicly that he was building a house in Parnell central Auckland and that he was building “an electorate home in Helensville” which is in west Auckland. At the time Mr Key was living in neither home but in a third home in Remuera in east Auckland. Clearly Mr Key was on the move. The electorate home in Helensville clearly became more important for Mr Key because a few months later in October he was enrolled in the Helensville area and he voted in Helensville where his electorate home was situated—so far so good. By 2005 however Mr Key had changed his mind. He said publicly that he had intended to live in Helensville but that it had proved too difficult and he did not want to vote there any more but in Parnell where he then lived which is where he presumably votes now. So far all we have is a flip-flop—just another flip-flop. He said he would live in Helensville he enrolled in Helensville and he voted in Helensville but he then changed his mind. He may have broken the Electoral Act but he may not have; I do not know.But then after the flip-flop came the denial. A week ago on 15 August it was stated: “Mr Key said that when he first stood for Helensville the fact that he lived elsewhere had been front-page news”. Well it was not front-page news that he lived elsewhere; it was front-page news that he intended to live in Helensville. That is what he told the public in June and July 2002. So he told the Electoral Enrolment Centre that he lived in Helensville he told the public that he would live in Helensville and he told the returning officer that he lived in Helensville when he filed his expenses but he now denies that he ever said that. So we have a flip-flop followed by a denial. And that is Iraq all over again.But then things become a little more serious because the Companies Act comes into play. In March 2002 Mr Key told the Companies Office that he lived in Remuera. That was a statutory declaration. In October 2002 7 months later he made another statutorydeclaration to the electoral enrolment people that he lived in Helensville. In March 2003 6 months after that he made a third statutory declaration to the Companies Office that he lived in Remuera—again. In 2004 he confirmed for the Electoral Enrolment Centre that he lived in Helensville. So questions arise. I ask whether Mr Key really shifted from Remuera to Helensville to Remuera to Helensville during each of those periods and I ask whether that is somehow possible. Quite when did Mr Key live neither in Remuera or Helensville but in Parnell where he lives now? When did he shift to this third address? I ask whether Mr Key is aware of the provisions of the Electoral Act 1993. Did he breach the Act; if so was it by accident or design?Much more important I ask whether Mr Key is aware of the provisions of the Companies Act. No one may mislead the Companies Act. The law is strict. Section 377 of the Companies Act states that an offence is committed if anyone makes a false or misleading statement knowing it to be false or misleading. The offence is a serious one in our law. It attracts a fine of up to $200000 or a prison term of up to 5 years. If Mr Key were ever convicted of such an offence he would be asked—required—to leave this House.So serious questions arise: did he live in Remuera in March 2002 and did he live in Remuera in April 2003? If he did not in both cases or in either case has he approached the Companies Office to offer an explanation? Does the Companies Office prosecute someone who has a false address or does it prosecute only sometimes and if so under what circumstances? Let me remind the House that my colleague the Hon David Parker when confronted with a similar issue under exactly the same Act stood down. He resumed his ministerial role only when he was able to show that the error he was accused of did not happen. There are some questions to answer I say to Mr Key.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): So in our changing world with the globalised economy the highest interest rates in the developed world and financial instability from here to London here is the big question: did John Key live in Remuera in March 2002? That is it! That is it! Did John Key live in Remuera in March 2002?Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he telling the truth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I want to tell Mr Mallard what the good voters of Wainuiōmata have as an answer. It is: “Who cares?”. Their other question is: “Trevor why do you care when you always said you cared about ‘me’?”. And that is the problem for the Labour Government. That speech tells everyone who voted Labour that Labour has stopped caring about the voters and cares only and obsessively now about the survival of the Labour Government.The reason we had Mr Hodgson today is that Phil Goff’s performance in the last 10 days has resembled a dog that goes off to chase the traffic and hits a parked car. So today we had the next best shot from the Labour Party Darren Hughes. He was the man who got up in question time and made the big hit. When Labour voters realise that the person Helen Clark is putting into the front line on behalf of low and middle income New Zealanders—people who face 18 months of going backwards between now and the next election—is Darren Hughes then those voters too will start leaving the Labour Party.You see my colleague and our leader John Key is absolutely right. When everyone else thought that the Labour Government was trawling through the policy options to improve the lot of New Zealanders who are now going to pay the price of mismanaged growth it was in fact trawling through the rubbish bins and the Companies Register to try to find another way to trip up a politician whom they simply cannot deal with. That is why it is getting personal and nasty and Trevor Mallard needs to understand thatwhenever he or his colleagues are on TV attacking John Key our support goes up not down.The voters want to see a positive forward-looking vision of New Zealand what potential it has and where it can go rather than see a tired fag-end worn-out bunch of Labour elitists who are only ever worried about where they have been and what jobs they might get between now and the election. That is all summed up by the Electoral Finance Bill. Helen Clark has done nothing more self-serving—more for the Labour Party and against the people—than to bring in that legislation. She has written a piece of legislation that makes sure that her useless Minister—what is his name?Hon David Carter: Burton.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —that he and Trevor Mallard will get to spend $65000 of public money in their electorates next year advertising themselves; and the National candidate will be allowed to spend only $20000. In fact those members will get to spend $85000 $65000 of which is public money. In the electorate of Taupō the National candidate will win.The Government has become totally self-serving and totally inward-looking. I feel sorry for the voters it has deserted because the people who have loyally voted for Labour and expected some kind of reward for it after 8 years have been deserted. Back in 2000 people on the average wage—loyal Labour voters for three elections—were paying 19 percent of their income in tax; now they are paying 23 percent of their income in tax. Their interest rates are going up and their purchasing power is dropping. And if Mr Mallard is worried about the polling now well the bite has not even come yet. [Interruption]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): Mr Hughes made a good point. I listened to Mr English very carefully. Amongst the things he talked about he alleged that we were a self-serving Government and that it is “all about us”—apparently. Then he spent 2½ minutes talking about what the National Party may get to spend and what the Labour Party may get to spend. He talked about National wanting to get into power and about not liking the fact that we are in power. Well if that is not self-serving I do not know what is.Mr English made another interesting point. He tried to illustrate what the voters want to see. Here is what I think the voters want to see. If John Key wants to become the Prime Minister then the voters will want to see truth consistency and credibility. It does not matter how many speeches that member makes over there whilst every 5 seconds looking up at the press gallery grinning and trying to drag out a bit of adoration because he knows that theNew Zealand Herald for instance on the topic of therapeutic goods sliced him open. He had four dictaphones under his nose and he still could not come out and give a consistent position on that. The New Zealand people want a bit of credible consistent truthful leadership and they ain’t getting it out of that man.We should take a look at Mr Key’s past. Of course it is all right for Bill English and the mob over there to have a go at us on election spending and on all sorts of other issues but when we have a go at them and challenge their leader to be consistent on Iraq on therapeutic goods on where he lives and on climate change which are all pretty simple questions they cannot hack it. They send in the man who is deputy leader who is himself inconsistent. For 8 years on superannuation for instance he said he was not going to cut it then a couple of months ago he said it was too generous and told the old folk that the votes of the 20-year-olds were not won by telling them they would be secure in their retirement and that by the way National might have to cut it and to means test it. So as I said in another speech he is about as consistent about as solid as a jelly on a hotplate; it sort of oozes out from all sides. I say to those members that ifthey want to show real leadership then they should stand up today—not even bothering to give us some policies; we know that is too difficult for them—and tell us what their position is on Iraq on climate change on measures relating to therapeutic goods on where John Key lives and on the other issues Mr Hodgson raised.Those members talk about accountability and they throw arrows across here demanding accountability but when we say: “Hang on a minute you’re inconsistent. The member’s not credible.”—I cannot use the “t” word but their leader is fast and loose with a number of points in his history—they do not like it do they. They cannot hack the pace. But if our democracy is so precious—to quote another member—then the people are owed explanations by all members of this House by all political parties whether they be Government or Opposition parties. We do not ask today for the impossible. We do not ask today for a policy on climate change a policy on housing affordability a policy on therapeutic goods or any of that. That height-bar is just too high for that new member and his deputy. We simply ask on behalf of the New Zealand people that he comes clean on a series of issues.Mr English challenged us to say what we have done for our core constituency. Well I say to Mr English that there have been 350000 new jobs since 1999 and we have the lowest Māori unemployment figures on the record of counting. Under the Working for Families programme 350000 families are getting their own money back in tax credits of on average 110 bucks a week. That can be compared with yet another inconsistent point which is that he wants to gut Working for Families and pull out 50 or 80 bucks a week from that average sum. Opposition members have all gone a bit quiet—the old bantam hens over there—have they not. To quote fromDad’s Army they do not like the old cold steel. Well I say that if they are going to get in the ring throw it about and exercise their democratic right to call individuals in this House to account then they should look in the mirror and be prepared to stand up—especially the Cheshire cat in the back row—and answer some basic questions.Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): These are indeed troubled times for many New Zealanders because they look at the state of the financial markets at the difficulties confronting many as they try to tackle the maintenance of their homeownership and at the fact that something like 750 New Zealanders a week are leaving to live in Australia according to statistics released for the year to the end of July. They look to the people who hold ministerial warrants the people with flash houses and the people with chauffeur-driven limousines and they ask what the Ministers of the Crown in this Government are doing to make their lives more secure.What those Ministers are doing is trawling through the wastepaper baskets behind John Key. That is what the Ministers of the Crown in this Government are doing. That is all they are doing and New Zealanders are entitled to draw the most uncharitable conclusions about that.I have a simple message for the Labour Government today which is that it should stop playing petty politics over New Zealand’s international relationships. In the last week we have seen that playing petty politics with New Zealand’s international relationships comes at a price. It comes at a price for New Zealanders and it has come in particular at a price for New Zealand’s national airline. It is indeed ironic that we should see such outbursts of partisanship at a time when we have the most bipartisan Opposition leader on international relations to sit in this Parliament in over 30 years—the most bipartisan Leader of the Opposition on international relations this Parliament has seen in over 30 years.I would have thought that the Labour Government would embrace such a moment. I would have thought that Labour members would say it is great that they can take international relations off the domestic political agenda. But in the last week and inprevious months we have seen that it does not really matter what it costs New Zealand as long as Labour members can find some cheap line to throw at the political juggernaut that is bowling over the lot of them. I want to remind the House of the cost the national airline will pay and I would ask the Ministers opposite whether they will give us information on this because New Zealanders deserve to know.Mr Goff and other Ministers decided to drag Mr Key’s name through debates in this Chamber by trying to bring international relations unnecessarily into the political debate. They were prepared to put almost anything at risk. We have seen as a consequence that the Minister’s relationship with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been put at risk that the relationship with the national flag carrier has been put at risk and most important that our most important international relationship—that with Australia—has been put at risk. At the end of last week we would have thought that they had learnt their lesson that they would draw a line under this and move on but just yesterday we saw the Minister of Defence—the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—yet again taking another cheap shot in the direction of the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. I say that it is time that that tactic stopped.I want the Ministers opposite to tell this House today just what the cost will be for Air New Zealand. We know that $18 million worth of charters are now at risk but what New Zealanders have yet to grasp is that Air New Zealand conducts a great deal of work for the Australian Defence Force. It does a great deal of mechanical engineering work for the Royal Australian Air Force and I want Ministers to tell us just how many of those contracts have been put at risk. What will the Australian Government’s position mean for those contracts? What will it mean for new contracts? New contracts are coming up for tender in the coming weeks. Will New Zealand be able to tender for those contracts?We know that the Royal Australian Navy uses Air New Zealand’s workshops for significant work on the gas turbines on their frigates. Are those contracts at risk?Darren Hughes: John Key agrees with Helen Clark on this.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Well I think that New Zealanders are entitled to know what the cost is. We know that Air New Zealand derives in total some tens of millions of dollars of revenue from those contracts and we want an answer.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): New Zealanders are entitled to know National’s policy on anything that its members have raised in this House today. It is a very interesting debate when we hear members of the Opposition getting up and saying a whole lot of things but not being prepared to put some substance behind those things. It is a typical Opposition strategy to create a doom and gloom image say anything bring in the marketing guru and then say anything again. That has been the strategy adopted by National members.To put it quite simply National is not reflecting the real concerns of people on the ground. In fact what we are hearing out there is something to this effect: “You know John Key says all the right things but we’re not sure about the detail. You get the feeling he’s going to say what he thinks you want to hear but not what he really believes in. When are we really going to hear the detail? We know the policy but what are they really going to do? We have had enough of the marketing strategy.” That is what New Zealanders out on the ground are saying but National wants us to believe otherwise.Labour has been listening to the real issues out there that people care about the real issues that they believe this Government is addressing the real issues that they know make a difference to the lives of families—families with children the elderly and people who are disadvantaged within our communities. When we get that feeling that there is a bit of a movement and a swelling on the ground that John Key says all theright things but that people are not sure about the detail—they get the feeling he will say what he thinks they want to hear but not what he believes—we know that there is a marketing strategy there that is just for TV and just for Parliament that has nothing to do with people out there on the ground in the community. I can tell by the way National members are looking down at the floor that they know it too.Dealing with real issues is about affecting the lives of people in our communities for example through establishing low-cost visits to general practitioners and low-cost prescriptions. Those affect real people real lives. Income-related rentals affect real people real lives so does ensuring that in our communities we have more skilled and trained people. Just last night I was in the south Waikato district at a ceremony to celebrate the increased number of Modern Apprentices who are now coming through in Tokoroa. It was fantastic. The mayor himself said that never before had they had such commitment from the Government from industry training organisations and from local businesses to say that the trade sector was a priority. Small communities like Tokoroa are growing their own apprentices and now those apprentices have the ability to contribute back to their communities.That is what real people are feeling on the ground. They are quite excited actually about the level of investment that this Government is making alongside communities to improve the lives of a lot of people. More important my colleague Clayton Cosgrove pointed to the issue of employment and to the increased number of jobs we have had out there. We know that affecting the real lives of people and families with children is done through giving people the ability to have a job put kai on the table and look after their own. That is what people want and that is what they have seen under this Government. There are also rates rebates for low-income homeowners. Again that is a policy that affects the real lives of real people.But what would National have us believe? They would have us believe that all that does not matter and that it is not making a difference. We can go into any small community and its people will tell us that Government policies have gone quite a bit towards helping them meet their annual costs.What is most important is that we are investing in families with children through tax credits not through tax cuts that would benefit only a few. Investing in families with children through the Working for Families package has continued to make a difference. We can always do more there and we intend to. National is very light on detail but what it is not telling people is that that investment would go under a National Government.So although the marketing strategy may work for Parliament and for TV those people out on the ground real families with real commitments who have a real sense of wanting to do better for themselves know that if National gets in all that will go. Out on the ground people know that although National members are so hungry to get on to the Treasury benches that they will say what people want right up until the election after the election bang they will do something else.That is at the core of the question asked by my colleague Pete Hodgson. We have to be able to believe what someone says and we want to have a sense that at the very top of the Opposition leadership the Leader of the Opposition is able to tell the truth and to say what he believes not what he thinks people want to hear. That is the kind of difference that I think in time will reveal itself and will really show a lot of New Zealanders that that leadership is all style no substance and no detail whatsoever. New Zealanders deserve better than that.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): Kiwi cancer patients are suffering needlessly because the technology that could streamline their treatment is not available publicly here in New Zealand and it is not likely to be for quite some time. It is not fair it is notjust and it is blatantly wrong. The Ministry of Health has been dithering around about the purchase of a publicly funded PET scanner which is a positron emission tomography scanner since mid-2005 and we are still no closer. A recent TV3 news report stated that we are about 3 years away from that—3 long years. It is a totally unbelievable wait for cancer sufferers and for cancer doctors who are also pushing for one of these publicly funded PET scanners.It is a fact that these scanners have been available in Australia since 1992. The patient is injected with a very small amount of radioactive glucose which provides a very clear image of cancer sites and gives doctors a very clear indication of the stage of the tumour and what treatment is required and of course it is used for monitoring after the therapy to see whether the tumour is still alive. PET scanning has become a benchmark for staging cancer and New Zealanders have great difficulty accessing it. An 84 percent accuracy in the diagnosis of cancer is as important as an 86 percent specificity of the rate of cancer. Basically a PET scanner ensures the best treatment option for that particular patient.Over in Australia—and I am definitely not one to push the boat of Australia—they work on a ratio of having one to 1.5 publicly funded PET scanners for every 1 million of their population. They currently have 16 scanners in 13 locations seven contracted facilities and one cyclotron to produce the radioactive material for every four scanners. So the Australians have at least four cyclotrons and they are actually looking at increasing their PET facilities.In New Zealand we do not have a publicly funded scanner. We would love to have one. We would like to have one cyclotron as well. It would be very beneficial. Two would be beyond belief. What do we have here in New Zealand? We have patients travelling to Australia at their own expense. Last year 43 patients paid their own way to Australia for a scan and 53 patients were funded by district health boards. I would imagine that not one of those patients came from the far north or the East Coast. There is a facility at Wakefield Hospital and some private patients and some very fortunate people from Capital and Coast actually get to use it. The glucose solution is flown in from Australia pretty regularly.We need our own facility in New Zealand. We know that it could cost up to $20 million to set one up but one surgeon estimated that the savings on lung cancer alone could be up to $600000 per year. Overall it has been estimated that at least $3.5 million is wasted on unnecessary surgery for cancer patients. We know that cancer causes 29 percent of all deaths in this country and it is estimated that by 2011 this will increase to 47 percent which is estimated to be 22000 cancer patients.Research that could save lives and expedite treatment should be a priority for the Ministry of Health. But what has happened? The bureaucracy is spinning into action and committees have been formed—a real committee-fest. The Cancer Treatment Working Party presented a report to the Ministry of Health in mid-2005. The National Service and Technology Review Advisory Committee provided an update to the Minister of Health in November 2006. We have a Service Planning and New Health Intervention Assessment committee looking at new health interventions. That committee is somehow involved. Then the business case was considered by the national District Health Boards chief executive group in June 2007 and it was turned down. The chief executive officer group decided that it was too costly without adequate justification of additional patient benefit which is ridiculous.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Dysfunction disorganisation—these are the hallmarks of a disintegrating Government. I have to ask the Government speakers: who knew what happened in the Air New Zealand situation? The strangest aspect of the whole issue about Air New Zealand and charter flights is who in theGovernment actually knew the truth. According to the Prime Minister the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs they knew only last week when the story broke. But in fact most of the senior Government officials—the senior public servants—knew and had known for months. Simon Murdoch had been specifically advised by Rob Fyfe the Chief Executive Officer of Air New Zealand that the flights were to take place. Air New Zealand did the right thing. It knew that the flights were sensitive so it sought advice and spoke to the most senior foreign affairs official in the country—actually chief executive officer to chief executive officer.The information did not remain just with Mr Murdoch. There is a special committee—the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination—of which Mr Murdoch is a member. The committee is chaired by Mr Maartin Wevers who is the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and it includes the Secretary of Defence Mr John McKinnon. These three people are all former or current diplomats of the highest experience. One would think they knew how to spot a sensitive issue. Other members on the committee include the head of defence the head of SIS the police commissioner and the chief executive of Treasury. They all knew yet apparently no one spoke to a Minister or even to anyone in a Minister’s office.Now we have to take a member’s word in this House—or as the Prime Minister says until it is proven otherwise. That is the formula she used to get rid of Mr Benson-Pope. So we have to ask this simple question: why was it that these experienced public servants thought that they did not have to speak to a single Minister even though Air New Zealand could see there was a potential problem? It is the case that this Government seems to have two foreign policies—one for external consumption and one for local consumption. We saw the local consumption version last week. The Government always attacks the United States—the bogeyman of the left. It happened at the last election. We saw Phil Goff give one of his vein-popping speeches. The Government thinks there is mileage in all of that but Colin James said this week in theNew Zealand Herald that the Government should forget Iraq; the country is simply not interested.The Government also has a different foreign policy—the external one. It is usually a bit of a different message: we like to get on with friendly Governments smoothing over differences and putting them off to the margins—although that was somewhat forgotten by the Prime Minister in reference to Australia this week. One has to ask oneself this question: is this why the officials thought that the flights were OK? Had the Government somehow given an indication that they should be helpful to our friends that all the Government Ministers needed was some form of plausible deniability? On the face of it that is exactly what they had. They came down here and denied.I reckon the public have worked this one out. They can see hypocrisy. They can sense shallow politics. This time the tired old tactic of bashing the United States of bashing our closest friend Australia simply has not worked. I wonder whether any of the members on the other side of the House have actually taken the time and trouble to look at theNew Zealand Herald blogsite. There are about 30 pages on this issue and almost 95 percent are saying that they actually do not care that it does not really matter that it is probably a good thing that we help out our old mate Australia when it asks for it and that Australia is entitled to a bit of respect and support. The public simply do not care.Russell Fairbrother: Off over to Iraq are you?Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is the point that Mr Fairbrother does not work out. The public have moved on. I must make this point to Mr Fairbrother. Mr James was absolutely right. I say to the Government to forget about Iraq because the public areactually looking forward. They are not interested in disputes of the past. They want change and come November 2008 they will have their chance to get it.Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): That member Wayne Mapp wants everybody to forget Iraq. So do all the Governments that have sent troops there who have died. The National Party wants to sweep it under the carpet. We can understand that; its members do not want the words of their leader coming back to haunt them. They would prefer it to be forgotten it is sad that it will not be forgotten and it should not be forgotten by New Zealanders. If that lot were the Government they would have sent young New Zealand men and women there to die and Air New Zealand would have been bringing them back in body bags.Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh no.Hon MARK GOSCHE: Yes that is what it would have been doing. Poor old Dr Mapp wants the public to forget it.But let us get back to some of the earlier comments and speeches about the poor personal attacks on Mr Key and about how sad it is that the Government wants to remind the public about his shallowness. I was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago of about 400 factory workers in South Auckland. National says we are not in touch and that we do not listen to those people. Well I was there and we were talking about housing. Of course we have had the National members lately pronouncing on housing. What have they been saying? They have said that they want to sell State houses to the tenants yet all of this year National’s housing spokesperson Mr Heatley has been railing about the properties in Ōrākei in the eastern suburbs of Auckland. It is a place where many people particularly Ngāti Whātua have lived for years and years despite Governments doing their very best to shove them out and he is saying that we should sell those properties. Will he sell them to the tenants? Will they have the $1 million to buy them?Jill Pettis: No!Hon MARK GOSCHE: No! National will be selling them to its mates yet again. Let us get back to Mr Key’s words. He is afraid of the effects on the underclass. He believes that it is unaffordable for many people to have a house. So what is this Government doing about it? We will actually do something about it up in Hobsonville. We will have affordable housing for people to buy. We will have State housing we will have schools and we will have shops. We will make a community where not everybody in that community is rich or poor because we know the failed policies of the past and what they delivered.What does the man who went up to Waitangi with a young Māori girl saying that he was there for the underclass say about Hobsonville State housing? What does he say about this Government’s desire to have affordable housing in his electorate? He says: “Oh no! We don’t want those poor people anywhere near us. Get them out of here. And by the way do not let them live in Ōrākei either.” This is the man who would have us believe that he is there for the underclass for all of those people I was talking to at that meeting in South Auckland who work in the factories who work in manufacturing jobs and who are trying to bring up families on low or modest incomes. What does Mr Key have in store for them? He says that we cannot have affordable housing anywhere near his electorate that we cannot have low-income people living in $1 million properties up in Ōrākei—they have to be sold—and he pretends that he will sell State houses to low-income people who are in State houses right now because they are so low-income that they cannot afford to buy a house. Where is the logic in that?But we should not get personal. We should not get in there and test his theories and policies. Oh no it is terrible if the Government dares to do that to the Leader of the Opposition. The same people Mr Key says he is concerned about—the people I wastalking to a couple of weeks ago—were saying how great KiwiSaver is. They asked me what the National Party would do to it. We know what it will do to it because it has already said that this Government is spending too much on retirement. What that means is that National will either cut KiwiSaver or cut the pension or both. Those members over there know that. They know that the party led by John Key voted against increasing the minimum wage voted against KiwiSaver voted against increased holidays for average working families and voted against lower doctor fees. It voted against prescription fees of three bucks. This is the man who says that he is worried about the underclass yet he voted against lowering doctor fees lowering prescription costs better wages and better holidays.Of course we are not supposed to remind him about his desire to send troops to Iraq so that they could be killed. It would not be a bunch of Tories’ sons and daughters who went over there and fought in Iraq; that is not the way it works anywhere in the world. Oh no the poor underclass would provide the bodies to go over there. [Interruption] Dr Mapp does not want to be reminded about Iraq; he wants to read hisNew ZealandHerald blog so that he can forget his leader’s idiotic statements which he made 3 or 4 years ago.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There has been much criticism of the Minister of Justice Mark Burton in recent weeks and all of it is deserved. He is simply not up to the job. His performance in question time when trying to answer Bill English’s incisive questions has been nothing short of incompetent.Hon Trevor Mallard: You can tell which side this one’s on!CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: But for the benefit of Mr Mallard I say that I am in a charitable mood this afternoon. To borrow the words of Denis Healey—who was a real Labour person as opposed to Mr Mallard—I want to concentrate on the realMephistopheles behind this shabby and discredited Faust. I want to talk about the Attorney-General.There is one matter in the debate on the Electoral Finance Bill that has to be addressed and that is the failure of the Attorney-General to provide this House with a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Jill Pettis: That’s in touch with the people!CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The former member for Whanganui is hiding behind two boxes. I wonder whether it is in order for her to do that and to yell and to scream like a fishwife. She should come out from behind those boxes if she wants to interject properly.The Crown Law Office provided a legal opinion to assist the Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to Parliament. The Crown Law Office concluded by a fine margin that the bill is a justifiable limitation on the right of freedom of expression. This was a very poor opinion; it failed to address fundamental issues about this legislation—that it impairs the ability of private citizens to criticise public institutions and political candidates and that it stops private citizens from debating matters of public interest during an election year.Those are the sorts of restrictions that are worthy of Boy Assad of Syria; they are Draconian and they are totally unacceptable. The Attorney-General should have provided a report under section 7. In fact I agree with former Labour MP Richard Northey who said in this House in August 1990 that the Attorney-General has an individual independent responsibility to act in a judicial way and to report on matters even when there may be political pressures not to notice them.Any Attorney-General conscious of his or her responsibilities would have provided a section 7 report in this case notwithstanding the Crown Law Office opinion. I agree with one of the Attorney-General’s predecessors the Hon Margaret Wilson when shesaid that as Attorney-General she considered she should err on the side of caution in advising the House of any possible inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is for that reason that she provided a section 7 report on the Electoral (Public Opinion Polls) Amendment Bill 2000 and the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001. In both those cases she concluded that the bills were inconsistent with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and did not appear to be justified under section 5. In both those cases the House was dealing with members’ bills but that is beside the point. She was conscious of her responsibilities and took the time and trouble to write such a report.When the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation was being debated in 1990 some National MPs criticised the reporting duty of the Attorney-General and said it was ridiculous to expect the Attorney-General who is bound by the principle of collective responsibility to write a report contrary to Government policy. Labour MPs however emphasised the independence of the Attorney-General and said that he or she could.This Attorney-General is a disgrace. He has put party before Parliament and the Labour Party’s interests before the public interest. The Attorney-General is the person who should show his strength by critically analysing this rotten legislation in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act terms but he has instead decided to remain silent. Being the Attorney-General is about more than appointing the occasional judge and overseeing the work of the Crown Law Office. The Attorney-General must be an independent officer placing the interests of the law and the fundamental rights of New Zealanders above party. This Attorney-General has failed to do so and stands condemned for his failure.It is very interesting that the Labour Party benches have fallen silent on this issue because it is a major constitutional issue. I would be very interested to hear from the one lawyer in the Labour Party caucus for whom I have respect namely Mr Fairbrother. What does Mr Fairbrother say about this issue? Why did the Attorney-General not provide a report at the time of introduction of this legislation? This was as the Crown Law Office said even putting it most generously a finely balanced matter. It deserved a report. The Attorney-General failed in his responsibilities in failing to provide one. This Attorney-General is a Labour Party hack and as I said he stands condemned because he has put his loyalty to the Labour Party to the tribe above his public responsibilities.RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour):That member Christopher Finlayson is the man who styles himself as the Attorney-General in waiting—waiting being the operative word. That man will be waiting when Charles Chauvel becomes the Attorney-General. That man will be waiting when Charles Chauvel turns 50. That man will never make Attorney-General because he will never be on the Treasury benches. That man will leave this House as frustrated and bitter as he entered it. But what that man does represent is the moneyed right. He is the man who aspires to be Attorney-General who featured in the bookThe Hollow Men and who held high-priced fund-raising dinners so that the wealthy right wing in this country could buy their way into power. He is the man who criticises our Attorney-General claiming a lack of independence. The facts speak for themselves.Let us have a look at the credibility issue. This is not an attack on John Key. He does not need an attack from me; he attacks himself every time he opens his mouth. This is an attack on his credibility.This is a debate. The debate was set off by a lacklustre speech made by the Leader of the Opposition John Key. The only thing he told the House was that he is presently ahead in the polls. He dwelled upon that as though it were a matter of great moment of State.The reply to that was led by our Minister of Health Pete Hodgson. He brought facts and figures into the debate. He outlined the inconsistency of statutory declarations bythe Leader of the Opposition. That man who wants to be Attorney-General knows how important statutory declarations are. If we trifle with them we are committing a serious moral offence at least and perhaps a serious legal offence. Pete Hodgson outlined chapter and verse the impossibility for all those statutory declarations to be honest to be straightforward and to be taken at face value. And we have a motive for them to be misleading. At the time those declarations were made John Key was standing for the first time in the seat of Helensville. He was styling himself as a man of the people of that electorate. Of course it is quite clear now that he had no intention of delivering on his promise that he would live in the area. The statutory declarations outlined by Pete Hodgson today show quite clearly the total lack of credibility that man has.But John Key has a remedy. At any time during the speech made by the Minister of Health or after—or even now—he could stand in this House and invoke Standing Order 133(g) to interrupt the debate and make a personal statement to clarify the position. His credibility having been put on the line in this House this afternoon in this debate has not been restored by him. Why? Because he cannot advance a statement that will repair the damage of those inconsistent statutory declarations. Therefore as we stand in the House right now the debating speech of Pete Hodgson has to be taken as accurate and accepted by the Leader of the Opposition. It has to tell us that he filed conflicting statutory declarations when he should have been consistent forthright and honest.What does that tell us about the man who comes here and gives a lacklustre speech gloating that he is ahead in the polls at this moment? It tells us that he is a very good marketer. What is a marketer? A marketer is someone who creates a need in someone’s mind when that person does not want the product for which the need is created. What is the product they are creating? They are creating a myth of beneficence. I sat on a select committee this morning with some of the members sitting on the other side of the House and those members must really have been churning in their stomachs at the evidence we heard.My friend Mr Gosche spoke about an underclass. The underclass in this country are not the people whom John Key wants to highlight. The underclass in this country is truly a category of people who are marginalised by a system that fails to recognise their personal needs and their view of the world. I hate to use that term “underclass” but it is the only term by which we can describe people who are marginalised and discriminated against in such a way.This is the world of the disabled. [Interruption] The member can interrupt about the disabled; he certainly can. He wants to forget them just as he wants to forget about his party’s promise to go to Iraq. He wants to forget about the disabled and he certainly will if he ever gets to the Treasury benches. The world of the disabled is a very very marginalised and sad world. Their complaint of course is that the money available to the disability sector is not getting to them. But they should wait until we have tax cuts and wait until we have members on the other side of the Chamber on the Treasury benches. Then there will be no money for the marginalised and discriminated against disabled sector.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Points of OrderSignage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyNATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that at the Business Committee this week it was ruled that the red boxes that Labour Party members have on their benches need to be with the member or taken with the member when that member moves. I look across the Housenow and I raise the point with you Madam Speaker that there are three of these silly red boxes on the other side of the Chamber but only one member is sitting there.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I say to you Madam Temporary Speaker that Madam Speaker did rule on this today. She indicated that members would be informed of the Business Committee’s ruling in the appropriate way and after that it would be enforced. If the member had been listening at the time and if he had been awake at the time—I know it is unusual in the afternoon for the member—he would have heard that.The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): When Madam Speaker was in the Chair during question time she said precisely that. She will be reporting to the Business Committee at the first available opportunity as to the ongoing action regarding the presentation of boxes in the House.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The only point I would make is that the boxes actually belong to the junior whip and he attends the Business Committee so he can hardly claim ignorance of this matter.The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): Communication can be made in a variety of ways around here. Madam Speaker has indicated that she will do that.Major Events Management BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): The National Party is of course supporting this legislation. National members have been very happy to work with the Government and with other parties in the Commerce Committee to make sure that the Major Events Management Bill is tidy legislation and legislation that reflects the balance that will be needed to make sure it works.It is quite a significant step for New Zealand to move forward and think about our ability as a country to actually host major events and the 2011 Rugby World Cup is I understand the third-largest sporting event in the world. So it is a great credit to the New Zealand Rugby Union and to those who work with the Rugby Union to secure that. But it means that we have to do it right because if we do not do it right other sporting organisations will not entrust similar responsibilities to New Zealand. That is what this bill is pretty much about. It sets up the right regulatory framework and puts in place the right sort of legislation so that when the opportunity arises we can bid for and secure these events and do them well.There is a high test on the definition of “major event” and that is how it should be. There will be a temptation for various groups and organisations that are hosting events to want to elevate their event to the major event level. This bill—passed in its present form—should prevent that from happening. The test of what is a major event must be very high because balanced against that are some definitions of restrictions on what individual New Zealanders and business interests can do when this Act is applied—so we want to get that right. A lot of the work in the select committee was centred on making sure that the balance was right.When I considered the purpose of the bill I reflected on some of the arguments that have been put up against the restriction on ambush marketing and the suggestions that this sort of legislation is in actual fact anti-entrepreneurial. That is absolute nonsense of course and I ask members who have run that argument and who decide this afternoon to run it again to just reflect on something. That something is that we will not get events of the size of the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand if we are not prepared to put in place some protections for those who invest in the venture. In my mind it is nodifferent at all from the protections that we give to for example science or medical research companies that have the opportunity having invested sometimes hundreds—Ron Mark: Ha ha!ALLAN PEACHEY: Well the member for New Zealand First may think it is funny but I suggest he reflect on what I am about to say. The incentive for companies to invest heavily in that sort of research lies in the opportunities they have to maximise the returns from the product once the research is completed the product is tested and the product goes on the market. That is how it should be and investment in something like the Rugby World Cup needs to be seen in a similar context. Businesses are not going to make thoughtful carefully thought-out decisions in terms of putting up the millions of dollars that are required to underwrite events like this if they are not going to have a fair opportunity to get a fair return from their investment.So instead of talking about this bill being in some way anti-entrepreneurial members need to see it in the wider context of the motivation for business to invest in a venture. Frankly it does not really matter whether the venture is the 2011 Rugby World Cup or one of the two or three other major events that New Zealand is hoping to host in the next 10 years or so.KEITH LOCKE (Green): It is rather strange to hear the National Party backing up the Government in this Chamber and in this case supporting the force of the State being used to prevent businesses from operating and to prevent competition. That is what this bill is all about. It is about the heavy hand of the State and supporting it is hardly something I would expect from parties that claim they are in favour of the free market free competition and all the rest of it.When one actually looks at the definitions in this part one sees that in clause 3 “Purposes” a purpose is to “obtain maximum benefits from the major event for New Zealanders;”. I do not see how it gets maximum benefit for New Zealanders to say prevent Air New Zealand from advertising 5 kilometres out along a clean transport route as declared under this bill because say Emirates Airline is the official sponsor of the 2011 Rugby World Cup—as Emirates Airline is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup soon to take place in France. How does it help New Zealand businesses if we stop them from advertising 5 kilometres away from an event venue—be it Air New Zealand against Emirates Airline or Lemon and Paeroa against Coca-Cola which is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup this year and maybe in 2011? I think that is a bit strange.The clause further states in subclause (2)(ca) that the legislation “prohibits activities that might compromise the smooth running of a major event such as ticket scalping and pitch invasion;”. At first sight I wonder how ticket scalping—whether or not we like it—affects the smooth running of an event. I understood that ticket scalping was the selling of tickets and that is a bit different from what happens on a rugby field or in the stands. Again the anti-competitive streak in the National Party and in Labour seems to be motivating that provision.Of course we do not like people to make huge fortunes out of onselling tickets but do we really want to put in a whole bureaucratic procedure to stop what is effectively a trade in second-hand goods? Any decent organiser of a major event will distribute the tickets quite widely and some people may end up with one or two extra and may make a bit of a profit out of them but is that really such a huge problem in society? With regard to the Rugby Sevens to be held in Wellington next year the tickets go on sale next month. People can get them on the Internet and there will be a lot of competition for tickets. I do not think anyone is going to end up with a huge number of tickets to onsell so how will that affect the running of the event?And how will inventing a whole new offence of pitch invasion help with the smooth running of the event? Disorderly behaviour is already an offence on the law books. Sofar anyone who has disrupted a sporting event by running on the field has been charged with disorderly behaviour; we do not need that new offence in order to allow the smooth running of events. I think that this bill is completely unnecessary.The bill also defines what a major event is. The previous speaker said it would have to meet a high test but as I understand it the event—and there is flexibility about this in terms of the views of the Government of the day—has to have international visitors of some substance and have international advertising associated with it. That would apply to the Bledisloe Cup and to a Super 14 final if it had a foreign team and a lot of Aussies coming across the Tasman say. It would certainly apply to the Rugby Sevens which comes up next year.I turn to the definition in the bill of a clean transport route. Why do we need clean transport routes? That is the heavy hand of the State and I will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper to remove that. I hope to get support for it from other parties. I know several other parties will be supporting the Greens on that and I just hope that either Labour or National will too.MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to this Major Events Management Bill in the Committee stage noting that we are talking about the purposes the interpretation the status of examples and the fact that the Act binds the Crown as set out in Part 1 of the bill. I wish to keep my comments to those matters.This bill is quite straightforward in its aims and purposes. It states quite clearly that its purposes are to obtain the maximum benefit for New Zealanders from major events held in New Zealand to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of major events through ambush marketing activity and to ensure the smooth running of major events. I think the comments that we heard from the previous speaker Keith Locke absolutely underscore the purpose of this bill. In respect of the example of pitch invasion yes there has been a move from using laws around disorderly behaviour to using a particular offence of pitch invasion.Notwithstanding the comments from Mr Mark in a previous reading of this bill about those of us who may have worn such activities as badges in our past it is important when a country is running and hosting a major event of the nature that is defined in this bill that the purpose of it is maintained and the running of it is orderly. This is in order that the event may proceed first of all without damage to the event itself; secondly without damage by ambush marketing to the integrity of the sponsorship that has allowed the event to be held in the first place; and thirdly without bringing our own reputation into international disrepute at events that are major international fixtures.I think the purposes of this bill are admirable. I am pleased with the way the Commerce Committee members from across the parties have supported the purposes and the interpretations of this bill. There is one further comment I make. I may be wrong in this but it seems to me that inserting examples into legislation is novel. I find it an extremely helpful practice. When we are talking about such things as ambush marketing by association or intrusion it is extremely elucidating to be able to point to an illustration or example in the text of the legislation that makes it patently obvious what is intended by those terms. Although I consider the interpretations to be adequate in themselves the fact that there are examples included within the body of this bill makes it eminently accessible. I think that is a very desirable trait particularly as this Committee moves to try to introduce legislation in plain English. I commend the drafters and the Minister for the introduction of such examples into the text because they make the bill very very accessible.This is legislation that will not only facilitate the running of events but as it says in the purpose clause facilitate the benefits for New Zealanders and in fact allow for some integrity to be maintained around commercial sponsorship and therefore increasethe attractiveness to sponsors of events such as the Rugby World Cup. Thank you Madam Chair.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I am very happy to make a contribution on the purpose part of the Major Events Management Bill. The speaker before me Maryan Street outlined what the purpose is and I do not want to reiterate those words but in essence the purpose is also to advance New Zealand’s wider interests by hosting events in areas where we are particularly prominent. The Rugby World Cup of course is one of those events the Cricket World Cup will follow and I am sure there will be other big international events that will be able to avail themselves of the provisions of this particular law and these particular arrangements for their events to be equally successful.Anyone who looks at the effect that the Rugby World Cup can have on our economy not only in the year or the month that the event is held but in the years leading up to it and the years subsequent to it would agree that it is appropriate that we make arrangements to ensure the event’s success. It is interesting to note that much of New Zealand’s economy in the last couple of years has been somewhat insulated from the decline in the rest of the world’s tourism markets and that this is apparently attributable to the success of theLord of the Ringsfilms. I do not doubt that that is a fact and I congratulate all those people who were involved in those films. But it needs to be recognised that the number of people who will watch any one or all three of the Lord of the Rings trilogy pales into insignificance compared with the number of people who will watch one or more games during the Rugby World Cup.I recall last year going to an office not too far from here where a large number of people had gathered to watch the Tour de France the bike race that happens in France each year.Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m surprised you got up that early Gerry.GERRY BROWNLEE: Actually it was a replay. The Minister has said that he is surprised I got up as early as that. In fact I was up as early as that; I work very long hours. In the small part of the day that I normally reserve for sleep I was watching a replay with a group of people who interestingly were not making comments about the race itself but were constantly commenting about the beautiful background and the scenery through which the race was happening. A similar thing will happen with the Rugby World Cup. More eyes will look at this country more eyes will see what we are about and more people will make a decision to come here and effectively bring their import dollars into this country. Given that we have such a big reliance—around 40 percent of our domestic economy—on tourism it is an appropriate focus.I want to pick up on a couple of remarks made by Keith Locke. The first thing is that things like the Rugby Sevens will not be affected by this bill at all. The Rugby Sevens event is not a major event and is unlikely to be declared so. It is a very major event for this part of the world but it is not a nationwide event and therefore would not be caught by this legislation. Secondly I want to send a bit of a message in that regard to the organisers of the Rugby World Cup. It is pretty depressing for me standing here today supporting this bill and wanting it to be successful to have read in my local newspaper that my city of Christchurch is unlikely to get to host a semi-final of the Rugby World Cup. I think that this is serious because the promotion around this thing has been that 4 million fans—in other words the whole country—are getting in behind this. It is unacceptable to simply say: “Well you know for the sake of 20000 seats we are going to move the semi-finals and the final to Auckland.”Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s logistics.GERRY BROWNLEE: Do not give me the logistics argument. This is a small country. Auckland is an hour away from Christchurch by plane and I am sure it not toohard to organise that. Given that Christchurch is the largest centre in the South Island the reality is that the stadium could easily have been filled by locals anyway. So some of the thinking there needs to change if people expect this event to still be considered New Zealand’s Rugby World Cup rather than Auckland’s Rugby World Cup. So there is a small message there.Around the issue of pitch invasion Mr Locke appeared to make the case that this should be perfectly acceptable. I recall Mr Locke walking down Queen Street in his underwear and I would hate to see him repeat that sort of activity at any one of the Rugby World Cup games because that would be the wrong image for New Zealand. Similarly having the pitch invaded by anyone creates a poor impression of this country. We had a very interesting submission at the Commerce Committee from a young woman called Lisa Lewis. She was a very intelligent young woman and she advanced the view that we should enable some form of pitch invasion. She went on to say that Wikipedia attributes the invention of the art of bikini streaking to her; therefore it is a New Zealand first—no pun on the party of course I say to Mr Mark but a bit of that may help with the votes. She was saying that this sort of thing should be allowed.But as the conversation progressed it became evident that what she was really saying was that at the start of a match the conclusion of a match and half-time there needed to be some form of entertainment and that maybe this form of entertainment could be considered. Under this provision if the event organisers chose to have those sorts of promotions that would be their prerogative provided that whatever they were doing was within the law and was I suppose tastefully presented if I could put it that way. The reality is that all these games these days have pre-match entertainment they have entertainment at half-time and I suspect that they will have something at the conclusion of these games as well. Pitch invasion though is the opportunity for people to impinge on the activity that other people have paid a lot of money to see. No one has a right to do that. We should just simply codify that so the whole world knows where we stand on that particular issue.When it comes to clean transport zones I think there is a whole lot of misunderstanding about what is actually meant. Essentially they are about trying to protect the interests of sponsors who put up a lot of money to make these events fly in the first place. I do not think it is appropriate that people should be able to engage in ambush marketing activities that effectively see them get the credit for the sponsorship. At the select committee we were given a very good example of how this works. The example involved Germany where the football world cup was played. The major sponsor for that event was an airline. It put up a very very significant amount of money to make it work. It tied up its own promotion around the event. But a competing airline carried out the simple exercise of putting on its aeroplanes a decoration that conveyed the clear message that it was the sponsor of that event.At the conclusion of the event a large number of people who had participated as spectators or otherwise were of the view that the competing airline had been the main sponsor. So the poor old airline that had put all the money in and made the event happen was robbed of some of the benefit. I think we have to be realistic about this. It really did fascinate us to see the breadth of creativity that people can engage in in order to ambush the marketing around one of these events.So in response to Mr Locke I say we need to be very relaxed about the provisions in this bill. They are not about destroying business in this country. This entire bill is about giving business in this country an enormous opportunity to grow its activities and to do so for the benefit of the whole country. I am sure that at some stage the Minister will want to share with the Committee the value that New Zealand got out of the recent yachting event at Seville. Was it Seville?Jill Pettis: Valencia.GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I knew it was the name of an orange so I was halfway there. The America’s Cup was very successful for New Zealand businesses. They were able to spin off the back of that. We should not be frightened about the Government actually backing New Zealand. In many ways anyone who argues against this bill argues against that premise.This is a good bill. I think the Committee will make very few changes to it because of the way in which it was dealt with by the Commerce Committee. The committee dealt with the bill on a very very positive basis in order to try to get a bill that was fair to all those who were likely to be affected and to ensure that when it was put in place there would not be too much of a need to go back second-guessing.I conclude by saying that at some point New Zealand might want to consider whether some of our very good local events like the Rugby Sevens should come under these provisions or provisions like them. Perhaps there could be a lesser test. Perhaps it is something that might be devolved to local authorities. Good evidence was put in front of us that there is some need for this particularly around the issue of scalping.RON MARK (NZ First): I will take just a short call. I want to make it very very clear that New Zealand First supports this legislation. We have spoken on this bill and although we have noted with interest the rather curious situation we see unfolding in front of us here as we reflect on the past and on the history of this nation we support the legislation. We told the Minister Trevor Mallard that quite some time ago. He has our absolute and whole support.We believe that the arguments Mr Brownlee has just concluded making are all valid but it would be remiss of this Committee not to pass comment on some rather curious developments would it not? To not pass those comments would leave the people of the mind that we had totally ignored history and ignored reality and that we were not considering in full what we were doing—and we have. I ask the Committee to consider this. Let us take Mr Brownlee’s last comment about what we may consider as major events in the future. His suggestion that the Rugby Sevens could be classed a major event is I think a very valid sort of observation to make at this point in time. It might well be that should there be a grand soccer match—just one game—there could be an argument that that could be a major event. Let us suppose for example that New Zealand was to meet England in a match to be played here in Wellington at the Westpac Stadium. There could be an argument given the huge popularity and the huge viewing audience internationally that that one game could be considered a major event.Imagine an event such as the Rugby Sevens or even the Rugby World Cup where Zimbabwe entered a team. What might be the reaction amongst normal New Zealanders? It might well be that a bunch of former Zimbabwean citizens now New Zealand citizens might decide to protest and picket that match because of their hatred and loathing of the dictatorship led by Robert Mugabe. What this legislation brings to mind is that any pitch invasion of a Zimbabwe versus New Zealand game would be breaking the law.Hon Trevor Mallard: As it is now.RON MARK: That is what we are saying. Right now that is illegal and we are seeking to close the loophole so it is absolutely possible to control that contain that and deal with it.Some of us would say it is a good thing that those people should not be allowed to disrupt a match or to impinge on people’s rights to freely associate with whom they wish and that their rights to protest should be constrained contained and protected as much as other people’s rights to associate with other rugby teams and other rugby playing nations. In fact Judge Thurgood Marshall the pre-eminent black Americanwho became the most senior member of the judiciary in the United States and who was widely regarded as a leader and a campaigner for civil liberties and for the rights of black Americans argued that when he dealt with the case involving those who protested against the Springbok American tour in 1981 and wanted it stopped. He made sure that the rights of those who protested were looked after. They could protest near the venue but not in the venue. He made sure that the rights of those players to play whomever they wanted to play were not interrupted. No one was permitted to invade those pitches as he had seen from the television footage had happened here in New Zealand in the months prior to the Springboks tour of the United States. Of course the Eagles got hammered but the games were played.I think that is the fundamental thing we need to recognise. Everybody has their rights—the right to associate and the right to express a contrary opinion. It is a question of striking that balance through the middle to ensure that nobody’s rights are impinged on and that everybody is given the opportunity to do what they should be entitled to do but without adversely impacting on others. I think that is what New Zealand First likes about this legislation. We seek to protect the interests of both. The people who wish to protest can do so but not on the pitch not at the expense of people who have bought tickets and paid good money to go to see those games and not at the expense of the investors who are bringing the event to this nation. That is why we support the legislation.But we notice the delicious irony when one looks at these things as they have been presented right now. Mr Mallard the Minister I know on many occasions has told the nation that he was one of the protesters during 1981. I actually recall that time as being quite a difficult time because our family was split right through the middle between those of us who just wanted to watch the two best rugby playing nations in the world compete and those who wanted to stand and champion the cause against apartheid. Obviously some of us still feel to this day that the fact that matches were not played was a direct impingement on our right to see those matches played.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): “Innovative” and “insightful” would be epithets that can appropriately be applied to the workings of the Commerce Committee under the skilled chairmanship of Mr Brownlee. I can illustrate that in a number of ways but let me just content myself with one illustration—it reflects badly on the Minister and that is why I have chosen it—and that is the use in this Major Events Management Bill of examples. I completely agree with what an earlier speaker has said: that it is wholly consistent with the new drafting style that this Parliament has adopted to use examples and diagrams. We have done it in tax legislation in the past. Here we see through this legislation examples of examples. It should be noted in dealing with this particular part that the status of examples is made clear in clause 4A. An example it is said is only illustrative of the provisions to which it relates. It does not limit those provisions. If there is an example and an inconsistent provision then it is the provision that prevails.The background to this legislation is reasonably simple. It is a matter of history that in association with New Zealand’s bids to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup and co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup the Government has given assurances to the International Rugby Board and the International Cricket Council that certain protections will be put in place for those fixtures. Those protections include ambush marketing protections. More events of course are contemplated. New Zealand is to host the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and my understanding is that we will host the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008.In Part 1 of the bill—which as others have commented contains preliminary provisions including purpose provisions—there are a raft of definitions in clause 4“Interpretation”. I just pick up on a couple of those definitions for the purpose of developing an argument around ambush marketing. There are definitions of “clean period” “clean transport route” and “clean zone”. A very substantial part of this legislation is around the concept of ambush marketing. It is quite a sophisticated phrase and quite a sophisticated concept that describes the actions of companies or advertisers who seek to associate themselves with major events or to draw a connection in the public’s mind between themselves and major events without the authorisation of the event organisers.There are a number of things that ambush marketers do. The types of things would range from arranging aerial advertising over a major event venue immediately before the event or during the event so as to suggest sponsorship or association to the placement of billboards displaying the ambush marketer’s name near the venue—or if there are several venues near the venues—or on key routes to the venue. Within the realm of ambush marketing there are other issues such as the unauthorised sale of goods or services at the event. There are issues associated with the registration and the exploitation of domain names. The aspect of scalping is also within ambush marketing. Scalping is the unauthorised on-sale of tickets—and I know we will look at it in some detail when we get to Part 2—but it is also all about the circumstance where tickets are packaged with travel and hospitality offerings. The subtlety of ambush marketing extends to the circumstance of giving away free merchandise such as caps or T-shirts bearing the advertiser’s logo with the aim that large groups of spectators will wear that gear and the television cameras will pan on to them or perhaps still photographs will be taken that hint at that association.There are—and this is picked up in the legislation and starts in this particular part—two main varieties of ambush marketing currently recognised in the context of major international events. I will return to that issue later.KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think Ron Mark was right to bring in the honourable tradition of political protest in New Zealand sometimes involving a presence on sports fields. He mentioned the possible situation of people protesting the situation in Zimbabwe and we had the 1981 anti - Springbok tour demonstrations. Generally the people taking part in this civil disobedience as it were do not expect not to be prosecuted; no one is saying that. But one does not need to put in a whole big penalty on it. Up to date it has fallen under the offence of disorderly behaviour. Sure disorderly behaviour has a maximum penalty of 3 months in jail but there has never been any thought by judges of imposing a prison sentence on streakers or people involved in this activity.What happened to the political protestors was that they actually got a lower penalty in the courts in 1981 or more recently in Britain they have completely got off for their civil disobedience around the Trident programme. The judges said: “Well because you were well motivated and you weren’t doing it for selfish reasons we’ll reduce the penalty.” That is effectively what has happened. But this bill is going totally in the opposite direction and saying that this is such a bad offence that we have to get beyond just a small fine under the heading of disorderly behaviour and put in a whole new offence with a maximum penalty of 3 months in prison and get all hot and bothered about it. That is completely the wrong way to go.I reject what Gerry Brownlee says that somehow I am encouraging pitch invasions. That is not the case at all. But let us face it—if someone does a little streak on a field that may not disrupt the game more than the average injury stoppage. Historically a lot of the time streakers have been a welcome extra element for many spectators. I am not encouraging streakers but I am just saying that we do not need to think that we theParliament have to bring in a whole new offence to get around a problem that really does not exist.Gerry Brownlee went on to say we were encouraging New Zealand business. In fact if members look at the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup in France this year I do not think they will see any French firms amongst the major sponsors—there may be sponsors but the major sponsors are not French. I do not expect that a single New Zealand firm will be a major sponsor in 2011 at the Rugby World Cup. The sponsors will be the same as at the present time—McDonald’s and Coca-Cola etc. who are the sponsors at the Rugby World Cup in France. New Zealand businesses will be out of the picture and this law will be used against them if they advertise even several kilometres from the venue.In terms of the definition of a major event I think under the definition here it could apply to a number of events in addition to the 2011 Rugby World Cup because one needs in terms of the definition as printed a large number of international participants or spectators therefore generating significant tourism opportunities.We could interpret that as a Bledisloe Cup match or possibly a Waratahs versus Auckland Sevens final or the International Sevens if it gets the tourist traffic that the Hong Kong Sevens gets. That could apply to those events. They attract significant sponsorship and media coverage. I think that would already apply to a number of the events I have mentioned and it would raise New Zealand’s international profile. It could apply to a number of events including the Rugby Sevens. Most of the action is actually in the stands at the Rugby Sevens. There is good action on the field too but it is quite conceivable that come early next year the odd dressed-up spectator will wander on to the field. That could happen in future similar tournaments including the Rugby World Cup. But I would ask why we really want to jump all over such people with a heavier penalty. Do we not have better things to do?SureThe Lord of the Ringsattracted a lot of international attention to New Zealand but the difference between that and the Rugby World Cup is not just the number of people who might watch the TV feed of the Rugby World Cup—and I agree with Gerry Brownlee that it may be greater than the number of people who watchedThe Lord of the Rings—but is also thatThe Lord of the Rings did not impinge on the human rights of New Zealanders. This bill does.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 to omit and substitute words be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes10Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.Noes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 to omit a definition be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes6Green Party 6.Noes112New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes9Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Declaration of major event and the protections for major eventsALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate having the opportunity to speak also to Part 2 and I just note with a little irony that most of what the representatives of the Green Party and New Zealand First have been talking about is probably more relevant to Part 2 than it was to Part 1.I will take the opportunity to share with Mr Mark his love of American history. Twice in this debate he has mentioned Justice Thurgood Marshall. I think that if he checks his history he will find that Justice Marshall although appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson in I think 1965 never actually reached the top echelons of the Supreme Court. He was simply an associate and never a Chief Justice. It pays to get one’s history right.Previous speakers have traversed a range of views and interpretations of this legislation and I wonder what those very fine people at the New Zealand Rugby Union and their business interests must be thinking. Here we are with a fair degree of unanimity in the Committee debating very very important legislation that will lay out the environment for New Zealand to host the Rugby World Cup 2011 very very well. It is important we do it well because this sort of activity will be more and more important to our future not only in hosting the event itself and getting that right but also in enjoying the downstream advantages that come from that with New Zealand being seen as a destination for doing business tourism and that sort of thing. Yet here members are finding themselves almost degenerating into irrelevancies about the way that people might conduct themselves.I want to make one thing very clear to the Committee: New Zealanders are sick and tired of having their enjoyment of major events spoilt by one or two self-important indulgent people who think that making an exhibition of themselves is far more important than the game that is under way. I think that many New Zealanders feel a sense of embarrassment that when we are on the world stage and when so many people are working so hard to make the event go off well attention is distracted by some clowns who seem to think they are free to make fools of themselves and forget the consequences.Hon Member: They’re normally drunk.ALLAN PEACHEY: They are normally drunk. We do not want that; New Zealand wants to move forward beyond that. New Zealand wants to see itself now as a seriousdestination for world-class major events. A lot of things go with that and part of it is ensuring that the standard of behaviour in the crowd is up to scratch.I also want to put on record my very very strong support for the anti-scalping provisions. Already now in New Zealand when big major sports events are held it is too hard for ordinary New Zealanders—the men and women who are out on the paddock on a Saturday coaching children—to get tickets to the big events. As I said I think in speaking to the introduction—Hon Trevor Mallard: No trouble getting tickets for North Harbour.ALLAN PEACHEY: Well as I have said a couple of times before in this debate I am the principal who hired a hospitality box at North Harbour Stadium so that teachers the people who were fronting up week after week had an opportunity to experience what people who were often making no positive contribution to sport at all were experiencing week after week. I note the irony that the Minister behind this bill had some strong views on my actions at that time. Hopefully with a little time having passed he might have reflected on that matter.It is really important that we protect—Ron Mark: Who used it the most?ALLAN PEACHEY: Well the music teachers actually had it the day we got caught I say to Mr Mark but that is another story.It is not right that ordinary New Zealanders who front up on Saturday after Saturday on a Thursday night or whenever it is to coach teams to play in teams or to support teams do not have a fair crack at a reasonable price at seeing the really big games. The reality is of course that there will always be a limited number of tickets when a ground is going to be sold out and I accept that and fully understand it. But I am anxious to ensure that ordinary New Zealanders who have a love of sport get a fair crack.The last comment I want to make at this stage in speaking to Part 2 is just to reinforce the importance of the high test being put in place in terms of the declaration of a major event. If the Committee takes a moment to look at that test it will become apparent just how important this legislation is to us and just how important these major events are. There has to be significant international participation and a significant number of international spectators. I am bound to say that although I saw the Minister shake his head I find it very hard to see the New Zealand soccer team playing England or our team as being in that category. Perhaps if Manchester United were to play England in New Zealand it might be a different matter. The event has significantly—Hon Trevor Mallard: Part of a tour. Comes from Australia—you know 30000 Poms watching. That would be a major event.ALLAN PEACHEY: Ha ha; yes they will be mostly Poms. The event must significantly raise New Zealand’s international profile and associated with it have an appropriate level of professional management and professional coordination. It must attract significant sponsorship and international media coverage. That is probably the significant test: is the event that is to be held in New Zealand big enough to attract international media coverage and international sponsorship? It is a pretty rigorous test. There also have to be substantial sporting cultural social economic or other benefits to New Zealand and to New Zealanders.Really this bill marks the movement into a new era of events being hosted by New Zealand. This is not the Rugby World Cup of 1987 however much those of us who experienced that look back at it with huge pleasure and satisfaction. We are not talking about an equivalent event any longer; we are talking about what I understand to be the third most significant sporting event in the world—the third. It is huge. Its possibilities for New Zealand are huge. It is vital that we get it right and it is good to see that thetwo major parties are able to come together work together through the select committee process and put in place the framework that will ensure we get it right.SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora Madam Chairperson. It is a pleasure to stand to take a brief call on this Major Events Management Bill. During the course of our Commerce Committee proceedings it was good to have a great deal of support and input from the majority Opposition party. There are a few concerns which our friend from the Green Party referred to but they will pass as relatively trivial matters in the greater scheme of things.I make this small contribution on the eve of a departure for great athletic responsibilities following in the footsteps of the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard and I look across the Chamber with some sadness that I will not be joined by the heavyweight of the Opposition front bench Mr Brownlee. Unfortunately the pugnacious Mr Foss is wandering around spraying apples in Hawke’s Bay. However other matters require my attention. There is a famous Māori saying in the world of the Ngāpuhi: “The first punch that’s landed had better knock out the opposition because utu has a very very strong kickback.”The legislation in my view improves our credentials. The declaration of a major event enables us and especially the Minister and the Government to promote our credentials in terms of New Zealand being a safe and secure environment for investors advertisers and promoters who will come here knowing that the significant amounts of money they are going to sink into the event will not be frittered away either by weak law or by the inability of the judiciary to arrive at the right decision because of vagueness in the law.In terms of declaring a major event and also ensuring that people put their money on the line those people look with a great deal of anxiety not only at the Minister but also at the relevant ministry to ensure that their proposals and their applications are adequately appraised. I agree with Mr Peachey—a man whom prior to meeting him I had formed quite a favourable view of in relation to his contribution to education at Rangitoto College—when he said that lots of families struggle to find the opportunity to see these events at an affordable level. However these sorts of events will engender a greater level of enthusiasm and may actually shake loose from the corporate world more sponsorship to assist those less fortunate New Zealanders to get their tamariki their kids into sport.This particular event relates to rugby but there are other events. Unfortunately the forces of nature and the politics of yachting conspired against us and the Minister was unable to bring Grant Dalton and other mariners home so we could stage that particular event. However this event given that it is focused on rugby—which is very close to a national religion—will have a positive impact on our families and on our young people. I know there are those who might say that rugby eclipses arts culture and various other pursuits but the reality is that it is a major money earner and a major source of attraction for people wanting to come to our country. So why not pass this bill without a great deal of procrastination and put it on to the face of the law to ensure that our friends in Australia despite their best efforts to hobble us in recent times will actually look at us a bit more admiringly come 2011?Ought this bill give the proposed level of protection to intellectual property or other legal rights? Of course it should. People are not going to invest considerable amounts of money in events in symbols or in signs unless they are confident they will get a return on their investment. And yes there is now a fusion between commerce and sport so they have every right to expect that in our country the rule of contract will be observed and that the judiciary will deliver a speedy result in the event of fly-by-nighters and rorters trying to undermine the rights of investors when we host this highly successfulevent. All going well our major team our national All Black team will emulate the feat that I am sure the parliamentary team will achieve—that is success.Before making a recommendation the Minister for Economic Development must take into account a number of issues. Is it likely that a large number of international participants and spectators will be attracted? That goes without being said because our greatest brand in the area of sport and recreation is undisputedly the brand of our All Blacks. All around the world young people have been encouraged to identify heroes and icons in the sporting area and this is an area in which all New Zealanders can take pride. The members of our team will be an additional attraction—something like a cultural rainbow in the sense that they represent the major groupings that occupy the fields in our urban and provincial areas. They are the tangata whenua our friends from the Pacific and the hearty descendants of the original colonists otherwise known as Pākehās.Will this event generate significant tourism opportunities beyond cavil? Of course it will. Tourism continues to provide an ongoing source of overseas revenue. That is good because it enables us to broaden the base of our GDP and to broaden the base of our international earnings so we do not rely on just our traded commodities from the pastoral sector and leave everything to the whims of the traders of the dollar.Is the event likely to boost our international profile? Well we pride ourselves on punching above our weight. We enjoy seeing our young men and women don our uniforms and represent our country’s interests in relation to international obligations in areas such as the Sinai peninsula and throughout the Pacific. This is another way in which our international profile can be both maintained and extended. Of course it has ongoing spin-offs for younger people and we should think about that in this House because not every young person is going to listen to a parliamentarian telling them to go to university or polytech especially those who are endowed with physical prowess. This provides them with an opportunity to enter networks whereby they can go overseas to Europe and other places earn a living and actually broaden their own life experience by applying their skills on the sports field and in particular on the rugby field. All of these can be spin-offs of this successful event. But the event will not be successful if the people putting their dough on the line are not confident they will be able to get a return or protect their investment—Economics 101.Will this event require a high level of professional management and coordination? That is without doubt. We had a host of people from the Rugby Union come and address us—indeed if my memory serves me correctly we had an English lawyer arrive who came if not from the Rugby World Cup company then certainly from the International Rugby Board. He gave us a clear sense of confidence that our own rugby administrative infrastructure is up to the task. However the levers of the State had to be applied in a reasonable manner to ensure that the administration could go and provide ongoing confidence to the people who have the rights to the Rugby World Cup.Is the event likely to attract sponsorship and international media coverage? That is also without a doubt. The media will be in New Zealand in their droves and the fact that they are here means they will go to places beyond the rugby field. That is good for the provinces and that is good for all the shades and colours of New Zealand because we need at all times to boost the desirability of our country and to ensure that the attractiveness of not only our nature but also our people and our landscape eclipses some of the blighted commentary that comes our way over internal problems to do with whānau violence etc. Let us accentuate the positive.Will the event attract large numbers of Kiwis as participants or spectators? Well I have already said without offending the bishop that Mr Barnett took to a strip club that rugby is akin to New Zealand’s religion. So I have no doubt that people will flock fromthe Bluff—from the tail of the fish—and that some will even come from Magpie country and they will be great participants and spectators. But as my fellow parliamentarian the former principal of Rangitoto College said unfortunately not enough of them will have an opportunity to actually grace the stands. But I look forward to our Rugby Union being able to come up with some sort of innovative proposition to enable more of our young people to go and watch Piri Weepu who hopefully will not have abandoned Aotearoa for rugby league in distant climes grace the field in the place where he ought to be at the moment—Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on Wainuiōmata.SHANE JONES: Yes OK I accept that the Minister as the “member for Wainuiōmata” had a large degree of input into Piri’s—no I will not say form—development. Thank you very much.KEITH LOCKE (Green): I do not think that anyone in this Chamber wants the Rugby World Cup and major events like that not to be very successful. But the Green Party viewpoint is that this over-the-top heavy-handed legislation will not help us to have successful international events like the Rugby World Cup. In fact it will put off New Zealanders if this Parliament seems to be just dancing to the tune of the big multinationals that are sponsoring events like this. In France that is Heineken Coca-Cola McDonald’s and I think Adidas. Are we serving them or are we serving the New Zealand people? It is true and I take what Allan Peachey says that we want to be true to those who go along play sport and coach sport—the ordinary people—but I do not think that this legislation will help. This is not the Kiwi way.In relation to what the member said about ticket scalping I agree that the requirement is for a proper distribution of tickets. I think that it is the case pretty much that tickets will go out through rugby clubs through the Internet and through various ways. That spreads the tickets out. If people get sick want to onsell tickets or get one or two extra tickets then why should we abandon the normal procedure of having a second-hand market and come down with the heavy hand of the State? The San Francisco Giants a baseball team in the United States accepts that there will be a second-hand market and that there will be onselling so it provides a whole Internet site for that to happen under its own auspices. It is just so strange that we have parties in this Parliament trying to clamp down on a second-hand market.I have two lots of amendments to Part 2 on my Supplementary Order Paper 138. Most of them are related to the clean transport route and the theme of one of the amendments is to knock out the provision for a clean transport route up to 5 kilometres from a stadium. I think that that is one of the most silly over-the-top bits of the legislation—that somehow some New Zealand firms cannot advertise 5 kilometres out. That area would cover virtually the whole of Wellington down the routes that would be defined. The distance is a long way out from say the Westpac Stadium or whatever and a long way out from Eden Park in the case of Auckland. So I would ask members to support my amendments in order to knock out the reference to clean transport routes in the bill.The other amendment is to knock out the provision about the new offence of pitch invasion. As I explained previously there is no need for that. Any people wandering on to pitches for whatever reason they may have are covered already by offences listed in the Summary Offences Act or the Crimes Act—that is by provisions about disorderly behaviour. Do we really need to get so hot and bothered as to bring in a new offence for that?But I take the point and in some ways Shane Jones is quite correct that rugby needs all the support it can get at the present time. I went along to a league game a couple of weekends ago and the Warriors actually had more people along at that game then therewere people at the Auckland-Waikato game. So I think that rugby is in a bit of trouble but I do not think that this bill will help. Piri Weepu may well go to league if those spectator figures continue.It is just stupid and impractical to try to control ticket scalping in the way that this bill proposes. If people have spare tickets then they will rustle around and find someone to buy them if it is a big international event and they will generally sell them for more than the cover price.At the Commerce Committee representatives of TradeMe came along and said: “Look this is going to be a bit hard for us to work out how to stop this. We will do our best of course as we do to implement any law that Parliament passes.” But that company and others have pointed out that people can go on to eBay or somewhere else and still make ticket transactions. We cannot suppress a free market in second-hand goods just by passing a law and no argument has been raised in this Parliament as to why we should do that.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): It is in Part 2 that the substance of this Committee debate is to be found and as Madam Chairperson herself commented when she started the debate on this part there are five subparts. I just observe that it is a legislative drafting strategy sometimes to seek to constrain Committee debate by including a number of subparts in a particular part. Certainly the issues in this part are discrete issues in themselves and could well have been the subject of separate parts. Why do I say that? Because the subparts are about declarations of major events they are about ambush marketing by association protections they are about ambush marketing by intrusion protections they are about ticket-scalping protections and they are about pitch invasions. They are all discrete topics in themselves and I hope there is an opportunity to contribute separately to at least some of those separate issues.I want to pick up an issue that has been referred to only fleetingly in this ambush-marketing concept which finds its place in Subparts 2 and 3 and to make some short observations in the time available. Two main varieties of ambush marketing are currently recognised in the context of major international events. The first is ambush marketing by association and we have a subpart on that. It involves an advertiser misleading the public into thinking that the ambush marketer is an authorised partner or is somehow associated with the event. Often the association can be quite subtle. The other type of ambush marketing is ambush marketing by intrusion. Mr Locke has made some comment on that. I judge it not to be informed comment but he has commented on it. Ambush marketing by intrusion occurs when an event is used to provide the ambush marketer’s brand with exposure or publicity to which it is not entitled by intruding on the attention of the audience gathered for the event. In such instances there may be no claim of association with the event but it is a commercial reality as Mr Jones has said that sponsors make huge financial commitments and both types of ambush marketing focus on commercial activity that free rides on the publicity surrounding a major event.So what is the consequence? The value of the official sponsorship is undermined and that has an impact on the viability of obtaining sponsorship for events in the future. That is why this argument is so critical and it is why I would very much like the Green Party to understand the importance of this legislation. Ambush marketing can affect the financial viability of major events the building of event brands and goodwill for the future. It can also affect the ability of event organisers to fulfil contractual obligations to sponsors. That is why it is and I explained this in my first call that many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events.I say to Mr Locke that there is nothing new in this legislation because legislation containing ambush-marketing protections has been introduced in a large number of overseas jurisdictions—for example in Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. Those are Australian examples. Other examples are in the UK for the 2012 London Olympic Games; in China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; in South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; and in the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. I urge Mr Locke to contemplate whether he should consider withdrawing the amendments he apparently seeks to advance at this stage.Finally in this call I would like to say something about ambush marketing by intrusion in the context of what has already been briefly adverted to and it is that in connection with clean zones the Minister for Economic Development may declare tightly geographically limited clean zones consisting of the venue and the area directly approximate to the venue. The clean zones cannot include private land with one exception. In essence the clean zones represent those areas where spectators will be gathered solely for the purpose of attending or gaining access to the major event.I also wish to comment on a provision in the bill that relates to clean transport routes during a defined clean period. The Minister may declare motorways State highways and railway lines within 5 kilometres of a clean zone and the areas directly approximate to be clean transport routes. Quite clearly some submitters to the Commerce Committee wished that this legislation went further. Other submitters wished us to draw back. All of that material was the subject of evidence and evaluation by the Commerce Committee. We have had to strike a balance. We believe that the balance we have struck in respect of clean zones clean transport routes and matters of that nature is a balance that has been appropriately struck in the context of the arguments we heard.KEITH LOCKE (Green): No argument has yet been raised to justify the anti-scalping provision in this bill. I ask Parliament to think about the precedent that it sets. Essentially it sets a precedent that the State can control second-hand markets and that it can control people who are making a profit in a second-hand market. Why do we need to go down that track? I ask someone in this Chamber to explain whether there is such a huge problem with the distribution of tickets by the organisers of sporting events that say 1000 tickets end up in the hands of one person and that person makes a huge profit out of them. If that is the case surely the organisers would improve the distribution of tickets the next time around. There is no problem that really needs to be addressed here.The Commerce Committee added a provision which is the heavy-handed thing that Richard Worth talked about. The select committee was worried that at the edge of the clean zones someone may stand on private property and trade a few items from a competing provider—that is a provider who is competing with the goods of an official sponsor may trade off his or her own front lawn—and said that a provision needed to be brought in to control that. Why do we need to get as heavy-handed as that? Why can the major event organisers not just control things in their own stadium? They are quite entitled to do that. Why do we need this legislation? Why do we have to have a 5 kilometre clean transport route?Emirates Airline which is an official sponsor of the Rugby World Cup in France is of course backed by the same people who are trying to take over Auckland International Airport our key transport hub. The same outfit that is behind Emirates Airline is behind the Dubai firm that is trying to take over our international airport. If Emirates Airline sponsors the Rugby World Cup again in 2011 do we really want Air New Zealand to pay a fine of $150000 if it happens to have a sign 4.5 kilometres out from Eden Parkalong the declared clean transport route? Why do we need to go down that track? New Zealanders will think it is stupid. In fact the Kiwi spirit is that if we are ordered around we come back in a satirical way. So all kinds of people in their Tui T-shirts or whatever else they may be wearing will try to stick it up the bureaucrats. This Parliament is giving powers to those bureaucrats to jump on the rights of people to do what they want.I do not think the argument for that measure has been made. Someone is just saying that because the big overseas advertisers say we must do this therefore we must. It was not a requirement in order to get the right to host the Rugby World Cup. When we got that right nothing came to this Parliament to say that if we got that right we would have to pass this legislation. It was only a year later that we were told we needed to do this. Obviously some of the big advertisers tapped someone on the shoulder and said we had to do this or our future might be in doubt. I do not think we want to bow down to those advertisers in that way.The bill contains a number of onerous provisions. As I said there is the anti-scalping provision. I do not have a particular amendment on that but I think we should be against that provision. I do have two specific sets of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in my name. One is to knock out the clean transport routes and the other one is to knock out pitch invasion. Again no one has really answered me as to why we need to have a whole new offence for pitch invasion and why it could not be handled as it has been in the past by imprisonment under the disorderly behaviour offence. It is very bad lawmaking to bring a whole new offence when it is unnecessary. Exactly the same behaviour can be caught under an existing offence with in practice the application of a lower penalty. Sure both the offences of pitch invasion and of disorderly behaviour have a maximum penalty of a 3-month prison sentence. But when one looks back through the cases at the application of prison sentences for disorderly behaviour one sees that what was behind the crime was often very serious and involved provoking violence or being involved in violence or another crime. Simply wandering on to a football field is not covered and it has never been even thought of as being covered by the disorderly behaviour offence.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I will take up the challenge that Mr Locke has thrown down and explain why the Commerce Committee was influenced to include the anti-scalping provisions. I do not think that his argument gains any greater merit just by being repeated as he has done on three occasions now. We are talking about Subpart 4 of Part 2 and it is entitled “Ticket-scalping protections”. Clause 24(1) states: “No person may without the authorisation of the major event organiser sell or trade a ticket to a major event activity for a value greater than the original sale price of that ticket.” There is an offence-creating provision in the next clause which Mr Locke has already referred to.I would just say this. The bill has a number of purposes. The two that are most relevant in the context of the anti-scalping argument relate to the provision for declared events—that is major events—to “obtain the maximum benefit from the major event for New Zealanders;” and to “prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation” of events “at the expense of either a major event organiser or a major event sponsor;”. If one looks at what has gone on overseas one will see some really egregious examples of cases where scalping has actively worked against the interests of consumers—and the bill aims to deal with that.I will give the Committee an example of that. Probably one of the worst examples was in 2004 at the Glastonbury Festival in the UK. It was a case where tickets were initially offered for sale online and were sold out within the first few hours of availability. However afterwards large numbers of tickets started to appear on eBay and other online market places. Not only were professional ticket sellers involved but manyordinary concert-goers had apparently purchased twice the number of tickets that they required and then sold the unused tickets at double the original price thus effectively getting their own tickets for free and further clouding the already fine line between ticket reseller and concert-goer.Ticket scalping—as Mr Locke may know—is very much a business in a number of overseas jurisdictions. We actually use the word “scalper” in this legislation which is an American English term. In the UK such people are generally called touts. But there are also established companies called ticket brokers in the business of reselling tickets. If one looks around the world one finds a lot of literature on criticisms relating to reselling. It is the case that individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may find themselves unable to get tickets as they have already been sold to ticket resellers in the way that I have just described. That means of course that ticket resellers can sell the tickets at market value with no effective loss because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place. Although one can say—and I am surprised that Mr Locke would espouse this view—that the practice of reselling tickets may be defended on free market principles most countries have actually outlawed the unauthorised resale of tickets usually with the exception of situations where the reseller does not profit from the transaction.That is what we have endeavoured to do in this legislation. I think if we are to go into the area of anti-scalping protections that the way that the committee has set the balance is the way that best meets the interests of New Zealand consumers. I do not believe it is appropriate that one should look at the opportunity to purchase tickets for major events as a way for the ticket purchaser to secure gain. That is not what it is about; it is about providing an opportunity for as many New Zealanders as possible to attend particular events at a reasonable cost.ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I commend my colleague Dr Worth for the analytical legal mind that he brings to the issue of scalping. Everything he said is of course quite correct and I endorse it. But I am a little surprised at the line the Green Party is running. I want to bring a little bit of passion to the subject. It is my view that millions of New Zealanders love their sport; they love it passionately; it brings purpose direction and enjoyment to their lives. Those New Zealanders would see any suggestion at all of scalping as a most un - New Zealand type of thing to do. There is one thing about scalping that we need to be very very clear about. One can only scalp tickets if one can secure access—through good luck good fortune using the system one’s mates or whatever it is—to more tickets than one needs for one’s use. The more tickets that fall into the hands of the sorts of individuals who do not plan to use them for themselves the more difficult it is for the millions of New Zealanders—those people with the passion and the love for sport—to get their hands on those tickets.I will make one other comment about that also with a degree of passion. It does not matter whether it is Rugby World Cup 2011 the Commonwealth Games or an age-grade world championship; I ask members to remember that a lot of the work to make it happen will have been done by volunteers: ordinary men and women who love their sport and who have a concept of service to their community. We have a responsibility to see that those people are not insulted by those who would take unfair commercial advantage of their efforts which is what scalping amounts to.As my colleague Dr Worth said scalping is now widely unaccepted in many countries of the world. It is unaccepted for the reason that I mentioned before when I said that it is a most un - New Zealand thing to do: it is an ungenerous act it is a selfish act and it is actually an act that demonstrates qualities and attributes that we do not associate with the great New Zealand commitment to serving the community servingone’s sport and serving the activity that one loves. Frankly to me any defence of scalping is an insult to that type of New Zealander.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(1) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(2) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit “or a clean transport route” from clause 15(5) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit Example 2 from clause 15(5) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I notice that there has been a pattern to the voting and the amendments to clauses 18 19 and 21 are all on the same issue. I ask for the leave of the Committee for those three questions to be put as one.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clauses 18 19 and 21 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit the Subpart 5 heading and clause 25A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Permanently protected emblems and wordsThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The debate on this part clauses 26 to 32 includes debate on the schedule.ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I would like to take what I expect will be a brief call to speak in support of Part 3 of the Major Events Management Bill. Madam Chair I crave your patience and that of the Committee for a moment if I appear to wander off in terms of relevance. I assure you that I will not.I would like to reflect for just a moment. Last Friday night I had the great privilege to attend a dinner of an outfit called the Carbine Club in Ellerslie. This is a group of noted former and current sportspeople who get together from time to time to enjoy each others’ company and to assist a charity. It is the sort of organisation in which somebody has to pass on before a new member is admitted. We observed the passing of Ron McGregor that great man of rugby league. I had the very great privilege to have as my dinner companion that night a man whose name I hope members in the Chamber will recognise—Joe McManemin. He was the manager of the New Zealand athletics team at the Rome Olympics way back in 1960. I had a delightful night talking to him—Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t have this legislation then.ALLAN PEACHEY: No not in those days. We did not need it in those days I say to the Minister. We had this marvellous conversation about Snell and Halberg winning those two gold medals and subsequently going on to Perth and Doreen Porter winning that silver—Hon Trevor Mallard: No Perth was before then.ALLAN PEACHEY: No Perth was 1962 I assure the Minister—I am old enough to remember. The point I want to make is that men like Joe McManemin have given their lives to athletics and to organisations like the former Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association. The symbols that this bill seeks to protect are the result in the case of Mr McManemin of over 40 years’ work. I think it is important that the Committee acknowledges that in a way those men and women own the symbol. They made no financial gain at all from their voluntary effort over 40 or 50 years. Cynics can say: “Yes but look at the trips they had.” but let me tell people from my own experience that those trips are hard work. They are not junkets. They are hard work.I reflect on another member of the Carbine Club a good friend of mine Murray McKinnon who is currently in Osaka with the New Zealand athletics team at the World Championships in Athletics. To the best of my knowledge he is the only New Zealand journalist there who will be reporting back to New Zealand on the efforts of our athletes. He has paid his own way and that is the sort of commitment that in Part 3 we talk about protecting.I do not believe any organisation any smart clever business person or anybody seeking to make a financial gain for themselves has any right to be able to do that using things like the symbol of the Olympic Committee. I am pleased that this House is protecting that because we are saying that we acknowledge and respect the years and years of voluntary effort that has gone into this brand this symbol and what it represents. So much of what it represents is the very very best of New Zealand.I am honoured to speak in support of Part 3.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): This is a relatively simple part of the bill and I am sure there will not be any objection to it. When I was in Opposition I took part in the original work that amended the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 by way of I think two statutes amendment bills. There was unanimity that these emblems should be protected at the time. I think at the time it was a little bit of a rort to put them in with flags names and emblems because they were designed for things that were not effectively privately owned in the way that the Olympic and Commonwealth symbols are. I see no reason why the Committee should not just tick this and move on.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I would like to join in the words that have been offered by the previous National speaker Mr Peachey the MP for Tamaki in saying that the contribution that Joe McManemin has made should not go unremarked. After all I well recall as a young schoolboy and a quarter-miler having my involvement in team racing run under his direction and his contribution which continued across a range of fronts was truly remarkable.But I just pause to say that the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 to which the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has referred is much-amended legislation and this may not be the most tidy amendment that is being proposed. It is curious legislation because the principal Act is in four parts. It deals with the New Zealand flag and ensigns it deals with royal vice-regal State and heralded emblems and names. There is protection of the Girl Guides Association in Part 3 and then a raft of miscellaneous provisions. If one looks at the amendments that have been made to the legislation over time one sees that a schedule was introduced and a number of particular entities and emblems were protected: the New Zealand Commonwealth Games symbol the New Zealand Commonwealth Youth Games emblem the New Zealand Youth Olympic Festival emblem and the Commonwealth Games Federation emblem.Hon Trevor Mallard: That was my fault.Dr RICHARD WORTH: It might well be the fault of the Minister and I suppose that in the context of the egregious offences he has committed in his lifetime this would not be seen to be a particularly significant one.But we come to Part 3 which is the topic of this legislation. I think it is no more complicated than this. Part 3 is basically a re-enactment of sections 20A to 21 of this particular principal Act and the schedule of this bill is a re-enactment of schedule 2A of the Act. For some reason the draftsman considered that it was appropriate to include this provision in the Major Events Management Bill and that was probably unnecessary. [Interruption] The Minister is making a contribution that I cannot hear; he needs to repeat it so I can respond.Hon Trevor Mallard: The Minister asked him to include it because he thought that the old system was a rort.Dr RICHARD WORTH: Well yes; that may well be. But I think the reality is that little has actually happened in terms of the change from that legislation to this bill. Probably two things have happened and those things are that the test in clause 26 has been changed to use the word “confused” instead of “mislead” as it was used in section 20A and the penalty provisions in clause 29 have been changed quite significantly. In fact the penalty is very substantial. The penalty is now $150000 for breach of these provisions. I think that what is being thrown up in any discussion on that sort of change is how these penalty provisions—fixed through a stream of legislation—are consistent or inconstant and I am not sure at all that it is appropriate the penalty should sit at that level in the context of other penalty provisions.Hon Trevor Mallard: Too high or too low?Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is hard to say really. It seems a very significant amount at $150000 when one is looking at what is involved here but more particularly because significant civil remedies are now to be given and the criminal consequences of breach are obviously less significant for the affected organisation. So I would say with some reluctance in endorsing Part 3 that it may appropriately be included but I would not wish that Mr Peachey’s words in connection with the encomium he offered Joe McManemin should ever be forgotten.Part 3 agreed to.Part 4EnforcementALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Again I would like to take just a brief call on Part 4 because I do not imagine there will be too much division in the Committee over this. The first comment I want to make is that—and again if I seem to be straying a little bit in relevance Madam Chair I ask for your patience—frequently members of Parliament moving around the country will hear any number of people telling us how useless we are what a non-job we have and that sort of thing—Hon Trevor Mallard: They don’t do that to me!ALLAN PEACHEY: I mean those members over there not me. Every so often they throw a name up at us. Let us not be specific about that but often one finds oneself in the position of actually being able to say: “Now wait a minute their name may not always be in the newspapers and they may not be getting kicked out of the House periodically—all that sort of thing—but the work they are doing down in the engine room in their select committees is very very sound.” I think there are a couple of examples in Part 4 of work that was done in the select committee where—Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes Maryan Street is great isn’t she?ALLAN PEACHEY: I say to the Minister that I suspect that the National members probably had somewhat more influence on deciding the shape of these amendments. Both of these amendments—subclause (1A) in clause 65 and clause 51A—reflect very much our point of view and they temper the harsher intentions of the bill in its original form.I think it is very important to realise that when something like this is being enforced and there is a requirement for a police officer to be involved as there is in clause 65(1A) New Zealanders by their nature are much more likely to accept that enforcement and to acknowledge that that is an appropriate action that should be taken. For that reason alone it is good that the work of the select committee has just tempered the harshness of this. I do not believe that New Zealanders want this Parliament to be giving a range of enforcement officials greater power. Where that power is necessary tobe given—and I do not question that in this case it is—it is important I think that it be tempered in the way provided for in clause 65(1A).KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think that this part illustrates the problem with the bill as a whole in that when one imposes such restrictions on people over such a big area one has problems in enforcement which one would not have if one were not so heavy-handed as the State is. Under this provision there is the set-up of enforcement officers who are not police officers and do not have the normal statutory powers for search and seizure. As Alan Peachey has just said that is a problem and the select committee did put in a provision that when a search warrant is issued in relation to the bill the enforcement officer is to be accompanied by a police officer. As Alan Peachey said that is a good restraint in the situation and makes it more acceptable to most New Zealanders.Other powers and functions of the enforcement officer are detailed in clause 39 “Enforcement officer’s entry to premises restricted” and clause 40 “Power of enforcement officers to seize or cover things”. A lot of what is in those provisions relating to enforcement officers is not covered by the need to have an accompanying police officer. For example in relation to clause 9 only in clause 39(c): “when the entry is authorised by a search warrant issued under section 64.” is there the need for the accompaniment of a police officer. The other two subclauses in clause 39—“(a) when the place is part of a clean zone; or (b) when the place is outside a clean zone and it is a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully enter without a search warrant;”—clearly refer to somebody who is not a police officer conducting entry and—to follow up with the next clause—seizure outside of the functions of a police officer.When we get to clause 40 we see that it is also about seizing or covering things—the bill talks about covering things. Presumably it refers to for example covering adverts. If Air New Zealand is advertising when Emirates Airline is the official sponsor as is the case in the Rugby World Cup in France the enforcement officer would have the power to cover the Air New Zealand logo. An enforcement officer may seize or cover anything believed to breach the legislation that is either within the clean zone or as clause 40(1)(b) states “outside a clean zone and it is in a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully be without a search warrant.” Then we get into the sticky area added by the select committee. Consider this example. The clean zone extends to the road around the stadium and across the road there is private property and someone is trading off that private property. As I understand clause 40(1)(b) an enforcement officer—not a police officer—could come over on to that property and cover something up or seize something.I might be mistaken there in my interpretation. I am happy to be corrected. But it just shows the problems when we extend powers unnecessarily as has been done in this bill when there is no gigantic problem we need the heavy hand of the State to solve here.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): In a crowded gallery and a hushed Chamber I just express concern that the Minister the Hon Trevor Mallard has not seen fit to offer comment on Part 4 of the Major Events Management Bill. I express the wish that he will do so because there are a number of important aspects that I am sure his officials would have drawn to his attention. The bill is another example of course of the type of legislative drafting technique where there are a whole lot of subparts which might inappropriately limit debate on the substantive part itself.Part 4—and National supports the Major Events Management Bill—is all about enforcement and the subparts deal with matters of general application with border protection measures which I am sure the Minister has thoughtfully considered in subpart 2 provisions relating to enforcement officers in Subpart 3 and provisions relating to civil proceedings in Subpart 4. Subpart 5 is concerned with criminaloffences and Subpart 6 with search warrants. Then of course the legislation moves on to the next part.I would like to make some brief comments about enforcement in the context of this legislation because this is an area that occupied some time in the Commerce Committee and is the subject of some change. A combination of enforcement measures is provided for in the bill to ensure the effective and efficient enforcement of ambush marketing protections. The plan of the drafters which the select committee accepted was appropriate was that criminal and civil remedies would ensure deterrents and redress whilst the extra provisions that were included for administrative remedies would expedite the enforcement of ambush marketing protections limiting the protection for harm by stopping ambush marketing at crucial times. It is quite right to say as others have said in this debate today that in the context of ambush marketing timeliness of response may often be critical to advancing the interests of sponsors and others.I start by talking about civil remedies. Ambush marketing occurs where the ambush marketer perceives that he or she will gain some benefit from his or her activities. Both as a form of deterrence and I think to ensure that ambush marketers do not get paid from their activities event organisers and—subject to the event organiser’s discretion—official sponsors that have suffered damages or loss will be able to bring civil actions. That is as it should be. The civil remedies available include an account of profits which is stripping the ambush marketers of the benefit they gain from ambush marketing activities; damages which as we all know is making good any loss suffered by event organisers; and also corrective advertising to correct public misapprehension.That is all I would seek to say on civil remedies but in addition of course to those remedies provided by the legislation there are criminal penalties. The possibility of criminal prosecution for ambush marketing activities I believe will act as a significant deterrent to those considering the possibility of undertaking that type of activity. There are analogies to be drawn in the context of the Trade Marks Act 2002. As Mr Hughes has reminded me key provisions in section 124 of that Act prohibit a person from knowingly applying a mark to the goods and services that he or she knows is likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark. So much for the civil and criminal remedies.There is this further area of administrative remedies. It is usually only possible—as my colleagues on this side of the Chamber have reminded me—to bring criminal and civil proceedings after an event has occurred. There are some exceptions but the process is complicated and it can be time consuming and expensive. Administrative remedies may very well be an effective enforcement process in this legislation. What is possible? Well enforcement officers who are appointed by the Ministry of Economic Development can do a number of things. They can issue formal warnings to ambush marketers. They can seize offending material they can obscure offending material and they can enter premises under limited circumstances.Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the member say something to wake us up?Dr RICHARD WORTH: One of the issues—and I say this to wake the Minister up from his generally somnolent state—is the police involvement in the enforcement process. The Minister should listen to this because this was a change. This was not something the officials wanted; this was something they told the Minister they did not want. But the select committee said this is what we would have and we do—in the context of exercising these enforcement powers on private land the police are to be involved. It was suggested that the police would not be much interested in that but the reality is that we need to be hugely careful as Keith Locke has said tonight in arming officials with enforcement powers. It is appropriate that when those powers are exercised they be exercised in the presence of the constabulary.I now await the Minister’s comments on what he thinks of these administrative remedies. It is a test for him I would say as to his knowledge of the legislation and the approach that has been taken in philosophical terms to provide effective remedies in the case of a breach.MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a short call on this issue because I think some things have been lost sight of in the course of some of the recent contributions. During the select committee deliberation on the whole of this bill great care was taken to balance rights and to balance those few occasions when rights were being infringed or curtailed in any way. That balance was set against the advantages that might accrue to New Zealand from being able to hold major events of the sort that this Major Events Management Bill envisages and provides for.It is true that the select committee unanimously decided to amend one of the enforcement provisions in clause 65 “Powers conferred by warrant” in Subpart 6. This is where we agreed that in order to perpetuate the kind of balance that New Zealanders would tolerate and expect under this legislation any search warrant should be exercised by an enforcement officer only when that officer was accompanied by a member of the police. The powers conferred by a search warrant under Subpart 6 are quite extensive. They are as we would expect the ability to enter and search the place vehicle or thing specified; to use any assistance that is reasonable in the circumstances; to use any force for gaining entry; to search for and seize any thing that the warrant authorises the person to search for and seize; to take copies of documents; and to require somebody to reproduce information recorded or stored in a document. Those search warrant provisions are quite far-reaching and the committee decided it was a step too far to have those powers only in the hands of enforcement officers who were recruited for the purpose of an event. But enabling those provisions to be exercised under the auspices and the close observation of a police officer simply makes them consistent with other similar provisions in the law.At every turn in this bill we were at pains to ensure that individual rights were balanced and that any curtailment of those rights was in fact prescribed and limited and that is what has happened in this subpart as well. So before people go sounding off about infringement of individual liberty and the extension of the coercive power of the State they need to understand that the police coverage provisions in clause 65 simply allow for the police to be able to accompany any enforcement officer whether it be an officer of a city council for example or an enforcement officer appointed for the purpose such as a security guard. Those people must be accompanied by police in order to exercise the search warrant provisions in the legislation.This is sensible legislation. It is not extreme one way or another. What it does in fact is limit powers that are given specifically under this legislation to particular circumstances at particular times and in particular places in respect of other provisions in this bill. It is perfectly clear that a good deal of thought has been given to the enforcement part of this bill. Across the select committee it was unanimously decided that the additional provision of observation and accompaniment by a police officer was sufficient to give comfort to the public of New Zealand that no excessive rights or powers were being granted indiscriminately.KEITH LOCKE (Green): I do thank the select committee for putting in the amendment that both Dr Worth and Maryan Street have mentioned which makes sure that a police officer accompanies an enforcement officer when a search warrant is executed. That is a good step forward but it does not get away from subclauses (a) and (b) of clause 39 which relate largely to the action of enforcement officers immediately around the event. They have powers to cover over things and seize things without any police officer being present if the place is part of a clean zone or outside a clean zone.When the place is outside a clean zone presumably the bill means that without a police officer by the enforcement officer’s side the officer will be able to cover over a sign or whatever along a declared clean transport route up to 5 kilometres away and will be able to seize something from a person if that person is trading from his or her lawn across the road from the clean zone as covered in another clause.That can actually be for quite a long period too because the protection period—and this has not really come out in the debate yet—is not just for the day of the event. Under clause 8 it can be for up to 30 days after the completion or termination of the major event. So one can imagine a situation where for instance Air New Zealand could have an advert 4.5 kilometres away and the enforcement officer without a police officer present could cover over that advert up to 30 days after the event if say Emirates Airline is the major sponsor as it is at the current World Cup. Similarly Lemon and Paeroa ads could be covered over if Coca-Cola were the major sponsor as it is at the coming World Cup in France or if a Canterbury clothing manufacturer has a “Buy Kiwi Made” ad that ad could be covered over because Adidas is the official sponsor at this coming World Cup and maybe at the following one. Heineken is the official sponsor at the World Cup in France; Steinlager might be advertising 4.5 kilometres out and that ad could be covered over by an enforcement officer.That could happen under this bill and I do not think we need to go to that extent to achieve what most of us want to achieve—a successful tournament for the 2011 Rugby World Cup and other major international events.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 4 agreed to.Part 5 MiscellaneousALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Thank you Madam Chair—Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ll have trouble being relevant on this.ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh the Minister should watch this. I can handle this. [Interruption] I was going to say that I will take a very short and final call on this bill and speak to Part 5 but if I am going to be taunted and aggravated by the other side I might choose to speak for 15 minutes on it.Part 5 under the glorious title of “Miscellaneous” covers clauses 76 to 80. It deals with emblems and words protected under other Acts and necessary amendments to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. It also contains provisions for the making of regulations to make the legislation work. I am bound to say—Darren Hughes: Read it again.ALLAN PEACHEY: If the junior Labour whip would like to take a call he will have the opportunity after I have finished speaking. I do have to say that it is somewhat of a challenge even for myself to hold the attention of the gallery let alone members opposite—not to mention those watching on television and listening to the radio—on what really is just a very very practical catch-all to draw this legislation to a close.But I do want to conclude my comments since the challenge on the other side to continue has not been that great by saying that what we have in the five parts that we have been debating and progressively passing tonight is the pulling together of a largenumber of interests ambitions and efforts of a large number of voluntary people business interests sporting organisations and the Government to create legislation that is not only workable but will give New Zealand the opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup 2011.I will make just one last comment while listening to the squawking from the other side—and it has taken them a while to come alive; they normally get into me a bit earlier than they have done. Every New Zealander will be taking a lot of reassurance from the knowledge that come 2011 the Minister who will be acting under this legislation will be a Minister representing a National Government.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): So often one is put off by a heading like “Miscellaneous” and that is what Part 5 is headed. I would just like to explore an angle that probably has not been sufficiently considered by the Committee and until a few moments ago I had not fully reflected on its significance either. It stems from clause 78. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has opened the bill to look at this. Clause 78 is headed “Application of Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989” and the key part is in subclause (1): “An Order in Council made under section 6 or 7 is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act”.Now I am reasonably sure that the Minister has no comprehension of the significance of that. So let me tell him what it is. If one goes to the Standing Orders of Parliament one finds in Standing Order 3 a definition of regulation: “regulation means a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989”. I sense that the Minister may be on the trail but not quite there. So I draw his attention to this. These Orders in Council are made under clauses 6 or 7. If he turns back and looks at those clauses he will see that those are the very clauses where declarations of major events are made.What does all this mean in legal terms? Well it is something quite simple actually. What it means is that the Regulations Review Committee will have a jurisdiction to determine whether what the Governor-General asserts is a major event is or is not a major event. That is a hugely extended jurisdiction that this legislation confers. It is actually quite unusual. The jurisdiction is not only in respect of clause 6 but also in connection with clause 7 which is about major event emblems and words. So we have this very interesting situation. Let us say that the America’s Cup is declared by the Governor-General to be a major event. The Regulations Review Committee will have the jurisdiction to say “not so”. That will open up these provisions that are to be found around Standing Orders 314 and 315 where the Regulations Review Committee which comprises eminent respected and competent people will be looking to see whether there are Standing Orders grounds that are breached by what the Governor-General and his advisers have done. So I just offer a view for those who follow me in the future that when one comes to provisions headed “Miscellaneous such as Part 5 little jewels are often tucked away and this is one such jewel.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I think there are two points that should be made here. The first is in response to Mr Peachey. I give him an absolute assurance that the recommendations under clauses 6 and 7 will be made by a Labour Minister and not by a National Minister. I am prepared to wager $1000 on it now.Dr Richard Worth: I seek leave of the House for that wager to be recorded in theJournals of the House as distinct fromHansard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not necessary but if we could have an acceptance from Mr Peachey right now then we will go for it. Is he prepared to put his money where his mouth is?The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that Part 5—Allan Peachey: I would be delighted to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What did he say? I am sorry I missed it.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Look this is out of order—Hon Member: He said yes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: OK that is good. I am still going Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Will the member just come back to the bill.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am happy to come back to the bill in the way that this works in but I think I should give the member a chance to say that this does not happen in the year of the event. This happens in this case quite a long time beforehand and might even happen over the next few weeks so if he wants to—[Interruption] No no we are talking about the Rugby World Cup and if the member wants to withdraw in his ignorance I am prepared to let him do it because it will be a bit of an unfair bet.Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could somebody tell me what the hell the Minister is talking about because I have absolutely no idea.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is the wager that he just bet $1000 on—in ignorance I think. I am prepared to let him withdraw.Maryan Street: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought the Gambling Bill was the next item on the Order Paper.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a good point.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will leave it to the member to decide later on. The other point which I think is an important point that Dr Worth has raised—Darren Hughes: A doctor?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He is a doctor—a part-time doctor but he is a doctor.Darren Hughes: Really a quack?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No not one of them. He is one of the doctors who makes one sick not one that makes one well.The point to make to that member is that the regulations disallowance area was something that was very very deliberate on the part of the Government. We have a very high test here and we want to make sure there is a degree of unanimity about it in Parliament before it is applied. I accept that some of the powers are along the lines of what Keith Locke has said and that they are somewhat draconian. There is some loss of civil liberties and some balances occurring here and we wanted to make sure that through the Regulations Review Committee and Parliament there was a wide basis of support for the application of this legislation in each and every case.Part 5 agreed to.Scheduleagreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to speak to the title of the Major Events Management Bill. As has been clearly pointed out in the course of this wide-ranging debate in the Committee stage the aim of this bill is to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of major sponsors. We are talking about some key events here. We are talking about the Netball World Championships in 2007 the World Rowing Championships in 2010—Hon Trevor Mallard: Not the netball.CHRIS TREMAIN: We are not talking about the netball; I apologise. We are certainly talking about the World Rowing Championships the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These are key events that we need to focus on. They are particularly poignant for me in that I can look back on the events that myfather was involved in as an All Black throughout the halcyon days of the late 1950s and 1960s. We had the likes of Waka Nathan Colin Meads and Sir Brian Lochore playing then. It is poignant because if we look back to those days we see that what those men had on their jerseys was the silver fern. Advertising and sponsorship were second degree.Hon Trevor Mallard: No TV.CHRIS TREMAIN: There was very little TV—they were different days. Since then time has moved on.It is also poignant for me because Tom Johnson my own electorate chair back in Napier in Hawke’s Bay was on the council that went to Canada and that took up the original proposal for the initial Rugby World Cup.Hon Trevor Mallard: Before the member was born.CHRIS TREMAIN: No it was not before the member was born though it was close to it—it was back in about 1985 if I recall correctly.It is poignant because if we look back on those old days there was limited sponsorship. Now however the sponsorship is totally different. Companies have realised the potential of these events. Let us look at the Nike example that occurred at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Nike had probably one of the most amazing ambush marketing campaigns that has ever been seen at an Olympic Games. It cost $50 million for sponsors just to be on the starting list at that particular games but Nike did not step up to the game there. It refused to be a sponsor. However behind the scenes it plastered the city with billboards it handed out Swoosh flags all around the stadium and it erected an enormous Nike centre within the city. It was a huge ambush marketing campaign. At the end of the games some surveys were done and people in the city actually thought that Nike was the No. 1 sponsor.The reality is that to hold major events in this country or in any nation for that matter we need sponsors. It is a reality of life. If we cannot provide a return on the investment made by those sponsors then they will not be there. I think that the Greens need to understand this. New Zealand is poised in the fantastic position of being able to host many many events of a world standard and if we cannot provide clean stadiums then we will not get those events. These events have the ability to bring significant revenue into this country and unless we can provide clean stadiums we will not be able to provide those events.Hon Trevor Mallard: Stadia.CHRIS TREMAIN: Stadia.I would like to finish my contribution tonight by going back to the types of things that this bill will provide. It will retain memories in this nation of Rugby World Cups and of our key sporting heroes. They are memories of events that I can talk about after listening to my own father such as one that happened at Athletic Park in 1961. Many members will recall that test when the All Blacks sneaked home at 5-3 in a nail-biter. Members will recall an 80-mile-per-hour gale that whipped off the Southern Ocean and straight down Athletic Park.Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the member born?CHRIS TREMAIN: It does not matter; we still need to recall the memory. With 15 minutes to play the game was tied at nil all. A try finally came—not to New Zealand but to France. A pass from Connor had missed Wolfe 30 yards from the French line and before Wolfe could recover the loose ball Piqué had grabbed it and was making upfield. Bearing left he drew McKay infield before tossing a pass to the now unmarked Dupuy who bolted the last 40 yards to the line scoring 8 yards in from the left corner. Albaladejo failed at the almost impossible task of converting into the teeth of the gale. From the restart McKay narrowly missed scoring but from a scrum on the French lineLacroix passed to Lacaze to clear. The fullback’s kick was charged down by Tremain who fell on the ball 10 yards in from the corner. Don Clarke took the conversion attempt back to the 25 and kicked almost parallel to the goal line in time for the wind to catch the ball and miraculously carry it over the bar to give New Zealand the lead and to cruelly dash the French hopes.It is events like these—memories like these—that this bill will help. We must ensure that we in this country continue to hold events like this. They are why I for one certainly support this bill. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)First ReadingHon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I moveThat the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill amends the Gambling Act 2003. The Gambling Act is large and complex and as is common with new legislation of this nature a number of issues were identified as requiring improvement during its implementation. The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) contains many technical amendments and some minor policy enhancements to clarify the law and remove any uncertainties. On balance I think that the Gambling Act is working pretty well so there is no intention of making any significant policy changes. The Act is relatively new and needs to be given a chance to work.This bill is designed to address the technical changes that need to be made in order to assist the department and the gambling sector to engage with more clarity. Work on the bigger issues identified in the reports into allegations about the Christchurch Casino is under way. It would be premature at this stage to address those issues through what is largely a technical bill. We are focused on finding solutions to the issues raised in these reports—issues that the Department of Internal Affairs has been aware of for some time. Once we have developed a more comprehensive understanding of the issues I will invite officials from across the Government to come together and map out appropriate solutions. This process will allow both the Government and the sector to build a solid platform on which to help reduce the opportunities for problem gambling and criminality in the sector.I will now summarise some of the minor policy enhancements in the bill. One of the Gambling Act’s objectives is to ensure the fairness and integrity of games. To further assist with the achievement of this object the bill introduces minimum disclosure requirements for non-cash prizes. The Act already contains a prize disclosure regime but it is only partially achieved and in a fragmented way. Introducing a statutory requirement for accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes would both provide more certainty and remove any inconsistencies between requirements for different types of gambling.The bill contains a number of measures intended to assist its community funding objectives. These include clauses requiring venues that host gaming machines to bank community profits directly into the society’s dedicated account. This amendment responds to the practice whereby some venues have been banking society money intotheir own accounts for a few days and occasionally have not been able to account for it when it is time to bank the money into the society’s bank account.Also included are explicit obligations on community grant recipients to use grants from gaming machine proceeds appropriately including it being an offence for non-compliance. This measure reduces the risk of a grant recipient misappropriating gaming machine proceeds. The conflict of interest safeguards are extended to apply to all persons who make decisions on gaming machine grants. Currently they apply only to those key roles in the management of the society. The bill specifies in more detail the circumstances in which a gaming machine society such as a club can apply gaming machine proceeds for its own purposes as opposed to when it can make grants to community groups. At present the Gambling Act does not provide sufficient clarity on this point.The bill provides added flexibility for clubs wishing to merge to address financial viability issues. The Act currently allows two or more clubs to apply for ministerial approval to operate up to 30 gaming machines at the venue on which they merge. However they may merge into an existing 18-machine venue only if the number of the 18-machine venues is limited. So the bill will allow clubs to apply for ministerial approval to operate additional machines at any venue even if that venue would not otherwise be an 18-machine venue. Access to this facility would still be subject to territorial authority consent.A number of measures are intended to assist with the achievement of the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation objectives. One clause reflects the recent experience with the Dunedin Casino—the suspension case. This clause clarifies that gaming machines and casino operators have an ongoing duty to take all reasonable steps to assist a person they have identified as a potential problem gambler. Essentially this means that it will not be enough for an operator to just approach a person on one occasion provide information to that person about problem gambling and do nothing further if the person’s gambling behaviour continues to be of concern. The bill also provides that the gambling venue staff do not have to issue a venue exclusion order to persons who approach them and identify themselves as being problem gamblers if those persons do not provide a reasonable means of identification such as a recent photo.Another clause requires casinos and gambling machine operators to keep records of problem gambler exclusion orders that they have issued and to provide a report on those records to the Secretary for Internal Affairs if requested to do so. The bill modifies the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation regulation-making powers to include regulating the means of payment to participate in gaming prescribing content and training standards for problem gambling awareness training—currently only very general requirements can be prescribed—and restricting or prohibiting eftpos and other means of accessing money for gambling at the venue. Currently only ATMs can be regulated but the harm potential of say a mobile eftpos device might be similar.Another clause is designed to make it easier to conduct research on gambling in real-life gambling environments. The clause authorises the Secretary for Internal Affairs to temporarily approve gambling equipment for operation in a gambling venue for the purpose of testing whether the equipment’s introduction will facilitate the attainment of the Gambling Act’s objectives.A number of clauses in the bill are designed to assist the Gambling Commission with the performance of its functions. One clause enhances the Gambling Commission’s protection from liability along similar lines to the immunities provided to statutory entities out of the Crown Entities Act 2004. Another clause provides the commission with the flexibility to determine when it sits as a division and to decide whether division includes the Chief Gambling Commissioner.Finally the bill ensures that the Gambling Act binds the Crown. The Act was introduced prior to the requirement that all policy decisions on proposed legislation seek a decision on whether to bind the Crown. The general principle is that the Act should bind the Crown unless the application of an Act to the Crown would impair the efficient running of the Government. There are no such factors at work here. The introduction of this bill is designed to address the technical changes that need to be made in order to assist the department and the gambling sector to engage with more clarity.Work on bigger-picture issues identified in the reports into allegations at Christchurch Casino is under way and I would say to the House that it is premature to address those through what is largely a technical bill. Officials are currently working on having a better understanding of the issues identified but once this work is complete we will be in a position to address that.This bill is important as it introduces a number of initiatives that are designed to ensure that the Gambling Act continues to work as originally intended. The bill provides the opportunity to implement these measures without leading to a premature review of such fundamental approaches taken by the Act. I commend the bill to the House.ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I may well have missed it but according to Standing Order 284 the Minister should indicate which select committee the bill is going to. I did not hear whether he said that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I believe that he did.Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I say to Mr Roy that the second sentence I uttered was that at the appropriate time I intended to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): As the Minister said the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) is a technical bill and in the first instance I want to draw the House’s attention to page 19 of the explanatory note where it states: “Casino and class 4 venues are required to exclude self-identified problem gamblers from the gambling area of the venue for up to 2 years and to remove them from the venue if they return in that time.”If we look at the Act we see there is a conflict because section 310(1) states that a venue manager or a casino operator must “issue an exclusion order to a person that prohibits the person from entering the gambling area of a class 4 venue or casino venue (as the case may be) …”. If we were to then look further at section 311(1) of the Act we would see that it states: “a person acting on behalf of …” a venue manager or a casino operator “must remove any person who enters the gambling area …”. So here we have a conflict. In one part of the Act it states that the venue manager or casino operator must “prohibit the person” and in the other part it states that the venue manager or casino operator must “remove the person”.During this debate I will highlight the inconsistencies that are in the Act and what this amendment is actually portraying it will do. Section 312(4)(b) of the Act imposes a $10000 fine on the venue manager if he or she knowingly fails to remove a self-excluded problem gambler who has entered the gambling area. But there is no fine—no fine at all—for knowingly failing to remove a venue-excluded gambler who has entered the gambling area. So here again is a major discrepancy in this interpretation. If a voluntarily self-excluded person defaults that person is penalised but if a venue operator excludes a problem gambler and that person defaults then there is no penalty. That is a discrepancy.Similarly a self-excluded gambler cannot stay in hotel accommodation at the venue because as I mentioned on page 19 of the explanatory note of the bill it states: “Casinoand class 4 venues are required to exclude self-identified problem gamblers from the gambling area of the venue for up to 2 years”. We understand that; that is very clear. But it goes on to state: “and to remove them from the venue …”. The venue in this case is not just the gaming area; it is the whole complex. It includes the accommodation as well.Clause 84 of this amendment bill amends section 312 of the Gambling Act and substantially changes the onus of proof for a charge relating to a “breach of exclusion order”. If an excluded person enters the gambling area whether or not the operator knows that person has entered then it is an offence. The current provision in the Act states that the venue manager the holder of the casino operating licence or a person acting on behalf of those persons are liable only if they knowingly allow the person to enter the gaming area or knowingly fail to remove a person who enters those areas. The current procedures are based on identification and removal after entry.However under the proposed changes in the bill allowing the person to enter will be a strict liability offence. What is the case if the person uses a disguise or changes his or her appearance? It will be difficult to identify an excluded person in this case unlike the identification of a youth in the context of the Sale of Liquor Act due to age limitations. The question will be whether this new section will in any way minimise and prevent harm as envisaged under the Gambling Act or whether it will just work against venue operators.Clause 85 which inserts new section 312A needs close attention. The proposal there is that a self-excluded gambler will be required to register with a third party if the secretary—which presumably refers to the Secretary for Internal Affairs—requests. That is quite inappropriate. The self-excluded gambler’s requirements for privacy should be paramount. Otherwise for many the act of self-exclusion may not be forthcoming. Demographic information including age and gender could be recorded without personal information. Nowhere in the Gambling Act are there any requirements for a self-excluded problem gambler to be registered in any way with a third party.The Department of Internal Affairs’Gambits publication dated 2005 shows how many gamblers were excluded over a 12-month period. I quote from that publication. Those excluded by casinos in that period numbered 188 and those who were self-excluded—they took it upon themselves to exclude themselves—numbered 593 which was a total of 781. So that was a 12-month period for which those exclusion orders were applied. In theGambits publication of June of this year June 2007 it states that casinos across New Zealand exclude between 50 and 60 patrons per month.Clause 86 amends section 313 of the principal Act. This is an empowering provision which extends the Department of Internal Affairs’ regulatory powers. There is no definition at all for what constitutes “inducements to gamble”. What does it mean? The Department of Internal Affairs under the Act is responsible for everything. It is responsible for gaming policy for enforcement for licensing and for regulation. The Department of Internal Affairs is judge and jury and this clause 86 delegates to it the power to create implement and enforce regulation without the scrutiny of this House or of a select committee.National members have some reservations about certain clauses in this bill which I have outlined and we will want answers during the select committee process. However we are happy to support the first reading of this bill.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to speak in the first reading debate on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2).Hon Tau Henare: What do you know about gambling?DARIEN FENTON: Actually I know quite a lot and I tell the member that if he listens he will hear. Many people believe that gambling is a scourge on our society andI do not disagree with that. We could all wish that gambling did not exist in New Zealand at all but people have always gambled in one way or another and some to excess. There is no doubt that gambling brings with it a whole lot of problems and that is why the Labour-led Government introduced world-leading legislation in 2003 after the growth of casino and pokie-machine gambling during the 1990s. Can members guess who was in Government then? Only National!The purpose of the Gambling Act 2003 was to control the growth of gambling to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling—including problem gambling—to authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest to facilitate responsible gambling to ensure the integrity and fairness of games to limit the opportunities for crime and dishonesty associated with gambling to ensure that the money from gambling benefited the community and to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling.The legislation we are debating tonight at its first reading is designed to build on that work by clarifying the law and removing any uncertainties. My wonderful colleague Sue Moroney that well-known horse racing expert from the Waikato gave me a really good tip about gambling. She said that I should never gamble more than I could afford to lose and I have taken that advice very seriously. Apart from having the odd punt on a horse I am not a gambler. But I do know a little about casinos and I have had quite a lot to do with them.When our largest casino opened in 1996 in Auckland there was much commotion from the National Government about growth in the local economy and local jobs. I went to the jobs expo held for interested workers in 1995 where 18000 people turned up hoping for a job in what they then saw as a glamorous industry. What they did not know was that Harrah’s which was building the casino intended to take full advantage of the then National Government’s anti-worker employment law that empowered employers to dictate pay and conditions in an environment with high unemployment and a climate of fear. So those poor workers who came to work at the casino turned up bright-eyed and keen but low pay long hours and the anti-union management culture soon led to a lot of disaffection and a high turnover among staff.Harrah’s and then Skycity flourished under National’s totally supportive gambling regulatory regime with a focus on profits for the tourism and entertainment industries. Regulation was light-handed. So were other things like health and safety workers’ rights and gambling restrictions. In my former job I spent a lot of time at Skycity Casino—for my sins—or at least outside it because the employer would not let unions into the place until Labour became the Government. But the workers did want to talk. They wanted to talk about some of the poor conditions the lousy pay—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I say to members that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected upon has the call. A number of interjections have been going across the House and neither of the parties involved has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all if they are directed at a member who does not have the call.DARIEN FENTON: The workers wanted to talk about the poor conditions the lousy pay the forced 12-hour shifts in some departments and the unjustified sackings. The bright shiny casino of those times had not only a growth in problem gambling but an exploited workforce.My first real dialogue with management came as the Employment Relations Bill was going through Parliament and the key person in charge of human resources at Skycity Casino then was an ex – Red Squad member from the 1981 Springbok Tour—funny that!Sue Moroney: It wasn’t Ross Meurant was it?DARIEN FENTON: No it was not Ross Meurant; it was someone like him though.Three things changed at Skycity Casino when Labour became the Government. Firstly we brought in fairer labour laws which meant that Skycity had to engage with union members in collective bargaining. The first collective agreement was signed in 2001 and that took quite a struggle. One of the great victories all those years ago was to achieve a $10 an hour minimum pay rate which just goes to show how hopeless the National Party was at getting wages up. Of course since then wages have continued to rise and conditions have improved enormously.The second thing that happened was that the Gambling Act 2003 came into being the purpose of which I have already mentioned. That changed casino and other gambling in New Zealand. Out went the focus on economic imperatives and the huge profits at the expense of the local population and in came harm minimisation and keeping the lid on gambling. We were delighted that the explosion in casino building came to an end with that Act.The third big change—and I pay tribute to Steve Chadwick for her contribution to this—came with Labour’s legislation to ban smoking in workplaces. Casino workers were right behind that legislation because they were sick and tired of working with second-hand smoke. It was yet more foresighted legislation by this Labour-led Government and it is today widely supported by the public.The legislation before the House today for its first reading is a tidy-up of the Gambling Act 2003. Inevitably with a large Act of Parliament like the one of 2003 changes need to be made to make this very tight regulation of New Zealand’s gambling industry as effective as it possibly can be. The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) contains technical amendments and some minor policy enhancements to clarify the law and make it work as it was intended to.The aim of the bill is to make grant recipients use pokie grants appropriately to extend the conflict of interest safeguards to all persons making decisions on gaming-machine grants to strengthen the requirements on venues banking gaming-machine profits to widen offences and regulations for gaming-machine operators and licensed promoters to introduce requirements for the accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes and to provide more flexibility for clubs wanting to merge gaming-machine operations.The recent reports about loan sharking and money-laundering in casinos are very alarming and these are issues that do need addressing. However this largely technical bill may not be the right vehicle to do so. I am confident that the work under way to deal with these issues will result in Government action. The loan sharking revelation of last week showed that the Department of Internal Affairs was already hot on the tail of that odious person.I also acknowledge the very real concern about pokie machines. As an MP working in South Auckland I share the worry of those communities about the impact they are having on family lives. Therefore I am particularly interested in the proposed amendments that will assist with the Act’s harm prevention and harm minimisation objectives. However I can only imagine how bad the situation would be today if Labour had not introduced its world-leading legislation to allow local authorities to restrict the growth of gambling in their communities.We need to continue to work together with the community to ensure that local authorities use the tools in the Act as effectively as possible. The Gambling Act specifically allows councils to consider their overall numbers and density as well as neighbouring land uses and the characteristics of neighbourhoods. Communities are becoming more actively involved in these processes as we recently saw with the 7000 submissions that were handed to the Manukau City Council calling for tighterrestrictions on pokie machines. A campaign is now under way to cap the number of pokie machines in Manukau. Other local authorities have already acted to put limits in place and some have sinking-lid policies.There is no doubt that the submissions on this bill will be very wide-ranging and that the passionate concerns communities have about problem gambling and the crime that is inevitably associated with it will be reflected in many submissions. This will inform the debate about the things we need to do in the future to ensure we continue to minimise the harm that gambling can cause and limit any growth in gambling. I look forward to participating as a member of the select committee in the process and I commend the bill to the House.ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I too take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). As our first speaker Lindsay Tisch said National will be supporting this legislation going to a select committee.It is important that we get the rules right on issues like gambling. This bill is largely a complex and prescriptive piece of legislation. It is rather difficult to make headway through it unless one has the principal Act in one hand because lots of snippets are inserted here and there to clarify and help the understanding of the principal Act. So the bill in itself does not make sense without applying it to the principal Act. I mentioned that it is a complex and prescriptive bill; I am always a bit mystified when a bill is tabled in the House and the explanatory note exceeds the bill itself and that is very much the case here. There are some 33 pages of explanation and a similar number of pages to the actual bill.Gambling is an issue that we have to legislate for. It is certainly a significant part of the New Zealand psyche. It is not unique to New Zealanders and it is not unique to Anglo-Saxons. At this time I think that various members might confess their involvement or participation. I have to say that I am not a gambler. Only once or twice in my life have I been encouraged or tempted to have a bet; it is just not something I do. But I have an interest in observing what happens. I am so perplexed as to why people should want to use their time on gambling as entertainment that I get some enjoyment out of watching them even though I am kind of mystified by it.About 18 months ago I was at a convention in Reno—it was in January the year prior to last—and in the evening in winter in Reno there are really only two activities. One is the strip club and the other is the gambling machines and the casinos. It should be recorded that I went to watch what happened in the casino. I was fascinated to watch Texas hold’em which is a game that has currently got quite a bit of media attention. The dealer was setting up the table and I wandered over to see how it all worked. She said: “Are you going to join the table?” and I said: “No I don’t think so.” and she asked: “What’s with you mister are you religious or something?”. I was trying to figure out what sort of response to give to that kind of question when she said to me: “What’s the difference between someone praying in church and someone praying at my table?”. I said: “Well it beats me.” and she said: “Well here they really mean it.” I think that says quite a bit and there is real truth in it and I can see that members appreciate the sentiment behind it.But as I mentioned this is not just an Anglo-Saxon pastime. I have been in casinos in West Africa in the Gulf and in Europe. Certainly there is something in the make-up of people that makes them want to get involved in gambling and so it is that we need to control that.I want to relate to the House a conversation I overheard on talkback radio about 3 or 4 weeks ago when there was quite some discussion about pokie machines. It showed why we need to have some very prescriptive and precise rules on them. There was some debate about how they operate and where they work. A gentleman called FrancisWevers came on air. I cannot recall his association but he was chief executive of some sort of gaming-machine association—and no doubt he is probably listening and will correct me in his submission to the select committee. He commented that in New Zealand pokie machines alone if I recall correctly have a throughput of $9.5 billion.Peter Brown: How much?ERIC ROY: It is $9.5 billion. About $7.5 billion of that goes back to be recycled at different stages in winnings about half of the remainder of $2 billion goes to the owner of the machines and the rest goes on tax and various other administrative costs. That is just pokie machines. If we look at Lotto at dogs at racehorses and at casinos per se we see that the money spent is huge. That is what actually happens in New Zealand. We need to get our heads around that.This bill does not lower the bar on any of the controls. What it does is clarify them. I believe that it is essential to clarify them and that they need to be tidied and that is why we are supporting this bill going to a select committee. We need some discussion about the accuracy and the intent of the principal Act. That is what this bill does. It actually clears up these issues.This bill is very much about definitions and about how the various entities work. It includes definitions about venues. For example what is a gambling venue and how should it work? It is about licensees. It is about who should be a licensee of a gambling establishment—who those people are what they should do and how they should conduct themselves. It is about classes of gamblers. I do not know what the relevance of that is because I have not had time to go right through the principal Act. It also talks about prizes and what they can be used for. It talks about the banking that is associated with gambling. There are a whole lot of definitions in the bill that help clarify all these issues. As I say one needs to read the principal Act.I have been reading this bill for about half an hour and I am perhaps a little surprised that given that there have recently been some issues about inappropriate behaviour around casinos with loan sharking with a range of people making a living out of what we would all agree was extortion—living off rorting interest rates—I cannot see where in this bill that area has been tidied up. Clearly there is a problem. It has been identified and has had a lot of media attention. I hope it is in here—sometimes one misses things on a cursory glance—but going through the headings and the explanatory note I cannot see where it tightens up those provisions. I believe that that is an area this bill should actually address.We acknowledge that gambling happens. We are not going to change that. Essentially what we need in gambling is fairness and integrity in the process. There also need to be some very clear provisions on harm minimisation and addressing the issue of problem gamblers. Part 3 of the bill tightens up those provisions a little bit more. I certainly hope they are able to deliver in situations where there is a problem with gamblers.This is a bill that is complex it is quite prescriptive and it needs to be read in conjunction with the principal Act. I just hope that New Zealand has a close look at this and that the submission process is well contributed to. One sees that the significance of gambling in New Zealand is simply huge when one looks at the amount of money involved and the number of people who participate in it. That is not to say it is something we should eliminate. That is simply not practical. But it is something that we need to control and manage. We certainly need to have a focus on problem gamblers and those areas where there are elements of extortion or inappropriate behaviour. I trust this bill will do that—if not in its original draft then after it has gone through the submission process. I commend the bill to the select committee and I look forward to its report back and to seeing its deliberations.PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I think I should confess that in my younger days I was a gambler—I was a gambler. As a merchant navy officer it was an activity I got well involved in and I have to say that from time to time I am tempted now. I was tempted at the weekend Mr Assistant Speaker—and I am sure you will understand this—but Arsenal let me down. I felt certain and I would have had a bob on it that they would have beaten Blackburn Rovers. I know that you personally know a little bit about Blackburn Rovers Mr Assistant Speaker—a knowledge that probably others in the House do not share.Hon David Carter: Haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about!PETER BROWN: The member over there does not have a clue about what we are talking about or what he is listening to. In shipboard activities we used to play cards quite frequently. If one takes a successful measure of gambling as being the amount of money one wins then I was quite good at it because I usually won. We used to play poker and pontoon. I even won a cribbage tournament and a significant amount of money. Indeed on one ship I won money on Monopoly.John Carter: That would be right—funny paper money!PETER BROWN: I say to that member that I won real money on Monopoly. One never knows what merchant seafarers used to get up to. As I walked through the lobbies yesterday—and this is true—a young reporter came up to me and asked me whether I had ever been to a strip club. I spent a significant amount of my time as a merchant navy officer yet I was asked whether I had ever been to a strip club! I am not confessing to going to a strip club but I am confessing to having gambled.I have seen the downside of gambling. I have won money—luckily I guess—but I have seen the downside of gambling. If I cast my mind back I remember that I have seen crew members when their gambling was mixed with alcohol attack one another with knives with weapons. I have been the officer who has had to intervene to calm those crew members down. I have seen seafarers go ashore and lose—Hon David Carter: Now he’s talking about the New Zealand First caucus.PETER BROWN: The member thinks that this is a joke. He thinks that the bill is a joke. [Interruption] The member at the back is a joke; Tau Henare is the biggest joke I have met when it comes to politics.The downside of gambling is very significant. I have seen seafarers in particular go to clubs and sit behind pokie machines sometimes operating two or three at a time. I have seen that happen in this country with shore-based people. I have seen them lose almost the shirt off their back—I am talking about some of the fellow seafarers I have sailed with. There is a downside to gambling. I am fortunate that I was not addicted to it; I enjoyed the fun of it. I enjoyed a day at the races—I have not been there for quite some time—I could put the odd dollar on here or the odd dollar on there and I could walk away. But I could not really understand why everyone did not have the same attitude. I have seen people who continued to bet to invest their money and to almost lose their shirts.The Gambling Act that was passed in 2003 was a step in the right direction. This legislation is an amendment to tidy up the flaws and to address the shortcomings in that Act. I listened to Eric Roy; I thought he made some very good salient points and he did it with a degree of humour on which I congratulate him. I listened to Lindsay Tisch the National member before him who also made some points about how the Act is not gelling together correctly. But those issues will be taken care of at the select committee. This is an important bill. It is exceedingly important that the gambling industry operates corruption-free. It is an industry that must have integrity as Eric Roy said before me. It is an industry that is important to New Zealand but it must be well run—it must be run fairly and it must be run straightforwardly as everybody understands.We have in this country an expanding horse racing industry and it is a large credit to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the taxation regime around that industry has been improved no end. There is potential for it to develop and to become a major industry—a major tourism industry may I suggest. That is the importance of gambling-type industries to this country.The area of problem gamblers though is significant. If an individual does not have the control of self-discipline then society has the obligation to impose discipline. We cannot allow the activity of gambling to undermine the lifestyle of any—the lifestyle of families or the commitment of one member of a family to another—as it has the capabilities of doing.It is very important that this House sends this bill to the select committee. It is pleasing to note that what is a Government bill obviously has the support of both the Government and the National Party and that for once they are not playing politics. They are going to send the bill to the select committee and make an honest endeavour to get it right. I think it is well understood by MPs that if this sort of legislation is not handled correctly then somebody will suffer. It will not be MPs but somebody will suffer. There must be controls on gambling to protect society from itself if you like.New Zealand First will support this bill to go to the select committee. We do not have a member on the select committee so we are putting our faith and our trust in Government and National members to apply themselves to this bill in a conscientious and diligent manner. I know that Mr Tau Henare will not have a clue what I mean when I say that but his colleagues will tell him that this is an issue that has to be addressed comprehensively by the select committee. [Interruption] Do members hear the ramblings in the background?Hon Tau Henare: Hear the ramblings in the background.PETER BROWN: Yes hear the ramblings!Hon Tau Henare: Hear the ramblings.PETER BROWN: Ha ha! The member should have been a comedian. Oh he is a comedian.I hope that the select committee will address this bill in the manner it should and that the bill comes back to the House in a correct form. I take the points that Lindsay Tisch made. I hope that the bill comes back in a correct form that will advance the legislation of this country so that gambling legislation will be all the better for it. New Zealand First will support the bill.SUE BRADFORD (Green): Three years ago in 2003 the Gambling Bill passed through this Parliament without Green Party support. At the time we believed that bill was a woefully inadequate response to the proliferation of harmful gambling opportunities in this country. I believe that the past 3 years have proved our analysis to be sadly correct.In that time pokies have continued to flourish particularly in our poorer communities. There are still over 21000 pokie machines operating in New Zealand and in some places their impact is particularly dire. For example recent figures show that Kawerau the district with the country’s lowest median income of just over $17000 a year has the dubious honour of spending the most on pokies per head of population. In just 3 months between April and June this year the 72 pokies in the Kawerau district took in $111 for each of the district’s nearly 7000 people—that is men women and children. If we take babies and children out of the equation and all those who do not gamble just imagine how much some people in Kawerau are pouring into those machines. Nearby Rotorua also a low-income area has the third-highest spend on pokies in the country. In Northland there are almost three times more pokie machinesper person than the national average. Kaitāia for example has 158 pokie machines per 10000 people which is way above the national average of 59.In districts like these and many others of a similar demographic a very few people are losing an enormous amount of money which is contributing hugely to the eternal cycle of debt and despair in which so many affected individuals and families subsist. Pokies continue to be the predominant source of gambling harm in New Zealand. That is no surprise given that these machines are deliberately designed by psychologists to addict people and that they are conveniently placed in our poorest districts to catch the most desperate amongst our population.At the same time it is clear we also have serious issues around what is happening in our casinos. News reports over the last few months have started to reveal the unexpected extent of criminality associated with life in at least two if not more of our major casinos particularly those in Christchurch and Auckland. Although the Green Party has welcomed belated recognition by the Department of Internal Affairs in two recent reports that organised crime money-laundering and loan sharking have a firm foothold inside our casinos we are really unhappy with the way the Minister of Internal Affairs seems so relaxed about what is happening and does not seem to realise the serious nature of what is going on there. He does not seem even to understand the illegal nature of some of the activity or that ongoing harm is being done to individuals their friends their families their employers and their communities for as long as he so calmly tolerates it. I wish that Mr Barker could open his ears and his eyes to some of the stories from the problem gamblers whose lives and whose families’ lives have been completely wrecked and that he could begin to comprehend the seriousness of the situation in which this country finds itself.The Green Party continues to call for a full public inquiry into the state of gambling in Aotearoa New Zealand as we believe that this is the only way victims of harmful casino and pokie-related activity can have the confidence to come forward confidentially and reveal what they know and be taken seriously without fear of reprisal. At the same time the Green Party believes that it is imperative that the scope of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) before us today is substantially broadened. This bill could have been a heroic effort by the Government to deliver major reform to overcome some of the worst impacts of the gambling sector. Instead it is a series of what the Minister the Hon Rick Barker himself calls “technical amendments and … minor policy enhancements” and nothing else. Because on the face of it these new minor amendments are in themselves useful the Green Party will not be opposing the new bill at its first reading but we may well change our position to one of opposition to the bill if it is not subject to major changes during consideration by the select committee and the House.This bill provides us as responsible members of Parliament with an opportunity to institute major reform of the gambling industry in this country rather than just continuing to tinker around the edges. I do not accept the statements made by the Minister and Darien Fenton earlier in this debate tonight that a bill like this is not an appropriate vehicle for major reform. There is nothing to stop this Parliament from using it in this way if we have the will. I am sure we are going to see a large number of submissions encouraging us to do so.There are a number of additions and changes that the Green Party would like to see made to the Gambling Act through this amending bill. First of all the loophole regarding the requirement for territorial authorities to consult when reviewing policies needs to be closed. Currently local bodies can roll over their gambling policies indefinitely without any public consultation. This needs to be stopped. Second I believe we should be considering whether class 4 consents—that is consents forpokies—should last for an infinite period or whether they should have a set time period similar to liquor licences. Third councils should have the ability to place conditions on consents and not be limited as they are at present. Ultimately the Green Party believes that councils should have the power to determine whether there are any pokies in their district at all and not have to live with the current situation in which they are gravely restricted in the limits they can place on numbers and siting.Fourth the Gambling Act should promote the adoption of best practice in terms of harm prevention strategies. For example currently the Act does not allow the use of or even the trial use of new strategies such as pre-commit cards or player tracking systems. Consumer protection requirements including host responsibility should also be enhanced. Fifth we believe there should be disincentives against the gambling industry benefiting from problem gambling. Problem gamblers account for a disproportionate share of gambling revenue: over 25 percent of it comes from 1.2 percent of people—those gambling problems. Sixth distribution processes for gaming-machine funding should maximise community benefit and transparency and ensure equity in terms of its distribution. Although the Gambling Act made some reforms in this area we still have a long way to go.The Green Party believes that if we are going to allow the blight of pokie machines to exist in our communities the proceeds that go to community purposes should ideally be distributed through publicly accountable mechanisms like the Community Organisations Grants Scheme and the national and regional lotteries distribution committees rather than being allocated by the private pokie trusts. At the moment many community groups are held hostage by the fact that they receive funds from the pokie trusts to keep going. On top of this such groups are often trucked in to for example local body hearings in places like Kaikohe and Rotorua and many others to explain that pokies must continue in that district so that the local hospice rescue helicopter or sports club can be adequately funded.This is a sad indictment on the way in which parts of the community sector have themselves become addicted to pokies just as the individual players are. Even councils can fall prey to this addiction. For example it is ironic that the council in Rotorua has itself benefited from over $900000 in pokie grants—income derived from losses made by some of its poorest residents.As well the ability to prohibit and restrict Internet gambling needs to be revisited by this bill in the light of current international decisions and the existence of sites like RaceO NZ about which the Government seems unable or unwilling to take action.On 1 August this year the first set of figures from the Government’s electronic monitoring of gambling machines showed that spending on pokies increased by just under 5 percent between 2005-06 and 2006-07. This means that either the new electronic monitoring systems are spelling the end of scams and rorts that saw a portion of takings hidden by pokie providers or the gambling trusts have perhaps been less than fully honest in their recent lobbying of MPs and community organisations about their supposed decrease in takings and hence their reduced ability to fund community and sporting organisations. What is really going on with those trusts when in fact the proceeds are going up by 5 percent not declining?It is high time that the Government and this Parliament took a much stronger position on reducing the harm being done by gambling in this country. Ordinary people understand the problem. Just a few weeks ago around 7000 people in Manukau City made submissions to their council calling on it to adopt a sinking-lid policy on pokies in their district. They understand what is going on in South Auckland. They care. It is way past time that MPs and parties in this House—from all sides of the House—caught up with those people in South Auckland and took serious action to reverse theunacceptable social and economic costs that are being inflicted. This bill gives us an opportunity to do just that and I call on other parties and MPs here to join me.Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tenā koe Mr Speaker. I would like to take a call on this bill as one who enjoys a game of blackjack and pontoon and craps and one or two others. However I do want to highlight the danger of problem gaming. The biggest-ever sales promotion leading up to Lotto’s 20th birthday this Saturday 25 August is full of expressions of joy. We are told that: “Since Lotto was launched in 1987 New Zealanders have won over $3.6 billion in prizes there have been thousands of happy winners and thousands of happy stories of positive changes in people’s lives.” Well I hate to be a killjoy but the story of gambling in Aotearoa is not exactly happy happy happy joy joy joy. Sure there have been changes in people’s lives—massive changes. Some researchers estimate that between 1 and 3 percent of New Zealand adults have experienced problems with gambling at some stage in their lives.Of course it is not just an individual problem. On average 10 to 17 people are affected by the problem gaming of one person. It is also estimated that only 15 percent of those with problems associated with gambling seek help. There will be many more affected people who are not receiving assistance. Gambling affects families and communities to tragic ends. In monetary terms $35 million is gambled every day here in Aotearoa—$35 million—and $5.5 million is lost every day. It is money lost by people many of whom can least afford to lose it.It is not just about some harmless fun with an armless bandit a shuffle of cards and a roll of the dice to see whether Lady Luck will strike. Gambling creates enormous harm especially in communities identified as high-deprivation or low-income. Dr Lorna Dyall describes this as an environmental hazard due to the placement of gaming machines in areas that are predominantly decile 1 on the deprivation scale. Consequently the Māori Party has always said that we should manage gambling as a social hazard rather than as a harmless leisure pursuit. Just as people in communities are protected through management of chemical and biological hazards so too should there be protections in place to safeguard our well-being from gambling which we know is hazardous to health.In this context obviously the fact that the Gambling Act 2003 has not been all plain sailing concerns us. The Act is a large complex and very prescriptive piece of legislation so it is not surprising that there have been difficulties with its implementation. The purpose of that legislation includes both controlling the growth of gambling and minimising the harm caused by problem gaming. Those are worthwhile goals—goals that we will support.I turn to controlling the growth of gambling. As the first aim is to reduce the activity of gambling it is a major problem that so little progress has been achieved since the Act was introduced in 2003. The Department of Internal Affairs released figures on 1 August showing that the spending on pokies in bars and clubs has increased by just under 5 percent in the last year. The department installed an electronic monitoring system in April so we are able to produce accurate figures on pokie expenditure for the first time. We have to wonder what is going on when despite the legislation and despite the regulations the spending has still shot up by 5 percent. It is disappointing but obviously necessary that 4 years later we have to revisit some technical amendments to clarify the definitions sections and the various provisions relating to gambling venues and their enforcement.We heed the advice of the Problem Gaming Foundation that this review provides us with a great opportunity for all parties to get in behind substantial reform of the gambling industry. We in the Māori Party have been calling for investigations into loansharking and money-laundering at casinos and we have been consistently advocating for Māori to have a clear role in deciding the place of gambling in Aotearoa. This bill may provide us with the opportunity to do that. But we are pleased that the bill introduces some new provisions to identify and assist problem gamblers which we absolutely support. Gambling is a huge problem for Māori. Ethnicity and in particular identifying as Māori is now described as a key indicator of the likely risk of problem or pathological gambling.Dr Wīremu Manaia of the Problem Gambling Research Initiative has reported that for many Māori people their low socio-economic status makes them particularly vulnerable to gambling problems. What concerns us is that although one in three people who are utilising gambling treatment services identify as Māori reports indicate that Māori underuse the gambling treatment services in relation to need. There are a lot more Māori out there who are experiencing gambling-related harm than perhaps the figures tell us.So what does this mean in real terms? Well in 2003 the Salvation Army surveyed people accessing food banks in South Auckland. Over one-third of the people applying for food parcels had a problem gambler in their household and of that third 80 percent had two or more children. The legislation now requires venue managers and licence holders to take all reasonable steps to assist a person identified as a problem gambler. It includes prescribing the content and training standards for problem-gaming awareness training. The legislation also introduces statutory requirements for casinos class 4 operators to record problem-gambler exclusions and provides relevant information on request. Those are positive interventions which we are pleased to support. They demand greater attention to detail and care to identify and record individuals at risk and all of that has to add to greater awareness and a commitment to change.I want to draw the attention of the House to the courage and commitment of communities in fighting the hazards of gambling. Last week I heard some great news coming out of my electorate in Tamaki Makaurau. South Auckland is heavily targeted by the pokie trusts because they know that low-income people are more likely to develop problem-gaming behaviour than other sections of the population. Gaming machines are in fact five times more likely to be concentrated in the two most deprived deciles along with 50 percent of the TAB outlets. So it is hardly surprising that Māori and Pasifika peoples in South Auckland are over-represented in the statistics of people affected by problem gaming.Even worse there is a false illusion painted that gambling returns funds to the local community. The legislation requires that a minimum of 30 percent of gambling profits must benefit the local community but that is the community at large not necessarily the local community from where the money was gained. The Problem Gambling Foundation estimates that the local economy is losing 17 times more money than what the community groups are receiving back. Against that context it was really wonderful to hear last week that nearly 7500 submission have been received urging tighter restrictions on the number of pokie machines in Manukau. These 7500 submissions were from people standing up to take control of their community challenging the armless bandits to release their grip on the people of South Auckland. There are also many strong advocates such as Dr Lorna Dyall who have been calling for changes to the Gambling Act to empower communities to have the authority to remove gambling venues and pokie machines from outside of their area.We should expect there to be more cultural content in the existing services and that there should be increased cultural competence on the part of clinicians. We should expect a role in developing policy and legislation to deal with the problems alongside the Crown. That would involve tangata whenua membership as of right on the bodiesthat regulate gambling. The elimination of gambling harm must be an outright priority for this Parliament.The Māori Party members will support this bill. We look forward to hearing in the select committee process the ideas and advice about how best to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of responsible gambling activities and which sections of our communities benefit from those activities. We support the first reading of this bill.JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007. As the Minister of Internal Affairs Rick Barker stated this amendment bill is both technical and policy driven and responds to implementation difficulties arising out of the 2003 principal Act. Part 1 of the bill makes about 14 changes to definitions Part 2 has about 64 clauses that are devoted to amending provisions relating to classes of gambling and classes of gambling institutions Part 3 relates to harm minimisation and Part 4 has some technical details.Overall the bill intends to widen the suitability criteria for gaming machine operators and licensed promoters to cover a wide range of offences and management provisions. For instance if a person has been the director of a company in receivership or a company that has been placed in receivership in a 7-year period that person is not suitable. If a person has been disqualified to act as a director of a company under the Companies Act that person is unsuitable. If a person is prohibited under the Insolvency Act from acting as a director that person is also considered unsuitable. Interestingly though the bill narrows the time frame under which a person is considered historically unsuitable from 10 years down to 7 years. I will be interested to see what submitters have to say about that.One of the second purposes of this bill is to introduce explicit obligations on grant recipients to use pokie grants appropriately including an offence for non-compliance. This is a particularly interesting area because many community groups in greater numbers are refusing in principle to apply for grants from pokie machines feeling that it would be perverse to have their services funded by the proceeds of gambling. The same organisations have expressed to us in United Future their huge pleasure in our ability to have negotiated with the Labour-led Government for a lifting of the cap on rebates on charitable donations so that community and charitable organisations are able to receive funding from a source that is more legitimate and that ethically measures up to the work they do. However it is even more tragic to think that those who do apply for a grant could actually at times be doing so under false pretences and we welcome the tightening-up of that.This bill also extends conflict of interest safeguards to all persons making decisions on gaming machine grants—not just those with key roles in the management of societies. It also strengthens the requirements on venues to bank gaming machine profits. That is an attempt to make sure there is much greater transparency regarding how much money has been taken from gambling activities.The bill also seeks to enhance regulation-making powers to better deal with problem gambling. This is largely about exclusion orders. Where a person has self-identified as a problem gambler the legislation seeks to make sure that those venues the person has requested to be excluded from follow through on that commitment. The bill widens the class of person required to use the policy to identify actual or potential problem gamblers to include people like venue managers so that more people are being very watchful. The interesting thing though in this particular part of the bill that I think needs further scrutiny by the select committee is the fact that the penalties for breaching that requirement have been reduced from—I think from memory—$10000 down to$5000. That is quite a substantial reduction in penalty. I would like to hear that reduction justified and I would like to hear what people have to say about it during the select committee process.The bill introduces requirements for the accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes as a consumer protection measure. I think that is a very wise inclusion. It provides more flexibility for clubs that wish to merge their club and gaming machine operations to address financial viability issues. This particular part of the bill is something I also signal some concerns about and interests in. In the commentary on the bill it states that it is expected as a result of this amendment bill that there will be an increase in funding for the activities of clubs that operate gaming machines in order to raise money for their own community purposes.I am not sure whether it is still true today but I remember some years ago discovering that organisations like St John Ambulance survived and were only financially viable because they owned pokie machines. At the time I considered that quite a bizarre set of circumstances. I am not sure whether St John Ambulance is still funded in that way but it certainly concerned me then. This provision says that the Government wants to be able to increase the opportunity for community groups and non-profit groups like St John Ambulance to increase the funding they receive from those investments they have in gambling machines. I have some concerns about that and I share the sentiments that have been expressed by others in the House tonight. Pokie machines are the cocaine of the gambling industry—that is very very clear. Surely we should be making sure that the number of pokie machines is determined by regional considerations not by the funding needs of local community organisations.United Future is hugely hopeful about the next financial year when non-profit charities register with the Charities Commission and those who give to those organisations recognise the huge advantages they now have in their ability to give more of their income and receive a much better return in their tax return. We are hopeful that we will see a decreased reliance by charitable organisations and community bodies on the proceeds of gambling as New Zealanders step up to the mark and start to put their hands in their pockets knowing that there is a much more generous response by the tax department to their willingness to support community activities.We are happy to support this first reading of the bill but we signal that we are keen to see some of these issues clarified at the select committee. We are very keen to hear what submitters have to say.Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): Tonight we have listened to various speeches all basically in support of the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) and its referral to the select committee. It is interesting that it is also a time of confession. We heard about Eric Roy’s dilemma over whether to go to the gambling parlour or the strip club. Obviously he chose correctly. We heard about Peter Brown and his days of being a sailor and gambling. We heard about Dr Sharples playing cards. Well I can tell members that when Parliament used to have all-night sittings plenty of gambling was going on around the offices here—and maybe the odd drop or two of whisky—and people used to play cards until the early hours of the morning.Hon Member: Bring it back!Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes perhaps we could bring it back. It might be more interesting. Since it is time for confessions I tell the House that I was the Minister who took the original Gambling Bill through the House but people should not forget that gambling did not start in the year 2003. It has been going for a long time and of course we have tried to make sure that things are better than they were.I agree with Dr Sharples that the effect of pokie machines is very devastating in South Auckland. It is something that I believe is impacting on that community. On the other side of the coin of course are the sports clubs schools and cultural groups. I think Judy Turner mentioned St John Ambulance. All those groups have over the years become dependent on the income they receive from pokie trusts. I think it is quite good that they get money but of course becoming dependent on that money is something else.This bill is welcomed I think because we will look at some technical amendments. I imagine that those who submit on the bill will not make terribly many technical submissions. They will be either for or against gaming of any kind. It was not that long ago that Lotto started—20 years. Since it is time for confession I must say I have my tickets in my back pocket. I will probably be back here working next week because I will not win like lots of other people. That is what gambling is about. People have a little bit of hope. They think they will strike it big and it is worth maybe 20 bucks to have a go.Bob Clarkson: A bit like the Labour Government.Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It is a bit like the National Government—a pack of gamblers from way back. They gamble against the ordinary taxpayer in New Zealand.I am pleased that the Minister is also taking up the much bigger issue which is the allegations about the Christchurch Casino. I think that is very very important.We have many people who are addicted to gambling. We feel sorry for those people who are addicted to alcohol and we do something about it. We spend almost $50 million a year on those with gaming addictions. That all comes out of the big pool of money and of course with that we are probably only scraping the surface. A lot of people do not know where to turn for help or they keep it from their families. When they hide it from their families there is a problem. In the Counties-Manukau area there are people who are still too scared to come forward for help. Sandra Goudie mentioned that a lot of money was available but people were not using it. That is one of the problems. It is an education problem—to get people to realise that if they have a mental health problem an addiction problem they can go for help.I am quite pleased that this bill will go to the select committee and as I said earlier people will make submissions. I doubt whether many of them will stick to the technical amendments. They will try to open the debate up again. I do not mind if people do that because I think talking about it is important. The publicity it will gain will help with the gaming issues in New Zealand. I support this bill’s referral to the select committee and I am sure people will welcome the opportunity to make submissions.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Government Administration Committee.Wills BillThird ReadingHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I moveThat the Wills Bill be now read a third time. At the outset can I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who is not with us tonight because of a bereavement in his electorate which he has rushed back to attend to. That is probably with a degree of poignancy given the fact that we are dealing with the Wills Bill so I would like to place that on record.The Wills Bill is of significance to all New Zealanders. Anyone who wishes to make provision for one’s family and the disposition of one’s property when he or she dies has an interest in this legislation. Wills allow a person to protect the interests of futuregenerations. They give the will-maker the peace of mind of knowing that loved ones will be looked after when he or she has gone. Accessible and well-functioning wills legislation is therefore of vital importance to society.When the Law Commission reviewed the existing legislation in 1997 it concluded that the current law generally worked well and there was no call for dramatic change. However the commission did recommend consolidating the existing legislation into a single plain-language statute and modernising certain elements of the existing law. The Law Commission’s work on the original report and its subsequent contribution to readying the Wills Bill for introduction have made this revision of the law relating to wills possible. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to implementing a number of Law Commission proposals. These bills all of which arise from Law Commission reports update key statutes and make the law more accessible. I am very grateful to the Law Commission and also to the Justice and Electoral Committee and in particular to certain members of this House for their valuable contributions to the development of this bill.The Wills Bill will improve the standard of legislation on our statute book and make the law more user-friendly for the average New Zealander. The intention of the Wills Bill is to make the law clearer ensure that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions and make it easier for certain people to make wills. The key purposes of the Wills Bill are first to create a single plain-language statute and second to modernise key aspects of the existing law. The legislation governing wills is currently contained in a series of separate enactments. The main Act comes from the United Kingdom and dates back to—Dr Richard Worth: 1837.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well done Mr Worth. It is wonderful that Mr Worth is paying such attention on this occasion. It has been substantially amended by and must be read together with a number of amending Acts. When combined with the archaic language used the current legislation is very difficult for most people to read—except for Mr Worth and Mr Finlayson of course. Therefore the Wills Bill restates the law in a single statute in plain modern language. The process of modernising and improving the language of the bill has also been substantially contributed to by the Justice and Electoral Committee which made a number of sensible changes to the drafting and language of the bill.To the extent that the bill modernises the substantive law relating to wills it essentially follows the Law Commission’s proposals. These changes improve the legal framework for will-making. They make it easier for certain people to make wills and mitigate the risk of a will-maker’s wishes being undermined by a poorly drafted or executed will. Overall they allow better effect to be given to will-makers’ intentions.Wills speak for people who are no longer able to speak for themselves. Legislation that makes it clear what is required for an effective will eases the burden on the will-maker. Legislation that also offers avenues for overcoming defects in the will when the will-maker is no longer able to do so for himself or herself eases the burden on those who are left behind. In that regard this is a bill that is worthy of commendation to this House and I commend the bill to the House.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I thank the Minister for her kind and generous words about the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I endorse what she said about the good work of the Law Commission and I would also mention the Ministry of Justice officials who I think made a great contribution to the work of the select committee as it reviewed this bill. Given the Minister’s excellent summation of the legislation I will not attempt to go over that material again. I endorse what she said;that can all be taken as read. I simply want to say that I am very pleased we are at the third reading stage of this bill.I am also pleased that this is one of three law reform projects that will shortly become law. I would say this about law reform: I believe that law reform is a subject that should transcend party politics. I think it is very good that in the dying days of this Labour Government the Prime Minister has discovered law reform. But a display of energy after 8 years of laziness is quite frankly disappointing. It behoves National-led and Labour-led Governments to pay attention to law reform. I certainly endorse what Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission said a few years ago: “Keeping the law up to date is important for the commercial life of the country and for the better functioning of society.” That statement is nowhere more applicable than it is to this legislation which as the Minister has said will replace the Wills Act of 1837 of the United Kingdom Parliament.It is simply not good enough that some law reform projects languish. As I said the wills project is almost completed. But let us look for example at the law of limitation. We should consider the very poor performance of the legislature on that issue. The Law Commission in 1986 was asked by the then Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer to look at limitation defences in civil proceedings. It came up with a report on 31 October 1988 and nothing happened to that report. In 2000 the Law Commission published another paper on limitation law. Nothing has happened yet time and time again the courts of this country have been asking the legislature to act on that important area of the law. Most recently the Supreme Court commented that New Zealand law concerning limitations was long overdue for consideration.I say this in a bipartisan way: Parliament has to lift its game as it is currently failing the public. The Wills Bill is a good start. In the last 12 months we have already dealt with the law relating to evidence. Shortly we will be dealing with arbitration homicide succession and property law reform and the select committee is currently dealing with sedition. But many other reports of the Law Commission need to become the subject of legislative action and it is high time that Parliament lifted its game.Darren Hughes: Name them.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The last time the member asked me to name them I started to name them and that caused groans from the Labour benches. So I will not accede to his request but rather I will continue with my speech. I will name them afterwards to the member if that really interests him although I suspect that it does not do so. Before I was rudely interrupted I was saying that Parliament has to lift its game.I refer to an outstanding speech which was just recently handed to me by Dr Richard Worth that he gave in 2004 on the subject of law reform. One of the things Dr Worth mentioned was the possibility of our introducing to the New Zealand Parliament a Main Committee or a second but parallel Chamber which is basically a large select committee to which business can be referred and where decisions have to proceed with unanimity. The Main Committee was established in 1994 in the Australian Parliament to minimise business overload in the House and increase opportunities for all members to participate. So legislation like the wills legislation homicide succession law reform and matters such as that would be referred to the Main Committee comprising about 40 members of the Australian House of Representatives. In a non-adversarial and cooperative environment devoid of some of the petty points-scoring we sometimes see in this Chamber there can be substantive debate in the House of Representatives on non - party-political but none the less very important legislation.I think it is time that the New Zealand Parliament considered that because even now it takes too long for non - party-political but none the less important legislation to get through this House. Much of the work of the Law Commission could be brought intoforce a lot more quickly if we had something like a Main Committee. I commend that outstanding address by my friend Dr Worth to all members of Parliament. They should read it they should understand it and they should implement that proposal as quickly as possible. So in a John Fitzgerald Kennedy kind of way I exhort all members of Parliament to work together as parliamentarians to ensure that important law reform projects do not languish for as long as the wills project has and certainly for as long as the limitation project has. In fact limitation is an important area that still has not been looked at by this lazy Government.The Wills Bill is good law. It replaces ancient legislation and is generally expressed in clear and accessible language. But may I close by warning laypersons of the desirability of continuing to have the legal profession draft their wills. In my first reading speech I spoke about certain testators whose wills had resulted in litigation. Generally those wills were drafted by the testators themselves so for the benefit of Mr Hughes—Hon Member: Young Mr Hughes.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —young Mr Hughes—I will mention this excellent poem:Ye lawyers who liveupon litigants’ feesAnd who need a good manyto live at your easeGrave wise or wittywhate’er your degreePlain stuff or Queen’s Counsellisten carefully to me.When a festive occasionyour spirit unbendsYou should never forget the profession’s best friends;So we’ll send round the wineand bright bumper fillTo the jolly testatorwho makes his own will.And I do think it is an important point notwithstanding that we have renovated the law on wills that it is expressed in clear and unequivocal language and that concepts are made much simpler and easier to understand that I still exhort laypersons not to try to draft their own wills but to ensure that the legal profession drafts them. If one reads my first reading speech one will see many examples of cases where wills have come to grief because people have tried to draft their own wills be it on eggshells as I told the House or in some other peculiar way.So this is a good bill and I am pleased that it will shortly become law. But I really do think that in recent times that has been the exception rather than the rule and that too many law reform projects have stalled because of a lack of attention by this Parliament. I really do endorse what Dr Worth said in that address in 2004: that law reform is too important to be left to party politics and that we should contemplate having something like the Main Committee which can consider this sort of legislation very effectively indeed.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I seek leave to table a speech that has been described by third parties as outstanding delivered to the Australasian Law Reform Commission.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.