Volume 639 Week 46 - Tuesday 12 June 2007 
Volume 639 Week 46 - Tuesday 12 June 2007 
[Volume:639;Page:9723] 
Tuesday 12 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 June 2007 of the Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO who represented the electorate of Manurewa from 1963 to 1975. He was Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975 and Minister of Island Affairs from 1972 to 1974. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Televising of Parliament—Testing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should be aware that the cameras in the debating chamber are operational to enable equipment to be tested and technical staff to be trained. Images obtained during the next 3-week trial period will not be transmitted however. Following a successful trial and training period this month we expect to begin this service in July when all proceedings of Parliament will be available to television networks to broadcast and webcast on Parliament’s website. 
Tabling of Documents 
Code of Conduct for MPs 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table six copies of the code of conduct for MPs which the MMP parties have collectively developed and that have been signed by the members of the Green Party. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the Standing Orders which are Parliament’s already accepted code of conduct. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table copies of the code of conduct that have been signed by the United Future members of Parliament. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the Maori Party to table three copies of the code of conduct for members of Parliament that have been signed by our three members. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table two copies of the code of conduct signed by the two ACT MPs—myself and Heather Roy. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Fiscal Policy—Alternative Approaches 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on alternative approaches to fiscal policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received one report that suggests that the Government should be loosening fiscal policy by borrowing more from overseas to fund tax cuts and infrastructure investment. I received another report that the Government should be tightening fiscal policy by cutting half a billion dollars from last month’s Budget. The first report was from National’s leader John Key. The second report was from National’s deputy leader Bill English. 
Shane Jones 
: What would be the impact of borrowing more to fund tax cuts and infrastructure investments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The extra stimulus from Mr Key’s suggestion of a borrow and hope policy would further underpin inflation and drive the currency higher. Mr Key’s plan even within that offset of half a billion dollars from Mr English would inject twice the annual effect of the increased Fonterra payout cited by the Reserve Bank last week as the major reason for lifting the official cash rate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that late last year he issued infrastructure bonds—which is borrowing money for infrastructure—and that the Budget shows he plans to borrow $4 million over the next 3 or 4 years; and is that going to be for health spending or education spending or for the Superannuation Fund or for student loans spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed—and I thank the member for drawing that to the attention of his leader who clearly was not aware that we were actually issuing infrastructure bonds. However of course the proposed additional borrowing of $2 billion a year over the next 4 years would significantly increase the debt to GDP ratio. Mr Key is quoted as saying that New Zealand is too lightly geared in that respect and that he favours higher debt. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister confident that the intervention yesterday by the Governor of the Reserve Bank can be sustained thus leading to a permanently lower dollar? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said outside this House—and I repeat it inside this House—I will not comment on the specific actions of the Reserve Bank in that regard. The Reserve Bank has operational independence and if I start a running commentary on what it does either in this respect or in terms of interest rates then that will obviously infringe upon that independence. 
Corrections Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: How and why can she have confidence in Damien O’Connor when he is responsible for a department that in the last 18 months has seen instances of staff corruption inmates rioting the appalling management of Graeme Burton’s parole the death of Liam Ashley budget blowouts and now a seriously damning report by the Ombudsman? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To take the last point in terms of the recommendations in that report a large number are already agreed or agreed in principle. Some will require further work because there are some conflicts between for example what the report refers to as humane treatment of prisoners and ensuring that they are actually kept secure. 
John Key 
: Is it of concern to the Prime Minister that an opinion poll has shown that two-thirds of all New Zealanders now have no confidence in the Department of Corrections; and is it not about time that she restored confidence in the Department of Corrections by getting rid of the failed Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously the Government would wish to see a higher level of confidence in a department than that. I would point out to the member that the number of escapes from prison and from custody in general under this Government is significantly lower than it was under the National Government in the 1990s. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in fact escapes are down by 78 percent since National ran its failed corrections policy and that the number of positive drug tests in prisons today is the lowest in 8 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed for every one prisoner that has escaped under the Labour-led Government practically five prisoners escaped under the National-led Government. That is what National calls open government! 
John Key 
: Should the people of New Zealand take the answers that the Acting Prime Minister has given as an indication that the Government thinks everything is rosy in the Department of Corrections and will he be making phone calls to Liam Ashley’s parents and to Karl Kuchenbecker’s family to tell them of his feelings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the Government does not believe that everything is rosy at all. The Government has already in fact approached the families in both cases in order to express its strong sympathy in that regard. The Government is addressing the issue of how to improve the performance of the department and we are the first Government to take strong action against corruption within the Department of Corrections. The National— 
Simon Power 
: There was no corruption 6 months ago—that’s what the Minister said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh there was no corruption in the corrections system under National! Mr Power will no doubt survive to rue at some point making that remark. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that according to the Ombudsman’s report that has just been tabled in the House in 2005 Chubb wrote directly to the Department of Corrections to point out issues about prisoner safety—concerns that went unaddressed until the death of Liam Ashley? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As members would know I have not had a chance at this point to read the report in its entirety and the recommendations. I look forward to reading the full report. 
John Key 
: If when the Acting Prime Minister has the opportunity to read the report fully he sees in it—as we Opposition members have seen—that Chubb wrote directly to the Department of Corrections pointing out issues of prisoner safety and if he realises after reading that report that those concerns not being addressed went some way towards aiding the death of Liam Ashley will he take the necessary step of firing Damien O’Connor? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If it becomes clear that Chubb wrote to the department and the department failed to draw that to the attention of the Minister then I am sure the Minister will want to follow it up with the Department of Corrections. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm once and for all that the Minister of Corrections on behalf of the Government has issued a formal apology to the family of Liam Ashley? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As far as I am aware Mr O’Connor has indeed done that. Indeed on more than one occasion he has expressed his sincere regret about what happened in that case. 
Carbon Dioxide Emissions—Holcim Cement Plant 
3.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: He aha tanawhakautu ki ta te Ropu Kaitiaki o te Riu o Waiareka I ki “piki atu ki te kotahi mirionatonehauha ka puta ia tau mai I te wheketereraima o Holcim” a natenei ka kitea “te tinihanga o ngakorerowhakau a ngaroputorangapu e rua e whakahekeanaraua I ngatukunga o te hauha ki te rangi”? 
[ 
What response can he make to the Waiareka Valley Preservation Society’s claim that the “Holcim cement plant will release up to one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.” which “makes a mockery of the commitment by both leading political parties to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.”? 
] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: The member makes a very good point which is why New Zealand must make progress towards emissions trading so that the full cost of cement including the environmental cost is reflected in the cost faced by the consumer. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. What strategies are in place to remedy the heavy metal contamination from the Holcim Cement plant which places market organic and home gardens at risk as well as impacting on the health of the Kakanui River which is only 5 kilometres from the plant? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Issues around heavy metals sulphur coal or whatever it is to be—there are various issues around this particular project—are issues that will be dealt with if any consent is lodged in favour of that plant. That is the proper place to deal with those issues. That is why we have the Resource Management Act. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What reports if any has the Minister received on parliamentary support for Government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have received a report that a senior member of this House has called Kyoto “not a good idea for the people of New Zealand” and I have received a second report in which the same member said he would honour Kyoto. Of course the member responsible for yet another climate change flip-flop is John Key. National needs to come clean on where it really stands on climate change. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues be recommending that the Prime Minister officially open Genesis’ new E3P gas turbine at Huntly which is being fired up as we speak given that it is the biggest new generating station built in New Zealand in 20 years and that it is 10 times the size of Meridian’s White Hill farm that she opened last week or will this commissioning be kept as low key as possible noting that it will emit 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over its life and will continue the decline in the portion of power that is produced by renewables under this Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I do not know what the Prime Minister’s diary is in respect of E3P. However if she has the chance to open E3P my personal view is that it would be great. The reason is this: every time another megawatt is produced from E3P is the time that another megawatt is not produced from a coal-fired power station not far away. There is a net advantage to New Zealand’s carbon dioxide footprint from E3P and the member needs to do his arithmetic. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: Can the Minister assure taxpayers that they will not end up footing the bill for polluters such as Holcim which reportedly could be as much as $20 million a year; and when will his Government get policy up and running so that businesses are encouraged to invest sustainably rather than in poisonous and climate-destroying projects such as the Holcim Cement plant? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot give the member an assurance because I cannot control the 121 votes in this House. I can say that the Government is progressing on emissions trading as an option and that if we are to proceed with emissions trading we will need legislation. I look forward to the support from all members of the House for any such initiative. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Is the Minister aware of the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency rules around the management of toxins from cement plants which have been introduced in light of research that proves that emissions cause respiratory and related problems such as asthma—illnesses in which Maori are overrepresented; if so what actions will he be taking to manage the risks at Holcim? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I just might gently repeat to the member as I did to his colleague that that is why we have the Resource Management Act—to deal with issues of that ilk. I am aware that there are suggestions—I live not far south from this plant—of heavy metal pollution and also that there might be too much sulphur in the coal and so on. These matters need to be thrashed out at a consent hearing. That hearing is open to all players who have an interest. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware of Holcim’s 2006 annual review which shows that in 2006 Holcim retained just $6 million in New Zealand business while returning $26 million to Switzerland; if so does he believe that the failure to retain profits in New Zealand accompanied with the lack of sustainable processes jeopardises the company’s financial ability to protect the environment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Straightforwardly there is no particular link between environmental emanations and the degree of overseas ownership. But it is worth pointing out that this Government has very recently announced KiwiSaver Plus  announced legislation and passed legislation to proceed with that and the reasons for doing so were manyfold. One of them was so that we could progressively own more and more of our own country. I hope the member was supportive of that because that is exactly where this KiwiSaver initiative will lead us. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
4.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that Chubb wrote to the Department of Corrections in September 2005 expressing concern about the inability of prisoners in Chubb vans to communicate with its staff and the implications of that for a medical emergency or an assault as there were no departmental guidelines on this matter yet the department had still not responded to those concerns by the time Liam Ashley was tragically killed and in fact according to the Ombudsman’s report tabled today has still not responded? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that that is what is stated in the report. The report also identifies other areas where there was a breakdown in communications. The department has been working on changes since the tragic death of Liam Ashley starting with the separation of any person under the age of 18 years and working through a vast range of changes as identified in this report. We accept the recommendations in the report and we are working through implementing many of them to ensure that we run a robust and practicable prisoner transportation system. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister still have confidence in a department that has no national standards for prisoner transport because a year after it had tried to prescribe standards in March 2004 it found it could not source some of the materials but it did not tell staff for another year and a half that due to an oversight that had occurred—a process that the Ombudsman has described as “unacceptable”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: A head office review has taken place. I expect changes to occur in both culture and communication within the Department of Corrections. In regard to squabs the department was not prepared to accept squabs that were not safe and that provided a risk to prisoners in that they could destroy them and use the material to harm themselves or others. That is why that recommendation was not implemented. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister still have confidence in a department that responded to the concerns about prisoner transport expressed by the Ombudsman back in 2004 that it had established standards and had already started upgrading vehicles when clearly that was untrue leading the Ombudsman to state today: “We have been most disturbed … that our expectations were not met and have still not been met.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I too am concerned that that was the situation. Changes are being made and we will have a robust practicable and cost-effective prisoner transportation system. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that his department renewed its contract with Chubb in 2004 and at any time had the power to vary that contract but did not vary the actual description of services until 28 April 2007 and has started to update the contract to reflect the Corrections Act 2004 and the Corrections Regulations 2005 only since the tragic death of young Liam Ashley? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I can confirm that following that tragic death changes have been made and will continue to be made to improve the system. In spite of what that member says the Ombudsman points out: “In all the circumstances we are satisfied that the contract even before Variation No. 3 required legislation for the time being to be observed by Chubb.” 
Simon Power 
: You can vary it at any time. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That did not affect the outcome of this terrible tragedy but we are making changes to ensure that it will not happen again. 
Simon Power 
: How does the Minister respond to the Ombudsman’s conclusion today that it was “saddened to find a theme of lack of communication between National Office and front-line staff” echoing the Ombudsman’s earlier report into the department in 2005 which talked about “the gulf that emerged between … the Department’s National Office and its staff in the prisons.”; if that is not a sign that his department is dysfunctional what is? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Upon realising that problem I issued an instruction that there should be a head office review and that the department should actively engage with people at the front line to ensure that they do know what is happening in any area of operation of the Department of Corrections and that will continue. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read page 93 of the Ombudsman’s report and specifically the comment: “We find an echo of our remarks in the 2005 Report of our ‘ 
Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the Detention and Treatment of Prisoners 
’ where we said: ‘A major concern is the conflict between the understanding of National Office of the Department as to certain areas of difficulty and the perceptions of the Department’s staff at the front line …’ ”; and is not that actually the core of the problem that exists in the Department of Corrections and despite the over 100 analysts consultants and business advisers at head office it still gets it so basically wrong? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is why we have had a head office review. That is why we have an active programme of improving the culture from top to bottom in the Department of Corrections—to ensure that we can reduce the chances of mistakes being made. However I could not in all honesty stand in this House and say that mistakes will never occur in the department or indeed in any other Government department. We accept the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report and are working through implementing each and every one of them. 
Navy—Multi-role Vessel 
5.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What will be the role of the Navy’s new multi-role vessel the HMNZS  
Canterbury 
 which is being commissioned today? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The  
Canterbury 
 is the first of seven new ships being commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy over the next year. That will give an unprecedented boost to the navy’s operational capabilities. The principal role of the  
Canterbury 
 is that of an amphibious sealift vessel and it will succeed in that whereas National’s efforts with the  
Charles Upham 
 the “ 
Chuck-Up 
” failed completely. It is able to deploy 250 troops 57 light armoured and operational vehicles stores and equipment in military and peacekeeping operations. But it also provides enormous capability in the areas of disaster relief and humanitarian support if and when needed in the Pacific in South-east Asia and for that matter in and around New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What special capabilities does the  
Canterbury  
have in terms of deployment and disaster relief? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think its special capabilities come into play in areas where there is no port access. It carries two 23-metre landing craft that can carry from ship directly to shore. In areas—for example in the Pacific—where there is a reef it has the capability in its hangars for four NH90 helicopters and a Seasprite helicopter. An NH90 for example can pick up a truck off the deck of a boat and deposit it on the land. Obviously those capabilities would have been incredibly valuable in the situation that pertained in post-tsunami Aceh and in disaster relief following periodic hurricanes around the Pacific. At the other end of the Pacific with an ice-strengthened hull the  
Canterbury  
will provide greatly enhanced capability for patrolling the Southern Ocean. 
Dianne Yates 
: What will be the role of the other six vessels that will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy over the next year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The other six ships consist of two 85 metre - long offshore patrol vessels and four 55 metre - long inshore patrol vessels. Their role will be in support of national security tasks particularly in conducting multi-agency operations. That will include for example border patrol working with the Customs Service and the police; control over our exclusive economic zone working closely with the Ministry of Fisheries; counterterrorism operations; and search and rescue. There is no doubt that the boost given to the Royal New Zealand Navy by the addition of these seven ships is the biggest enhancement of its capabilities in the history of the Royal New Zealand Navy. 
Reserve Bank—Currency Intervention 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much funding does the Reserve Bank have for currency intervention and how is it financed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The bank has the capacity to intervene for two purposes. The first is in relation to crisis intervention capacity and for that the bank maintains a portfolio of approximately NZ$7 billion equivalent of foreign currency reserves for use in a foreign exchange crisis. These reserves are normally financed via long-term foreign currency denominated loans. Secondly the bank has the capacity to intervene on its own account for monetary policy purposes. The total of potential intervention possible for monetary policy purposes is market sensitive and is thus confidential. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Government set any limits on how often the Reserve Bank can intervene what risks the bank can take and how much taxpayers’ money is available to spend on currency interventions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The criteria for intervention are not those outlined by the member. They relate in effect to the following: the exchange rate must be exceptionally high or low it must be unjustified by economic fundamentals intervention must be consistent with the policy targets agreement and conditions in markets must be opportune to allow intervention a reasonable chance of success. The Reserve Bank independently determines when those conditions are met and without reference to the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of his Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters who says New Zealand has “a currency crisis which is killing off our growth potential” and does he take Mr Peters’ warnings seriously enough to adjust his own spending policies to take some pressure off the high dollar? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I outlined in my first answer the Reserve Bank has the capacity to intervene for two purposes. That is in relation to a foreign exchange crisis and the second is in relation to monetary policy purposes. Clearly yesterday’s intervention was in relation to monetary policy purposes but clearly the member’s and his colleagues’ policy of an additional $2 billion a year of demand pressure in the economy would have placed significant further pressure upon the exchange rate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that answer mean the Minister does not agree with Winston Peters’ assessment that New Zealand has a currency crisis and that therefore he is not taking Mr Peters’ warning about future growth prospects seriously enough to adjust his own economic management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That answer means that it is clear the Reserve Bank intervened yesterday in relation to monetary policy purposes. In its view there was not a foreign exchange crisis. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s recent assessment that “Government spending is expected to increase substantially over the next few years and this is projected to add to inflationary pressures” or does he disagree with that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly the fiscal position is looser than it was in the current year or last year. That extremely tight fiscal position was consistently criticised by members opposite and on the same day last week the member announced a half-billion-dollar reduction in spending by National while his colleague continued to promote a $23.5 million loosening through tax cuts. That is a $2 billion a year fiscal loosening compared with the current position. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did Mr Peters discuss with the Minister Mr Peters’ views about monetary policy prior to the Government’s signing up to an unchanged policy targets agreement with the Governor of the Reserve Bank just 3 weeks ago? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have always disliked the term “prior to” because I am not quite sure how long a period it covers. Certainly Mr Peters has discussed with me monetary policy over a long number of years. He has a clear interest in that matter. One of the many reasons why I signed up to an unchanged policy targets agreement was that it seemed to me that in light of the select committee undertaking its inquiry it would have been quite inappropriate to change the policy targets agreement at that point in advance of such an inquiry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minster of Finance now telling the House and the public that despite 12 months of complaining about how monetary policy did not work and despite intensive political debate over whether there should be supplementary instruments he decided to sign up to exactly the same unchanged arrangement with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and that it is now the Finance and Expenditure Committee that is really in charge of monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The member clearly does not understand even after all these years what the policy targets agreement is. The policy targets agreement is “What is the target for inflation?”. The target is 1 percent to 3 percent over the medium term. That is what the policy targets agreement says. The policy targets agreement does not say what the instruments available to the Reserve Bank are nor does it say what the other matters that relate to it might be; for example the issue of perhaps ring-fencing property investment losses against other income which both Mr Key and I believe would be a useful addition to the operation of monetary policy. But until Mr Key can convince his colleagues of that we may not be able to pass legislation. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister believes that there are more effective tools than currency intervention and if he believes he should keep collecting the Minister of Finance’s salary why does he not make some recommendations to the public and to the Parliament about what other tools should be used besides currency intervention? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thank the member. I now remind him that in my office in December last year he and his leader and myself and Mr Mallard agreed to explore supplementary tools. One of those was a mortgage interest rate levy. Mr Key thought it was a very interesting idea. As soon as Radio New Zealand slipped it into the public arena Mr English dobbed on it as fast as he possibly could. The fact is that no changes can be made in these areas without a majority of Parliament supporting them because they require changes to legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] In response to the squeaks from Dr Smith I say that the Government does not pass legislation on its own. 
Energy and Climate Change Policy—Cost-Benefit Analysis 
7.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by the reported statement in Saturday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the “Government [is] undertaking cost-benefit analyses on proposed energy and climate change policy.” and that he “envisaged a scheme covering all the greenhouse gases and all sectors of the economy.”; if so on what date will the cost benefit analyses be publicly available? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the full context yes I do. As the member will be aware the cost-benefit analysis in the form of a regulatory impact statement will be prepared if legislation is proposed. 
Heather Roy 
: When the Minister says he envisages a scheme that covers all sectors of the economy does that include agriculture; if not why not; and if so will the cost-benefit analysis assume that agriculture will be taxed or brought into the carbon credit trading regime in advance of taxes imposed by our international competitors and trading partners? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Cabinet is yet to make decisions on the detail of climate change policy but the fact of the matter is that all sectors will have to do something. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the costs and benefits of climate change policies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen any number of reports. I think I could probably point to today’s announcement by Pacific Blue which said that its carbon offset scheme for customers is yet another step to drive this nation towards carbon neutrality. It was announced today—the first time this has been announced by any airline in New Zealand—that Pacific Blue intends to source customers’ offsets from the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme which was set up under this Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What changes is the Government making in the process for developing climate change policy when the last 7 years have seen seven major policy debacles—notably the billion-dollar bungle over New Zealand’s Kyoto balance the failure of the animal emissions levy the failed 2001 energy efficiency strategy the launch and then the scrapping of negotiated greenhouse agreements the announcement and then the abandonment of the Projects to Reduce Emissions the removal of climate change from the Resource Management Act and then its putting back in and the failed carbon tax—or will the same errors be repeated in developing an emissions trading system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As the member wants to course through a history of climate change policy I remind him that in 1992 the National Government signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  and that right through the 1990s there were consultation programmes. I can remember one of them called “WOGOCOP” on emissions trading. I can remember Bill Birch taking to Simon Upton time and time again throughout the 1990s— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh the member cannot take it eh—cannot take it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has chosen to give a recital of history from the 1990s. My question asked what changes the Government was making in the process for developing climate change policy in respect of the emissions trading system. He has made no attempt to address that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the original question did make reference to other matters and the Minister is in the process of getting to the answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Why do I not just skip the rest of National’s stuff-ups on climate change right through the 1990s and say that we are making really good progress in developing climate change policy including the possibility of emissions trading. I contrast that with National’s current policy which is to reduce climate change emissions by 50 percent by 2050. That is a “kick for touch” 43 years from now by which time its author John Key will have turned 90 and will himself have become carbon dioxide. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Would the Minister expect that somebody who claims to be an expert on climate change emissions and the environment would know how to wear a nuclear-free badge the right way up; if so would he draw the attention of Dr Smith to the fact that he has his upside down? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether that is very relevant. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I had noticed that but I did not think it was polite to draw attention to it. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Howard Government in Australia has just released a comprehensive report compiled by an independent task force on climate change which makes sound recommendations on how to proceed and on a reasonable time frame; if he is aware of such a report does he not see advantages in New Zealand proceeding in tandem with Australia; and if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As it happens I am a little familiar with developments in Australia on climate change. They are not in my view as well advanced as those in New Zealand but I think that the change of position within Australia is to be welcomed. I do hope that the various effects of climate change—that is to say serial drought followed by heavy floods—abate for that nation. 
Rodney Hide 
: How will the cost-benefit analysis that is being proposed by the Government establish the benefits to New Zealanders of any regime that New Zealand will implement when in fact whatever New Zealand does is so small in its effects on the global climate that it will have no impact? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is the argument that is always raised I think by those who prefer to do nothing—saying that because we cannot achieve everything it would be irresponsible for us to make a start. That is not the position that this Government holds. It never has been and it is has never been the position of the international community which realises that in order for there to be a contribution that is realistic everybody has to do something. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take you back to the question which was actually about the cost-benefit analysis. That was the primary question; it was not about the policy. I was asking the Minister how the cost-benefit analysis proposes to handle that matter. The question was not about whether the policy was a good idea or not. The Minister chose to just skip the question and answer something completely different from it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry if I have offended the member. Let me just put it to him this way: the benefits from reducing the impact of climate change include a reduction in drought a reduction in the severity of drought a reduction in storm events including storm surges a reduction in ecological effects a reduction in economic dislocation and various other things. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the British newspaper the  
Financial Times 
 has identified major flaws in the European emissions trading scheme and if he is aware of that does it not lend strength to the argument that proceeding in less haste as the Government is intending to do now but going along the same lines as Australia which is planning for a 2 or 3-year intervention to address the issue makes more sense than the European scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I am not aware of that but I am not surprised by it. Emissions trading was always going to be difficult to get running which is why a few years ago this Government chose instead of emissions trading to pursue a carbon tax prior to moving to emissions trading when we had made some more progress as a globe. In the event some parties in this House including the party the member belongs to decided they did not want a carbon tax and that is why we are looking at emissions trading. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table the executive summary of the report of the Australian Government’s task force on emissions trading. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table the article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
from Saturday which states that the Government is undertaking a cost-benefit analysis on proposed— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board Deputy Chair—Conflicts of Interest 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When he appointed Ken Douglas as deputy chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board did he make any checks as to potential conflicts of interest; if so what were those checks? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I did make some checks. They are the same ones I always make on the advice of the ministry. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What precisely are the potential conflicts of interest involving Ken Douglas that have required the Capital and Coast District Health Board to seek legal advice from its lawyers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Mr Douglas is a member of a company called HealthCare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd which has a bunch of interests in the health sector. My advice is that Mr Douglas considers it appropriate and prudent for him to withdraw from both the district health board and the board of HealthCare during any contracting processes that might arise between them. 
Lesley Soper 
: Do any members of other district health boards have a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest; if so what does the law say about that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are I suspect as many board members with a conflict of interest—or a potential one—as there are without. The issue is not the conflict of interest in law; it is the honest declaration of that conflict and its subsequent management. That was the problem identified in the High Court decision on the Auckland laboratories; the conflicted board member did not tell enough of the truth soon enough to allow for proper management. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: To what extent was Ken Douglas—a director of HealthCare the biggest provider of home-care services in the country—involved in any way whatsoever in pushing promoting or considering proposals for the Capital and Coast District Health Board to contract out its community services a contract that could be worth tens of millions of dollars to HealthCare? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will just say again that Mr Douglas sought advice from the chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board as to the appropriate level of abstention he should exercise in relation to matters involving HealthCare. Mr Douglas considered it appropriate and prudent for him to withdraw from both the district health board and the board of HealthCare during any contracting processes between them and I am assuming that is what happened. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would it be wrong for a board member to be shaping board thinking or policy on the contracting out of particular services when that board member is a director of a company that will bid for those contracts? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member forgets that Mr Douglas was elected a member of the board by the public at large some time ago—I am not sure just when—and has been involved as an ordinary board member since then. What has happened is that in recent weeks I have made him the deputy chair of the board. I imagine that all of the things the member is referring to have got nothing to do with my appointment of Mr Douglas as deputy chair so much as with management of conflict of interest within the Capital and Coast District Health Board in general. I might just say— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Ministers are to be given an opportunity to answer questions. When they are in the process of doing so to constantly interrupt them does create disorder. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Just to conclude the member may be interested to know that earlier this month the Ministry of Health sent out new guidelines which actually are a repetition of New Zealand law to all the district health boards so that they could keep themselves abreast of New Zealand law. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the answer the Minister gave because it was lengthy it solicited one additional comment from me during it but he did not actually answer the question. The question was whether it was wrong for a member to try to shape board policy when he was a director of a company that would benefit significantly. That goes to the heart of the concerns that I am sure Dr Aitken raised directly with Ken Douglas because he was probably doing that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question but if he wishes to add to it and to go over it again then I am sure the House would be appreciative. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I simply say that schedule 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 includes a very lengthy legal treatment of how conflicts of interest must be managed. The fact that conflicts of interest exist is accepted and I said earlier that I think many people on district health boards have a potential or real conflict of interest. That is not the point; the point is how they are managed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he sought any assurances or had any comments from the chairwoman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board that have assured him that Mr Douglas was not using his position in any way whatsoever to encourage the board to contract out those community services for which HealthCare New Zealand would in fact be one of the bidders; and has the Minister met Mr Douglas recently to discuss these issues? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Management of the conflict of interest is the job of the board; that is its job. The chair of the district health board said—I read it in the newspaper—she thought she needed some legal opinion on that. She will have no doubt sought it; no doubt Mr Douglas will have too. My advice from the Ministry of Health is that Mr Douglas does have a serious conflict of interest and it should be managed properly. There is no suggestion that it has not been managed properly. 
Dalai Lama—Prime Minister 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she be meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he visits Parliament next Tuesday; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am advised that the Prime Minister’s programme for next week is under consideration. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister know that when a similar controversy blew up in Australia after Prime Minister John Howard said he would not meet the Dalai Lama the public outcry quickly convinced him to find a place in his diary; and why is it so hard to make room for the Dalai Lama in the Prime Minister’s itinerary? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member should check his sources again. That is a misreporting of what Mr Howard did. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that whether she meets with the Dalai Lama has not been the subject of representations from the Chinese embassy and if such representations have been made that the Prime Minister will make up her own mind and not do as the Chinese embassy tells her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that if any representations are made—and I would not be surprised if the Chinese embassy made representations on such a matter—the New Zealand Government will still make up its own mind about what it does. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Prime Minister assure us that in principle she is quite happy to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits here as a political leader of his people and discuss with him his proposals for a peaceful middle-way to give the Tibetan people their full rights within their part of China? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the Dalai Lama has himself stated that this visit is as a religious leader not as a political leader and indeed that he himself has said he is now in semi-retirement and that Tibet has elected political leaders to carry on the struggle of autonomy. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a section of the Amnesty International Report 2007 on China which describes the many Tibetans detained or imprisoned. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change—Deforestation 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What impact will the almost 13000 hectares of deforestation in the year to March 2006 have on climate change and how does this compare to previous years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Some time ago I received the 2006 Deforestation Intentions Survey which has long been available on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry website. I am advised that the deforestation that occurs this year will have only minimal effect on New Zealand’s emissions during the first Kyoto period from 2008 to 2012. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why will the Minister not just come clean and admit that in every year since Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry records began in 1951 New Zealand’s forest estate has grown until 2002 and that after his Government decided to nationalise those credits a chainsaw massacre of over 8 million trees has unfolded in New Zealand amounting to additional carbon emissions of 25 million tonnes; and if this Government is not responsible for this environmental disaster who is? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that many factors influence forestry planting not the least of them being tax treatment and the international price of pulp at the time of planting. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Do we have more forest cover in New Zealand now than existed at the change of Government or do we have less? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a good question. We have more. We have more forestry in New Zealand now than we had in 1999. One would not think so listening to the endless litany and chainsaw massacre language coming from the opposite side of the House but yes we have 69000 hectares more than we had at the change of Government. That is more not less. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree with New Zealand First’s continued calls for incentives to plant more trees in order to assist soaking up carbon emissions; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That policy option is under active consideration. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister give a simple yes or no answer as to whether if I or others were to plant a commercial forest of trees like this seedling they will be eligible for the carbon credits noting that the annual planting season for trees is in June July and August? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative yes the member will be eligible for credits. What is more to the best of my knowledge the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative in New Zealand is the only scheme to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a very important issue for foresters and I quite explicitly asked the Minister about the planting of commercial forests. The Minister immediately changed my question and referred to permanent forests. I ask whether he could he make the situation plain for the planting of commercial forests. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister is just allowed to complete his answer I am sure he will get to it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me start again. Under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative yes. To the best of my knowledge the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is the only scheme that gives Kyoto Protocol forestry credits to landowners anywhere in the world. That is my understanding. Then the question is what would happen if the member wanted to chop the tree down again. The answer to that is: it depends on whether the member wants to chop down a little bit of tree or a lot because if one wants to clear-fell then it ain’t permanent but if one wants to harvest sustainably then it is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that after I raised my point of order the Minister assured the House that he would clarify the position in respect of commercial forest plantings. It really is important that he does that because there are thousands of nurserymen and forest planters who want to know whether by planting commercial forests they will be eligible for the carbon credits. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Everyone on this side of the House gets the answer but let me try again. If the member wants to plant a tree or a whole lot of trees and then chop them all down that is not a permanent forest so the member will not get a credit under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. If on the other hand the member wants to produce a forest that he then manages sustainably decades on according to the rules of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative then yes he can chop the tree down and he can sell it. It is therefore commercial. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that the forest credits New Zealand might earn internationally for those 69000 extra hectares which some claim are a property right of those who have planted since 1990 will not exist at all if rapid deforestation of older forests is allowed to continue; and does he then further agree that it would be sensible to use some of the value of any forest credits we do earn to provide a replanting incentive for those older forests? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is astonishing just how large the range of expertise in this House is on this matter. The member is right on both counts. If we deforest enough of pre-1990 forests we do not have any Kyoto forests. That is why the National Party’s idea of having no cap on deforestation is not a very good idea—like having a “cap and trade” policy but no cap. Furthermore the incentives idea which is the same issue raised by New Zealand First is under active consideration by this Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister excuse the appalling deforestation figures of 5000 hectares in 2004 11000 hectares in 2005 and 13000 hectares in 2006 on the basis of international commodity prices beyond the control of the Government when in the same 3 years Australia has increased its forest area by over 200000 hectares; and do these figures not make a mockery of this Government’s criticisms of Australia’s climate change policies given how important forestry is in the climate change balance? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me refer the member to a  
New Zealand Herald 
 article of just last month in which a big bank—the member can look it up and find out which one—is looking to put into New Zealand $275 million to help landowners branch out with the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. That is to say it is afforesting New Zealand land that seriously needs afforestation. In the view of the journalist who wrote the article it stated: “Under that scheme the Government will pay internationally tradeable carbon credits to landowners who establish permanent forests on marginal erosion-prone land. As well as combating global warming it has local benefits: less silt in waterways less risk of flooding downstream and more places for birds to live.” This is the only such scheme in the world and the member should start acknowledging it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s official figures on forestry showing the loss of 8 million trees under this current Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note that the Minister of Forestry said that the figures had already been tabled. These figures were released only during the adjournment period and could not have been tabled during that period. So I again seek leave to table them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hearing—Screening in Newborn Children 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on changes to screening for hearing loss in newborn children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I was pleased to see a report yesterday on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
on the success of the newborn hearing screening programme piloted at Waikato District Health Board. This is an exciting joint programme with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education working together to screen newborn babies’ hearing and where necessary to refer them early for specialist treatment including language and educational development. The programme is starting from 1 July in the Waikato District Health Board the Tairawhiti District Health Board and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and will be rolling out across the country over the next 3 years. 
Maryan Street 
: Assuming that newborn hearing screening will cause a surge in the need for cochlear implants for some children what arrangements has the Government made to meet that surge? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Last month’s Budget has $8 million set aside for additional cochlear implants not only to meet the surge for the children that the member refers to but also to increase adult implants. Getting an early diagnosis of deafness in a child really matters. We now know that providing profoundly deaf young children and newborns with a cochlear implant gives them the chance to hear speak and develop on a path very similar indeed to that of other children. 
Schools—Junk Food 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the statement of Judy Hanna President of the New Zealand Principals Federation on the Government’s announced changes that will force schools to stop selling junk food that “This is regulation for the sake of regulation … This latest change by the Government is a slap in the face for all our schools and their efforts so far.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No because I agree with the editorial in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which states that the response of Katherine Rich to this announcement “took insufficient notice of both the seriousness of the obesity epidemic and many schools’ contradictory approach to it. It makes no sense for students to be taught good nutrition and healthy eating as part of the health curriculum and then immediately afterwards to queue at a tuck shop that serves mainly pies or other fatty sugar- or salt-laden food.” 
Katherine Rich 
: Why when the new school guidelines—clause (5)(iii) of the National Administration Guidelines—clearly state that boards are “required to where food and beverages are sold on school premises make only healthy options available.” was the Minister within a few hours back-pedalling at a rate of knots and personally listing products like pizza sausage rolls pies chocolates and burger rings as being OK for tuck shops? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think I may have missed out the burger rings. I ask the member to do what I do not think she had done when she made her comments which is to read the material. When she does so she will find that on the third page of the material there is a frequently asked question which is how to arrive at what sort of food might be available. The answer is to go through the Food and Beverage Classification System from the Ministry of Health which will set out the kind of food that might be seen as “every day” and food that might be seen as “sometimes” and “occasionally”—all of which makes up a good healthy diet. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that the types of food and drink sold in the school tuck shops are part of the hidden curriculum and that if schools are offering a diet of unhealthy products they would not be complying with the health and physical well-being curriculum so that any further directions to schools are simply inflammatory and redundant? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I certainly hope the health curriculum in schools would be consistent across the tuck shops as well. I just take the member back to the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial again. “Nobody should pretend that healthier tuck shop food is more than a small part of the solution to obesity. As critics have pointed out pupils will still be able to obtain pies and so on from neighbouring shops. Yet that is no argument for schools supplying this food as well. … it is reasonable to expect schools to set an example of healthy eating for all of society.” 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware of a recent Green Party survey which found that more than 80 percent of schools are selling sausage rolls pies fizzy drinks and so forth as a staple diet; and does he agree that it is time to put the health and well-being of New Zealand children ahead of the profits of the school tuck shops? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I am aware of the survey conducted by the Greens that had that result. I just point out that a lot of schools have already made the shift to more healthy options and they are finding they are getting the returns and profits that they require as part of their selling of that food. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm the wording of clause (5)(iii) of the National Administration Guidelines which states that boards are “required to where food and beverages are sold on school premises make only healthy options available.” and explain how that wording can be reconciled with the long list of junk foods he personally exempted yesterday which included pies sausage rolls pizza chocolate and burger rings? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I didn’t do the burger rings. 
Katherine Rich 
: You did so! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can do so quite easily because I know that the member still has not read the material. When she does so she will see that the way that schools will interpret this national administration guideline is that healthy options will relate to the Ministry of Health’s food classification. The member also said the guidelines were to do with other bits and pieces which is completely wrong. Schools will have nothing to do with what comes to school in the child’s lunch. They will be able to serve a snarler at the gala. They will be able to have a hangi. They will be able to fund-raise through things like chocolate. What they are being asked to do however is to use the food classification system to ensure that an overall healthy diet is served at the schools. As the  
New Zealand Herald  
said what is wrong with that? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the devolution of school decision-making to local boards of trustees through the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms was the progeny of the previous Labour Government; and is not the centralisation of decision making such as which foods can or cannot be sold in tuck shops nothing more than educational infanticide? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was tremendous! The member will know because he has been a school principal that there are a number of guidelines for schools. This one fits into the safety and health part of one of the guidelines and therefore it is already consistent with what goes on. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister continue to say that the new guidelines do not ban certain types of food when they explicitly state that boards are required where food and beverages are sold on school premises to make only healthy options available—does he not understand the phrase “only healthy options available”; if so how does he reconcile the long list of junk food that he personally exempted yesterday? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the member that I do not know what her diet is like but I think most people would accept a mix of food of the kind that goes with the Ministry of Health’s food classification which would say some food—like salads for example—are best eaten frequently; other things like fish and chips are best eaten infrequently. Part of a healthy diet can include all of that. That is why I know that the member will want to go home and say to her schools that they can still have for example a barbecue with a sausage at it. It explicitly states in the guidelines that they can do that so she can relax. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why is the Minister attempting to confuse the issue by referring to other guidelines such as the food and beverages guidelines and the Mission-On guidelines when the National Administration Guidelines are the guidelines that schools must comply with? Clause (5)(iii) of the National Administration Guidelines clearly states that the sale of junk food on school premises will not be permitted and schools have been told that only healthy options are being allowed—how does “only healthy options” include pizza sausages pies chocolates and burger rings? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have to say to the member that it is really important to go back to the office and read the whole document which is available. It sets out for example that schools will have nothing to do with what lunches are in the lunch box that a child brings to school and that schools can have a hangi or a barbecue. The document states—which is why I am using it—that the food classification system for the Ministry of Health will be the basis of what constitutes healthy eating options. It says it in black and white and I will send the member a stack of these so she can have a good study of them. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table the actual National Administration Guidelines that schools have to follow. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms  Control Act—20th Anniversary 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noticed that the Government was somewhat interested in badges earlier in the afternoon and I notice that Parekura Horomia and Dave Hereora have their badges on upside down. Does that indicate the Labour Maori caucus feels some distress about this policy? 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Prisoner Transportation—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Simon Power seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the Ombudsmen into prisoner transportation. The report was released when I tabled it in the House today even though it had been speculated in news media reports some days ago that the report was about to be released. In these circumstances as Speaker’s ruling 161/1 makes clear the application cannot be considered for an urgent debate today though if an application is lodged tomorrow it can be considered then. The application is accordingly declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Mercury Energy—Disconnection of Electricity Supply 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Sue Bradford seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by Mercury Energy. The disconnection is a particular case of recent occurrence and having been effected by or on behalf of a State-owned enterprise I accept that it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. The incident has been the subject of considerable public interest since it occurred and this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider it. I consider that it does warrant an urgent debate being held today. I therefore call on Sue Bradford to move that the House take note of the matter. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to split this call in half with my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all right. Just arrange that amongst the Green Party members. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this sadly defining moment in our country’s history. The disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by State-owned enterprise Mercury Energy and the death of FololeMuliaga a few hours after the electricity was cut off to her home and her oxygen machine are a tragedy that has highlighted tensions of ideology and a gap of empathy in this country. But before I speak any more I would like to formally offer my condolences and those of my Green Party colleagues to the family of FololeMuliaga. My heart goes out to them as I imagine their hardship and sorrow and what they have had to deal with over the last 2 weeks. 
It was 2 weeks ago today at around this time that Mrs Muliaga died. She died because as a society we have come to value efficiency and profit before people. The strict chain of events surrounding Mrs Muliaga’s death started when she became sick and had to give up her job as an early childhood teacher. That reduced the family income to $400 a week for the four of them. Mr Muliaga was working as much as possible in his minimum-wage job earning while his wife was sick. Although their income was drastically reduced at the same time the price of power has gone up by 40 percent in real terms since 2000 and went up by 7 percent just last year. As most families who are surviving on a benefit or a minimum wage know it is often not possible to have a roof over one’s head warmth clothing a full stomach running water and bills paid in full and on time. People are forced constantly to make tough choices regardless of whether someone is sick or there are children in the family. 
One of the compromises the Muliaga family was forced to make was paying off the power bill in instalments. That apparently was not acceptable to Mercury Energy or to the State-owned enterprise Mighty River Power—a State-owned enterprise that made record profits last year. Despite another payment being due in 2 days and two payments having recently been made by the family the company decided to disconnect the electricity. At one stage the company was even reported as saying it believed that through cutting off the power it was helping the Muliaga family by making sure it did not get further into debt. The contractor involved was apparently disconnecting power to several houses that day. Who knows the stories of those other families? How many children across the country were left shivering in their beds that night as a result of those disconnections and all the others that took place? How many pregnant women went to bed feeling cold and without having had hot food? How many people with mental or physical illnesses or disabilities were left in darkness? 
After the tragedy of 2 weeks ago it quickly became apparent that Mercury Energy itself was turning off the power of hundreds of households a week. I think that all of us may have been shocked by the extent to which not only Mercury Energy but other power companies have been turning off the power across New Zealand every day and in tens of thousands of households a year. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. It could have happened anywhere in New Zealand and it could happen again any day now. 
I thank the Government and the Prime Minister for their quick response to the matter. I appreciate that they have identified the need to develop some guidelines for power companies. However the guidelines in so far as they have been talked about so far do not go far enough. They are not mandatory. They will be introduced after 1 month’s consultation and then monitored by the Electricity Commission for 3 months. The commission will then report back to the Government next year and advise as to whether the guidelines are working or whether there needs to be more regulation. In this case it appears that the threat of regulation is considered to be more important than the possible consequence of not doing something more regulatory and that leads to the conclusion that there could again be further tragic circumstances. Effectively the companies are being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again when we already have codes of responsibility and codes of practice for them that should have stopped them from doing it but did not. 
 What is almost worse though in this whole debate is to realise that racist blame-the-victim views seem to have gained such a foothold in our communities particularly in places like talkback radio. To hear people turning all the blame for this tragedy on to FololeMuliaga and her family reminds me of the worst aspects of the 1980s and 1990s when over and over again the victims of deliberate Government policies and corporate greed were held to blame for their circumstances rather than the system that had caused their unemployment or poverty their ill health or their death. Many of us remember those times and it has been really sad to hear that kind of blaming raise its head again over the last 2 weeks. 
This recent tragedy has I believe marked a turning point for us as a country. We have been internationally shamed. I think a number of us would have been shocked by the way this story went worldwide instantly and by the international reaction to the fact that a country such as ours which is seen as a kind caring and compassionate country with a welfare state would have allowed this incident to happen. If we are to reclaim our image and our reality as a country that actually adheres to and believes in fundamental principles of humanity equity and compassion we should immediately take a number of steps. 
The first step is to require a law providing that not only electricity companies but also gas and water companies put alongside any household having problems with its bills a community or social service agency to help it work through the payment problems and to advise that family or household of any Government assistance that is available. Community-based groups helping with that work should of course also be funded by the utility company for their work. I realise this is in part what the Government is saying; the issue is simply that the Greens believe it should be mandatory. Alongside that we are also saying over and over again that it is not just power that is at stake here but also gas and water. Those are all necessities of life. 
Secondly companies must be required to notify the Ministry of Social Development before anyone’s power is cut off and the ministry should be expected as a matter of course to do everything it can to help the family concerned whether it is already in the benefit system or whether it is on a low income—whatever its situation is. The rules inside the Ministry of Social Development must be changed in order to make it clear that the provision of power gas and water to households is a health and safety issue and an essential of life. The Government should also introduce a new ministerial directive within Work and Income on advances for residential utility payments. Such a directive separate from other directives could see the ministry working in with the power and water companies to ensure no one’s supply is cut off and that no one is denied reconnection. The Ministry of Social Development could use combinations of recoverable and non-recoverable payments to make sure than no one’s situation gets worse and becomes out of hand and to make sure that the supply is maintained. 
Thirdly it should simply be illegal to disconnect water gas or electricity except in cases where it is clear that people who can afford to pay are arbitrarily refusing to do so. 
My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons will now discuss a further key measure that should be taken in relation to the pricing of power. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Can I add my condolences to the Muliaga family to those of my colleague. 
Household electricity prices have risen 18 percent in real terms over just 8 years and we are faced with a paradox of pricing. At one end power is now too expensive for people on low incomes to afford their basic needs; and at the other end power is still too cheap to prevent a lot of people from wasting it. It is time to address the pricing structure because there is a pricing structure that can address both of these issues; it is used in a number of places overseas and—in fact—is known in those places as a lifeline tariff. This is called progressive pricing and it goes like this. 
Every household and only households would be able to buy a basic block of power at a low price. That is not a subsidy. New Zealand generates lots of power from our old hydro stations that is really cheap and that price just reflects that. Then above that block of power households would pay an increasing amount for further blocks of power so that at the margin the price would always be higher than it is on average. This has been Green Party policy since the 1970s when I presented a computer run of exactly how it would work for the Auckland Electric Power Board—the ancestor of today’s Mercury Energy. The board thanked us politely sent us away and did not consider it further. 
It is high time to consider that policy again and I was most interested to find that last year the Government did exactly that. The Ministry of Economic Development produced a report last year on various pricing structures. It was starting to get embarrassed by the fact that electricity company margins had doubled in just 3 years and that the windfall profits that the State-owned generators were making were starting to become quite embarrassing for the Government. The ministry considered a number of options along with progressive pricing and unfortunately decided to do virtually nothing. 
The report is interesting. It acknowledges that this would be a way of making a basic amount of power affordable to people on low incomes. It acknowledges that it would do that without causing a huge explosion in power consumption and that in fact the high marginal price of power would be likely to cause people to use it more efficiently—meeting both the goals of the Government’s social policy which is that everybody is warm and fed and the goal of the National Energy and Conservation Strategy which is that we use electricity a great deal more efficiently than we do now. 
Why did the ministry decide against that? It decided against that because it is not compatible with competitive market arrangements. So we have something that works very well to address the needs of real people it works very well to address the needs of the environment energy efficiency and climate change but it does not work very well to implement the ideology that the market must be totally free and competitive and so it was abandoned. 
 Never mind that one could perfectly well legislate for that one basic block of power and the price that had to be charged for it for everyone and that then one could allow the competitive market to determine the prices of the further blocks above that—and the power companies would no doubt look after their interests. So there are ways of dealing with market competition as well as with the needs of the poor and the needs of climate change. 
The report from the Ministry of Economic Development is very disappointing. It is quite shallow. It puts up a heap of straw men about how we would have to have different-sized blocks for different-sized households. We already have research that shows that power consumption is not closely linked to the number of people in the house. It is much more linked to the fact that there is a house and there is one fridge whether there are three people or one person in the house. That is so even in the case of hot water which is most closely linked to the number of people. If one has for example six children in the family one is probably putting them through the same bathwater anyway. So there is not a close correlation between numbers and power use. 
The biggest correlation that exists is between power consumption and income. High-income families have high power bills and low-income families tend to have lower power bills because they cannot afford it. We could combine the idea of a rising block tariff for power with two existing ones. One is the attempt to insulate all the old homes so that people on low incomes have their power bills managed because they are not expensive to heat. The other is the new technology of smart meters which are starting to be rolled out which give the customer feedback about what they are using and the cost of what they are using. 
The combination of a lifeline tariff and a smart meter would enable households to see how they are going and decide for themselves whether they can afford to go into the second band of power at the higher price that month or whether they want to try to stay within the lifeline tariff. They would be in control of their situation they would have the information they need and we would not have people unable to meet their power bills and being disconnected because of it. I believe that the Government should look at this idea again and if necessary a select committee should look at it because it is a good idea. It has been around for 30 years. Other places do it; why should New Zealand not do it? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Along with all members of this House I share the feelings of loss that the family have had and I would like to thank the previous speakers for passing on—on behalf of all of us actually—the surprise and condolences around this very real family tragedy. 
This is a useful opportunity to be able to delineate the decisions that have already been taken by Cabinet and the processes that will be followed in future. As members will be aware a decision has been made. A large part of that is already in the public domain but not in the wider sense understood by people in detail yet and that is why I think today’s debate is particularly useful. A decision has been made to proceed with special requirements particularly around the needs and the situation of vulnerable consumers. None of this is without semantic difficulties and it is fraught with definitional issues. That is why I think the timing of the development of this policy is particularly useful. 
The Electricity Commission will issue draft guidelines in line with the decisions made by the Government. After 3 months from the date of implementation of those guidelines the commission will be monitoring and coming back to the Government to see whether there is sufficient compliance with the guidelines. It is my view that the guidelines to date albeit voluntary have generally been quite well complied with. We certainly have had an appalling example of non-compliance which led to this incident and to this debate but I think it is important not to criticise unreasonably the other companies public or private involved in the industry because of the totally unsatisfactory performance of one supplier. That is why I think cautious decisions about the need to regulate further depending on performance is the desirable way to proceed. 
The Government will be introducing legislation in due course to amend the Electricity Act to make future regulation possible should that need to occur. So that is a given. I think it is important that members of the House and the New Zealand public are aware that the Electricity Commission has advised us that retailers have already taken on board—well and truly I would imagine—the sad lessons from the last couple of weeks and that the commission envisages it will get very good cooperation indeed throughout the implementation phase of its guidelines and I will talk a little later on about the detail of those guidelines and the changes. 
Essentially the wording in the guidelines will be much stronger. Words like “should” will be changed to more appropriate language such as “must” and “will be required to” and the guidelines will make absolutely clear the requirements and expectations of these companies delivering essential utility services. I believe that the threat of regulation will be as effective as it has been in a large number of other areas. I am only too aware of all sorts of voluntary accords in my environmental portfolio area that have been well complied with and interestingly the people who previously argued for voluntary regulation are often now coming to the Government and asking us to regulate to make sure that there are no freeloaders and that everyone is on board. That is good news. I believe that the threat of regulation will indeed be very effective as it should be. 
There are however as I commented a moment ago some very good practices among electricity retailers. The example of Meridian in Christchurch has already been quoted. I am advised that Meridian funds a number of agencies to provide people with the sorts of budgetary advice services and support that are often provided by the Ministry of Social Development in various forms particularly in the form of Work and Income but also via other agencies. I compliment them on that. I have no reports of things not working well in that area. I am also only too aware of a perhaps too informal but none the less very effective protocol—that term might be an overstatement—or working arrangement with Contact Energy in my Dunedin electorate. Irrespective of the chills of the North Island people will be aware that the criticality of power supply is often much greater in the south particularly at the moment and as a result of disconnection concerns from constituents some years ago my office and I made contact with the local Contact Energy operators and have come to a regime that has ensured there are grossly fewer problems—I would not say none—with that company and with supply in our area than there have been in the past. So I think it is only too clear that retailers have learnt from this. 
I need to put on record that the Electricity Commission and the Ministry of Social Development did negotiate in good faith on their own initiatives the first set of guidelines and now we are in the situation because of these tragic circumstances where we clearly want to strengthen them and improve them. 
What has happened over the last couple of weeks has clearly been a huge wake-up call for those who do not have good practices or are not ensuring that good practices are being followed. I am sure they are hurrying to make sure such practices are in place because after the consultation period of a month which I referred to and the rewritten strengthened guidelines being finalised there will be a 3-month period for implementation. At the end of that period we will be looking at the Electricity Commission surveying exactly what the practices are observing and monitoring the level of disconnection and coming back to the Government with further recommendations. Of course given that that period will be during winter I think that will be an instructive exercise. 
The Electricity Commission as I intimated earlier is absolutely clear that it will recommend regulation if it assesses that there is not a satisfactory level of compliance with the new guidelines. We believe that the wake-up call from what has happened—the tragic events we have seen—has already sent retailers the very powerful signal that the expectation is that compliance with the new strengthened guidelines will be absolute. 
We are going to be seeing in the community a much stronger set of guidelines and if they are not properly complied with there will be if necessary further regulation. We will make sure that there is good monitoring of the issues around vulnerable consumers and disconnection issues that other consumers are being properly advised of where they can go for advice should they need it and the monitoring regimes that the Electricity Commission will be put in place. Can I say though in order to leave no possibility for doubt that it is my view that in a country like New Zealand irrespective of the particular issues of this or any other case it is just not acceptable that any consumer who happens to have a debt of less than $200—as it was in this case—should be disconnected from the power supply. I just do not believe there can be any reason where at that debt level disconnection would be acceptable. 
The previous speaker quite rightly identified the issue. We do expect all of us in this community to face up to our financial commitments. But it is equally an indicator of the humanity of a society that we make sure that those who for whatever reason—and there are many valid reasons—are unable to do that or find difficulty doing that get the level of support and advice they are entitled to as members of this community. In that respect members of this House and members of the New Zealand community will be only too aware of the lengths to which this Government has gone to make those financial burdens lighter. I guess in many ways the attitude to this matter characterises the different flavour of the politics and the philosophy of the different parties in this House. Labour in one of its first moves in Government reindexed the floor of national superannuation and has shifted it annually since 1999. This Government reinstated the public provision of accident compensation and has moved the minimum wage annually since 1999—not a record that predecessors in the House would be able to claim. 
Of course that very shift in people’s base income is one of the key factors in making the payment of utility services infinitely more affordable. Members of the House are only too aware that the Working for Families package now in the final implementation phase since 1 April this year is providing very substantial assistance to around 360000 New Zealand families. These are families that because of extra tax credits and other types of support as part of the components of the Working for Families package can obviously find it easier—if not completely easy in many cases—to face up to the cost of the provision of utilities such as power. In addition to that of course that package will lift a very large number of children out of poverty—and energy poverty is an important part of that deprivation. Clearly the last phase of Working for Families has put huge extra amounts of money into families’ pockets—the increases in family support and the family tax credit level and the regular inflation adjustment in particular. 
The previous speaker also alluded to the energy insulation and retrofitting initiatives that have been running for a number of years. Those sorts of conservation measures are a clear and valuable part of the sorts of initiatives—very substantial initiatives—that this Government has incrementally put in place since being elected to the Treasury benches in 1999. 
I will share with members one small example of a pretty typical New Zealand family. Chris and Allan live in Onehunga. They have three children. Their Working for Families package has increased their income by $365 a week. That is $365 a week they would not have had this Government not been in power and that is $365 a week that makes it easier for them to pay their mortgage to pay their bills for utility provision including electricity and to make ends meet rather more comfortably. So for a very large number of New Zealanders it is much easier to meet those financial commitments; but for those who still need support we will provide that. 
In closing I send one very clear message both to members of the House and to the community. I would urge people who are having issues around power supply in particular or who have historical issues in that regard not to hesitate to contact Work and Income. Anyone facing disconnection or having trouble paying a power bill can call and ask for assistance whether or not that person is a current client of Work and Income. We will assist people privately and confidentially by looking at their financial circumstances and giving them advice ourselves on what assistance they can get or indeed providing assistance if that is appropriate. We will continue to advise people—whoever they are and whether or not they have an existing relationship with Work and Income—on what other Government or other assistance might be available such as the Working for Families tax credits that I have referred to or a very substantial range of other budget services such as budget advice which is often provided by other independent agencies a large number of which are funded by various sorts of Government funding or indeed by some of the utilities such as the one I mentioned. 
 Of course the sooner people put their hands up and ask for some advice to help with the ordering of their affairs the sooner they can be assisted. As someone said during question time often we do not notice things until they arrive which is too late. This is an area where for example the guidelines will insist that there are no disconnections or discussions of disconnection on Friday or over the weekend so that we can come to a much more manageable arrangement when people have difficulty. Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify some of those matters. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Might I first express my condolences to the Muliaga family for what has been a most tragic death for them in circumstances that—it would appear on the face of it—most New Zealanders are not comfortable with at all. I further say that it is somewhat difficult when we know what the family is going through and will go through for many many months and possibly years ahead to discuss this issue in the way that it perhaps should be discussed. 
But the reality we are faced with is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand stepped into this argument and made some extremely strong statements about her view on this particular matter and what she expected to have happen. Despite the fact that her Minister had been somewhat cautious she went out and said that heads will roll and someone will be publicly accountable. Today the police have decided not to charge anybody in connection with this incident. So where are the heads that are to roll? 
The Prime Minister also said that the law would be altered and that State-owned enterprises would be given a pretty hard message by way of a legislative change to ensure that this kind of incident never happens again. Yet yesterday the Government backed way off that and reverted to the voluntary code situation that existed prior to this incident. The question then arises of who is to be held accountable for the voluntary code in the case of Mercury Energy not being followed—not being picked up or exercised. I think it should be sheeted home directly to the board of Mighty River Power which is the parent company of Mercury Energy. Why has the Prime Minister—who is after all the shareholders’ prime representative—not called that board in for some discussion? Why was it OK for her to go to the family to share in the occasion of their greatest grief and quite frankly to grandstand off the back of this issue but then do nothing? Nothing has been done. If members read through the press releases from the Government yesterday they will see that there is nothing there that was not there before. 
The chair of Mighty River has made a public apology. Good. Why has the chair not been brought in and asked why she and her board were derelict in their responsibilities under the State-Owned Enterprises Act? That Act states—plain as day in black and white— “An organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.” That seems pretty clear to me. We know that guidelines were put out by the Electricity Commission as to how these situations were to be dealt with. But in this case they were not followed. 
 So why do we have a Prime Minister saying that this is terrible that heads will roll that she is right alongside the family—she has had her photograph taken with them and she has made the tough statements—but then she does nothing? She has not even called in the board to ask a question about it. She has not even called in the board to ask it those simple questions. 
We know that other companies are doing the right thing. No less a person than the Minister for Social Development and Employment has suggested this afternoon that Meridian Energy’s practice in Christchurch is a good example. I think it is. Nine social agencies are working with Meridian Energy to ensure that when people get into difficulties any assistance available gets to them. 
The other interesting argument that was run this afternoon was that we might be able to separate out blocks of electricity for sale under special conditions and special provisions to those who effectively are the vulnerable in our community. But that denies the fact that one of the problems we have in this country at the moment is a scarcity of electrical energy. Any look at the demand on our system any look at the peaks in demand that are there at the moment tells the person looking why there are high electricity prices in this country. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Why? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is interesting that the Green Party is suggesting that we might adopt this practice when in many ways the Green Party is part of the problem. I tell Mr Parekura Horomia that over the last 7 years we have not seen the sort of investment in electricity generation in this country that we should have seen. We should in particular have had far more investment in renewable energy. But we have not had it because project after project has been knocked over. 
Jill Pettis 
: “Your power prices will not go up.”—that’s what Max Bradford said. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What did Max do Gerry? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members on the other side scream out that it is the system—the system put in place some time ago—that is the problem. Well after 8 years of a Labour Government I ask why it has not changed. It has not changed because fundamentally it works. What is wrong with it is the fact that every time a generation project comes up for consideration in this country it has to go through such a big hoop of Resource Management Act compliances and other such exercises—including stopping off at the office of the Minister of Conservation—that not one project of any considerable size has been given consent. There is all this hot air about wind power but we find that even wind power projects are getting knocked over. 
Well while there is scarcity of supply there will be rising prices. This afternoon we heard the figure of 18 percent in real terms in 7 years but I can tell the House that the figure is much higher—much higher. In some districts it is up to 40 percent in real terms and that is a lot of money for struggling families to find. 
I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment say: “Well look what we have done through family support.” This family was a working family and I would like to know whether it was getting the $256 a week in family support that it should have been getting. Well no one seems to know. The Prime Minister has not bothered investigating that and the Minister himself could not tell us that here today. So this wonderful Government which is so caring and concerned about people in this sort of plight talks the talk but does not walk the walk. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh right tell us in 2 minutes what you’d do. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I can tell this House that the next National Government will ensure that there is a substantial amount of new generation investment in this country the next National Government will ensure that New Zealanders have rising incomes through work rather than welfare and the next National Government will not excuse itself from the responsibilities it has in this sort of situation by simply raising spurious arguments about how well it has done in social welfare policy in this country. 
These people are in grief and it is not fair that we talk too much about their situation. It is not fair that we use their family situation to any great political extent. That is why I have to say I am very dark on what the Prime Minister did last week. I think it was cynical manipulation. I want to make it very clear that it was not the National Party that brought this issue to the floor of Parliament today; it was the Green Party. I do not think that discussing personal tragedies in the way that is happening here is particularly useful in any event. I certainly do not think the Prime Minister deciding to grandstand on the back of this family’s tragedy then doing nothing is acceptable. That is what this Government has done. It has talked about it it has got the photographs but it has done nothing. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will commence by offering on behalf of my colleagues our sincere condolences to the Muliaga family members on the loss of their wife and mother. This should not have happened. Nobody—nobody—should die in this country because he or she has not paid the power bill. Nobody should have an oxygen machine switched off because he or she owes a power company $168. That is an absolute disgrace and it is a further disgrace that the company that switched the power off is a Government-administered company. There are protocols in place and now there has been talk of making them compulsory. 
The power companies are run by highly paid executives—highly paid executives—and all the contractor out there had to do was to press a button on his cellphone and ask whether he could leave the power on because there was a lady there with an oxygen mask who needed to use that equipment. That was all he had to do but what did he do? Nothing! He simply said that he was just doing his job. That is appalling. It is no wonder this incident made international news and no wonder it was reported on the BBC. This is a country that prides itself on its compassion and its caring but we allowed an event like that to happen. 
When I heard about this incident first off I am on record for producing a media release that said somebody should be held accountable for it to the degree of being charged with either murder or manslaughter. I have to say that personally I am still of that opinion. It is the sort of incident to my mind where somebody should be held accountable. I am not talking about politicians; I am not talking about the Prime Minister or anybody else in this House. But there should be somebody in that company who says yea or nay in relation to whether the power stays on and that person should be held accountable. 
I note that the family members themselves have said that they do not want to persevere with the police inquiry and that they have compassion for the contractor. That speaks volumes in my book because no compassion was shown to that family—none at all. I cannot think of anything worse that somebody could have done than simply to say he was sorry but he was just doing his job. I do not know whether the contractor even said he was sorry. 
Jill Pettis 
: I think he did. 
PETER BROWN 
: Did he? Well let us give him the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to the man I understand that he is feeling pretty awful right now— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: So he should! 
PETER BROWN 
: —and I agree with the Minister; so he should. It is beyond belief that a person can walk into a family’s house see a person with an oxygen mask on and say he is sorry but he is only doing his job and he is turning the power off. 
We have to come to terms with what we are doing in this country in relation to power. We have heard from the Greens and from National about the escalation in power prices over the last few years. I believe that the Greens’ figure of 18 percent is on the low side. It may be an average but I believe that generally it is on the low side. The fundamental reason for the increased cost is that we are not producing power plants at the required rate. As a nation we are relying more and more on electricity—more and more. We should in my view have a gas-fired power station at Otahuhu. I know that Government members will shrug their shoulders at that and say no we should be given a few windmills somewhere else. But Contact Energy would build a gas-fired power station tomorrow if the Government was willing to give it a bit of support and that would not only give us more power fairly promptly but also ease the problem regarding the transmission lines through the Waikato. 
The Bradford reforms were set up in 1997-98 to create a bit of competition in the industry but at that time there was a surplus of power—there was more power than New Zealanders needed. We rapidly overtook that surplus and in my view we are now barely keeping pace with the power that is required. We cannot build coal-fired power stations because of climate change problems. We cannot build gas-fired power stations because of climate change problems. This country produces 0.2 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world—0.2 percent—and we cannot build coal-fired power stations! Since the Kyoto Protocol has come into being between them India and China have produced 800 coal-fired power stations. In this country people are kicking up about our one and only coal-fired power station at Huntly. People complain about the new E3P power station that is coming on line which will burn gas. I ask you! 
We must get our priorities correct when it comes to power in this country. Shortly we will have people freezing in the southern part of this country—going to bed with blankets wrapped around them because they cannot afford their electricity bills. The 121 of us here in this House live in relative comfort compared with some New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders need power on an essential ongoing basis not only for medical reasons but for warmth and heat in their homes. For the sake of $168 we cut off a family’s power. The family had been paying back on an irregular basis some of the money it owed. I think it owed $15 more this month than it did last month and we cut the power off. Why? Why are we putting the need for money and even the needs of the environment ahead of people’s welfare? Why have we got into that way of thinking in this country? We need to address this issue from a people’s perspective and from a compassionate perspective. People are relatively low-paid in this country and people need power. We should be able to produce power and we should be able to produce it more cheaply than we do. The effect on global warming of another gas-fired power station or even of another coal-fired power station would be negligible. 
I think the Australians produce the equivalent of 1.5 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions but 75 percent of Australian power is generated from coal. The Australians are taking a long-term practical-assessment view of climate change and climate change problems. We should join with them in doing that. We should work in tandem with the Australians and address those problems in a proper professional and workable manner. 
If we had power at a reasonable price the lady in this family would still be here. The Greens have the idea of blocks—I do not know; is it selling in low blocks at a cheap rate? I do not recall the Greens ever making that information available to any other political party in this House. This very afternoon I asked Jeanette Fitzsimons for some information. She stated that that system operates in other countries—in other places. On behalf of New Zealand First I can say that my colleagues would be very interested to know where and to what degree that system is working. It seems like an idea that should be examined. But the Greens have not come across and offered any sort of advice to us on that system. We would have a close look at it. I cannot say here and now whether we would support the idea but from what I heard today it certainly sounds like an idea that is worth examining. 
We must make power available in the quantities that New Zealanders need and require and at a reasonable price. I say—and I hope I am in step with my colleagues in saying this—there is nothing more important than that. Climate change problems can be addressed in the fullness of time and as Tony Blair said only last week without the Yanks—without the Americans—without the Indians and without the Chinese on board addressing climate change problems is a waste of time. We must start to put our people particularly low-paid people ahead and at the top of our priorities. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker kia ora tatou katoa iteneipo. Hei whaiwhai haere i te ia o te korero ko te wahanga ki ahaui te tuatahi ko te tuku inga poroporoaki ki tera o ngawhaea kuangaroneii te tirohanga kanohi ingawikitatakuahipaakenei. 
Kei te rongoi te ahuatanga o te ngau o mamae. Ka tapirihia atu tera o ngaaitua ki tera o ngapepii mate neii te marae o Hoani Waititi. Ka mutu ki terai pa mai ki a au ki a Te Arawa a ko Weterina Harris. 
Me peneirawa te korero haere koutou haere koutou haere koutou ki te rua koiwi o ngamatua o ngatupuna moe mai. Ka huri ki teneiwhakatipuranga tatou e noho neii roto i te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to us all tonight. To follow the trend that the debate has taken the part for me to address first is to add my condolences to those expressed already to a beloved mother who died in tragic circumstances in the weeks just past 
. 
The pain of the loss through such tragic circumstances is keenly felt. To that one I add the tragic death of the toddler at Hoani Waititi marae as well. Finally I acknowledge Witarina Harris whose death is keenly felt by me personally and Te Arawa. 
And so I say to them farewell farewell farewell. Return to the resting place of the ancestors rest there. And now to you of this generation to us seated about in this House greetings greetings and greetings to us all. 
]  
This issue the tragic loss of life that the Muliaga family has experienced over the last fortnight—and indeed it has had major ramifications throughout this country—is not we regret to say the first event of this nature. We in the Maori Party have been painfully aware that in too many families there have been lives lost hardship endured poverty experienced and no one taking responsibility. Responsibility must rest in the hands of many not the least being the State and its agencies. We concentrate here within this Parliament on our ability to make a difference. In this case we know there were rules and policies that should have been followed we know that there are already electricity and gas commissioners and we know that there have been guidelines for low-income and vulnerable consumers. So the question would be: why did this tragedy occur? 
Some have chosen to point the finger of blame at individuals. We have been appalled that the crisis that occurred for the Muliaga family should have been turned inward on the community on to the family and on to consumers rather than people looking at blaming those with the responsibility for what occurred. Responsibility and accountability for crisis management must be taken seriously and not just in this sad case. 
We think too of the train crash last Tuesday at Kerang in Australia in which New Zealander Nick Parker lost his life. That crisis sent shock waves across the Tasman. It is not the first time of course that fatalities have occurred in public transport. Who will ever forget Christmas Eve of 1953 the night that 151 people died when the rail bridge at Tangiwai collapsed causing the Wellington express to crash into the flooded river? Later investigation suggested that although a lahar was undeniably responsible for the disaster warnings by amateur geologists about the state of the crater wall should not have been ignored by the authorities. 
April 10 of next year marks 40 years since the  
Wahine 
 sank in the worst recorded storm in our history. The court of inquiry which was held 10 weeks after the disaster found that although conditions had been fatally dangerous errors of judgment had been made both on board the ferry and onshore. 
We can fast-forward to 1979 and to the Mount Erebus disaster which was New Zealand’s biggest single tragedy killing all 257 people on board Flight 901. The Chippendale report attributed the captain’s decision to drop to a height below the approved level as being the main cause of the accident. A year later Justice Peter Mahon’s report instead placed the blame for the accident on the airline’s systems. Public opinion has remained divided ever since on where the blame for the disaster should rest. 
Then 12 years ago 14 people lost their lives when the viewing platform at Cave Creek collapsed. That platform had been designed approved and built by people who lacked engineering building or design qualifications. A commission of inquiry found that the Department of Conservation had acted illegally and negligently in constructing the platform. Resignations followed and procedures were changed but no prosecutions resulted. 
Although mass fatal disasters such as those are engraved on our collective memory less known but just as worthy of attention is the number of individual deaths that have occurred from the malfunctioning of corporate State or company responsibility. Edited out of the glossy annual reports has been the fact that people have been dying of poverty and neglect for years. Every member of this House will have been approached by advocacy groups such as Grey Power the Child Poverty Action Group and others who have warned us all that the savage and consistent toll of rising rates electricity and other prices is creating accelerated levels of severe hardship amongst many superannuitants beneficiaries and low-paid workers. Have we listened? What have we done? We have elderly people who die from the cold every winter. We have children who die from their basic needs not being met yet the agonising price of poverty is considered to be of less interest than the debate around a sports stadium or the victory at Valencia. Hospitals and health authorities have buried their fatal mistakes in hearings that blur the boundaries between medical misadventure and medical error. 
On the question of life and death who will take responsibility? When will we recognise that when tragedies occur and corporates are involved we expect people to take responsibility? How hard is it to say one is sorry? Not only did the Muliaga family suffer because of the neglect of a State agency but what must be of serious concern to all members in this House is the way that the family was treated after the tragedy occurred. One would have expected the police with their recent profile to show far more sensitivity than to rush into the house and treat the children—the recently bereaved children—as witnesses in terms of a crime sheet. It is very sad and disappointing that innocent children heartbroken by the loss of their mum were then exposed to the cold process of interrogation which has been reported at large. And then for the widowed husband to be put through the gauntlet as well—well that beggars belief! 
Accusations of brutish corporate heartlessness in the wake of recent events have given rise to the call of the Maori Party to consider the relevance of providing for an offence of corporate manslaughter. It is a concept that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions President Ross Wilson has previously supported suggesting that in cases of gross negligence company principals should not be protected from criminal law by the corporate facade. Of course we do need to have proper guidelines in place. We need regulations in order to determine where responsibility lies—the lines of accountability between companies State-owned enterprises businesses and the Government. But when accidents occur and when tragedies happen—as they do and will continue to do—the law must see that justice will be done. 
Justice will be seen to be done when we have effective laws in place to prosecute organisations that pay scant regard to the proper management of health and safety—with fatal results. Justice will be seen to be done when an organisation accepts liability if the way that its activities are organised causes a person’s death. Justice will be seen to be done when a corporate body acknowledges that its culpability amounts to a gross breach of the duty of care owed by that organisation to the deceased. Justice will mean that we have legislation that will make it easier than it is at present to prosecute companies when gross negligence is deemed to have contributed to death. 
We in the Maori Party believe that many more issues surrounded the health and well-being of FololeMuliaga. We asked why she was discharged from hospital when clearly her health was in a crisis state. We asked why the guidelines that Mercury Energy and Mighty River Power already had in place were not followed in that case and perhaps in many others that we have not heard about. We asked when agencies will take seriously the task of making information freely available to their clients in order to enable them to be able to enjoy a quality of life rather than having their guidelines and policies simply gathering dust and sitting in manuals that are never looked at. I personally have been asked by people about what they should do when they get into situations like that of the Muliaga family. We think that New Zealanders have the right to ask for information about basic services—services that sustain life and well-being. We do not think that is too much to ask for. 
We cannot let another tragedy like this occur again. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that information is available that guidelines are tight and most of all that communities are cared for. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin by extending my condolences and very deepest sympathy to the family of FololeMuliaga on this tragic set of events. The loss of a mother and a wife is something that strikes hard at the heart of every family and the grief that that family will be enduring at this moment can only begin to be imagined. As human beings one to another our hearts go out to them. But we need to be very very careful in a situation that is so charged as this that is so shocking that we as parliamentarians do not overreact to those circumstances. 
Of course we need to ensure that the circumstances that gave rise to Mrs Muliaga’s death are rectified that there can never be a repetition that people who are in need of urgent medical services have access to those at all times and in all circumstances. But I was extraordinarily angered last week on the very day of her funeral to listen to  
Morning Report 
 and a slanging match between the two major political parties in this House about culpability. That was what prompted my comments about political grandstanding not the attendance of the Prime Minister at the funeral at the family’s invitation. I could not begin to conceive how insensitive it was on the day of the funeral when the family’s emotions would be at their most taut and most strained to have the so-called leaders of this country arguing about whether heavy-handed regulation or something more cavalier was the circumstance that required action. That was the height of insensitivity. It was callous and it was brutal. 
It is a timely reminder to all of us in such awful circumstances—and these are awful circumstances—that our responsibility is to ensure that there are no repetitions but not that we rush to judgment not that we leap up and down and aggravate an already difficult and tense situation by trying to score the ultimate point. 
I think many many many New Zealanders will be shocked by the turn of events of the last fortnight. Our egalitarian status—and I agree with my colleague Mr Brown—has taken a huge knock in this country and around the world at the thought that these circumstances can occur. 
 I guess emotions naturally run high in that situation. We have to act to make sure this never happens again but please can we do so without resorting to making this the sort of sensational story that only demeans the reputation of Mrs Muliaga and her family in the way I think we have been guilty of doing in recent times. This is not something to be proud of. This is not the New Zealand way. We support people. We work with them. We reach solutions. Surely one solution must be that if ever anyone is prescribed lifesaving or necessary medical equipment there be an automatic flag from the district health board to the utilities to make sure that that equipment is able to be operated. Had that been in place in this situation these events would not have occurred. I believe that that is the point at which we should be starting to think about solutions and that is the ultimate way in which we can move forward. 
I want to end simply by repeating my condolences—my sense of sympathy—to the family in the loss they have endured and my hope that in the days ahead they can derive strength from the support of their community and can again come to grips with life and have very positive and powerful memories of the contribution of their wife and mother. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 This is indeed a solemn occasion and a solemn debate and like the previous speaker and others my heart goes out to the Muliaga family to the late mother and to family members who are mourning her passing as we speak. This indeed was and is a tragedy. 
I think Mr Dunne spoke well when he spoke of our egalitarian spirit. In his own way he talked about the outpouring of grief for the family putting his own interpretation on it—an interpretation that I respect but in some ways disagree with. I say to Mr Dunne and to others that that is done in different ways and people can interpret it as they will. I just wonder though what the media response would have been what the country’s response would have been and what in a sad political sense Parliament’s and this House’s response would have been had the Prime Minister and the Government not taken the view they did and described what happened in the terms they did—that is as a tragedy. What would have been the response had the Prime Minister not acted in the way she did—had she not attended the funeral at the invitation of the family and had she not spoken at the funeral at the invitation of the family? What statements would have been made in this House in those circumstances? 
I note Mr Brownlee’s comments. Without getting political I do note the fact that at the end of his 5-minute speech he said that he was not going to trawl over the family’s grief at this time after he had spent 5 minutes in doing so—questioning of course whether the family was receiving Working for Families assistance and the family’s financial state. I will not comment on that behaviour but leave it to the people to judge. 
But I do wonder what this House would have done if there had been a different response from the Government and the Prime Minister. I think I know what it would have done in its own petty political way. There would have been members who said that the Prime Minister had not reacted and that the Government had not expressed grief. They would have asked whose responsibility the tragedy was and said that as a State-owned enterprise an organ of the State was involved the Government should step up to the plate. And I think they would have been right to make that judgment. 
It is a bit difficult to win in politics sometimes but I think that the outpouring of emotion from Parliament from the Prime Minister and from the Government to share in the family’s grief and to lend the family support in its time of need after such a tragic passing as all Kiwis would do is appropriate. In fact it is very Kiwi to do that. It is not Kiwi to stand aside to do nothing to posture from the sidelines to talk about it and to blow the debate from one about the simple but tragic circumstance of an error of judgment into a debate about whether we have enough electricity supply about the price of electricity or about who did what to whom 10 years ago when the industry was deregulated or whatever else. I do not think that in its essence adds to the mana of this Parliament or of the speakers or adds to this debate. 
Here are the facts. A tragedy has occurred and a family has lost a mother. There were those in the community who chose to lend support; others chose to do that in other ways. It is a fact that a State-owned enterprise through a contractor visited the house and saw a piece of apparatus attached to the mum. The mum or the family was behind by less than $200 in paying the power bills and a judgment was made. I suspect that the person who cut the power off is owed a little sympathy—and the family members themselves have shown sympathy to that person. I cannot imagine what that individual is feeling. It is interesting that in that wonderful Kiwi - Pacific Island way the family that was impacted on by the loss of a mum and a wife has shown that wonderful Kiwi spirit and compassion and has extended the olive branch to the contractor and ultimately to the company. I commend them for that. I do not know whether I would have had the grit or the guts had I been in that situation to be as generous as that family has been. 
But an error of judgment was made and the question is how to address that. The Government has taken the view—and I endorse the views of Mr Dunne Peter Brown and some of the other speakers who have spoken—that it is not acceptable in this day and age that under the most tawdry stressful or vulnerable circumstances the basic human need of electricity should be withdrawn because a paltry sum owed on a power bill cannot be paid at a given time. The sum was $168 I believe or less than $200. Surely there is a better way as the Government has said to manage that. I have worked in the private sector. I believe in free markets actually. I believe one has to pay one’s bills but I also believe as most Kiwis do that there has to be a degree of social responsibility. 
The Government responded in I think a reasonably logical way. We would have been pilloried had we rushed in and decided to legislate or called the House back to ram through a bill or do whatever else as some who were trying to politicise the show said we should do. What we did was to look at the guidelines—and that is what they are; guidelines. The guidelines recommend that a State-owned enterprise should provide information to victims if they are in the mire and cannot pay their bills. The record I am told shows that over the 5 to 7 years that this family had some problems that basic information—that recommendation—was not taken up and the information may not have been passed on. The Government has moved to say that it will strengthen the guidelines. Instead of insisting that it is recommended to State-owned enterprises that they provide information we have simply done this. We have said they must advise consumers who may have difficulty paying their bills of the assistance available from Government agencies and community service providers. 
In essence actually State-owned enterprises are to do what most companies in the private sector that are good corporate citizens do anyway—that is talk to their customers. They want to be paid and the way to be paid is to talk to customers and work through the proposition not to pull the pin or flick the switch. But we have deemed it appropriate to ensure there are some compulsory safeguards in place so it will be a requirement that that information is furnished to those people. We say that retailers must take steps to identify vulnerable consumers who are having difficulty in paying their bills and must consult with the Ministry of Social Development before disconnecting power from any vulnerable consumer. At no time during that process we say can a retailer disconnect power from a vulnerable consumer. 
I would have thought that is a pretty good package to put in place. It goes from a recommendation to a requirement. It states that once people are identified as being vulnerable—and of course I am sure the Opposition and others will say there will be those who will try to pull the wool and abuse the system but it is better to have that than to have a repeat of the tragedy we are debating today—there is a default position of referring them to our social agencies which can then hopefully do a deal and assist those people. The power keeps flowing the budget advice goes in or whatever else is needed the power company is paid and by doing that firstly everybody stays alive and secondly the problem is resolved. 
Mr Brownlee has said to me on air that there is too much regulation. Well I think that this is actually a very logical and common-sense proposition. Many companies that I have worked for in the private sector actually exhibit social responsibility and do members know why? It is because it makes damn good business sense to treat one’s customers well. It ensures that they pay their bills it ensures that the company receives the money and it gives the company a good name as a decent corporate citizen. Social responsibility makes sense. It is not some sort of PC kaftans-and-sandals type of concept that wanders around the ether. It makes corporate sense to look after and communicate with customers and to go the extra mile sometimes to ensure that customers are looked after so that they pay their bills. This is a logical commercial business proposition. 
I just conclude by saying that history will judge those who have participated in this debate and it will judge them on the way they acted publicly. I share the grief of the family. As I say I do not know whether I would have had the generosity of spirit that its members have shown in a terrible time of tragedy. I suspect I would not have had it; to be honest I probably would not have had it. But they have shown a generosity of spirit. The Prime Minister and the Government have tried to move to that space and resolve a problem swiftly so that we do not have another tragedy like this one which should have never happened and should never happen again. I think that is a position of logic and of compassion and at the end of the day Kiwis will judge it as such. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I add my condolences and sympathies to those expressed by my colleagues in this Parliament to the Muliagafamily at this tragic time. I think that the hearts of New Zealanders went out to this family because this was a hard-working Kiwi family. This was not people bludging off the system; this was a family with four children that was trying to make ends meet and we understand earning a low income. 
That is what I want to ask the Government about this afternoon because I believe that it is a hugely important issue. In New Zealand over many years now New Zealanders have come to take some pride in the fact that where people in this country make the effort to help themselves and to take care of their families we are prepared to step in and support them. That is the basis of family support which was started as a policy in this country many years ago by a Labour Government. It is the basis of this Labour Government’s flagship Working for Families policy so one question that I think needs to be answered in the debate this afternoon is whether this family was benefiting from that policy. From what we read we are led to believe that this hard-working family was trying to make ends meet on $400 a week—that is what I read in the media somewhere—which is $20000 a year assuming the income earner is working full time. No family of four can live on that; it is simply not possible to live on that amount. That is why over the years a whole series of policies to support hard-working families has been put in place and supported by successive Governments to make sure that no working family has to try to survive on $400 a week because it simply is not possible. 
This afternoon in this debate I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon David Benson-Pope crowing about the Government’s wonderful Working for Families policy and the amount of money the Government has put into it. That is fine; I guess that a Labour Minister will do that. I heard the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who has just finished speaking criticise my colleague Gerry Brownlee for asking whether this family was in receipt of all it was entitled to under New Zealand’s systems to support our low-income hard-working families. I believe that there are questions this Labour Government should answer because the Working for Families package is one of its flagship policies. At the last election people may recollect that taxpayers in this country poured another $800 million I think into the Working for Families package in order to help low-income hard-working families. Over the next little while I want Labour members to make it clear to the public whether this flagship family support policy is working. 
We know from what we are told that the Muliaga family is a proud family and I congratulate it on that. This family did not want to be on a benefit which perhaps it could have been on. So I presume that the father of this family is working independently of the benefit system and we are told trying to survive on $400 a week. The salary or wage this family is earning is $20000 a year; I asked the Minister of Revenue not that long ago what kind of support under the new Working for Families package such a family would receive. One of the four children is I believe beyond the age of being called dependent so let us say that three of the children are dependent. I do not know the facts for certain because I do not want to get too specific in relation to the particular family’s circumstances. 
The Minister of Revenue told me that a family with three dependent children independent of the primary benefit system and earning $20000 a year—that is $400 a week—would be entitled to the following tax support. It would receive a family tax credit of about $1300. In addition to that it would receive family support after abatement—although in fact at that level of income there would be no abatement—of $10192. In addition to that $20000 of earned income if the family were independent of the benefit system it would also receive $1320 of in-work payment after abatement. 
So on $20000 of earned income after PAYE had been deducted and after the proper tax credits had been paid under the Government’s flagship Working for Families policy that family should not have been trying to live off $20000 a year but it should have been getting well over 50 percent more than that—and I presume living in Auckland that it would have been entitled to the accommodation supplement as well. This means that it should have been entitled to something more like twice the level of income it was getting without having to go on to standard benefits or into the standard benefit system. Just through the tax credit system alone it should have been entitled to support of more than 50 percent of its earned income—that is its net support which does not include an accommodation supplement. 
I believe that Government Ministers must make it very clear whether this family was in receipt of those entitlements. If that family was legally employed in this country—and I have no reason to doubt that it was—then there has been a major major policy failure that far exceeds issues around the cost of electricity. It is a major policy failure if the flagship family support policy failed to look after a family in this country that was working—working hard and working for income that seems extraordinarily and sadly low. I have not heard that question answered because it is possible that the family was not receiving that level of support. I think that members of this Labour Government should make it clear whether their flagship policy was working because if that hard-working family that suffered this unthinkable tragedy was not getting that full level of support then that is a major major failure of policy by this Labour Government and we should know whether that failure has happened. 
I put it to this Labour Government that in the legislation recently introduced following the Budget—the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill—those various elements of support for working families have had their names changed. Whoopee do—they have had their names changed! For example a family tax credit now becomes a minimum family tax credit etc. But what has not changed is how these family support elements are made to work. 
The Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill will now require employers when they employ someone legally to go through a whole new rigmarole of enrolling them in a savings scheme. Would it be beyond the wit of a Government to come up with an implementation policy that enabled employers to make sure that when they employ people they actually get them on the various tax credit support systems they are entitled to without there being a risk of a low-income family like that falling through the cracks? 
Judging by the way Government members are hanging their heads I suspect that this family did fall through the cracks. I suspect that this family was probably not in receipt of the support entitlements it was entitled to and I believe that that is a grave failure in policy. This Labour Government should be thinking about how it makes sure that someone who is legally employed in this country should be legally entitled automatically to receive the various tax credits to which he or she is entitled. 
Of course the moment that that does not happen people have to have the knowledge to apply for those credits. Some hard-working families may not know that they have the opportunity to apply for them or they may not have the wherewithal to do so. If it is good enough for people legally employed now to be able automatically to be put into savings schemes it ought to be good enough for our hard-working low-income people in this country automatically to get the tax credits to which they are entitled. Sadly I feel that this family probably did not get those credits. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Motions 
Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note that 8 June 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the passing by this House of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 and resolve that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon – free world; and that in striving for a world free of nuclear weapons the House call for: the implementation and strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty including the unequivocal undertaking made by nuclear weapon States in 2000 to move towards the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals; the expansion and strengthening of nuclear weapon – free zones and a nuclear weapon – free Southern Hemisphere; the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; the enactment of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; and the universal implementation of nuclear non-proliferation instruments such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 
. 
Twenty years ago this month on 8 June 1987 the fourth Labour Government passed through this House legislation that committed New Zealand to being nuclear-free. In moving the third reading of the legislation Prime Minister David Lange said that it represented “a fundamental reassessment of what constitutes our security.” He said that nuclear weapons did not guarantee New Zealand’s security but were detrimental to it. 
The legislation at the time was controversial. It was bitterly opposed by the National Opposition. National leader Jim Bolger called it “an exercise in futility”. Periodically since then political parties opposed to being nuclear-free or political parties that adopt a non-nuclear stance as an opportunistic position rather than an article of faith have attempted to challenge the legislation. But Lange was prophetic when he stated that “The bill will not allow any successive New Zealand Government to reverse that policy without first going through the test of democratic opinion at the general election and secondly without subjecting its legislative process for repeal to the scrutiny of an informed House of Representatives and the general public.” With the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders supporting this country’s nuclear-free status our being clean green and non-nuclear has become an essential part of our identity. The policy has stayed—it was Don Brash who was gone by lunchtime. 
The Labour Party opposition to nuclear weapons is of course longstanding. At the height of the cold war in 1959 the then Prime Minister Walter Nash at the United Nations stood apart from our ANZUS partners to support a treaty to ban nuclear testing. In 1973 Norman Kirk proudly sent a frigate up to the testing zone at Mururoa to protest at French nuclear testing. Martyn Finlay took a case to the International Court of Justice to end atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons—and shortly thereafter that testing did indeed cease. 
The fourth Labour Government passed the legislation we are commemorating today—the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act—to set out in statute a prohibition on nuclear weapons in New Zealand and visits by nuclear-powered ships. It was the strongest way we could express our view that far from providing security the nuclear arms race posed a threat to humanity. Human history of course has been marked by conflict but never before had human beings possessed the ability to entirely destroy their own planet and with it humanity—an ability we gained with the possession of nuclear weapons. 
This legislation showed two things. First it showed that New Zealand was prepared to lead the world in opposition to the existence and the build up of nuclear arms. Secondly it showed our readiness as a small but proudly independent nation to speak out for the values we believed in. In that sense the nuclear-free legislation has come not only to embody our strong opposition to weapons of mass destruction but also to represent the assertion of our right to promote our firmly held beliefs without the need first to seek the concurrence of stronger friends or allies. 
Twenty years on is this legislation still relevant and necessary? The answer I believe is an unequivocal “Yes”. There continues to be the need for New Zealand to provide a strong voice for nuclear disarmament and against proliferation. The cold war may be over with some reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons but we have not yet achieved the elimination of those weapons. Indeed today there is still a stockpile of over 27000 nuclear warheads each with an explosive force between eight and 40 times greater than that of the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. 
Just last week in response to the United States’ plans for a nuclear missile defence shield Russia tested new long-range missiles. President Putin went as far as declaring that the nuclear arms race had restarted. This year China fired a missile into space to destroy a satellite and progress has not yet been made on preventing the extension of an arms race into outer space. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has still not come into effect negotiations have not even begun on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the conference on disarmament in Geneva has not progressed for more than a decade. Thousands of nuclear weapons remain on a hair-trigger alert. There would be little time to prevent retaliation if a missile were fired by accident or miscalculation. 
The number of countries possessing nuclear weapons has increased by at least three—India Pakistan and North Korea—and probably four with Israel as well. Just 4 years ago two of those countries India and Pakistan were on the brink of a conflict that could have become a nuclear conflict. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency 30 more countries are capable of going nuclear in a short period. Iran has given the international community grounds for believing that it is seeking nuclear weapons capability which adds new dangers to an already volatile region given its hostile relationship with Israel. Terrorist groups are openly acknowledging that their quest is for weapons of mass destruction thereby creating new nightmare scenarios in the post- 9/11 environment. 
Not only does our nuclear-free legislation remain relevant but the leadership stance that New Zealand took in 1987 continues to be necessary. Together with likeminded countries—Ireland Sweden Brazil Mexico South Africa and Egypt—New Zealand makes up the New Agenda Coalition which continues to push initiatives in vital multilateral negotiations such as the non-proliferation treaty. With Brazil we are at the forefront of a push to bring nuclear weapon – free zones together into a Southern Hemisphere nuclear weapon – free zone. We strongly support efforts to stop proliferation through active participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Under the G8 global partnership we have contributed to projects to destroy chemical weapons in Russia and to close down the last plutonium-producing nuclear reactor in Siberia. This year we are embarking on a new project to help stop the smuggling of fissile material across the Russia-Ukraine border. 
 New Zealand contributes to and implements the policies of all export control groups designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear goods and technologies. We comply with all United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction. We also acknowledge that conventional weapons have killed literally tens of millions of people since the Second World War in localised conflicts. As Kofi Annan has said their effect has been to act as weapons of mass destruction. We have played a key role in opposition to landmines and cluster munitions and in support of an arms trade treaty. 
I believe that New Zealand can be proud of its role in disarmament and non-proliferation as well as the specific legislation we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of in the House today. Our greatest challenge may be that having survived six decades with nuclear weapons the world has become complacent about the dangers they pose. I believe that Albert Einstein’s warning remains relevant. He said: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” 
It is with real pride that I stand up as part of a Government that has followed on from our predecessor fourth Labour Government which passed legislation that made New Zealand a leader in the area of opposing the madness of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and proliferation. We believed it then; we have believed it ever since. We will continue until we achieve the goal of the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and most particularly of those weapons that are nuclear weapons. Thank you. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The National Party endorses and supports the motion moved by the honourable Minister of Defence today. The fact that both major political parties represented in this Parliament are able to support such a resolution should be and I believe will be welcomed by the vast majority of New Zealanders. We are a small country with vital interests to advance in relation to trade security and international affairs. Where possible we should speak with one voice on the international stage. I therefore welcome the fact that this motion will enjoy the overwhelming support of the House today. 
I take this opportunity to reflect not just on the wider challenges outlined by the Minister’s motion but also on the unresolved issues that remain as a consequence of the legislation that was passed 20 years ago. Few in this House will disagree with the assertion in the motion to “resolve that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon free world;”. 
The nuclear-free legislation emerged a generation ago from New Zealanders’ concerns over the cold war nuclear arms race. It was a terrifying thought that two nuclear superpowers the United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in an arms race seemingly without end could make a frightful miscalculation with unimaginable consequences for the future of mankind. Only recently there has been some minor skirmishing around that theme in the lead-up to the recent G8 summit. But only a complete pessimist could survey the stated US-Russia strategic relations today and reach any conclusion other than that we seem to have decisively moved in the right direction. The threat of nuclear holocaust although still there has been vastly reduced over the last 15 to 20 years and we should all celebrate that. 
However the threat of nuclear weaponry has not gone away; it has simply changed its face. Indeed a rather different agenda of nuclear issues now occupies centre stage—what the pundits call “horizontal proliferation” or the acquiring of nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable delivery mechanisms by an increasing number of States. Some of these States are deeply unstable. There is therefore widespread support in this House for New Zealand’s role in promoting the non-proliferation cause. Domestically there is agreement between the two major political parties in this House that the nuclear-free legislation passed 20 years ago should be retained. Some would argue that we have come full circle to the era of largely bipartisan foreign policy of 25 years ago. Certainly there is very substantial room for us now to find a way forward that allows this country to chart its own foreign policy course and pursue its interests in trade security and defence in a manner that is bipartisan durable principled and worthy of international respect. 
It is important as the House pauses to note the passing of this legislation 20 years ago that we use this opportunity to look forward. The people of New Zealand did not elect this Parliament to wallow in the memories of the past 20 years but rather to establish a framework of relationships and understandings that will serve our national interest for the next 20 years. 
The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 was created 20 years ago in a somewhat controversial circumstance. Students of history have recounted in some detail the events that led to the passing of the 1987 Act. It would be fair to say that the Act however awkward or maladroit its origins now enjoys the support of the majority of New Zealanders as a central plank of our foreign policy. At the heart of this issue lies the fact that the legislation passed 20 years ago was the first significant assertion of an independent foreign policy by this country. It spelt the end of our participation in the ANZUS alliance which had until that time been the cornerstone of our defence and foreign policy approach. The 1987 legislation is often referred to as iconic. I believe that this is not just because of its specific content but because of the independence of thought and judgment that it asserts for our young country. 
My own party the National Party which had seen the ANZUS Treaty as the cornerstone of this country’s security arrangements for 50 years did not easily embrace the nuclear-free legislation. However the Bolger administration in the 1990s endorsed it and for 9 years of a National-led Government the legislation was retained. The National Party today endorses the legislation and pledges to retain it. John Key in the first days of his leadership of the National Party made that commitment clear. 
There is acceptance on both sides I believe that a cost is attached to the maintenance of the legislation. That is a simple fact of life. The presidential directive of 20 years ago that responded to New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation with restrictions on the access of New Zealand forces to US intelligence technology and joint training opportunities remains in force today. New Zealand does not have a free-trade agreement with the United States unlike our nearest neighbour Australia which 3 years into the implementation of its free-trade agreement will provide an increasingly powerful magnet for New Zealand capital and skill. There is a cost associated with the New Zealand policy. It is a cost that New Zealanders are in the significant majority happy to bear but it is also a cost they look to their political leaders to minimise through skilful diplomacy forceful advocacy and the exercise of good judgment. 
So the retention of this legislation that is called iconic and that is symbolic of our independence of thought and judgment in international affairs is not in question. What is in question is how we might best deal with the challenges that remain as a consequence of its somewhat tortured history and how we might best re-establish the relationships especially in the vital areas of trade and security that a country with our heritage our language our history of shared sacrifice and our outlook should be able to have with those who were once our allies and who are nominally—but not quite yet in the fullest operational sense—our very very good friends. That is the unfinished business of the nuclear-free debate. 
For those reasons the National Party has sought to work with the Government to improve our relationship with the United States. Our previous leader Dr Brash Mr Groser and I were in Washington last year for the United States - New Zealand Partnership Forum along with Mr Goff and we took the opportunity to emphasise the bipartisanship of our approach. We have pledged to do what we can to achieve a free-trade agreement between this country and the United States. We have pledged to do what we can to see modification—and over time possibly more than modification—of the presidential directive of 20 years ago which restricts the capacity of New Zealand forces to train with US forces or to have access to high-level technology and intelligence. We have supported the Minister of Defence in his assertion that it is hardly right that New Zealand and US forces should work together in some of the trouble spots of the world yet be restricted in their ability to train together. 
Both of those objectives—in trade and in security—are very much in our national interest. We cannot afford to leave their fortunes to the vagaries of the domestic political cycle. New Zealanders are entitled to see that their elected representatives regardless of political allegiance will work together in these matters to serve the national interest. In the spirit of serving that national interest National members join in supporting the resolution that is before the House today. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened to that speech from the Hon Murray McCully with interest. He did not even crack a smile and he certainly said it as if he believed what he was saying. But the National Party if I am correct—and I am sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed this legislation in 1987. Then National came to power in 1990 and stuck with the legislation. Yet when it got into Opposition in 1999 it said it would be gone by lunch time. Is this not the legislation that the National Party was talking about? Am I correct? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now National members are saying they will stick with it. But I thought the Hon Murray McCully was hinting that they might go the other way because he was saying there was a cost—but at the moment New Zealanders are prepared to bear that cost. 
New Zealand First supports this motion. There is reference to it among our 15 founding principles. In fact there is the statement: “New Zealanders’ desire for a non-nuclear future will be respected.” That has been in our 15 founding principles since the day this party started. We have never departed from that position over the past 14 years as I say since our inception and we remain committed to it today. 
There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealand people continue to endorse the view reflected in this legislation; they want New Zealand to remain nuclear-free. Fortunately our nuclear-free legislation is now being seen by the world for what it actually is. It was never an attempt to thumb our noses at the world but rather an opportunity to express a deeply held sentiment. It did mean that the Government of the time—and New Zealand as a whole—had to paddle its own canoe on the world stage. I thought that the Rt Hon David Lange at that time did a magnificent job. I will never forget that Oxford Union debate. It is impressed on my memory and I thought he represented his country exceedingly well. 
This is core legislation and it is about taking a step to a more idealistic world. New Zealand had the courage under Prime Minister Lange to take that step and to make it a reality. New Zealand First supports this motion and firmly supports New Zealand staying nuclear-free. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party strongly supports this motion. Twenty years ago New Zealand became a world power—not a world power in size not a world power in economic terms but a world power in moral strength. We spoke out for the majority of humanity who lived—and still live—in fear of nuclear war. We said to the most powerful nuclear-armed State—America—“No we will not allow your nuclear ships in our ports; these are an unacceptable danger to us and a danger to the world and we will set an example a nuclear-free example for other countries to follow.” 
Perhaps the Government of the time did not present it in quite such bold terms but that was the sentiment of the people. That was the sentiment among the thousands of New Zealanders who had campaigned petitioned and marched for the previous 25 years since the formation of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1959. There were people like Phil Amos a Minister in Norm Kirk’s Government who is being buried in Auckland this afternoon. Phil not only supported Norman Kirk in sending a frigate to Mururoa to protest French nuclear testing but in October 1976 a year after Labour lost power he also skippered one of the small protest boats that blocked the path of the American nuclear warship the USS  
Long Beach 
 as it tried to enter Auckland Harbour. He was arrested and convicted of obstruction but managed to win on appeal partly because he was helped by a good lawyer—one David Lange. That was the same man who as Prime Minister later shepherded the antinuclear law through our Parliament. 
New Zealanders are rightly proud of our antinuclear status and we want our Government to remain a leading campaigner for nuclear disarmament. We could do a lot more. We have to be more like how we were back in 1987 when we were the mouse that roared—the small nation standing up to the superpower America. Today the main barrier to nuclear disarmament is still the same United States Government. It not only possesses a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons but is escalating the nuclear arms race through “Star Wars” and the building of a so-called missile defence shield. Clearly such a shield will only encourage other nuclear States to increase their nuclear arsenals so that they are less disadvantaged in any future nuclear confrontation. The nuclear disarmament process has largely stalled as existing nuclear States go back on their promises under the non-proliferation treaty to get rid of all their weapons. 
New Zealand has done well in promoting disarmament resolutions as part of the new agenda coalition alongside Sweden Ireland South Africa Brazil Mexico and Egypt. But we need to be more at the forefront of promoting a nuclear weapons convention where all nuclear weapons States buy into a staged process of ceasing production of fissile material and any new bombs and step by step—but completely—disarming under a tight inspection regime. Unfortunately New Zealand has yet to take up the offer of Costa Rica and Malaysia to support their nuclear weapons convention proposal in the General Assembly this October. The concept involved is not that radical today. Even former war hawks like George Shultz who as US Secretary of State in 1985 tried to keep us in the pro-nuclear ANZUS alliance and Henry Kissinger now say that “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures towards achieving that goal would be and would be perceived as a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage.” We could also play a more active leadership role in linking up the nuclear-free zones in the South Pacific South-east Asia Latin America and Africa into a southern hemisphere and adjacent areas nuclear-free zone. 
Although being firmly against the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries we should not adopt the Bush administration’s biased view of where the main dangers come from. Surely the danger comes more from Israel—secretly nuclear-armed and often engaged in warfare with its neighbours—or the nuclear-armed Pakistani dictatorship than from Iran which we are not yet even sure wants to acquire nuclear weapons. 
New Zealand has done many creditable things since it became nuclear-free. One highlight was the successful campaign that resulted in 1996 in the World Court declaring that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was generally illegal. That campaign started with a Christchurch magistrate Harold Evans expanded to an active New Zealand peace group—the World Court Project—and later gained New Zealand Government backing. It was a fantastic achievement for New Zealand and shows just what we can achieve if we stick to our antinuclear principles and actually try to lead the world. Thank you. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to honour the countless thousands of New Zealanders over a generation who brought about the 1987 New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act. I note in passing that the Act covers not just nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament—which of course is the most important part—but also nuclear energy generation with the recognition that there is a close connection between the proliferation of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that the technologies are quite closely connected. 
 I honour those people who wrote submissions marched on countless marches in the street wrote to and met with politicians passed motions at Labour Party conferences for 10 years before the Act was passed and sailed their little boats and even their windsurfers into the paths of visiting nuclear submarines and ships—and even stopped one in its tracks in Auckland harbour. I honour those who took part in the royal commission on nuclear power and managed to defer a technology that was about to be built and those who organised the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Campaign for Non-Nuclear Futures . I honour Greenpeace and those who organised Campaign Half Million and collected a third of a million signatures—the largest petition in New Zealand’s history at that stage—at street stalls by door-knocking in schools in churches in sports clubs and in businesses. 
I note in passing that that organising work was done by the Values Party in the 1970s the ancestor of the Green Party. It was done anonymously so that the important work would not be contaminated with a political label. Nevertheless that is where the leadership in those days came from. I want to honour those who designed posters researched leaflets and advocated sustainable energy alternatives. 
I returned to New Zealand in 1974 after 7 years in Europe to find New Zealand in the midst of a decision as to precisely where to site New Zealand’s first nuclear power station. The citizens of New Zealand stopped that. This was a genuine citizens’ movement that compelled Parliament to act. So I commend not just Parliament and the Government of that time whose actions were crucial but the citizens who made it happen. 
I remember that in 1983 Helen Caldicott had been visiting and lecturing around the country about how close we were to the imminent risk of nuclear war. The Union of Concerned Scientists had moved its doomsday clock to 4 minutes to midnight. On 6 August 1983 Hiroshima Day  Aotea Square at the end of Queen Street in Auckland was crammed with people preparing to march up Queen Street. A woman turned to me and said: “What a good idea to have a march on Hiroshima Day.” and I said: “Yes there are certainly more people than we’ve had for the past 20 years.” She said: “Oh do you mean people have done this before?”. It was a moment in history when the work of people for decades came together and fired the public imagination. 
I also recall that in 1997 on the tenth anniversary of the legislation as a new member of Parliament I introduced as a member’s bill the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Extension Bill which set out to fill the gaps in the 1987 legislation. There are some gaps. Not many people realise that although nuclear weapons are prohibited from our 12-mile zone one can actually station and fire a nuclear weapon 13 miles off the coast of New Zealand or that although nuclear-powered ships are prohibited from our harbours they are not prohibited from cruising along our coast a very short distance out. We have a responsibility to protect 200 miles of our economic zone to protect our fisheries and to protect the environment in that area. Unfortunately the Government at the time did not proceed with the bill although it did allow the bill to go to a select committee and we had an intense debate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which hauled out all its big guns and managed to kill the bill that would have filled those gaps. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It had something to do with UNCLOS. It’s international law Jeanette. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: There were many different ways of reading the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and we had very good legal advice from international lawyers that the convention was compatible with the bill. 
So there is a lot of work to do to eliminate nuclear weapons to implement the test-ban treaty to disinvest our superannuation savings from nuclear weapons production and to finish the job of protecting our economic zone. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou te Whare . I am proud to stand here today on behalf of the Maori Party to honour all those who worked so hard to make Aotearoa nuclear-free many years ago. In doing so I wish to start by honouring Labour Cabinet Minister and Tai Tokerau MP the Hon Matiu Rata  who sailed with a fleet of yachts to Mururoa to protest against French nuclear-testing in the Pacific. A Cabinet Minister and a Maori one at that sailed into a nuclear-testing zone. Me mihi ki a ia. 
I express my thanks to my Pacific cousins for their strength and their support dating back more than 30 years to the Conference for a Nuclear Free Pacific in Fiji in 1975 and in Ponape in 1978. I also remember the sterling efforts of people like my mum and others who fought to broaden the scope of those conferences so that by 1983 the conference in Vanuatu produced  
The Peoples’ Charter for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific 
 which stated: “We the people of the Pacific have been victimised too long by foreign powers. The western imperialistic and colonial powers invaded our defenceless region they took over our lands and subjugated our people to their whims. This form of alien colonial political and military domination unfortunately persists as an evil cancer in some of our native territories such as Tahiti New Caledonia Australia New Zealand. Our environment continues to be despoiled by foreign powers developing nuclear weapons for a strategy of warfare that has no winners no liberators and imperils the survival of all humankind. We note in particular the recent racist roots of the world’s nuclear powers and we call for an immediate end to the oppression exploitation and subordination of the indigenous people of the Pacific.” 
I am also reminded that the call for a nuclear-free Pacific came at the same time as the Maori Land March of 1975—a natural connection arising out of colonisation land confiscation environmental destruction and nuclear war. I note that Maori have always had a strong presence in the fight for a nuclear-free Aotearoa including Matiu Rata NganekoMinhinnick Pauline Tangiora Grace and Sharon Robertson and indeed my own wife Hilda Halkyard amongst many others. Indeed it was not long after the first national black women’s hui held in Tau Henare’s home town of Otara in 1980 that the Pacific People’s Anti-Nuclear Action Committee was set up by Hilda Halkyard-Harawira and Grace Robertson. They had no money but their own no resources save those they could appropriate a tiny office at Kokiri te Rahuitanga ki Otara and attitude to burn. The committee’s goals were based on  
The Peoples’ Charter for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific 
 and in 1980 the committee hosted Te Hui Oranga o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa at TataiHono Marae in Auckland. At that time TataiHono was the home base to the notorious Anglican activist the Rev. Hone Kaa; the stay-over for people involved in Bastion Point occupations; the launching pad for He Taua the War Party that in 60 seconds ended decades of racist abuse at Auckland University; the theatre for indigenous performances like Maranga Mai; the debating chamber for the Waitangi Action Committee; the meeting place for the Patu squad during the Springbok Tour trials; the breeding ground for independent Maori thought; and a seething hotbed of Maori radicalism. 
Te Hui Oranga was an extremely important hui for Maori because it dragged us kicking and screaming out of our own world and connected us to people facing similar issues in the Pacific. Te Hui Oranga attracted more than 120 people from all over the Pacific who had gathered for a common purpose: “to speak of land rights movements throughout the Pacific in their broadest context and the struggle of indigenous people everywhere to regain power over their lives and lands and resist global military and economic interests.” 
Te Hui Oranga was the first of its kind in Aotearoa bringing four international leaders to the forum including Charlie Ching a Tahitian independence leader; Grace Smallwood and Mike Smith Koori from north Queensland; and MariflorParpan of the Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition and helping Maori to see their own plight as part of a global movement. 
I also want to use this anniversary of the 1987 legislation to acknowledge others who helped shape that history; a history where Herbs expressed the nation’s anti-nuclear feelings through songs like “French Letter” “No Nukes” “Light of the Pacific” and “Nuclear Waste”; a history that poet Hone Tuwhare captured in his own special ode to nuclear madness “No Ordinary Sun”; a history that links us through the threat of nuclear destruction to the people of the Marshall Islands who still suffer from American nuclear tests the people of Bikini and Rongelap evacuated and devastated by the surface testing of US nuclear weapons; our cousins from Tahiti Nui who have been killed and mutilated by French nuclear-testing on Mururoa and Fangataufa; New Zealand Australian and Pacific military used as guinea pigs in the British nuclear programmes on Malden Island and Christmas Island; the Koori people pushed out of the Maralinga desert for nuclear testing; the people of Kwajalein forced to host the Ronald Reagan missile test site; and the people of Guam and Hawaii who continued to enjoy the stockpiling of nuclear weapons battleships bombers and military operations. It is a history that links the Pacific and a common resistance against the effects of colonisation—physical cultural spiritual economic nuclear and military—and a history with a common struggle for self-determination and independence. 
I want to acknowledge too the importance of the anti-nuclear protests during that time in helping to define a distinctive identity here in Aotearoa. Following on from the strident Viet Nam protests there was the Maori Land March the protests at Waitangi the many land occupations throughout the country as Maori took their own place in the new world and the protests against the Springbok Tour. 
I also acknowledge the work of international organisations like Greenpeace and I make special mention here of Fernando Pereira whom my wife and I had the privilege to meet just hours before he was killed when the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 was blown up by French agents and sunk in Auckland Harbour. I acknowledge too the efforts of ordinary Kiwis who raised their opposition to nuclear power from 30 percent in 1978 to more than 90 percent by 1986. 
I acknowledge Helen Clark for pushing the bill to make Aotearoa nuclear-free when a lot of her own party were not particularly keen on it. I acknowledge Marilyn Waring the National MP who voted with her conscience and supported the Opposition’s nuclear-free New Zealand bill and brought down our own Government in the process. 
I acknowledge David Lange for whopping Jerry Falwell on the public stage in Oxford in a debate “That nuclear weapons are morally indefensible” winning the debate and earning international admiration for our position. I particularly acknowledge all New Zealanders for not allowing our Governments to cave in when the Yanks tried to force us to back down. 
Our anti-nuclear status is now an integral part of our society something we must never forget and something we must always be prepared to step forward on. We must never forget the courage of those who fought for our country to be nuclear-free and we must never forget those who continue to suffer ongoing problems from nuclear testing. 
In closing let me quote from the re-versioning of Hone Tuwhare’s poem “No Ordinary Sun” as it was re-presented by Maranga Mai all over the nation as a warning to us all that this fight is nowhere near over. 
Tree—let your arms fall; don’t raise them to the bright cloud 
Soon they will lack toughness 
For this is no mere axe to blunt or fire to smother you  
Your sap won’t rise again to the pull of the moon 
Your ears bend to the winds talk or stir to the trickle of rain  
Your branches won’t be wreathed with the delightful flight of birds 
Or shield lovers from the bright sun.  
Tree—let your arms fall; don’t raise them to the bright cloud  
For this is no ordinary sun.  
No ordinary sun.  
And your end is written at last …  
Kia ora tatou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 As a member of Parliament in 1987 I was proud to vote for New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legislation and were similar legislation to come before the House today I would be proud to support it again. But the real significance of that legislation has only in recent years dawned upon the New Zealand consciousness and I want to return to that theme a little later on. 
I think that if we go back to the 1960s the 1970s and the 1980s we can see that the anti-nuclear call was as much about New Zealand asserting its identity in the world as it was about a commitment to a genuinely anti-nuclear future. When Norman Kirk sent the frigate  
Otago 
 to Mururoa in 1973 and he stood on the wharf at Devonport and said: “We may only be a small nation but we send a message to the world by this act.” most New Zealanders at that point said that that was absolutely right. That was a mark of our position in the world; that was our statement about where we stood. 
 Again when Martyn Finlay stood up at the World Court and presented the case with the reluctant Australians in tow that was New Zealand asserting its position. A decade later the Lange Government did the same. The cynics may say that the anti-nuclear mantle of that Government was a convenient cloak for the economic reforms that were going on in parallel time. There may be some truth in that but I think it is a cynical view. But there is no doubt that as with the Kirk era earlier David Lange and his Government were able to take on that anti-nuclear role and shape a New Zealand identity around it. 
I recall being a very young—and I stress that—MP in Washington when Mr Lange passed through on his way to the Oxford Union debate. What was extraordinary was watching the way in which the local television and news services reported his presence in the United States. “Prime Minister Lange is in town” the stories said—not “Prime Minister Lange from New Zealand that little country down at the end of the Pacific”. 
In that moment David Lange assumed a position on the world stage in the way we talk about President Bush or Prime Minister Blair. They do not have be qualified in terms of where they are from. It was as though people knew it was Prime Minister Lange from New Zealand. Watching the way the American media reacted to this man—who was a strange man really because after all he was challenging all that was orthodox to them—their deference respect and curiosity made it very comforting and made me feel very proud as a New Zealander that that was our leader standing up for our country. It was still that identity issue. 
Again a decade later when Jim Bolger sent not a frigate as we did not have too many of those in those days but a weather-research ship or something of equivalent nature up to Mururoa it was a part of the New Zealand story. I remember that Brian Neeson and Chris Carter drew lots to make sure they could be there together and Mr Hodgson was there at one point as well. 
While all of those things were going on and the anti-nuclear message was becoming implanted in the New Zealand conscience and with it that sense of “clean green” New Zealand and all of that spin-off I think if we are brutally honest we were a little less aware of the broader global picture. The fact was that nuclear weapons were still being produced nuclear weapons were still being targeted and rogue States still existed—as they do today—with the capacity to inflict immense destruction with their indiscriminate and irresponsible use of such weapons. It has really only been in the years since 2000 I believe that we have started to focus much more strongly on the international context and on the need to be active in asserting not so much New Zealand’s identity important though that is but the need for international agreements and limitations and the move to disarmament. 
That is why I believe the commemoration and this resolution is so timely. Yes it is great to wallow in a bit of nostalgia and a few of us did of that yesterday. We all looked considerably fresh and youthful—I know Mr Goff would agree with me and Mr Anderton as well—as we lined up for those photos. It was a sense of vigour rediscovered. 
That is important in terms of history for those of us who were there but today the important thing is really to talk about what we do about those States that are still part of the nuclear club. Just in the last week or so we have had a reminder of how tense things are with the byplay between Mr Putin and President Bush over whether we will have missiles relocated in parts of Europe and pointed in certain directions. It points out how fragile the international environment is. Although we can sit here secure and confident in our status there is still an almighty job to be done in the international community. 
I remember going to the NATO headquarters in 1985 and thereby hangs a tale. I am the only New Zealander and I think probably the only person ever to have got into NATO without any form of identification other than an old New Zealand driver’s licence—the ones that did not even have a photograph on them—but that was all I had with me. I remember the Secretary-General a gentleman from Austria whose name temporarily escapes me making a point somewhat sneeringly but I think truthfully. He said: “Oh it is all very well for you in New Zealand. Of course if we lived as far away from the scenes of international conflict as you do we would be nuclear-free as well.” 
That is the challenge. We have the luxury of isolation and we should hold on to that and the position of our nuclear-free status. But we need to be much more active I believe in pursuing disarmament issues internationally. I say that with no disrespect to the current Minister but I really think the change that has occurred as a result of our anti-nuclear stand becoming mainstream is that the old mantra we used to chant about this being New Zealand’s policy and not for export—we were not trying to convince the world in those days—should be changed. 
Maybe we should be trying to convince the world and maybe we should be using that position of moral leadership more effectively than we have done over a long period of time. We used to say that this was just a New Zealander policy. We were proud of it but we did not want to be promoting more broadly what others called the New Zealand disease. In that time we have seen Iran and Pakistan acquiring a nuclear capacity and a nuclear status and there are ongoing questions about Israel and others. 
There is a role for a country like New Zealand—that watching sentinel that Norman Kirk talked about all those years ago—to be in the forefront. We should be active in bringing other countries to account for their acquisition maintenance and upgrading of their nuclear arsenals. So I look on this resolution as not so much a celebration of our status and the fact that this legislation has endured for 20 years—and now has if not all-party support most-party support—and will endure for the next 20 years and beyond but much more a challenge of what we need to do to ensure that our children grow up in a peaceful and nuclear-free world. We can be satisfied about what we have achieved and that is good but the challenge from here is about what we need to do to ensure that the benefits we so confidently took upon ourselves are delivered for our children and our children’s children. 
I think that the timeliness of this resolution is a reminder of what yet needs to be done and I hope that in 20 years’ time Parliament—and maybe some of us might still be here; who knows because we will be youthful enough—will be able to celebrate the achievements of the next 20 years. [ 
Interruption 
] I am very positive! I know that Mr Anderton wants to be here in 20 years and I am sure there will be a few of us here to help him along the way. 
But seriously we can celebrate what we have done to ensure that our world is better as a result of the moves initiated in New Zealand by successive generations of politicians. So I am very pleased to support the motion and I look forward to what the next stage of this journey will be. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to support the Minister’s motion. ACT supports the fact that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon – free world and strive for a world free of nuclear weapons. 
I note that the motion also draws the House’s attention to the fact that last Friday 8 June was the 20th anniversary of the passing of the nuclear-free legislation. That legislation has in fact been a double-edged sword and I think we should also look at other dates in history in particular 8 June 1942 when Japanese submarines shelled the Australian cities of Sydney and Newcastle. That should act as a timely reminder that New Zealand perilously close to Australia is not immune to external threat even today. 
A little bit of history I think is important in this whole debate. The history of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy is revealing. It began when the Labour Government the Lange Government in 1987 passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act. The move was very popular within the Labour Party at the time and I think that not much has been made of that today. 
Many members of the Labour Party at that time were very angry about the free-market reforms being passed to deal with the economic mess that Lange had inherited in 1984. The anti-nuclear legislation gathered the left of the party around him—something that obviously was very desirable to him at that time. It is often forgotten that he initially sought to ban only nuclear weapons but was persuaded to ban all nuclear vessels from New Zealand shores at that time. It was not a big issue because nuclear weapons were nuclear-armed. However the cold war was about to end surprisingly quickly and to end in favour of the democracies. One result was a significant de-escalation of nuclear tension. Nuclear weapons were removed from surface ships including those that were nuclear-powered. 
Today visiting warships from whatever nation are certain not to be nuclear-armed but they are unwelcome in New Zealand waters anyway. This is most unfortunate as the United States of America is New Zealand’s most important ally. Key in this debate is the fact that the issue of nuclear weapons has become confused with the issue of the peaceful use of radioactive fuel. There is an overwhelming agreement that New Zealand should not be used as a base for nuclear weapons—an agreement that ACT certainly supports—and this policy is consistent with international obligations to limit the spread of nuclear weaponry. 
The use of nuclear propulsion however is a completely different issue and should be considered as a peaceful use of radioactive material. New Zealand is not nuclear-free. It already has a number of industries that use radioactive material. We import 3000 radioactive material shipments each year. Kiwis have over 1 million dental x-rays and over 2 million medical x-rays every year. Radioactive material is used frequently for medical treatment for scientific research and in the sterilisation of food. In the energy debate a significant minority favour nuclear power and any informed debate would include this as an option. Even some high-profile Greens including Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore advocate nuclear power as the environmentally acceptable power of the future. 
The nuclear propulsion debate has become emotive and confused preventing reasoned debate based on sound scientific evidence—something that Minister Hodgson used to be in favour of but not today it would appear. A nuclear-powered ship’s reactor is simply a micro-reactor powering a turbine that in turn powers the ship. 
Safety issues were certainly very well investigated and reported in the 1992 Somers report a report commissioned by the Bolger Government to examine public safety and environmental concerns in relation to visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships. It is sad that National members did not see fit to mention that in their speeches today. Mr Bolger was keen to improve our relationship with the United States at that time but was aware of the unpopularity of nuclear weapons. The Somers report found that no concerns justified the continuation of the legislative ban. These findings have been steadfastly ignored. I quote from the report: “The operational record of powered vessels of the United States and Britain is such that there has never been an accident to a propulsion reactor involving a significant release of radiation.” 
One surprising statistic is that at the time of the writing of the report more nuclear radiation was emitted from Auckland Hospital in one day than was emitted by the US Navy in that year. The Somers report is a very thorough investigation well-constructed and easy to read and I can recommend it to members of this House. It is well worth the effort for those who would like to be reliably informed. 
Forgotten in this whole debate is the fact that no nuclear-propelled surface vessel carries nuclear weapons today. It is also a fact that no nuclear or conventionally powered foreign warship would ever visit New Zealand ports without the consent of the New Zealand Government. The current legislative ban is totally unnecessary and extremely offensive to our allies. Labour and National Governments since legislation was enacted have maintained that they want to preserve a good working relationship with our traditional allies but the ban is akin to saying to friends: “Come for dinner but I don’t like the sound of your car engine so don’t drive down my street.” 
 Former ACT MP Ken Shirley submitted a member’s bill before Parliament seeking to remove clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act which bans nuclear ships from entering New Zealand’s ports and territorial waters. Neither Labour nor National supported Mr Shirley’s bill. We need a reasoned debate based on sound science. Instead we have political decisions based on hysteria and unfounded fear. 
The fact is that Labour’s nuclear-free legislation has passed its use-by date. By clinging to it we are allowing relations with our traditional allies to deteriorate. British and United States war ships whether nuclear or conventionally powered never visit New Zealand and we are no longer privy to the high level of security intelligence or the joint training exercises that our defence force previously enjoyed. That has been the flipside of the nuclear legislation to this country. 
New Zealand has made a huge contribution to international peace and freedom but we have also been a recipient of foreign military assistance particularly from the United States during the Pacific theatre of World War II. Clinging to this outdated legislation means that we may not be able to rely on such assistance ever again. 
The main problem with the nuclear debate is that the anti-nuclear sentiment and the anti-American bias intrinsic within it reaches the feverish pitch of hysteria whenever the issue is raised. There is much confusion about the differences between nuclear propulsion nuclear weapons and nuclear power as an energy source and the neo-pacifists find it politically convenient to deliberately blur the very clear lines of demarcation between them. 
In Europe a significant core of green politicians are now promoting nuclear power as the cleanest and most efficient source of energy. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been talking about the use of uranium in recent months. Can we now expect to see a backlash against these proponents of a safe and efficient means of energy production? I suspect not. Instead there has been celebration of the 20th anniversary of a nuclear-free New Zealand. There will be no useful debate on our security measures for the future no thought given to the assistance our allies have given us—such as the battle of the Coral Sea during World War II—and no discussion about how or why we enjoy the freedoms we do today. 
Helen Clark has famously said that we live in a benign strategic environment. She is wrong. The reality is that New Zealand is at risk of external threats and can no longer rely on our allies to come to our aid when we have gone a long way towards alienating them. That said ACT does support the motion before the House today. We realise that the repealing of this legislation is just a small part in this whole debate and ACT along with the other parties in this House supports the motion before the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive party supports this resolution. I must say that I thought the ACT party supported it but the previous speech must be the most amazingly half-hearted one in favour of the resolution and against nuclear proliferation that I have ever heard. 
As an agricultural-based economy we need a nuclear accident like we need a hole in the head and that was one of the driving forces originally in this legislation. The year 1987 was remarkable for New Zealand: KZ7 sailed for the America’s Cup the All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup and our nuclear-free laws became part of New Zealand’s identity. As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of our nuclear laws I hope we will hear echoes of the other great achievements of 1987 later this year. There is a lot to recall when we look back down the dusty roads and winding years that brought us to the nuclear-free law. 
I recall that the law for all its popularity today was not easily won. I recall that Fernando Pereira died aboard the Rainbow Warrior which had been campaigning in the Pacific against nuclear tests. I remember that public opinion took its time to come around to the antinuclear view—so did the National Party I might say. I remember the opprobrium heaped on those of us on the front lines in the battle for this law and I remember a list that contains the names of many of my parliamentary colleagues including the Prime Minister in this Government. Marilyn Waring showed extraordinary courage in virtually bringing down a Government over the nuclear issue. 
Among the public there was more courage. I recall the sailors whom I joined who took their boats on to our harbours in order to state their opposition. I recall going out on a 35-foot keeler when the nuclear-powered nuclear-armed submarine  
Pintado 
 came into the Waitemata Harbour. I was out there when the  
New Zealand Herald  
took a photo of a young kid on a windsurfer confronting its awesome size and power—just a kid against the might power and enormous black threat of a nuclear-armed submarine; just a person standing alone saying no. The  
New Zealand Herald  
put the photo on its front page under the heading “The courage of peace”. In that same year I went to Canada and talked at the Vancouver centennial peace conference. I showed the audience that front page and there was a spontaneous standing ovation from 80000 people. Kids sent me cards from all over Canada thanking New Zealand for having the courage to say no to nuclear weapons. 
When this law was passed 20 years ago I stood in this House and said that the passage of the law was the culmination of years of commitment of an intelligent analysis of the issues involved and of the courage on the part of thousands of New Zealanders who had protested against nuclear weapons from the time they were first used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I said that the bill was a tribute to all those New Zealanders who were loyal to their nation in their dissent and that included tens of thousands of Labour Party members of the day who were staunch in their opposition to nuclear weaponry. I continue to believe that the bill stands as a tribute to them today. 
When we remember this bill we might remember that even inside the Labour Party at the time there were those who had to be strongly encouraged to support the law. I recollect going on television as president of the Labour Party the night after the 1984 election and insisting that this bill would be passed as a priority for the incoming Government. I recollect very clearly that a few of my colleagues thought that I should not have insisted on stating Labour policy so explicitly. David Lange rightly deserves special credit for championing New Zealand’s nuclear-free status but I always said there was some irony in this because his initial stance was less fulsomely opposed. 
Attempts were made of course to bully New Zealand when we passed our legislation. I always have a strong personal regard for the way our Commonwealth cousins the Canadians respected and supported our right to make our own decisions. Many years later we have put aside the struggles of those days and I welcome that. But the need for this law is as urgent as it ever was. The nuclear threat is as present and as desperate as it ever was. Last week we had the obscene threat of a new nuclear arms race in Europe. President Putin’s threat to aim nuclear weapons at Europe was a shameful deterioration from the brink of hope that we reached at the end of the cold war. 
Just this week an international conference is under way in Miami discussing ways to prevent nuclear terrorism. The prospect that terrorists might get hold of nuclear weapons is deeply troubling and it drives home the need to keep the pressure on against nuclear proliferation. The more nuclear weapons there are the more certain it is that they will be used by someone sometime. It is not only terrorists who pose a grave threat however. When North Korea tested a nuclear bomb this year we entered the age where nuclear weapons are in the hands of fanatics. This was a tragedy for New Zealand too because we had been part of the global effort to keep nuclear weapons out of North Korea’s hands. 
Since our nuclear-free law was passed the world has swooped dangerously close to nuclear confrontation. India and Pakistan came close to a conflict at the end of the 20th century. Of course our nuclear legislation was never going to have an effect on confrontations like those but what we could hope to do was to inspire others with the promise of peace. We can show that a country can walk outside the nuclear umbrella and still not be threatened or suffer economic pressure. It is sad for us that more countries have not followed New Zealand’s lead. Now Iran is developing a nuclear capacity. If it develops weapons then others in that region will follow. I ask members to imagine nuclear-armed Israel being confronted by a nuclear-armed Hezbollah. If nuclear weapons proliferate we will surely see them used again one day and they will be used against masses of civilians. Civilisation is owed better than that. 
 New Zealand can stand only as a symbol of sanity. Our nuclear-free law is the best that we can offer the world. I never agreed with those who said our policy was not for export. I wanted other countries to be inspired by our example and I saw many that were. I want the world to see that we do not need nuclear arms that we can say no and that we can do better. So I celebrate our nuclear-free law as the most profound contribution New Zealand can make to a more peaceful world. 
When I spoke in the third reading debate on this legislation in June 1987 I said its passage through the House was a proud moment for New Zealand. It remains a proud moment today. Nuclear weapons made us rethink everything about war. We should never be afraid to rethink old ways. Today the world faces new challenges that we barely understood in 1987. The passage of the nuclear-free bill was a statement of our determination as a country to commit to the future of our planet and everyone and everything that lives on it. Our commitment to accepting the challenge of climate change is motivated by a comparable idealism and we need equally far-sighted solutions. 
The passing of this law stands as a great day in New Zealand’s modern history. I am proud of having been there to vote for it. I am proud of having fought for the policy inside this House and earlier inside the Labour Party and on New Zealand streets and harbours. I believe that our confidence in the success of the law has been vindicated. 
Many people all over the world including Governments recognise that New Zealand’s standing firm for the values of peace in a safer world is inherent in our antinuclear stance. I believe that the time will come when even our very very good friends in the United States will thank New Zealanders for their antinuclear stance. We will see it having enhanced security in the world including the United States itself. I believe that our friends will one day say: “Actually you were right and we thank you for your courage in standing firm.” That day will not come immediately but I believe it will come before the next 20th anniversary of the Act. Mr Dunne was kind enough to suggest that I might be here then; whether I should be here is another matter of course—time will tell. But all New Zealanders will look forward to that day. In the meantime we will continue to develop our relationships internationally and stand as people committed to the values of global peace and the progressive removal of weapons that threaten all humanity. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a couple of documents that I referred to in my speech. The authors of the first document are George Shultz William Perry Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. It is entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The second document I seek leave to table is the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention document submitted by Costa Rica to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in April and May of this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Motion agreed to. 
Arbitration Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 This bill is one of three bills that are the responsibility of that rising star of the Labour Cabinet the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The first of these is the Arbitration Amendment Bill and I want to say something about the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Of course if the Minister is the rising star of the Labour Party it says a lot about the state of the Labour Party. 
Let me first deal with the issue which is referred to in the report about the control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas. We thought on reflection that clause 8(1) should be deleted from the bill. The clause is intending to amend article 27(1) of schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act and in particular the issue is whether the words “with the approval of the arbitral tribunal” should be deleted. Article 27(1) provides that the arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the tribunal is able to request from the court assistance in the taking of evidence and the court may execute the request within its competence and according to its rules on taking of evidence. 
The bill had suggested initially that the phrase “with the approval of the arbitral tribunal” should be deleted but the select committee having heard evidence on this thought the clause should remain as it is because we consider it important that the parties be required to seek approval of the tribunal before they go to the court. The very good reason for that is that it enhances the tribunal’s control over the arbitration process and maintains current practice. So that is the reason why the committee thought that clause 8(1) should be deleted. 
During the course of the submissions we were very lucky to receive extensive submissions from Mr David Williams QC an eminent arbitrator both domestically and internationally in this country. He dealt with the issue of interim measures. It was very fortuitous at the time this bill was being dealt with in the select committee that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) had just published proposals for dealing with interim measures and that is why it was timely for us to bring into the bill the proposed changes to article 17 of the model law. 
Article 17 as it is currently framed is particularly brief. It simply states that the arbitral tribunal may order interim measures and it provides very little guidance. Well UNCITRAL has got together and proposed a number of changes to elaborate on the powers of the tribunal when dealing with interim measures and these are set out in chapter 4A. So section 17 in clause 8 provides very detailed definitions of what interim measures are. They are very similar in effect to interim injunctions which may be granted by the court; both interim injunctions freezing orders—or Mareva injunctions—and Anton Piller orders and they are very adequately defined. 
Then section 17B in clause 8 sets out the conditions for the granting of interim measures which are very like the powers of the court when granting interim injunctions. One of the provisions that is quite important is section 17C in clause 8 which states that the arbitral tribunal may issue a preliminary order and that a party may without notice to any other party apply for such a preliminary order. 
The National Party supports these provisions and thinks they are very sensible. In fact one of the discussions we had in the select committee was about whether these were the kinds of changes that could be brought into the domestic law of New Zealand without the need for parliamentary sanction and whether they could be dealt with by way of regulation or rule. Having obtained the advice of the Clerk of the House however we decided that notwithstanding that UNCITRAL will come up with changes to the model law from time to time it is appropriate for parliamentary sanction to be obtained before the domestic law of New Zealand is changed. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I will be fairly brief because I have only a couple of— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Take your time. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove tells me to take my time. I have only a couple of matters to refer to. Before the dinner break I said something about the control of the tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas and I had begun an analysis of the changes proposed in the bill to deal with interim measures. 
As the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee states some detail is provided as to how and when parties may seek interim measures the conditions for granting them and the power of the tribunal and there is an important provision about the ability of the tribunal to require the applicant for an interim measure to provide appropriate security in connection with the measure and that is set out in section 17I in clause 8. The select committee was very happy to bring those measures into the bill. As I said before the dinner break it was very timely that at the very time the select committee was dealing with this amendment legislation the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law produced some proposed changes to the model law. 
The third matter I want to touch on briefly is the default procedure for appointment of arbitrators. Again we proposed that clause 9(2) be omitted from the bill. Clause 9(2) deals with the default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators. Essentially it had proposed amending clause 1 of schedule 2 to the primary legislation. The second schedule of the Act provides certain additional optional rules that apply to arbitration and clause 1 deals with the default appointment of arbitrators. Essentially we are saying that the existing clause is adequate and that we do not see the need for the changes proposed in the bill. Therefore subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 9 have been struck out. 
That is all I want to say at this stage. I will deal with some of the substantive matters proposed in the bill when we deal with the purpose clause and the title. But those were the primary decisions made by the committee for changes to the bill—as I said dealing with subpoenas interim measures and the default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators—and I think we have a better bill as a result. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think that the matters I ought to comment on concerning the relevant part of the bill are the provisions addressed by the previous speaker. I may deal with them from a slightly different angle and I will start with clause 8(1) which amends schedule 1. 
As is apparent from the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee the Law Commission recommended an amendment to schedule 1 to the effect that when a party wishes to seek the court’s assistance—for example in the event that a subpoena is required to be issued during the arbitration or prior to it for the purpose of ensuring that the arbitral tribunal can be seized of evidence required—it will no longer be required to seek the consent of the arbitral tribunal first. 
We heard from the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand and in passing I pay tribute to the submission it made. It was very helpful and comprehensive as one would expect given the experience of the members of that body in dealing with alternative dispute resolution. The institute did not support the proposed amendment because it felt it would undesirably remove control of the arbitral process from the arbitrator and instead see it vested in either the High Court or the District Court as the case may be. 
The institute pointed out that in practice the arbitral tribunal ought to be able to resolve any issues regarding evidence and witnesses without the need for further action. Having taken the advice of officials on the institute’s submission we agreed that the proposed amendment should be withdrawn. The original amendment’s effect would have been to reduce undesirably the control the arbitral tribunal has over the process and contrary to the general aims of the legislation would have provided for undesirably easy access to the courts during the process. We felt that would have been truly at odds with the principle of reduced judicial involvement which was intended to be a theme in the original Act and was one that we wanted to make sure was carried through in the current legislation. 
I refer to the point of arbitral tribunals and the control they can exercise over proceedings. Clearly the arbitral tribunal ought to determine the hearing date and the length of time it would take to complete the hearing. We felt that if a party had trouble during the process in obtaining evidence or getting witnesses to the hearing then the requirement to approach the arbitral tribunal first would ensure that that tribunal would be able to have better control over the issue of whether the hearing would proceed on the agreed commencement date. Without that control clearly it would be more difficult for the tribunal truly to be seized of control over the proceedings. There did not seem to be the justification for outside oversight at that early stage of a procedural matter such as being able to compel a witness to attend because a party felt it was necessary. 
I turn now to clause 8 and the amendments to the model law and again refer to the submission from the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand presented by David Williams QC. As the previous speaker mentioned he alerted the committee to recent changes to the model law on international commercial arbitration. This model law of course was the measure on which the original 1996 bill was based. Mr Williams recommended to us on behalf of the institute that the recently approved changes to the model law should be incorporated into the bill. 
We agreed with the incorporation of those provisions in the model law. We did feel though that it was a little unfortunate that we continually have to update procedural legislation such as the matters that have been dealt with by the committee on the model law by having to revert to the House through primary legislation. We felt certainly in the initial stages of our consideration that there ought to be a mechanism by which these sorts of things could be dealt with—perhaps by sub-delegated legislation considered very closely by the Regulations Review Committee and subject to the disallowance procedure. But we were advised by officials that this was seen as undesirable constitutionally largely as far as I can recall because New Zealand does not tend to adopt all the model law recommendations. 
We tend to pick and choose—and I do have a view about the desirability of that. I rather think that if an international body of experts is effectively recommending model legislation then little old New Zealand may be well advised with all the time that goes into the international deliberations simply to adopt that which we have chosen to become a party to. I accept that perhaps it is too early in our constitutional evolution to move to this sort of procedure. Perhaps I might live to see us one day doing something a little more mature with international legislation. In the end on the advice of officials we felt that adopting the recent changes to the model law would be consistent with the aim and purpose of the bill. 
 Those are relatively minor changes. Essentially they keep the model law up to date to meet the needs of its users and reflect best practice in the field of international arbitration. This brings us back again to the basic principles of the 1996 Act which we have tried to retain in this re-enactment such as consistency with the laws in other jurisdictions which after all is why we adopted the model law in the first place. Clearly following through and adopting the changes to the model law that were agreed to recently and advised to us by David Williams QC would maintain that consistency. 
Briefly to speak to what those changes are they relate to interim measures preliminary orders and security for costs. The amendments on interim measures provide more detail and guidance than is currently found in the legislation. Clearly incorporating those changes will allow more guidance to the parties so that where an arbitration is on foot they have a code to refer to in the schedule that helps them to know exactly how they should conduct the arbitration. 
The amendments also deal with the introduction of preliminary orders. I suppose an analogy in the ordinary jurisdiction would be with interim injunctions or declarations. There is a bridging device mechanism if you like for a party seeking an interim measure so that remedies are not destroyed while the arbitration either is waiting to be set down or is on foot. Remedies can be preserved through these procedures just as interim orders— Mareva injunctions and so on—in the ordinary courts would be able to be applied for. Security for costs is expressly included as an interim measure. 
I turn now to clause 9(2)—the amendments to schedule 2. The Law Commission recommended the removal from that schedule of a default procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator where the parties had signed up to an agreement allowing for the appointment of an arbitrator in the event of a dispute but failed to provide at that stage for the identity of the arbitrator or for a method of determining that question. 
The Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand did not support the removal of the default appointment because it did not feel based on its knowledge of alternative dispute resolution practice that its existence was creating any sort of problem in reality. So we agreed with the recommendation of the officials that the proposed amendment should be withdrawn. The Law Commission noted in it report and the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand noted in its submission that there is little concern expressed by those in the arbitration arena that a significant problem with the default procedure exists in practice. The Law Commission’s concern with the default procedure has been significantly ameliorated by a recent High Court case—that is  
Hitex 
 Plastering Ltd v Santa Barbara Homes Ltd 
. Obviously parties are currently free simply to avoid the default procedure in schedule 2 by expressly providing for a procedure in their own arbitration agreement and the replacement of the default procedure with recourse to the High Court would have been at odds with the aim of reducing judicial intervention in the arbitration process. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution to the Arbitration Amendment Bill and I was also quite pleased to listen to the contributions of both my own colleague Chris Finlayson and Charles Chauvel. Clearly they are two practising artists in the field— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Artists! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —of law and they are pretty knowledgable on the provisions that this bill deals with. 
The bill seeks to make improvements to the Arbitration Act 1996 in order to encourage the use of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes privately in New Zealand. That is always a good move possibly to save cluttering up our clogged-up judicial system. The improvements reflect the underlying themes of that Act which are party autonomy reduced involvement in the arbitral process consistency with laws in other jurisdictions and increased powers for the arbitral tribunal. 
Having listened to the previous two contributions it is clear that the bill covers changes that will try to achieve those things. Both speakers have been through the changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made in respect of the control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas and to adopting provisions of the model law on universal commercial arbitration; also in particular to interim measures and to the default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators.  
I will make just a few comments on clause 8 which substitutes a new chapter 4A into schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act. It contains articles dealing with interim measures. I was also interested to hear that eminent lawyer David Williams came before the committee to give advice on the model law and that the committee then decided not to adopt it holus-bolus. I certainly appreciated Charles Chauvel’s discussion on when the day will eventually come that we might feel mature enough in our standing constitutionally to be able to adopt this kind of model law as is. But for the moment the select committee saw fit basically to adopt the provisions but not holus-bolus the model law. 
Articles 17A and 17B deal with interim measures. These are somewhat like interim injunctions. The arbitral tribunal is given the power to grant interim measures. Article 17B(1) states the conditions that are set out for the granting of the interim measures along the lines that the tribunal must be satisfied that “(a) harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not granted; and (b) the harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the respondent if the measure is granted; and (c) there is a reasonable possibility that the applicant will succeed on the merits of the claim.” when an application for an interim measure is made. That seems very reasonable as well. In making some revisions to the Arbitration Act 1996 I think it is definitely an improvement that these provisions are included. 
Articles 17C and 17D also deal with preliminary orders where the arbitral tribunal has the power to issue preliminary orders and the conditions for issuing such orders are also included. For instance a tribunal may issue a preliminary order if it considers that prior disclosure of a request for the interim measure to the respondent risks frustrating the purpose of the measure and an applicant for a preliminary order must satisfy the tribunal of the matters specified in article 17B which deals with the conditions for granting interim measures. So all in all very reasonable amendments have been made by the committee. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It deals with two major issues: confidentiality and consumer arbitration agreements. Because arbitration is usually for private commercial or contractual disputes confidentiality is one of arbitration’s major attractions and some amendments were needed here. There is now a new definition of “confidential information”. Confidential information covers information relating to arbitral proceedings and any award made in those proceedings and it includes statements pleadings submissions and other information. It also includes evidence whether written or oral any notes concerning that evidence and the awards and the rulings of the arbitral tribunal. 
 Part 1 also includes new default provisions concerning privacy in that an arbitral tribunal must conduct proceedings in private and only persons who have some connection with the process are normally allowed to attend a hearing unless the parties agree otherwise. Both those provisions really only confirm existing practice. Parties to arbitration agreements must not disclose confidential information except in certain specific circumstances. Those circumstances are listed and they include disclosure to a professional or other adviser of any party or when required to do so by court order or subpoena. 
It is also possible for an arbitral tribunal and the High Court to make an order to allow disclosure of confidential information under limited circumstances. In the case of the High Court that can be done only if the court can be satisfied that in the particular case the public interest in preserving confidentiality is outweighed by other considerations. The High Court can also make an order prohibiting disclosure. In a restatement of the open justice principle the court must conduct all proceedings under the Act in public unless the court makes an order to do so in private. The bill also details under what conditions the court can make an order for confidential proceedings and the effects of any such order. It should be noted that those are all default provisions and that if the parties agree to other conditions in writing the default provisions do not apply. 
Part 1 also focuses on the consumer and on consumer arbitration agreements. The bill includes specific provisions that apply when one party is in trade and the other party is a consumer. The Act recognises that at times arbitration provisions can work to disadvantage the consumer so the bill seeks to protect the genuinely uninformed consumer. With that in mind I point out that the word “consumer” has also been redefined. In the past the definition was broad and it included schools churches and local authorities. With the present changes a consumer is an individual who is not in trade and that makes good sense. 
The existing law allows arbitration to be used only if the consumer signs a separate agreement agreeing to arbitration at the same time as the contract is entered into. That has become a routine and more often than not the consumer gives it very little thought. The bill now provides that consumers are allowed to decide whether they want to agree to arbitration after a dispute has arisen. So arbitration can proceed only if both parties agree. I believe that is the best course of action because having two willing parties to an arbitration will improve the success rate of the process. To do this there has to be a further technical tweak which removes the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal where a consumer and a business enterprise execute an arbitration agreement. Thank you. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 For the benefit of those listening I want to give just a reminder of the main provisions of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Of course these provisions arise from recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission in 2003. I have already covered the underlying themes and these themes continue those of the Arbitration Act. I will make reference to the issues of new section 14A “Arbitral proceedings must be private”. These are very important amendments and obviously no changes should be made to them; they fall totally in line with the themes of the Act itself. New section 14B is entitled “Arbitration agreements deemed to prohibit disclosure of confidential information”. The interpretation clause covers the definition of “confidential information” in relation to arbitral proceedings as being “information that relates to the … proceedings or to an award …”. They include statement of claims; statement of defence—the pleadings—any evidence supplied to the arbitral tribunal whether documentary or otherwise; any notes made by the arbitral tribunal of oral evidence or submissions given before the tribunal; any transcript of oral evidence or submissions; any rulings of the tribunal; and any award of the tribunal. That is a very important provision and it is all geared no doubt towards encouraging the participation of parties in the process which is seen to be a private way of dealing with matters and minimising approaches to the judicial system. 
There is not a blanket ruling on the disclosure of confidential information. There will be times when there are limits placed on that prohibition and the tribunal itself under new section 14D is also given the power to allow disclosure of confidential information but only in “certain circumstances” which are set out as follows: if a question arises as to whether confidential information should be disclosed other than as authorised and if at least one of the parties agrees to refer that question to the tribunal concerned. 
As I say these provisions are geared towards encouraging participation to make sure there is consistency with laws in other jurisdictions and to increase powers for the tribunal to get participation. 
The only other matter that I will refer to has been reasonably well covered already by colleagues and that matter is the issue dealt with at the beginning of the debate: the control of the tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas. Here one can see the Justice and Electoral Committee at work. The committee recommended that clause 8(1) be deleted. That clause deals with the subpoenas and proposes to amend article 27(1) of schedule 1 of the Act “so that when a party seeks the court’s assistance to take evidence that party will no longer be required to first seek the approval of the arbitral tribunal.” The committee recommended the removal of the clause because it considered it important that parties be required to seek approval on the basis that this would enhance the tribunal’s control over the arbitration process and also maintain current practice. 
All in all I say these are very good provisions and very good amendments recommended by the committee and I am pleased to have made this contribution. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I just want to say something about Part 1 and the issue of confidential information. This issue really is at the very heart of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and it deserves more than a cursory overview when we debate the title. 
There are various types of dispute resolution. There are resolutions of matters that may be heard in court—the District Court or the High Court—and the general principle with those types of proceedings is that they must be conducted in public. The old maxim says that not only should justice be done but justice should be seen to be done. That is why with very few exceptions court proceedings are held in open court and members of the public are entitled to be present. 
A lot of people do not like that sentiment. They prefer that their disputes particularly if they are business disputes be heard in private. Over the years there has been a move towards arbitration because one of the truly attractive features of arbitration is that the arbitral proceedings are held in private and are confidential. 
 There has been doubt for some years over the confidentiality provisions of the 1996 Act and some very real problems have emerged that have necessitated applications to the court for orders that certain material be released for example from a valuation arbitration. That is why the Law Commission over a number of years produced a couple of reports dealing with this vexed issue and why this bill endeavours to deal with it—and I think succeeds. 
The bill removes many of the limitations to confidentiality but it still retains the principle of confidentiality. Indeed if one looks at new section 14A one sees the fundamental principle that arbitral proceedings must be private but that there are certain limits on the prohibition of disclosure of confidential information and these are set out in the bill. New section 14C provides for example that a party or an arbitral tribunal may disclose confidential information to a professional or other adviser of any of the parties or if a subpoena is required to be complied with. 
Perhaps it is important also to emphasise that clause 4 contains a very comprehensive definition of exactly what confidential information is. Confidential information will include for example not only information that relates to the arbitral proceeding but also documents such as the pleadings the statement of claim the statement of defence and so on and any evidence that may have been adduced at the arbitration. 
So new section 14C is extremely important. New section 14D empowers the tribunal to allow disclosure of confidential information in certain circumstances. New section 14E provides that the High Court on application to it may allow or prohibit disclosure of confidential information in circumstances where the arbitral proceedings have been terminated or where the party lodges an appeal concerning confidentiality. So the court will determine the matter and then may or may not permit the confidential information to be handed over. 
It is important to note new section 14F because it comes back to the original point that I made concerning the fact that court proceedings under the Act must be conducted in public except in certain circumstances. I do not think there will be many circumstances at all where the courts will proceed to deal with matters privately or as they say in camera. 
The kinds of circumstances where the court can make an order that a matter be heard in private are set out in subsection (2) and can be seen for example in paragraph (b) which states that a matter can be heard in private “only if the Court is satisfied that the public interest in having the proceedings conducted in public is outweighed by the interests of any party to the proceedings in having the whole or any part of the proceedings conducted in private.” An example could well be when two corporate entities are in a complex commercial arbitration—over a patent for example. If highly sensitive information is disclosed concerning say the plaintiff’s patent there could well be very sound reasons why that kind of information would not be aired in open court. 
So there we have it. These are very good provisions that will provide some real assistance to parties to an arbitration. I might say that they are well overdue but as they always say better late than never. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on this part. I thank members for their contributions. I thank those learned lawyers—a couple on the National Party side and a couple on the Government side—for their contributions. I think it has been said and well stated in respect of the amendments proposed to clauses 6 to 9 that this is one of those rare moments in Parliament when there is unanimity and I think we should proceed forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I put the question we have before us an amendment to insert a new clause 4A. It has been put forward by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell. I advise the member that the amendment is out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill. I now therefore put the question that Part 1 stand part. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Related amendment to Disputes Tribunals Act 1988  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 is the sort of part that causes lawyers to salivate with great glee and excitement when they pick up a bill such as this and find an opportunity to speak on it. I must say though having been a criminal lawyer that feeling never came across me at all when I looked at Part 2. I wondered exactly what it was about. I spoke to my friend Mr Finlayson who said he was not going to speak on it. I then looked at the Disputes Tribunals Act. 
The thing about Part 2 is that it is a people’s provision. I have to say that in this country people are important. I want to talk about people just briefly in relation to Part 2. Generally on the Government side of the Chamber we find the people there are individuals who care for others and who put others before profit. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber regard people as economic units but that is not mentioned in this part of the bill and I do not want to get too sidetracked by that. 
I want to come back to this part of the bill because it is really the key to this whole amendment of the Arbitration Act. It ventures into the world of the disputes tribunal. When I looked at this part I thought that it would have been a great field for a progressive an intelligent and an informed Opposition. Venturing into the area of the disputes tribunal an Opposition that really cared about its task and took itself seriously as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would have picked up the Act—but clearly those members have not done that—and gone straight to section 10 which gives the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals. An alert lawyer on the Justice and Electoral Committee representing the Opposition would have said: “Ha we have a problem here that could be dealt with. It may be out of the scope of the bill but we will give it a go while we are dealing with amending the disputes tribunal.” 
The Opposition would have found that in section 10 of the Act there is no provision for someone who has a terrible neighbour next door with a terrible tree to take a dispute about the tree to the disputes tribunal because it is a matter of nuisance. So the poor neighbour has to go through the District Court process with all the openness of it that my friend Mr Finlayson was speaking about earlier. Of course he likes his name to be in the paper and he loves those open courts. The disadvantage is that the neighbour with the dispute over the tree cannot take his case to the disputes tribunal. But no. Was that picked up in the select committee by the loyal Opposition? There was not a skerrick about that—not a mention of it. In fact the select committee report does not even touch upon that critical and important point. That may have been because that issue was out of the scope of the bill I have to say; I am feeling some generosity towards Opposition members. It may well have been that they thought they could not even with their ingenuity energy inventiveness and all the time they have in Opposition manage to bring it within the scope of the bill. 
But I say to the National Party lawyers on the Opposition side of the Chamber that nothing ventured nothing gained. By letting Part 2 slip by in that way they have acknowledged that the Associate Minister of Justice who sits in the chair right now is the man with his finger on the button. He did not venture into the area of the disputes tribunal. I can feel a member’s bill coming on. Even as I speak at this moment on Part 2 I can feel a member’s bill coming on. I feel that we can move into the area of the disputes tribunal by way of a member’s bill and amend the legislation so that it can deal with my friend who has his neighbour’s tree hanging over his fence and who cannot afford to go to court because he cannot afford to pay Mr Finlayson’s fee to argue that the tree should be cut down. 
However I return to Part 2. It is a difficult part and that is why it has obviously been ignored. It is a very difficult part. Essentially it says that if one is a consumer then one cannot be conned by the terrible capitalists who run the megabuck stores that are despoiling our country. I am thinking of the big red sheds the big orange sheds and the big blue and yellow sheds that are changing the landscapes of every decent city in this country such as Napier. We cannot be conned by them. One’s sale agreement received at the till has a clause that any disputes about faulty goods imported from some far distant land with cheap labour costs should be argued by way of arbitration. But the consumer cannot be forced into that. 
However if the consumer returns to one of those monstrosities of the globalised village in which we now live saying he or she has been ripped off the retailer—in his or her broken English—may suggest they go to arbitration. If they agree quite separately to do so then they may go to arbitration. The effect of doing that by way of a written agreement is to suspend the working of the Disputes Tribunals Act. That is an important privilege to suspend because that Act is one that brings law back to the people. The first thing it does besides having a limited jurisdiction which I have tried to explain already is to keep lawyers out. It keeps lawyers out. Time and time again litigants who came to me in order to appeal were delighted that they did not have to face an expensive lawyer—unless of course it was the lawyer’s bill that they were arguing over and that happened quite often I have to say. They were delighted that they could deal with a layperson in the disputes tribunal who took often a lateral and an inventive approach to the resolution of problems. 
But the disputes tribunal for all its faults is a very important facility and it is not one that should be lightly dispensed with. So we have under this bill the ability to—I have just seen a note that I will not read out; it has really upset my train of thought so I need time and a glass of water in order to gather up my thoughts. I am simply saying that the disputes tribunal is there for us all— lay people and lawyers—and before we suspend that right we must do so carefully. The requirement under the amending provision in Part 2 is that no consumer can be forced into arbitration by an arbitration clause he or she was not aware of when purchasing the goods. If the matter has to go to arbitration there has to be a separate agreement and that is a jolly good idea. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 2 and 3 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I congratulate Mr Fairbrother on that contribution; it was one worthy of  
Monty Python’s Flying Circus 
. All I want to say in relation to these clauses is that they are good legislation and deal with two important substantive matters. The first matter is confidentiality which I will not go over again. The second is to give effect to the most recent developments at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and I am delighted that it was timely to have this bill so that we could deal with article 7 of the model law dealing with interim measures. The other changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee effectively dealt with deletions from the bill. As I covered those when I dealt with Part 1 I will not deal with them now. 
The only other thing I want to comment on concerns the issue of employment arbitration which is set out in the committee’s report. I was not in the Chamber when Mr Chauvel spoke but I am sure he would have dealt with it. I know that the issue is largely academic because most matters involving employment law will probably end up either before the Employment Relations Authority or go on to the court. At least the opportunity is there for an employment arbitration now as the law is quite clear that the Arbitration Act 1996 is not going to have any application. So if in those one in 1000 or one in 100-type situations it was possible for there to be an employment arbitration it would have to be conducted under the provisions of the English common law and that is really quite unsatisfactory. 
In my view either we remove from the Employment Relations Act the ability to have arbitration or we clarify the rules as to how arbitrations are to be conducted. In 21st century New Zealand to rely on the provisions of the English common law is really quite unsatisfactory. Although it is not a major matter maybe it is something that could be referred to the Law Commission. The next time it opines on further improvements to the Arbitration Act which of course it will with the passage of time maybe we could deal with that matter then. Other than that it is good legislation. As I said earlier it should have been in force some time ago so let us not tarry any further and get it enacted. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Following on from my colleague Christopher Finlayson I echo the sentiments he has expressed. They certainly are true enough and have been evident in the discussion that has proceeded this evening. Those sentiments are that this is good legislation. I suppose given the record of this Government under which it has taken sometimes up to 7 years to introduce and pass legislation this has a somewhat shorter time span. The Law Commission’s report on which the legislation is based is from 2003 so 4 years on we have finally got it into place here. Again to echo my colleague let us not tarry—because it is good legislation—and let us see the third reading up on the Order Paper quite quickly. I am sure the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Clayton Cosgrove being the eager enthusiastic—I was going to say “young” but I am not quite sure—youngish Minister that he is wishing to impress like all of the rest of his colleagues will make sure that this comes through reasonably quickly— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Guaranteed! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —particularly since there is support across the Chamber for it. The purpose of it is to make improvements and to give further credence to the underlying themes of the Arbitration Act. I have mentioned those earlier but I want to add again that anything that encourages this kind of private dispute resolution between private individuals so as to free up our clogged up court system is very good as well. That is an additional benefit here and it is very good. 
The New Zealand Law Commission identified issues with the exceptions found in section 14 of the Act regarding confidentiality in the context of arbitral proceedings and earlier we discussed some of the provisions that deal with those matters. Those are also worthy and as I say all designed to encourage parties to participate where it is appropriate in this type of arbitration. 
I want one more time before I conclude to go through the confidentiality description again. The provisions here are in a completely opposite direction to the underlying cornerstone of our justice system which is that proceedings and disputes between parties be heard in open court and in public so that justice is seen to be done. This is a process set up in appropriate cases to deal with matters that are private and should stay private for a whole variety of reasons including sensitivity of information where big corporates and businesses are concerned. That is why I guess section 4 and the interpretation in Part 1 set out very clearly what confidential information includes: the whole range of paperwork the range of evidence and submissions that come before the arbitral tribunal. It is a very comprehensive set of provisions that we are provided with here and I would say they are designed to make the whole arbitral process in this context work better. 
This bill was intended originally to come into force last year as Chris Finlayson said but it will now come into force this year. The Minister has given a guarantee that that will happen. I think that is good and I am very pleased to see that there is agreement across the Chamber on worthwhile legislation. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As members have heard National is pleased to support the Arbitration Amendment Bill . As the title indicates this bill amends the Arbitration Act 1996 and it is designed to improve the Act. 
We are pleased with these amendments because the use of arbitration to resolve disputes is genuinely increasing. It is more cost-effective and more efficient to use arbitration than to go to court. Businesses tend to prefer arbitration because with the present overcrowding of courts and the resulting delays in getting cases heard it is more efficient. Businesses also appreciate that by choosing arbitration parties can select an appropriate arbitrator rather than have to have an appointed judge. An arbitrator can be selected on his or her technical skills qualifications or specific experience and that increases his or her ability to resolve the dispute. Finally businesses also appreciate the confidentiality of the process. 
The amendments in this bill are based on the New Zealand Law Commission’s 2003 report  
Improving the Arbitration Act 1996 
 . Although the report concluded that the Act was generally working well there were several issues that it felt should be addressed to improve its operation and this is being done. Finally I say that National supports this bill and its amendments which improve the 1996 Act and will encourage the use of arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient way to resolve disputes. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Succession (Homicide) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for allowing me to take a call on Part 1. The Succession (Homicide) Bill itself is reasonably straightforward. It is as the commentary on the bill states a bill to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person which does seem to make some sense. 
However the law must strike a balance between flexibility and certainty and I have to say that in this case I have a question for the Minister which I would like him to take a call on. My question is whether this bill is a wee bit inflexible. In this regard I refer to the interpretation clause which of course has the definitions of “assisted suicide” “homicide” “killer” etc. My concern is probably in response to reading the submission of the New Zealand Law Society which was concerned that this proposed codification of the law did not take sufficient account of the differing degrees of moral culpability. I would have thought that that issue would be easy enough to resolve by merely providing that the judge had a discretion in exceptional circumstances when the interests of justice and fairness so required. 
In that regard I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the examples given by the New Zealand Law Society and other submitters in relation to areas where this bill might actually have some harsh and perhaps unintended consequences. There may be for example a number of domestic killings that have a varying degree of culpability and where the moral abhorrence if you like felt towards the perpetrators of those crimes may be somewhat less than that which is felt towards a cold-blooded murderer. Those domestic killings are still subject to this inflexible code and that may lead to harsh results. For example a battered woman or a child who has been abused over a prolonged time might suddenly snap and kill the abuser. Those people would or could upon conviction come within the scope of the bill and lose any entitlement to any inheritance—say half the house that they had lived in with their abuser. That may be a situation whereby it is fair and equitable and not unreasonable that a judge has the discretion to say: “These people have been abused. Although we don’t condone their actions we can understand whey they snapped and finally put their abusers to rest but should they also be deprived of their assets and their home?”. 
Another example is that of a mercy killer. Not all mercy killers may come within the assisted suicide exception. An example is a person convicted of failing to provide the necessities of life. In those cases it could be argued that the degree of moral culpability is at the lower end of the scale. We can indeed say that that can be reflected in the sentencing for that crime but in addition to the sentencing this bill automatically deprives the killer of any succession entitlements as well as the ownership of some assets. 
I have mentioned in previous speeches during the second reading debate on this bill the reckless driver. A reckless driver might have a car accident and kill his wife in that accident. He might not necessarily be a negligent killer; he might just be a reckless driver. Perhaps he still loved his wife and his wife would have wanted him to inherit. But under the provisions of this bill the reckless driver—the poor husband who already has to confront his own guilt over having killed his wife through his own recklessness—has to face the fact that he is then deprived of any of their joint assets. That may not necessarily have been what the wife would have wanted or intended and in such a case the bill could lead to some unintended and perhaps harsh consequences. 
Those consequences could easily be remedied by a simple proviso for the judge to have discretion in very exceptional circumstances. That is not to say that such a situation is to be regarded as the norm because no killing is to be condoned. But such a proviso would mean that in exceptional circumstances where the judge has had due regard to all the evidence surrounding the accident and the reckless driver—or the abused wife—he or she may decide on balance that that person should inherit. 
I would like the Minister to take a call on that question. I do not think it is a partisan suggestion and I do think it would put some common sense into the bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to address three clauses where the committee has recommended some material changes. I will deal firstly with clause 8 and the issue of joint tenancy. Obviously for those not familiar with the concept— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 1 and the member is speaking on Part 2. He has referred to clause 8 which is in Part 2. We are debating Part 1 which is clauses 3 to 6. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I had just actually noticed that myself so thank you for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. I urge the member to return to Part 1 which is clauses 3 to 6. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I thank the member for the guidance offered. Perhaps I might then just deal very briefly with the question that was raised by the previous speaker: the suggestion that the legislation is somewhat inflexible particularly as to degrees of culpability and homicide. I suppose the primary point to make on that is that the legislation is codifying the law—the Law Commission report is clear about that—and the discretion that has been contended for does not exist in the common law. Clearly there would be issues with bringing it forward into a codification of the law. I understand that in jurisdictions overseas where a discretion has been introduced an undesirable element of uncertainty has been introduced into the law. But it would also be useful to point out that given the wide-ranging definition of homicide in the legislation there is probably sufficient flexibility for a judge to do justice in individual cases with the flexibility afforded. 
I appreciate the opportunity to take a short call on Part 1 and I will leave my comments at that. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
The purpose of the legislation is clearly set out in clause 3 and its effect at application in clause 5. I would be grateful for some guidance from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister in the chair however on an issue that I have been thinking about for a couple of days in relation to clause 4. As I said clause 3 “Purpose” is pretty clear: “The purpose of this Act is to codify the law that prevents a person (the killer) who kills another person (the victim) by committing homicide from benefiting as a result of the victim’s death …”. 
One then turns to clause 4 which includes the definition of homicide and it is all reasonably clear. But there are a number of exclusions in that definition. The first under clause 4(1) is “(a) a killing caused by negligent act or omission;”. The second is “(b) infanticide …” which is covered in section 178 of the Crimes Act. The third is “(c) a killing of a person by another in pursuance of a suicide pact;”. The fourth importantly is “(d) an assisted suicide”. 
The term “assisted suicide” is also defined in this clause and I would welcome some guidance from the Minister on subclause (1)(a) because an assisted suicide under this subclause “means the killing of a person by another person directly or indirectly if”—and this is the important word—“immediately before death the deceased asked the other person to help them to commit suicide;”. 
What I would really like to know is how immediate is immediately. I think for example of “Dr Death” from Michigan—Dr Kevorkian—who was just released from prison in Oregon in the last few days. Dr Kevorkian would assist people with suicide but the intentions I think were pretty well known in many of the cases at least well before the actual act. Under this legislation would that assistance be considered to be immediate? I doubt it. So I would like to know how immediate must immediate be in order for it to be an assisted suicide. 
If hypothetically I had spoken to a doctor and I knew I was going to die—I was miserable I did not want to live I had been in Opposition for too long—so I decided I would contact Dr Kevorkian and he and I chatted it through 3 to 4 weeks before the actual act would that come within the term of assisted suicide or would that be a disqualifying act of homicide? I would be most grateful if the Minister could assist. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. It is a bill that could be described—and was described in the select committee—as a repugnant bill. It is repugnant to a sense of decency and it is repugnant to a sense of normality to discuss and debate the reality of someone killing another person in the hope of benefiting from the death of that person. The preliminary provisions in Part 1 reflect exactly the circumstances that have to be dealt with and the Justice and Electoral Committee was very conscious that they do have to be dealt with at a parliamentary level. It falls to us to provide a blanket of protection through law for those who would otherwise be vulnerable. 
Part 1 gives the interpretation of some of the terms. For assisted suicide which my friend and colleague has just been speaking about the definition reads: “… if immediately before death the deceased asked the other person to help them commit suicide;”. The definition for homicide states that it “means the killing of a person or a child who has not become a person by another person intentionally or recklessly by any means that would be an offence under New Zealand law whether done in New Zealand or elsewhere”. It goes on to describe other terms and references all of which frankly reflect badly on a society where it seems life has become so cheap and inconsequential that we have a spiralling rate of violent crime that leads to death. 
From memory I think it is the people of Tibet who have no word in their language for murder. What a wonderful situation what a wonderful place and what a wonderful attitude! But here we do and we need to have laws to cope with the situation—laws like this one which prevents any possibility of killers receiving or becoming entitled to or claiming interest in property as the result of the death of the killer’s victim. 
Being part of the select committee discussing this bill was an interesting exercise. We were certainly engaged in a lot of thought and it left me wondering whether in fact there should not be much wider application of law preventing criminals from benefiting from crime. This is a well-established principle but in the case of succession courts have been required to resolve any uncertainties on a case by case basis which causes delays in and costs to the administration of estates which are often modest in their value. This bill will simplify that. 
Something that is of concern though—and the Minister may choose to address this—is the fact that the Law Commission reported in 1997 on the law of succession and recommended then that there should be statutory rules clarifying a killer’s rights and disentitlements. Why has this taken quite so long since the Law Commission’s report in 1997 to surface as legislation? I think that is a question that needs to be answered in conjunction with other questions about this Government’s neglect in response to Law Commission reports. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am more than happy to take a short call and I start by addressing the question posed by Mr Auchinvole. The simple answer is this. The member is right that the Law Commission reported in 1997. The Government of the day I recall was a National Government and I would simply answer that question by asking Mr Auchinvole why his Government did not move on it when it was in office. 
In addressing more notable points I would say simply that Ms Wilkinson raised some interesting points which are worth touching on. In essence I believe they were in relation to whether the bill accounts adequately for different levels of moral culpability in respect of killings. She also posed the proposition that the court should have the discretion to modify the effect of the disinheritance provisions. 
I would comment that the bill does indeed take account of different levels of moral culpability in different types of killing. For instance it does that through the definition of “homicide”. For example a killing must be reckless or intentional; a negligent killing is not enough. Recklessness is included because it involves an element of intention. It involves being aware of the risk of harm and then acting anyway. 
Also the bill specifically excludes certain types of killing that might be thought to amount to mercy killings. Assisted suicides have been mentioned. The bill also excludes killings pursuant to suicide pacts. These aspects of the definition of “homicide” acknowledge that some killings are more culpable than others. 
In respect of a discretion it would have to be said that a discretion is a difficult drafting proposition to action effectively. The Law Commission considered that point when it prepared its report. But the commission decided against that aspect of discretion because as I have said it is difficult to enact effectively. It is also fair to say that other foreign jurisdictions have struggled with the concept. In their view the question of whether a killing was sufficiently abhorrent to trigger the bar of profiting was better decided by Parliament. 
A key concern of the bill is to create greater certainty and it could be argued that having a discretion would actually reduce certainty and that more cases would end up before the courts. The other point that should be made is that currently there is no discretion of course in common law so this could increase uncertainty in itself. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Effect of homicide on rights of succession 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This includes clauses 7 through to 16 and also I tell members includes debate on the schedule. I call the honourable member Charles Chauvel. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Concentrate on Part 2. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I thank Mr Finlayson; I will try to address the correct part this time. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The Opposition doesn’t. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is right—that is right. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended changes to a number of clauses in the Succession (Homicide) Bill and just looking at the report of the committee and the bill as reported back I can tell members that they were clauses 7 8 10 11—we recommended the insertion of a new clause 11A—12 and 15. 
I want to speak to just three of those amendments substantively starting first with the proposed changes to clause 8 which deals with joint tenancies. Obviously there are a number of ways in which property can be owned legally and joint tenancy is one of those ways. Clause 8 as originally drafted would have disentitled a killer from having any interest in a property that he or she co-owned as a joint tenant with his or her victim. But a killer who was married to in a de facto relationship with or in a civil union with the victim might still have been able to recover his or her interest under the Property (Relationships) Act. 
The select committee has recommended and I would commend to the Committee the adoption of a new subclause 8(3) which provides that the killing by one joint tenant of another joint tenant has the effect of converting the joint tenancy to a tenancy in common. By the operation of law each co-owner or the estate in the case of a victim takes a share. 
This provision is consistent with the overarching policy of the bill we have tried to remain true to which is that a killer should not benefit from any wrongdoing. This illustrates I think the repugnancy question that Mr Auchinvole referred to earlier. We did feel that we were dealing with rather unpalatable alternatives but nonetheless we had to try to weigh them up fairly. Although somebody should not be able to benefit from wrongdoing neither should they be deprived of pre-existing rights in any sort of penal fashion. That is the balance we have tried to achieve by the insertion of new subclause 8(3). 
In dealing with testamentary promises we have provided for some changes to clause 10. To understand the way that this clause works it is necessary also to consider clause 7. Basically a testamentary promise is a promise either expressed or necessarily implied that a person will be rewarded for services performed in one’s will. Rather than paying somebody for services during one’s lifetime one would say: “Look I’m going to look after you in the will; you’ll be right.” As originally drafted clause 10 would have allowed a killer to make a claim under the testamentary promises legislation only where the victim failed to provide for the killer in his or her will. If the victim had fulfilled the promise in the will the disposition would have actually been revoked by clause 7. 
The select committee has recommended the insertion of a new subclause clause 10(2A) ensuring that a killer can make a claim under the testamentary promises legislation irrespective of whether the victim provided for the killer in the will. In this case the claim for payment will be treated as a pre-existing interest because it is effectively a reward for services already performed. Again this is consistent with that odd sort of balancing act we have had to perform in the legislation so that the killer does not benefit from wrongdoing but neither is he or she treated overly harshly or deprived of existing rights. 
The last substantive changes I want to address are those to the provisions of clause 15. As originally drafted the bill did not specify the procedure for an interested party to make a claim in civil proceedings that an alleged killer had committed homicide for the purposes of the bill in cases where the alleged killer had been prosecuted but acquitted in respect of that homicide. The bill was amended to clarify that in such cases a court can decide on the balance of probabilities whether the alleged killer is nonetheless guilty of homicide for the purposes of the bill. I think it is fair to say that the amendment recommended by the committee will avoid any confusion over the appropriate procedure to be adopted in those cases. Those are the three amendments that I wanted to speak to and to commend to the Committee. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I would like to reiterate what Mr Chauvel has said in relation to joint tenants and tenants in common and that amendment suggested by the Justice and Electoral Committee certainly makes sense. There are two forms of ownership of property whether it is real estate or personal estate. One is joint tenancy and one is tenancy in common. The difference basically is that joint tenants are covered by what is known as survivorship so that if one of the joint tenants dies the other one automatically inherits. In other words the inheritance does not become part of his or her estate. If it did not become part of his or her estate it would not have been covered by this Succession (Homicide) Bill. So in that sense I think that the committee has suggested a fairly common-sense amendment. 
I would like at this stage to spend a little bit of time in relation to clause 15 which basically relates to the evidence where no criminal prosecution has been completed or where there has been an unsuccessful prosecution. It states: “(1) This section applies if—(a) in any proceedings … any party alleges that another person is guilty of the homicide of a person or a child that has not become a person; and (b) the person who is alleged to be guilty of the homicide … has—(i) not been prosecuted in New Zealand in respect of that homicide …”. 
I suppose in this sense my concern in a way relates to timing and practicalities. I go back to the poor reckless husband who kills his second wife in a car accident. The child of the first marriage claims that he was reckless. To be prove recklessness in a criminal case the prosecution has to do so “beyond reasonable doubt”. Yet the child in this case who is the child of the first marriage—and there are always different dynamics between first and second marriages of course—has only to prove that the husband was reckless on the balance of probabilities. If that child can prove that on the balance of probabilities then the chances are that he or she can inherit under the estate. But I do have some concerns in relation to the differences in the burden of proof between proving on the balance of probabilities and proving beyond reasonable doubt. 
Having said that I am also concerned about the question of timing and I am certainly pleased that the Minister for Courts the Hon Rick Barker is in the Chamber because he might like to take some cognisance of this. We have a situation with our courts of waiting times and delays where there can be median delays of 200 days or 300 days before a hearing even gets before a judge. 
 We could look at the scenario where a killer inherits from his victim’s estate and it is only some years after the victim’s death that the death is able to be attributed to the killer’s actions. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call on this matter. This issue is almost the opposite of what Mr Finlayson referred to when he talked about the definition of “immediate”. Again the Minister may like to address what he believes the definition of “immediate” is as well. 
What if at first glance a death appeared to be accidental but it was subsequently found to be a murder and because of the time lapse between the act of killing and the charging of the killer—or indeed the conviction of that killer—the estate had already been distributed to that killer? I do wonder whether this bill is intended to apply retrospectively. Will the estate inherited by the killer then be forfeited years later and redistributed if there is anything left? Or how long do the trustees and executors have to wait before they can administer or execute the terms of the will? 
I think that in speaking to the first reading of the bill I drew the attention of the House to a couple of instances referred to in the Law Commission report whereby there was a delay of some 4 years between a killing and the courts giving judgment. During those 4 years the estate must remain virtually dormant. The difficulty is that the executors have a duty to properly and expeditiously administer the estate but they cannot do so because they are still waiting for a court hearing to decide who will inherit and whether in fact the Succession (Homicide) Bill will be applicable. So in a sense the estate is in limbo. 
To take a more topical and recent occurrence members should look at the situation of David Bain. His family was murdered 13 years ago. If he is not convicted of killing his family then he should be entitled to inherit the family house—albeit that I understand the family house has burnt down. But having said that there still may be some assets left in that estate. 
I do think a practical difficulty could be encountered by the courts in deciding what is reasonable and in deciding how on earth the executors can perform their duties to execute and administer an estate where there may be a delay between the time of a person’s death and the time when it is known whether the death was caused by murder or negligent killing. Therefore there is also a practical difficulty for the court when it decides whether the situation comes within the ambit of this legislation. 
With that I would ask the Minister to take a call on this issue. It is in relation to Part 2—I think I have the part right—and certainly from a practical point of view I think this issue could very well be debated. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Succession (Homicide) Bill deals with the effect of homicide on rights of succession. The rules that are set out in the following clauses are all reasonably straight forward and when one analyses them quite obvious. For example clause 7 provides that a killer will be disentitled under a will or will not be permitted or able to claim under an intestacy. Clause 8 disentitles the killer to the victim’s non-probate assets and clause 9 disentitles the killer to apply under the Family Protection Act 1955. One could hardly have a situation where someone kills the testator and then alleges there was some kind of breach of the testator’s moral duty by the testator—it would be simply ridiculous. 
I want to focus on clause 10 for a minute because I still have some doubts as to whether we have this one entirely correct. Among other things clause 10 deals with the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act of 1949 and states that even if one is dealing with a situation of a killer if the killer has a valid claim against the estate of a victim then that person may be entitled to claim under that Act. But importantly it needs to be emphasised that the bill will not allow an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in a victim’s will so we have tried to make that crystal clear in the clause. The effect of what we have been seeking to do is that the killer will not be deprived of the benefits of a prior testamentary promise made by the victim for services that may have been provided regardless of the content of the will. I have been troubled about that clause because there is a good case to be made that in such a situation it should be impermissible for the killer to make a claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act as a matter of policy. But we have at least opened the door to some claims under that Act in the circumstances I have outlined. 
The only other thing I wish to say about Part 2 really focuses on the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not there when the bill was deliberated on and had I been I would have been a little concerned about the commentary to do with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. The commentary states that the committee was “satisfied that Maori land succession under that Act would not be unduly affected by this bill.” I am not sure that that is necessarily correct. I think that that could be the use of a lazy adverb because I do not know that Maori land succession under that Act is affected at all. Perhaps Minister Clayton Cosgrove could take a call and tell us about that—whether the commentary should state “unduly affected” or “affected”—because I think it is the latter. 
Part 2 as I say sets out the various key rules relating to the effect of homicide on succession and also deals with some changes in a schedule to enactments that are amended as a result of the passage of the legislation: a change to the Administration Act 1969 to state that the killer is not competent to be granted administration—another obvious point—and a couple of other consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Sentencing Act. Perhaps were the Minister to take a call he could also try to deal with my question of what “immediately” means in the definition of assisted suicide. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a brief call to address one or two of the points made by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson. As he says he was not present at the meeting of the Justice and Electoral Committee where we deliberated this matter and I think he is quite right on the point about the reference to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in the commentary. That word “unduly” is clumsy and we ought to make it clear in the record of Parliament that as far as the select committee was concerned—and I think I can speak for the entire committee on this—we were assured of and accepted the advice that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was absolutely unaffected by this legislation. We ought not to have used a loose adverb such as “unduly” in the commentary; that is quite right. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A lazy adverb. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes a lazy adverb—certainly not the mot juste. I would also like to deal with the discussion of clause 10. I agree that these questions are not easy ones. It will be remembered by the Committee of the whole House that clause 10 essentially preserves a killer’s pre-existing claim against the victim’s estate in restitution or under the Matrimonial Property Act the Property (Relationships) Act or the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act provided it is not made more certain or more valuable. The New Zealand Law Society pointed out in its submissions that as originally drafted the bill could lead to inconsistencies regarding testamentary promises. A testamentary promise is as I said earlier an implied or expressed promise to reward a person for work or service in one’s will—a fairly broad concept obviously. If the deceased fails to keep that promise the promisee can gain reward by a claim in respect of the deceased’s estate under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act. 
Under clause 7 of the bill any disposition in satisfaction of a testamentary promise to the killer under the victim’s will would have been automatically revoked. The killer could not then have made a testamentary promises claim; the killer could have done that only if the victim had failed to provide for him or her in the will. So there was an ironical drafting issue with the legislation. It would be inconsistent in my view that a killer could recover payment for services if the victim failed to keep that promise but not if the victim did keep it. 
So that is why we have addressed the inconsistency with new subclause (2A) of clause 10 to ensure that a killer can claim payment in respect of a victim’s testamentary promise to reward the killer for services or work provided irrespective of whether the victim provided for the killer in the will. That again has been an unpalatable balancing exercise but none the less one that we felt we had to perform consistently with the objectives of the legislation. I think it is one we have performed satisfactorily. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to Part 2— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The pleasure is all yours. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well let us hope that it is shared. As I said earlier there is a certain repugnance in even discussing this sort of business so there is not a great deal of pleasure from that point of view. 
Part 2 details the effect of homicide on the rights of succession. I find that it is straightforward legislation; it is precise. I am speaking of course without the benefit of having been a practising legal person whereas I think all other speakers on both sides of the Chamber have been. I believe it is significant that a layperson is able to understand the legislation because this law applies to ordinary people. Clause 7 states that a killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising under a will of the killer’s victim and the killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising on the intestacy or partial intestacy of the killer’s victim. It makes the situation very clear: there stands to be no benefit to any person who thought that he or she could bump someone off to get hold of the property in the will or try to gain possessions after having bumped someone off. Wills are very important instruments and I understand we will be discussing them later this evening. 
There are lighter aspects of succeeding to property and they have been the subject of drama novels and all sorts of artistic works that would have been pleasant to dwell on tonight without the severity of this bill. I remember the film  
Kind Hearts and Coronets 
 starring Sir Alec Guinness whose character eagerly sought to inherit a title by dispensing with the present titleholders and their heirs until he became the sole beneficiary. Well he would not have had any luck under this bill. 
We had an interesting level of debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee particularly on Part 2. We had to look at the possibility of killers who do have a claim against the estate of the victim. That is covered under clause 10(2)(a) which previous speakers have discussed and which ensures that killers are not deprived of the benefit to which they are entitled for the services or other economic benefits that they provided to the victim. To take it to its simplest form as it was put to us in the select committee discussion if the killer prior to killing his or her victim had spent time working on the victim’s property on some sort of contractual basis—mowing lawns or whatever—as a pre-existing commitment to being paid he or she would still be entitled to that money. I find it difficult as a tartan-blooded Scot—and I find it galling and I am sure it is galling for the victim’s family—that such payment has to be made but I can certainly understand the legal reasoning behind it and why it is appropriate to have such a provision in the Act. So one finds it interesting in stepping back from one’s repugnance that the killer should get anything in order to make sure that the State through the law is not being malicious towards the perpetrator of a crime beyond the relevance of that crime. 
We also gave consideration to the interesting aspect of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That discussion considered the effect of the bill on succession to Maori land under that Act. I well remember the representation discussion contributed by the member for the Maori Party Hone Harawira who was there to discuss it. I thought he discussed it well. I share the view of Charles Chauvel that the select committee was satisfied at the time and I would like to assure my colleague Chris Finlayson that Maori land succession under that Act would not be affected by this bill. I do not remember this issue being unduly discussed as a feature of the bill so I was a bit surprised to see it in the commentary. However it is an aspect of cultural significance to New Zealand and this probably would not occur in other legislatures to the same extent. It had particular significance and interest from that point of view. 
All in all it would be preferable as I said earlier not to have need for this legislation but we do have the need for it. This Parliament has faced it. In my view it is sensible legislation and I am happy to speak in support of it. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Mr Chairman with your leave and the leave of Mr Finlayson I will lapse momentarily to clause 4 in Part 1 to answer his question in respect of the term “immediately”. The first question I am advised is not whether a death is assisted suicide; the first question is actually whether it is homicide within the meaning of the bill—for example whether it is an unlawful a reckless or an intentional killing. So we go first to the criminal law and decide whether it was an unlawful killing. Then if it was homicide for the purposes of the bill we consider whether it was assisted suicide. What constitutes “immediately” would ultimately be determined by the courts but it does imply an element of proximity. So the term was not defined in this bill; it was a policy decision. It was not defined as such; that is an element to be left to the courts. 
I will address one other point that an Opposition member raised in respect of whether it is fair that guilt could be proved in civil proceedings on the balance of probabilities and therefore result in the loss of an inheritance. That is a civil proceeding and therefore the normal civil standard would apply and no criminal consequences would come into play. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking further on the Committee stage I repeat that we acknowledge there may be a need to regulate the common law principle that prevents a killer from benefiting financially from the death of his or her victim. In some respects the existing common law has been regarded as uncertain in some of its scope and in some of its effects. Those uncertainties have up to now been resolved by the courts on a case by case basis which as we know and as we have heard can be costly and slow. Having said that I tell the Committee that this bill in itself creates some of its own uncertainties and those uncertainties themselves will still have to be resolved by the courts on a case by case basis and that can also be somewhat costly and slow. 
I mentioned before that I was concerned that the bill was a wee bit too inflexible and that because no consideration had been given to the degrees of moral culpability it may lead to some harsh results in certain circumstances. It is not unusual in other jurisdictions to have legislation that does provide for exceptions. In fact legislation in the United Kingdom and some of the Australian states gives the courts a discretion to modify the rules except in cases where the moral culpability of the killer does not warrant the application of those rules. Time will tell I am sure as to whether this bill will lead to some harsh results. When that happens then forgive me if I say “I told you so.”—not you Mr Chairman but the Committee. 
I would also like to reiterate the somewhat brief explanation of why the civil test on the balance of probabilities is OK when it comes to criminal law. We have to look at the results—the consequences—of that. Under our law at present for a person to be convicted of murder the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But for the purposes of benefiting from the murderer’s estate a family member has to prove it only on the balance of probabilities. That is a much lesser standard of proof. 
If we go back to the David Bain situation we can say that on the balance of probabilities he may or may not have killed his family. In that case I think it did warrant some more comprehensive discussion and perhaps a reason why such a difference in the standard of proof should be admitted under this bill when we are talking in effect of a criminal conviction or a criminal offence. So it is all very well to talk about the inheritance the estate the law of intestacy the will and all the rest of it as being civil but this bill deals with homicide and homicide is not civil. Homicide is criminal. In that regard I believe that some further discussion in relation to that test—of whether it should be on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt—should have been undertaken. 
I go back to the scenario of the reckless driver. Maybe the driver was not convicted of being a reckless driver or maybe he was but when one has differences in that standard of proof then that can lead to unintended consequences. It can lead to injustice and that as lawmakers is what we really want to avoid. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will be fairly brief because in my analysis of Parts 1 and 2 I have dealt with the key points I wanted to make. In general I think that this is not a bad piece of legislation. It codifies the law that as I say prevents people who kill people from benefiting as a result of their crime. 
The only point I would make concerns clause 5—and perhaps again the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove may like to take a call just to clarify one little matter for me—which deals with the effect and application of the legislation. Subclause (1) of clause 5 states that this legislation replaces the “rules of law equity and public policy” that prevent a killer from obtaining a benefit as a result of his or her nefarious act. When one looks at the schedule one sees that a number of enactments have been amended but that nothing has been repealed. So in a sense this is the first endeavour by the New Zealand Parliament to deal with this issue. I am not sure and never have been as we have dealt with it what exactly the rules of common law equity or public policy are that actually govern this situation at the moment. It is an interesting historical question that is shortly to be only of academic moment because the Act as I said will codify the law according to the terms of the legislation. It is new legislation for the New Zealand Parliament. It does not seek to repeal or update the law but I am not sure what the exact rules of common law are at the moment. 
With that brief comment I indicate that National will support the legislation. Notwithstanding that we are dealing with very unsavoury matters they are matters that do have to be dealt with—for example claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act which I have dealt with or claims under the Family Protection Act. In these kinds of circumstances clear rules are needed and that is why the National Party will support this legislation. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of the Succession (Homicide) Bill . This is a sad title and it is a sad bill in many ways. Again I say it is a repugnant term and it is a repugnant situation that the bill has to deal with. It is based on the principle that no one should profit from committing a wrongful act. This is a significant principle in common law and it is a matter that certainly does need the consideration of Parliament. Parliament produces laws and laws although they do not necessarily prevent anybody from taking particular actions can in a civilised society attach consequences to those actions that break the law. The principle that no one should gain from an act of wrongdoing on his or her part is one of the principles that lifts society into a civilised state. 
This particular bill deals with the extreme end of wrongdoing. It seeks to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting as a result of the victim’s death whether the benefit is from the victim’s estate or from other property arrangements. 
This bill follows the Law Commission’s report in 1997 on succession. Again I call on the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to explain why this Government has not attended to this issue before now since it came to office. It seems a matter of course that there is little sense of urgency on the part of this Government to give effect to the recommendations and reports of the Law Commission. It would be nice to think that these sorts of things are taken as givens but they appear not to be. 
On a purely domestic front we still have far too many people losing their lives at the hands of others. This bill is in part a recognition of that. Also hopefully it will play its part in dissuading schemers who should be so evil as to want to take someone’s life to gain from that person’s death. It is an aptly entitled bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Wills Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Wills Bill. The purposes of the bill are set out in clause 3 which comprises three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) replaces the Wills Act 1837 of the United Kingdom Parliament with an Act in plain language paragraph (b) changes some aspects of the law set out in that legislation and paragraph (c) provides for other matters relating to wills. It is significant that this is the first piece of legislation in which this Parliament has properly and comprehensively dealt with the law relating to wills and I hope that it will be thought the Justice and Electoral Committee has made a reasonable breast of that job. 
I want to deal with some of the general drafting changes in particular the attempts by the select committee to introduce plain language into the legislation. First we thought that “natural person” was a cumbersome and unnecessary term—unnecessary because clause 8(1) had already defined a “will” as a document made by a natural person. So references to “natural person” in clauses 4 8(5) 10 and 33 have been omitted and replaced with “person”. 
The word “testator” is an archaic term that has also been done away with. I do not think it is a term that really means anything to the person in the street so we have changed that term to “will-maker” in clause 6. We have defined it as “a person who makes changes revokes or revives a will;” and we have made it clear that it is the equivalent of the old Latin terms “testator” or “testatrix”. The consequential changes appear throughout the legislation. 
We have also done away with the cumbersome term “testamentary document” in clause 6 and have suggested the use of the far more commonly used term “will”. The definition of “will” in clause 8 has been extended to cover what was previously also included in the definition of testamentary document including documents like codicils that change wills or documents that revoke or revive wills and consequential changes have been made throughout. 
“Testamentary action” is another clumsy term that we have done away with. We recommend substituting it for a slightly longer definition but one that hopefully will mean more to the layperson: making changing revoking and/or reviving a will. I hope that the public in dealing with the legislation will find it more comprehensible because of the changes recommended. 
I also draw the attention of the Committee of the whole House to clause 6 generally. We have made some other changes. For example in relation to the definition of “de facto relationship” we have provided simply that the definition of de facto relationship in the Interpretation Act 1999 will apply. We have tried to do away with the need for the reader of the legislation to go to the Interpretation Act to work out what that definition is. We have actually just incorporated the definition of “de facto relationship” from the Interpretation Act into the Wills Bill directly and it ought to make it a much easier thing to refer to. 
Probably the other pertinent comment to make is that I understand that a Supplementary Order Paper will be moved to change the commencement date of the legislation from 1 July to 1 September this year. That is to allow for consequential amendments to be made to the probate rules and forms in the High Court Rules. Obviously a 2-month extension will make parliamentary counsel’s job easier and will allow the drafting to occur in a timely and non-hurried fashion. 
Those are my comments on Part 1. I think that some sensible changes are certainly set out in the report back from the committee and I would commend them. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I think that the previous speaker dealt very adequately with the key issues that arise in Part 1. I have not heard a much more adequate address than that in a very long time and I do commend him for it. But the one critical thing he did not do was to ask the Committee whether the Justice and Electoral Committee actually succeeded in what it was seeking to do. I hope that the opportunity will be afforded to one of the competent and intelligent lay people on the other side of the Chamber—for example Maryan Street or the member for Rotorua—to comment exactly on whether from a layperson’s point of view the terminology has been simplified. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh even the chief whip may want to say something as an intelligent layperson. 
Although a lot of legislation is necessarily technical and complicated we were determined that with this legislation every endeavour would be made to express it in clear simple English. Indeed I had an idea that I was very fond of but the hard-line chair of the committee Lynne Pillay the MP for Waitakere overruled me on it. I thought it would be very useful to engage probably one of New Zealand’s most eminent exponents of the English language Owen Marshall to look at the legislation from an intelligent layperson’s point of view to say whether we have expressed what we are wanting to say in clear unambiguous simple English. That is because a lot of people want to write their own wills; they do not want to go to a lawyer or to the Public Trust to write their wills for them. I covered some of those situations in my first reading speech on this bill some time ago. 
So the terminology is extremely important and we have made an endeavour to simplify it. Along with Mr Chauvel I would ask what a natural person is as opposed to an unnatural person. It makes no sense. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ask “Barmy Bob”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes. Doing a testamentary action is ambiguous and possibly offensive. Certainly making a will seems to be a lot clearer. I am not quite so clear—picking up on what the member for Tauranga said—about whether there is such a problem with the term “testator” or “testatrix” as opposed to ”will-maker” but every endeavour has been made to simplify it. No one uses the term “testatrix” these days; I think it is considered sexist—and those proponents of political correctness on the other side will be able to assist in relation to that. “Testamentary document” is an awfully pompous term for a will so every endeavour has been made to simplify it. 
However when I read through the legislation it does at times seem to be somewhat dense and unnecessarily verbose. That is why I like to use the terminology that in the old days—when Mr Chauvel was doing law—the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have used; these days it would be the terminology that the reasonable person on the Kilbirnie bus would use. Perhaps one of the members whom I have nominated may care to stand cast his or her eyes over the bill and tell members whether the select committee has succeeded. 
The other key aspect of Part 1 deals with the meaning of “will” and although it does seem to take an eternity to state the definition I think that all contingencies are covered. It means that a “will” will also mean a document that changes a will revokes a will revives a will and is a codicil to a will. The only thing that I would say about clause 8(1B) is that there seems to be a tendency to use the word “that” rather than “which”. I think that is an unfortunate tendency in written English these days but there we have it. 
So Part 1 deals with the preliminary provisions. As Mr Chauvel said it is really the first time probably in the history of New Zealand that there has been an opportunity to take a good look at legislation governing wills because the principle Act is still the 1837 legislation. There have of course been some amendments to the Act and they are referred to in the schedules to this legislation. But this is the first time that we are to do it. Presumably it will be another 150 years—or more than 150 years—before Parliament looks at it again so let us get it right this time. That is why clarity and simplicity in the area of wills is really the name of the game. Thank you. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 What a splendid speech we have just heard. In supporting National’s stance in respect of the Wills Bill  I would like to draw the Hon Clayton Cosgrove into the debate by pointing out to him a drafting error that occurs in Part 1 and that will I believe require immediate action by those who sit behind him. The error—and this should have been picked up before—is that if one looks at the commentary one sees under the heading “Terminology simplified”: “Our recommendations in this respect include omitting the word ‘natural’ from ‘natural person’;”. If we look through the bill we find that there are a number of amendments that excise the word “natural”. So in clause 4 in the part we are dealing with at the moment we see that word “natural” has been excised. But if one looks at clause 8 “Meaning of will” where there is a newly inserted provision one sees in clause 8(1): “Will means a document that—(a) is made by a natural person;”. So an error has crept into the work of Mr Cosgrove and his team and now presumably the opportunity exists as a result of the invitation that I make to him and his team for a correction to be made. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Well spotted. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Well some might say that but some might also say it is an obvious error by people who have not looked at this legislation properly or sufficiently. 
I would like to start by just for a moment contemplating what a will is. A will is a statement made by a will-maker of how the will-maker wants his or her property to be dealt with when he or she dies. There are two basic governing principles in the law of wills. The first is that a will-maker’s ascertainable intentions should be upheld. The second is that great care should be taken in determining whether what is claimed to be an expression of the will-maker’s wishes is genuinely so because when a will operates upon a will-maker’s death he or she is no longer present to speak for himself or herself. 
Others have noted that what we are doing here is revamping old law contained in 1837 legislation. But of course as Mr Cosgrove would know wills go back way before 1837. In fact one looks at the early development of both the English common law and ecclesiastical law before the Wills Act to see that the English law was shaped by a very sharp divide between the rules relating to land and the rules governing other types of property. There is a distinction resulting from the importance of land tenure in the feudal system. So issues relating to succession to real property were the concern of the common law courts and succession to personal property was dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts. The ecclesiastical courts had their day and from the 17th century the Court of Chancery supplanted the role of the ecclesiastical courts in supervising the administration of deceased estates of personalty. 
Much has been said about the simplification of the legislation. That is in itself a fine aspiration but we also need to reflect that changes are not being made substantively to the law in any real or meaningful way by this legislation. One should not be trapped into thinking that this is a simple area of the law. It is not. It is in fact quite arcane and I am certain that many lawyers have made many millions of dollars in the course of their professional careers from dealing with the type of issues that arise in connection with the validity of wills the interpretation of wills and the administration of estates. 
In 1837 uniform rules governing the execution of wills of realty and personalty were imposed by the Wills Act. This is one of those rare illustrations of old English law that still sits on our statute book by dint of the Imperial Laws Application Act. As others have said the Law Commission appropriately considered that there should be a new Wills Act. Why? Because it thought that it was appropriate to restate the law in language that is more contemporary and plain. It was thought that the law of wills should be as Mr Finlayson has said obvious to the intelligent layman. That was surely a worthy precept and in some minor respects the substantive law of wills can usefully be modified. 
So we see in Part 1 a definition of a will which is in clause 8—I have already noted the drafting error that is there. “Will means a document that—(a) is made by a natural person; and (b) does any or all of the following: (i) disposes of property to which the person is entitled when he or she dies; or (ii) disposes of property to which the person’s personal representative becomes entitled as personal representative after the person’s death; or”—finally—“(iii) appoints a testamentary guardian.” 
One looks at that definition in the context of what was in the Wills Act 1837 and sees immediately what the process of simplification has wrought. In the 1837 legislation “will” was defined in this way: “The word ‘will’ shall extend to a testament and to a codicil and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660] or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of King Charles the Second intituled ‘An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries and tenures  
in capite 
 and by knight’s service’ and to any other testamentary disposition;”. Is it not amazing that we have had that definition on our statute books since New Zealand came of age in 1840? 
There are other illustrations for those who are interested in these issues and want to compare and contrast what was in the Wills Act of 1837 and what now emerges in this legislation. 
I commend to the Committee subject to the error that I have identified Part 1 of this bill and I certainly look forward to making substantial and continuing contributions as we look at the further errors to be found in Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to put the previous speaker Richard Worth at his ease. It is— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No! We like to see his soul tortured! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think he is a tortured soul; I do not think he needs our help. Mr Worth purports— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: From the eminent lawyer Mr Cosgrove! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I do not in any way purport to be a lawyer neither eminent nor otherwise; I leave it to the “member for Monaco” to take up that. 
Mr Worth in his words has identified a mistake. Sadly that is not true. A “will” as defined in clause 8(1) is a document “made by a natural person;”—correct. Because it is already defined as that it is unnecessary and clumsy to refer to natural persons elsewhere. So the reference to natural persons was deliberately retained. It is the reason why the phrase “natural person” is not needed elsewhere. So to simplify it for the simple mind of Mr Worth I say that it becomes the starting point for that definition and it is not required right through. 
I suggest that the test Mr Finlayson suggested which was a very good suggestion is that laypeople—and I assume that by “laypeople” he meant non-lawyers—actually apprise themselves of the simple language in this bill. I suggest to other people that to do so might be helpful. Mr Worth might like to take some legal lessons from the learned Mr Finlayson in respect of definitions in legislation. 
 I also suggest a person who would be very apt—primevally—to test whether the language is appropriate in this legislation would of course be Bob Clarkson. If Bob understands it I think anyone will understand it. That is the acid test and I invite Mr Clarkson to stand up and advise us—in big print small words or pictures—whether he understands this legislation. If it works for him I think it will work for us all. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Wills Bill. I will try to bring it back to some sort of common sense— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: And decency. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: —and decency because it is important. At the end of the day it is the last wish of a person. Once that person has died of course it is far too late. 
I take the point that the language has been simplified but I also make the point that the old language which I must admit I have used for 27 years has been tested over the years by all the cases. Some of this new language may need to be tested. As a young law graduate I learned how to write a will in situations such as sitting next to a hospital bed or even dining in a restaurant. I think that one of the wills I wrote on a table napkin is still as valid as it ever was. 
The old language is comfortable I must admit but that is not to say we cannot move on. It is a challenge. As I understand it the law is not written so that we can understand it; it is written so that we cannot misunderstand it. There is a big difference in that. Under this bill though whereas previously we used to “give devise and bequeath all our real and personal estate of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate” now we just “give our property”. In a sense the language is becoming more accessible to the ordinary person on the street. 
I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the meaning of “will” because I do not believe it is totally sufficient. Although the bill tries to simplify the language and perhaps it uses better language than that used in 1837 all it states under clause 8(1) is that a will is a document that is made by a natural person and does any or all of the following: “(i) disposes of property to which the person is entitled when he or she dies; or (ii) disposes of property to which the person’s personal representative becomes entitled … or (iii) appoints a testamentary guardian.” 
Wills do more than that in this day and age. Wills appoint trustees and executors. Under this bill these wills do not apparently. Wills can appoint trustees of existing trusts. Wills can provide directions as to how someone wants his or her funeral service or cremation to be conducted. One might laugh at that but I have had the situation where a family disputed where the mother’s ashes should be laid to rest and the three children of the family divided the mother’s ashes three ways. That is a true story. 
So wills do more than just dispose of property; they can avoid a lot of family disagreements at a later stage. In the very nature of wills it is too late when there is found to be an uncertainty in the will to argue about it at that stage because the testator—in the old days it was the testator or the testatrix; I did not mind which one it was—or in this day and age the will-maker is not there to clarify exactly what his or her intentions were. 
I ask the Minister to take a call on the definition of a will because not every natural person person natural or otherwise has property to dispose of but that does not preclude those persons from making a will. I suggest that this is depriving some people of having their last say—of being able to rest in peace knowing that they have properly documented their last wishes and knowing that their directions for disposal of their ashes their burial directions or their funeral directions will be complied with. 
Under this bill I believe that there is an omission and I believe that it would be very simple to fix. I believe it should be fixed. I think it will avoid some misunderstandings and some family disagreements at a later stage when it comes perhaps to dividing the ashes of someone’s dearly loved one. Wills are very important. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am a testatrix and have definitely and deliberately created a testamentary document in order that I should not die intestate and be thereafter known as an intestacy. I have had cause in my life also to do a testamentary action in order to refine and improve my testamentary document so the Wills Bill is of some interest to me as well as to many other New Zealanders. In response to Mr Finlayson’s challenge earlier I do indeed as an intelligent layperson consider this bill to be quite accessible. Like Mr Finlayson I do lament the replacement of “which” with “that” but I recognise the limitations of legislators. As a former teacher of English I say there is much to lament about the movement and evolution of modern English but move and evolve it does. This Wills Bill will fit the bill for modern New Zealanders so I welcome it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand to speak after my parliamentary colleague who has just spoken so well. “the statement made by a will-maker— 
Hon Member 
: And so briefly. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —indeed it was brief and I liked the points she made—“of how they want their property to be dealt with once they have died” was the definition of a will just given by my colleague Dr Richard Worth. I thought he spoke singularly well—indeed all people have. They speak of course from a legal perspective and I welcome the invitation of my colleague Chris Finlayson to give a layperson’s point of view. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh this will be good. 
Hon Member 
: Intelligent! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank the member. Intelligent—I do not know if I would fit the category but I will just give an opinion anyway. 
Wills become a fixation for some people. As Dr Worth said and it is worth repeating this is in fact an arcane law that is of great significance and one that has been a huge earner for sections of the legal profession. 
I note that the Minister has a tendency to make light of the points made by Dr Worth and he was I thought slightly demeaning in the way he reflected on the ability of laypeople to voice their understanding of the technicalities of this bill. Well I am a layperson and the Minister can choose to snigger if he so chooses at my interpretation and understanding of this bill but I thoroughly enjoyed being part of the Justice and Electoral Committee to work through it. 
I would like to pay tribute—and I have mentioned this to my colleague Mr Finlayson—to the explanations that were given to us by the officials who attended the select committee because it was an incredibly technical bill to a layperson. It was incredibly technical but it was made very very plain. I am happy to say that I am very pleased with the result. I think it will make things far easier for people to understand. 
It is not uncommon for me to have people come to me in Greymouth and in Motueka in the ever-increasingly marginal seat of West Coast - Tasman. They come in to see me because they cannot understand their position in a will. I suggest that they best see a solicitor but they are people of incredibly tight means and they do not even know how to go about doing that. So it is very important that wills be straightforward. 
I remember taking an overseas client who owned property in New Zealand to see a member of the legal profession—who was my own solicitor and a really good one—in Auckland. I said that my friend wished to make a will for his New Zealand property that would have effect in New Zealand. He started to detail all the things that he wanted in it and I remember the lawyer asking “How much of your life do you wish to control from the grave?”. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Did you say “good lawyer”? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes he was; they do exist. They do exist I say to Mr Clarkson. If wills get too complex and if people try to control too much from the grave wills are not going to work. So straightforward wills in straightforward language are a great advantage to the people of New Zealand and I certainly support this bill. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to make just two points. First again in an attempt to assist Mr “Arkinvarl” in his misguided interpretation that somehow I was not supporting Mr Finlayson’s honourable and eminent suggestion— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite unacceptable for the Minister to deliberately mispronounce the name of the last speaker and I would ask him to desist from that. It is a form of pettiness that should not be encouraged in the Chamber at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes if the member is concerned about it that is fair enough but I thought how the Minister had pronounced the name was close enough. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I did not take offence but it is a difficult name to pronounce. It is difficult to pronounce perhaps but easy to remember. It is a three-syllable Scottish name of Gaelic origin and for the Minister’s guidance I say that it is pronounced “Ok-in-vole” and members can rhyme that with whatever they choose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure the Minister will take note of that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to the member for his Celtic history lesson. I want to correct any misconception he had that I was not supporting Mr Finlayson’s eminent suggestion that laypeople—that is non-lawyers—should actually look at this bill and give it a health check as it were for the simple nature of its language. So if he took that impression he is wrong. 
I would address one thing— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I feel reassured. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank goodness! We are all happy for that. I would address Ms Wilkinson’s point in respect of clause 8(1). It describes the two basic requirements that make a will. I think the point was raised in respect of the disposal of ashes and other requirements the deceased may have. I am advised that a will of course can do other things. It is not necessary within the definition of a will in legislation that they be prescribed. Indeed if an executor is appointed in a will I understand that the executor is charged with the disposal of remains and can indeed I am advised dispose of them in any manner regardless of the requirements laid out in a will. But it is not necessary I am advised that every aspect of every wish of a deceased person be prescribed in the legislation. There is nothing in this legislation that stops that level of prescription being placed in there by deceased persons themselves. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Wills 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to Part 2. I really want to address only three of them substantively but I will just run through all the changes recommended. 
It is recommended that clause 9 be omitted in favour of clause 10 and new clause 10A. There are some minor amendments to clause 15 which deals with changes to wills by the obliteration of words. Likewise in clause 16 there are some cross-references to clause 18 which contains the rules relating to wills where age capacity the making of a civil union or the entry into marriage are issues. Clause 19 provides that the dissolution of a civil union or a marriage is not to void the will if the clear intent of the will is that it ought to survive the dissolution of the civil union or marriage. Clause 25(3)(c) has a minor change in language from “doing the roles” to “doing the duties”. Clause 33 deals with the rules for the making of informal wills. Clause 40 concerns wills made before the commencement date of the legislation and the schedule contains some consequential changes to clauses 10 and 18 and deals with the insertion of clause 10A. So there are substantive changes in all those recommended amendments which in my view ought to be drawn to the attention of this Committee. 
The first concerns clause 10A. This clause combines the original subclause (3) in clause 10 and subclause (4) in clause 18. Together those subclauses would have provided that a minor could make a will validly in contemplation of a marriage or a civil union but that the will would not be effective until the marriage or the civil union contemplated actually took place. It is more logical to combine those two subclauses. So clause 10A introduces a new provision to expressly state what evidence is required to demonstrate that a will was made in contemplation of marriage or a civil union. This reflects a change to clause 18. The Supplementary Order Paper which the Minister has tabled will also correct a typographical error in clause 10A. 
I move to the substantive amendments recommended to clause 18. Currently wills are revoked when the will-maker marries or enters a civil union. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Arbitration Amendment Bill without amendment the Succession (Homicide) Bill without amendment and progress on the Wills Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.