Volume 655 Week 15 - Thursday 18 June 2009 
Volume 655 Week 15 - Thursday 18 June 2009 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Thursday 18 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 23 June it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4); the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill if necessary; the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which is set down for introduction today the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill; and other bills on the Order Paper. I am pleased that the Opposition has such an interest in these matters. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I ask the acting Leader of the House who does it very well whether in fact the Government intends as it progresses the climate change legislation to adopt the offer from Labour to facilitate that on the basis that certainty will be given to industry including the forestry industry through having fixed dates rather than Orders in Council? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
:  
As I understand it negotiations on issues such as the one that the member raises will proceed on a good-faith basis. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1) and it pertains to answers given by the Prime Minister to questions asked by me earlier this week. I seek your ruling and I imagine that you would wish to give a considered ruling. 
Standing Order 377(1) states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” The Standing Order therefore has two parts. The first obliges the Minister to seek to address the question—and this part is already the subject of many Speakers’ rulings. The second part relieves the Minister of any such obligation if the Minister judges that addressing the question would not be consistent with the public interest. This too is the subject of many Speakers’ rulings and it is clear that the decision to invoke it rests with the Minister alone. What is not clear to me is whether the Minister is or is not bound to explain why he or she has invoked the public interest part of the Standing Order. Ordinarily it would be perfectly obvious and therefore uncontroversial. It may involve to quote Speaker’s ruling 162/4 “principles [such] as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security.” 
Earlier this week the Prime Minister repeatedly declined to address questions. He confirmed that that was because it was not in the public interest to do so. He further declined to say why it was not in the public interest. The Prime Minister then took matters a step further. He declined to tell the House whether he was in possession of any substantive information that is not yet public. He may be in possession of that substantive additional information or he may not. He declined to say. 
Therefore a possible disorderly situation arises. If the Prime Minister does have substantive information disclosure of which is not in the public interest I submit that he should be obliged to say that he has that information and to broadly characterise it—it affects the privacy of an individual is commercially sensitive involves national security or whatever. If on the other hand the Prime Minister has no such information then it follows with unfortunate certainty that he has invoked the second part of the Standing Order dishonestly which is of course disorderly. One cannot withhold information in the public interest if it does not exist in the first place. 
My submission is therefore that invoking the second part of the Standing Order obliges the Prime Minister to broadly say why. Failure to do so where it is not already obvious would allow a Minister to escape his or her obligation under the first part of the Standing Order by casually invoking the second. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Although the member has tried to read a lot of things into the Standing Order and its usage the convention in this House consistent with the Standing Order is quite clear—that is the Minister answering the question is the arbiter of what is in the public interest. There is no obligation to explain or provide information in say the manner that the Official Information Act requires. I think any ruling would need to be consistent with that well-established precedent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking very briefly I disagree with my colleague opposite. As it applies in this particular case it goes to whether the Prime Minister was in fact invoking the public interest reason. Mr Speaker as I indicated to you yesterday although I think that you assumed that he did I do not think he did directly. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Mr Speaker can I just draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 162/3-4. Speakers’ ruling 162/3 states: “an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled …”. It does not define the public interest but if we look at Speaker’s ruling 162/4 we see that it makes it very clear. It states: “But ultimately the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.” I think that deals with the point that the member has raised. The question of what constitutes the public interest is obviously one that in this instance the Prime Minister will have to defend in the public arena. But in terms of the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders I would submit to you Mr Speaker that it is very clear what the position is. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 I shall speak very briefly. The member in referring to Speaker’s ruling 162/4 in his no doubt keenness to progress matters this afternoon omitted the last sentence of the ruling which states: “Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because that member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest the question should be answered in a particular way.” Mr Speaker I think that will assist you in your deliberation. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I would ask the Speaker to dwell on this issue and to give it the consideration that it deserves rather than making an instant ruling because my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson makes a very valid point—that is there must be some limit prescribed by you Mr Speaker in the conduct of the affairs of this House that stops the rules of this House from being abused by people claiming a public interest when there is not one. When there is a line issue as to whether there is a public interest it obviously behoves the Minister to make the call in accordance with the Standing Orders. When there is no information which is one of the possibilities here that cannot be cloaked behind a claim of public interest and where there is something that is being protected for plainly a private political interest rather than a public interest clearly that ought not to be defended by hiding behind that ruling either. So I ask you Mr Speaker to give consideration to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for raising what is a very serious point of order; I accept that absolutely. But I also make very clear that the Standing Order and the Speakers’ rulings that have been cited quite correctly are pretty clear on the matter: it is not for the Speaker to judge whether a matter is correctly or not correctly considered to be in the public interest. That is the sole prerogative of the Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—answering the question. I believe that the Standing Orders make it very clear that that is the way it should be and that it would be dangerous in my view for the Speaker to get into that territory. For that reason I am going to rule that in fact the existing Standing Order and the existing Speakers’ rulings cover the situation adequately. The argument about whether information exists is not relevant in my view because an answer may not involve specific information. The issue as to whether an answer is given may not involve specific information but relate to wider matters to do with the public interest. I think we cannot move away from the fundamental position that the decision as to whether a matter is in the public interest must remain with the Minister. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take the stand again but the truth of the matter is that I agree with your ruling and I was not asking for you to change that at all. I would be grateful if you could take a look at my point of order—I have provided the Clerk of the House with a copy—and give a considered ruling. My point of order is not at all to do with whether some person other than the Minister gets to make a judgment on whether something is in the public interest. It is not that point at all; it is two other points. I would be grateful Mr Speaker if you could indicate to the House your preparedness to take a further look at what you are now looking at and perhaps to give a ruling on it sometime in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously I will look at the honourable member’s letter and I will look at the matter to see whether there is any issue I have overlooked. But I repeat what I said a moment ago: one of the key issues the member has specified in this letter is the issue about the existence of information or not. To me answering a question relates to more than just specific information. Some questions might cover specific information; others might not. But the issue of public interest is wider than just the matter of whether substantive information exists or does not exist. So I alert the member to that but I do undertake to examine his letter carefully because I think the issue deserves proper scrutiny by the Speaker. I will come back on the matter only if I find any reason to differ from what I have ruled today. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2009—Household Energy Efficiency 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How does Budget 2009 help New Zealanders improve their household energy efficiency? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget allocates $323 million over 4 years to a campaign to fit homes with insulation and clean heating devices such as heat pumps and approved woodburners. The scheme was launched today by the Prime Minister the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Green Party’s energy spokesperson. We welcome the cooperation of the Green Party on this matter. More than 180000 New Zealand homes will have access to grants and the scheme will get under way from 1 July. I can advise the House now that it looks as if the scheme will be very popular. 
Craig Foss 
: What Government grants will be available under the scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is offering to pay a third of the cost up to $1300 of installing ceiling and underfloor insulation in all homes built before 2000. Homes with sufficient ceiling and underfloor insulation may access $500 for clean heating devices. Additional Government funding will be available for holders of community services cards. The Prime Minister confirmed today that all main trading banks have agreed to waive their fees for top-up loans that homeowners get for insulation retrofits. 
Craig Foss 
: What other benefits will the scheme deliver for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the benefits of this type of scheme are pretty well understood. The scheme will reduce health risks for New Zealanders too many of whom live in cold damp homes and particularly will reduce health risks to our most vulnerable—that is children and older people. The scheme will create jobs for New Zealanders involved in the installations and it will provide substantial energy-efficiency gains for householders. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister believe that low-income households should be a priority for home insulation refits; if so why do community service cardholders have to pay up to $100 more for an insulation refit under National’s scheme than they did under the scheme that was in place under the previous Labour Government and what incentives are there for landlords to make rental properties more energy efficient? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour scheme promised much but the funding for it was very little. A fairy tale about a billion-dollar scheme evaporated under the scrutiny of the new Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a specific question about whether the Minister agreed that low-income households ought to be a priority under the scheme and if so whether two aspects that would address low-income households would be dealt with. That question was not addressed in the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the honourable member really wants to pin down the Minister he has to be more precise with the question. I was thinking as I heard the member ask his question that he was giving the Minister plenty of opportunity to give a range of answers which the Minister did. If the member wants a more precise answer he has to be more precise with his question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the Minister says that $323.3 million will be allocated to home insulation and heating over the next 4 years can he confirm that $100 million of the money has been taken from Vote Health and that $80 million is existing Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority funding with the result that the new money available is only $143 million per annum which is a $1800 grant per home and will provide for only 20000 additional refits per annum at a time when the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority estimates that 900000 Kiwi homes have substandard insulation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour members cannot get out of the habit of complaining about anything positive. Thousands of homes will get insulated. Low-income New Zealanders are a priority. They will get a bigger subsidy. This scheme is a product of a constructive relationship between the Government and Labour’s former friends the Greens. Those are three great things. 
Finance Minister—Statements 
2.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes particularly those statements that have been critical of the bizarre economics we are hearing about from the Labour Party. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he still stand by his statement of 10 June that “… taxpayers are supporting the banks and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support business and households through a tough time in the economy even if it affects their profits a bit”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member asked me that question yesterday. I said I did stand by those statements. The fact that he has asked that question again today tells me he has nothing else that he can question the Government about. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To the contrary I have three more supplementary questions the first of which asks: why was he clear last week that banks should be passing through official cash rate cuts to short-term interest rates whereas this week he says the Government’s most important objective has been to ensure stability and orderly lending in the banking system and can he tell the House whether he has received any representations or contacts from the banking sector in the last week that might explain his change of emphasis? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have not changed our emphasis. There is some argument to be had about the gap between the floating rate and the official cash rate but I would have to say it is not our top priority. The answer to the second question is yes. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative approaches to managing the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have. I have just received a report that tallies up the promises made by the Labour Party so far in the course of the Budget debate and its comment on Government policy. So far they add up to only $5 billion; I expect that number to get much greater over the next 12 months. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a two-part point of order and I am sure that you can anticipate what it is. In the first place the dear old Minister has absolutely no responsibility for the Labour Party. Secondly the Labour Party has not released its policy for the next election yet; therefore we cannot have made any spending promises. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Of course the Minister of Finance does not have responsibility for Labour Party policy but he does have a responsibility to receive a large range of reports which is what we would expect from a competent Minister of Finance. That is directly what he was asked about and what he was commenting on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. I do not think we need to take more time on this issue. What the Minister must not do is to go on and comment on the quality of the policies he has received reports on when they are Labour Party policies. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to be quoting from a report. If he was I require it to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister whether it was an officials’ document. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is certainly a report but before I table it I must correct a figure. I said it was $5 billion; actually it is $6 billion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is an official report the Minister has been asked to table it and therefore he should do so. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite happy to table it because I am sure that the Labour Party is not keeping track of that figure but I did not think it mattered whether the report was an official one. I am happy to seek leave to table the report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders require that when a Minister who is answering a question quotes from an official document another member of the House can ask the Minister to table that document. That is quite proper; it is not a matter of seeking leave. The House can ask for the document to be tabled when an official document is being quoted from. That is why I was checking whether it was an official document. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not an official document but I will seek leave to table the report. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are dealing with this now. The Speaker has been told that it is not an official document so I have to take that at its face value. The Minister is now seeking leave to table a document in his possession that is apparently a compilation of figures. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order now is that the Minister claimed that he was quoting from a report. His ministerial responsibility for answering the question was attached to the fact that there was a report. My request to you Mr Speaker is that after question time you look at the supplementary question and the Minister’s response to it and you come back and rule on whether the Minister did have any ministerial responsibility given the fact that he did not have an official report on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need for the House to take more time on this matter. That is no responsibility of the Speaker whatsoever. The Minister was asked whether he had reports. He has a report and he has now tabled it. The report is available on the Table and that is where the matter ends as far as the Speaker is concerned. Members can make their own judgments about the quality of the report that has been tabled. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have been very vigorous Mr Speaker—and I think you were quite vigorous this week with one of my colleagues—in requiring members who are tabling a document to provide a detailed description of that document. That is your right and you have ruled on that. Further you have been quite vigorous—and I will not comment on the veracity of this—in berating members when you take the view that a document does not exist. You have used that term quite often. When the member sought leave to table the document you did not require a similar— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down forthwith. The document exists. I have been concerned about the seeking of leave to table documents when they do not exist. The document was being held in the Minister’s hand. He had already described what it was because he read out a whole lot of figures from it. The member is wasting the time of the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better not trifle with the Chair. I am listening. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I would be grateful if you did not anticipate my point of order. You have required not only a detailed description but also—quite rightly; I agree with you—that members when tabling documents provide authentication and details of the source of those documents. I put it to you that you did not require the Minister to give details of the source of that documentation. That Minister got the invitation to table the document and he did but I invite you to be as vigorous with members on that side of the House as you are with those on our side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance. I warn the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that any further such comment from him will have him leaving the Chamber for the rest of this sitting day. I will not tolerate any further comment from him of that kind. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister tell the House which banks he has received representations from and on which dates he received them since he just answered “yes” to my previous question “… can the Minister tell the House whether he has received any representations or contacts from the banking sector in the last week that might explain his change of emphasis?” 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot see any point that the member has made about a change in emphasis. I am in regular contact with the banks because of the importance of ensuring that banks continue to lend. If they stop lending people will lose their jobs. That is more important than a bit of cheap politicking over one small aspect of the interest rates. In the last week I have spoken to probably three if not four of the major banks. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister not concerned that the official cash rate has fallen by 5.75 percent but that credit card rates have fallen by only 1.5 percent and does he not think that this is clear evidence of the banking sector failing to pass on savings to New Zealand families in deep need of relief and is yet another reason to hold an inquiry into the banking sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I support New Zealand families and businesses being able in a competitive banking market to pick the lowest rate that they can find because that is what will keep the banks honest. If a parliamentary select committee thinks it can change the way that banks set their interest rates I invite it to explain just how it will do that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the failure of the banks to pass on the cuts in the official cash rate to ordinary New Zealanders not a top priority as the Minister answered to an earlier supplementary question when it is costing New Zealand families millions of dollars; and in the meetings earlier this week with at least three major banks that the Minister talked about earlier did he communicate to the banks that that was not his top priority? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have been absolutely open about the Government’s top priorities. The first priority is banking stability because we have seen the enormous damage it has done in the US the UK and European economies when weak unprofitable banks have collapsed. It is our top priority to make sure the banks are stable. Our second priority is that they keep lending. Whatever decisions are made about interest rates for the people who are renewing their borrowing and whatever arguments can be made there on behalf of those who are interested in the floating rate which is a very small proportion of the market are less important than the fact that the banks keep lending to the whole economy so that people can keep their jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why would the Minister expect the banks to take seriously his earlier protestations about the interest rate pass-through when he has had contact with nearly all of the major banks in the last week and presumably confirmed to them what he told the House: that the Government’s top priority is their financial stability? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It may be a revelation to that member but from observing the practices of banks over the years I can say that politicians’ opinions about interest rates are only one factor that the banks take into account. I communicate with the banks about those issues that I think are the most important for the health of the economy and our ability to grow out of recession and replace jobs. I am quite happy that the job of raising the relatively small but legitimate issue of the gap between the cash rate and the floating rate is something that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has picked up. That issue has had a lot of airing in the media and we will see whether the banks take any notice of that. 
Corrections Chief Executive—Confidence 
3.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she have any confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Mr Barry Matthews following recent revelations of a senior manager’s involvement in a drug ring at Rimutaka Prison; if so why? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Yes; I have confidence that Mr Matthews has acted swiftly to deal with this issue at Rimutaka Prison. 
David Garrett 
: Would the Minister of Corrections think it was good news if more drug rings were detected in prisons because that meant that Mr Matthews was efficiently detecting them? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The matter of drugs being in the prison system should not be seen as a positive thing in any light. But it must be seen as being positive that the issues in this case have been detected dealt with and prosecuted. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister of Corrections agree that the mark of an efficient chief executive would be that no cannabis-growing operations were detected because there were none to detect; if so how many more instances of Mr Barry Matthews’ incompetence will she tolerate? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Broadly speaking yes. But it is important that where these matters are detected we acknowledge that swift action has been taken which is the case in this instance. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
4.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How does she expect cuts in Adult and Community Education to “…ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens” as she has stated previously about the Government’s aim in Vote Education? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 As I have told the member for the last 2 days when she has asked the same question the Government remains committed to adult and community education because it sees value in it. Over the next 4 years we will spend $124 million on adult and community education. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does a cut of $70 million for adult and community education courses that are specifically targeted at literacy language and numeracy skills enhance the ability for people especially young people to upskill and retrain? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the previous Government had this Government has extensive investment in helping young people to upskill and retrain. We happen to think that it is time to tidy up that sector because of the misdirected policy of the last Government. In addition to that funding of hundreds of millions of dollars for young people to upskill and retrain the Government will be spending $124 million over the next 4 years on adult and community education. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister for Tertiary Education reconcile the cuts in adult and community education affecting valuable parent education classes in west Auckland Orewa and Tauranga—as examples only—with the National Party’s centrepiece pre-election policy that promoted parenting courses as an essential part of what was known as “A Fresh Start for New Zealand”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I make two points. Firstly there is $124 million available for adult and community education which will be allocated consistent with the Government’s priorities. Secondly there is some confusion over the impact of changes to do with adult and community education. All community groups that are currently funded in their own right will continue to be funded. Some get funding through subcontracts with schools and they will have to go through the priority process. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What statements has the Minister for Tertiary Education seen endorsing the need to reprioritise tertiary education funding? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a statement that says: “it is about prioritising what is a shrinking amount of money so I think that any government and that’s true of National or Labour would have had to of sat down and said ‘Okay we in good faith” can we do what we said we would do? “ ‘Maybe we should have a think about what comes first.’ ” That statement a very wise one comes from the Hon Steve Maharey who is currently the vice-chancellor of Massey University. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What does the Minister say to the woman who wrote to me recently and said: “Personally I have been taking night classes at various institutions around Nelson for the last 19 years. When I was made redundant and feeling pretty worthless I signed up for various classes at Nayland College and these helped me feel like a worthwhile person again. I have learned Maori language and gained qualifications through night classes. I have gained so much from them and on speaking to others at the classes I currently attend they all feel the same.”? How does the Minister encourage this woman to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens if her adult and community education classes are axed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would say two things. First the Government will spend over $120 million in the next 4 years on the kinds of classes that that woman benefited from. Second she will have the opportunity to take further opportunities as a result of the expenditure of well over a billion dollars on tertiary education which is open to any adult in New Zealand who wants to for instance study Maori language or learn other skills so that he or she can get a job. 
Hazardous Materials—Playgrounds Sportsgrounds and Parks 
5.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has he requested advice as to how many playgrounds sportsgrounds and parks around New Zealand are situated on landfills where toxic or hazardous materials have been dumped; if so what was that advice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 It is the regional councils not the Ministry for the Environment that keep records of information on specific contaminated sites. The sites on which the environment ministry has detailed information are only those that have received funding from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. None of those includes playgrounds sportsgrounds or parks; they are predominantly previous industrial sites. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that people have a right to know which playgrounds sportsgrounds and parks are known to be contaminated by historical toxic dumps? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do. I think the great difficulty is that to take the situation in New Plymouth it is very difficult to know where they are. No records were kept. There are about 20-odd dumps in a community like New Plymouth. I think that is true for communities right throughout New Zealand. In a previous era like the 1940s 1950s and 1960s contaminants were dumped in some of those sites; the difficulty is that we do not know which ones. 
Jonathan Young 
: What steps have the Minister and his ministry taken since I raised the Marfell Park problem with him to reassure local residents that all practical steps have been taken to ensure that it is safe? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member rightly raised with me the problem in his constituency and I have subsequently received reports from both the Taranaki Regional Council and the environment ministry. I am satisfied that the regional council took practical immediate steps to remove drums from the park and a large amount of the surrounding soil. We now need to check that there is no residual contamination in that park and tests are being commissioned right now. I have indicated in response to the member’s requests that the Government is open to making a contribution to ensure that those tests are done so that his constituents can be reassured that the site is safe. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Nick Smith who said in 2006 that there would be no progress on contaminated sites and indeed that the problem would get worse without stronger direction from central government; and would a key part of stronger Government direction include better information for the public? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes we have a number of steps under way. Central government needs to provide clearer direction. The first is providing some clear guidelines for the regional councils on how to deal with both potentially contaminated and contaminated sites. We also have on our important programme of work discussion of the future of the Environmental Protection Authority. We know from the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the situation at Mapua that a policy agency is not well qualified to do some of the operational functions. The Government will need to work through that question as we detail the Environmental Protection Authority’s functions. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Minister agree to the creation of a national public register of all known contaminated sites on public lands? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Under the Resource Management Act as it stands responsibility for such registers rests with the regional councils. I think it makes little sense to have a duplicate—that is a bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington as well as those in the regional councils with both doing the same job. A further point I would make is that the Ministry for the Environment is a policy agency and where it has got into operational areas as I noted in the case of Mapua its performance is not satisfactory. I think we need to take that into account. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that the companies that contaminated these sites should take responsibility for their damage to the environment and people’s health; and will he consider introducing the change to the Resource Management Act proposed in 1999 by his predecessor the Rt Hon Simon Upton which would make anyone responsible for land contamination before 1991 liable for cleaning it up? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I first make the point that there is a difficulty. For example in the situation in New Plymouth it seems that the dumping of such containers or drums was actually lawful in the 1960s. I think there is an issue where a company behaved lawfully for the time but that behaviour is now inappropriate. What is the best way to handle that? I have asked the Ministry for the Environment to do some policy work on the state of the law in respect of contaminated sites and that work includes the issue the member has raised. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a statement made by Rt Hon Simon Upton on 15 October 1999 in an article in the  
Southland Times 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: The second document is a statement made by Dr Nick Smith to the lower North Island regional conference of the National Party on 13 May 2006. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Pay Equity—Investigations 
6.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What work has she directed the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to undertake to eliminate the gender pay gap now that the Government has closed the pay and employment equity unit? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I have asked the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to take a policy role in relation to the gender pay gap that is broader than the pay and employment equity review and pay investigations. My ministry’s brief will address the following factors contributing to the gender pay gap: education qualifications; work experiences including time out to care for children; and women being clustered in female-dominated low-pay occupations. 
Sue Moroney 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The members’ colleague is asking a supplementary question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Minister tell the National Council of Women that “We have plenty of research and investigation on the need for pay parity and it is time we made changes in the law.”? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As usual I find that the recall of the member is not quite reliable. I am not too sure where she got that quote from. I advise everybody that in 1972 the National Government passed the Equal Pay Act. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will Government members please pay respect to their colleague. I cannot hear. Dr Jackie Blue has the floor. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How has the pay gap in New Zealand evolved over time? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said the National Government passed the Equal Pay Act in 1972. Since that legislation was passed the pay gap between women and men has started to close until 2001 when under the then Labour Government the pay gap was 12 percent where it has stayed. I am privileged to once again be part of a National Government that addresses the pay gap. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Minister agree to having the statement that the National Council of Women of New Zealand checked with her before they published the comment in the June issue of its newsletter  
The Circular 
 which I read out attributed to her? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I do not remember being asked to check a statement. It is appalling that the Labour MP would suggest that a Government MP—or any MP—should sanction what community non-governmental organisations say in their newsletters. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does the Ministry of Women’s Affairs now have the capacity to undertake this gender pay gap work? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: In Budget 2009 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs received an increase of $2 million in its funding over the next 4 years. That equates to a 12 percent increase in budget. That funding contrasts starkly with the previous Labour Government which rejected budget bids from its Ministry of Women’s Affairs in both 2007 and 2008. Labour said no to the capability budget bids put in by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. National supports the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
Sue Moroney 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the member seeking to ask a question. Please show her some courtesy. 
Sue Moroney 
: What changes in the law is the Minister considering in order to eliminate the gender pay gap? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said before the Ministry of Women’s Affairs received a budget increase of $2 million over the next 4 years thanks to the support of the Prime Minister and my senior Cabinet colleagues. We will leave no stone unturned in trying to close the pay gap. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked was quite specific and the Minister failed to address it. My question asked what changes in the law she is considering in order to eliminate the gender pay gap. I invite you to invite the Minister to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer that question. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I fully addressed the question. With the $2 million additional funding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was very clearly about changes to the law not about funding. I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said we will have an extra $2 million to examine the three factors I mentioned previously: education qualifications time out of work and women being clustered together in low-paid occupations. We will leave no stone unturned. If there are glitches in legislation then I am sure my colleagues will look at them if we need legislative intervention. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the answer to my question is none then the Minister may well say that but she certainly did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We must be careful not to push this matter too far. As I heard it the Minister talked about money that was being deployed to examine certain issues in relation to the law. That appears to me to be identifying the areas the Minister is focusing on. I believe therefore that she answered the question. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the June issue of  
The Circular 
 published by the National Council of Women of New Zealand and containing the quote from Pansy Wong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a press statement in the name of Kate Wilkinson that states that the pay equity issue is the responsibility of all employers and that good employers will work to tackle it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a recent press statement? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes it is dated 13 May 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a press statement from Kate Wilkinson. Is there any objection to that press statement being tabled? There is objection. 
Rahui Katene 
: What specific projects has the Minister initiated to address the pervasive inequalities for Maori women who earn less than women of all other ethnicities and just 86.1 percent of the average Pakeha woman’s salary? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs will be doing some work looking at young Maori women’s participation in employment and education and identifying the factors that influence participation and the degree to which these factors differ between Maori and Pakeha women. The ministry will also be looking at overall factors such as qualifications work experience and education that affect the pay gap. We will definitely include the experience of Maori women in that work. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Sharon Clair vice-president of the Council of Trade Unions that the high levels of participation of Maori women in voluntary and unpaid work is a major driving force in the cultural recovery and resilience of Maori communities; if so what policy implications emerge from this situation? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: My vision for women is that they will exercise real choice and use their strength to maximise social and economic success. It is very satisfactory that the benefit may be that Maori women may choose to contribute in that way to their own communities. The important policy consideration is that we value community work and not limit women’s choices to contribute only to the paid sector. But if women choose to join the workforce then they should enjoy equal pay and employment opportunities. I seek leave to table capability Budget bid documents from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 2007 and 2008. The first one is the Vote Women’s Affairs 2007 capability Budget bid initiative and the second one is the Vote Women’s Affairs 2008 policy capability Budget bid initiative. Both of those bids were rejected by the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course there will be objection but I would like to appeal to the Leader of the House and the Minister of Finance on this question. There is a lot of precedent around getting clearance for official documents from previous Ministers to be released which has certainly not occurred in this case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister still wish to proceed with seeking leave? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I take the honourable former Minister’s suggestion. I will ponder the matter and withdraw my seeking of leave at this stage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable Minister. 
Health Workforce—Voluntary Bonding Scheme 
7.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What has been the response to the Government’s voluntary bonding scheme for graduate doctors nurses and midwives? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In February the Government announced the launch of its voluntary bonding scheme offering student-loan write-offs or cash payments for doctors nurses and midwives to work in a number of hard-to-staff specialities and locations. We expected up to 100 doctors and 250 midwives and nurses combined to apply for the scheme or 350 in total. In fact we have received over double that number of registrations—893 in total. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What decisions have been made as to how many of these 893 health professionals who have registered an interest will be accepted given that that is over double the number anticipated? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has decided that it will confirm all applications under the voluntary bonding scheme and we will be writing to every one of the 893 doctors nurses and midwives accordingly. The Government has made the decision to accept over double the number initially expected because we want to further encourage our young doctors nurses and midwives to stay in this country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: In congratulating the Minister on that initiative can I also ask him to acknowledge his giving with one hand and taking away with the other in respect of his Budget’s slashing of $98 million worth of scholarships in respect of which the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association said: “With fewer scholarships available to students we’re only going to see higher levels of student debt. Debt has consistently been shown to have an adverse impact on the New Zealand medical workforce.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think that member should be so disingenuous on that issue. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister may have had a long week but it is only Thursday and I really implore you to ask him to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma I say to the honourable member in all good faith is that it was difficult to discern the question so it is very difficult for me. I have demonstrated I am prepared to ask Ministers to answer questions where they are clear. But it was more a statement that the Minister responded to than a question so I fear I cannot assist the member further on that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is this the final size and coverage of the voluntary bonding scheme; if not what other changes might be made? 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s a very good question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes that is a very good question. There will be another intake of the scheme next year which will mean even more young graduate doctors nurses and midwives will be offered student-loan write-offs or cash payments to stay in the country. When first announcing the scheme the Government said that the hard-to-staff areas would change over time to meet the changing needs. I think it is very important to be clear that in the significant announcement made today there are no guarantees that all applicants will qualify for a payment or write-off at the end of their 3 to 5 years; that depends on how they manage their careers within the positions available in the country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When the Minister heard the response of the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association to his Budget slashing $98 million in scholarships which was that that would have an adverse impact on the New Zealand medical workforce what was his response? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There has been no slashing of scholarships within the health sector. But it does not surprise me that that member would quote those figures because in the select committee yesterday she was talking about a table that told about a whole lot of cuts in the health system. It was actually a table that stated that that was the extra money that has been voted over the last few years. 
Domestic Purposes Benefit—Policy Decisions 
8.  
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement “Having been on the receiving end of the DPB and knowing what it was to live from day to day and struggle there is no way that was the future I wanted for me … That’s the sort of ambition and goals I want to bring to other DPB women” when making decisions regarding policy that may affect beneficiaries especially solo parents; if so why? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do and it is something I stand by. I thank the member for raising it again so that we can put it out there as a level of aspiration. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why then was the training incentive allowance good enough for her to take as a solo parent but now is not good enough for her to give out as the Minister for Social Development and Employment and how can she cut solo parents off from an opportunity that was essential in assisting her to receive further education? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It may surprise that member because I am older than I probably look to know that it was quite some time ago when I was at university and receiving a benefit. We are in different times. These are times when we are making decisions— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Listen up: it is called a recession. A recession is what it is called and we make decisions accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to hear the Minister. The members’ colleague asked a question; I am sure she would like to hear the answer. I am struggling to hear it. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I can assure that side of the House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was quite a lot of it that I did not hear. Could we ask that she start again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been asked to commence her answer again. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The other side of the House may not realise that we are in a recession and we are in tough economic times. This means that we are making decisions accordingly and $22.5 million will be spent on the training incentive allowance in the next year. We have not cut the training incentive allowance; we have merely changed the level. I think that is about fairness and about being responsible at this time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to make a most inappropriate one-fingered gesture as she sat down. I think Ron Mark got into serious problems when he made a similar gesture. It certainly appeared to members on this side that that was what the Minister did as she sat down. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I actually take— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is very disorderly today. Would members have a little decorum please. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I actually take huge offence at that. There is no way that there was any hand gesture. There was a lot of ribbing coming from the other side which I take in good humour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. The Minister has denied any such gesture. Point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you want to deal with the comment that was just made to you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have invited the Hon Trevor Mallard to raise his point of order. I am waiting for him to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The first point of order Mr Speaker is I take objection on the House’s behalf to your being referred to in that way by Phil Heatley. I ask you to deal with that first. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member sought to raise a point of order prior to an unwise interjection by Mr Heatley and I invite him to raise that point of order with me. If he does not wish to we will go on to a supplementary question from Katrina Shanks. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do not mind doing it in a different order Mr Speaker although it would have been simpler to do it the other way. The first point of order that I stood to raise with you is in light of a letter that you have written to me on a question of privilege dated earlier this month but received yesterday where you outline the circumstances in which you accept a breach of privilege. I ask whether if the television footage shows a gesture from the Minister it will in fact be a breach of privilege. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh! 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. An experienced member like that knows that he cannot raise a matter like that under a point of order. He cannot raise an issue of privilege under a point of order and he should know that well. I do not think we need to take further time on this. It is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The other point of order is about the way that Phil Heatley addressed you during my last point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s behaviour was quite inappropriate in interjecting when a point of order had been called. I accept that but as far as I was concerned it did not impede my paying attention to the member. That is where the matter will lie although I warn Mr Heatley not to do that sort of thing in the future. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any recent reports on the number of people moving off the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I was shocked to discover that over the past 2 years nearly 1000 people have moved off the domestic purposes benefit directly on to New Zealand superannuation. Although some of those people would have been caring for the sick or infirm it leaves around 800 sole parents spending the best years of their lives trapped in the welfare system. We intend to intervene earlier to support people back to independence. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Is the Minister aware of the research that highlights the correlation between a mother’s level of achievement and the subsequent levels of achievement that are attained by her respective children; if so why would she limit access to the training incentive allowance so that sole parents undertaking higher-level qualifications such as diplomas and degrees are no longer eligible? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: May I make it clear that what we are actually changing is the level of course. Sole parents can get the training incentive allowance to do a national certificate in journalism for example or a certificate in advanced welding or a certificate in aged care. We are supporting those people to do foundation courses or other certificates; when they get to university and are at university level then they are on an even playing field with all other students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister receive a training incentive allowance; if so did she use her experience on it to argue against cutting that allowance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure the Minister has ministerial responsibility for whether she once received an allowance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think she has responsibility to use her experience her life experience when she is cutting off a ladder that was available— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. The member cannot use points of order to try to score political points. That is totally out of order and I warn the honourable member that I will not tolerate it in the future. The House has been very disorderly today and points of order will not be abused in that way. I gave the member the courtesy of not ruling out his question and of allowing him to justify the question. I am now ruling it out full stop. That question will not be answered and we will go on to the next question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for a considered ruling on this point of order when you have had a chance to reflect upon it. I think it is fair to say that members on this side of the House have in general appreciated your good humour in this House and your willingness to listen to points of order and indeed to introduce new practice around Ministers and members responding to questions. But Mr Speaker you will have noticed that members on this side have been getting somewhat touchy of late and I submit to you that as you follow your normal practice today of reviewing the tape of today’s question time you might want to consider the fact that you have now in a short space of time threatened one of my colleagues with expulsion from the House— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker I understand that an interjection has been made during my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will continue with his point of order. I am listening to him carefully. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In relation to my colleague Mr Mallard he did not raise a point of order. He was raising a supplementary question to the Minister which you then sought to rule out. It is the same Minister who has been on the front page of the  
Listener 
 in which magazine she tells the same story that the member has referred to. My point of order is not specific to that matter but to implore you—because you are a member and Speaker of great good conscience—as you reflect on today’s session to ask whether there has been a fair balance in your rulings on members from the two sides of the House. I think it is the feeling of the Opposition that there has not been a fair balance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not take this any further. What I will do instead is apologise to the Hon Trevor Mallard because I accept the point that the honourable member has made. Where he in my view took the matter too far was not on a point of order. I apologise unreservedly to the Hon Trevor Mallard for my criticism that he was abusing a point of order. However we have moved on. 
New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978—Reform 
9.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing now to fulfil its election promise to update the New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You dealt with that matter just before in the way that you chose to deal with it. While the question was being asked Mr Mallard who is on a bit of a personal crusade against one of the members on this side of the House interjected consistently throughout the question. Generally what promotes order in the House is that members have their say on whether a matter is orderly or disorderly the matter is dealt with and we move on. But a continuous barrage of interjections during the asking of a question is not acceptable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wish to apologise. I was provoked by the waving of fingers once again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to spend any further time on this. The honourable Minister was about to answer the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Labour members have broadcast widely that they intend to target Minister Bennett. We have now seen the third example of that member using the process of the House on matters that are nothing to do with order in order to continue to make an allegation that a member of the House has denied. The practice in the House is that when a member gets up and says something did not happen his or her word is accepted. Although Opposition members are going on about fairness the fact is that that member has now been permitted three times to make an allegation that has been denied and he has been using and abusing the order of the House in order to do so. We do not intend to accommodate this campaign of persecution that Labour is setting out on and the House should not either because it is out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was not pursuing the original allegation. The member did it again while Louise Upston was asking her question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members I accept responsibility for mishandling the issue formerly. I got the issue wrong and I have apologised for that. I think it is in the interests of the House that we take a breath and just get on with the business. That is why I ruled that we would move on to the next question and I would like to do that now. The Hon Chris Finlayson is to answer the question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Today the Government is announcing a review of the Film Commission. The film industry has moved on significantly since the New Zealand Film Commission Act was passed and the Film Commission was established by the late Allan Highet in 1978. New Zealand now produces a broad range of films from  
Black Sheep 
 to  
Whale Rider 
 and  
The Lord of the Rings 
. I am very pleased to announce the review will be led by Peter Jackson. He will be assisted by David Court who is the director of the Australian Film Television and Radio School centre for screen business. 
Louise Upston 
: Why has the Government selected Peter Jackson to review the Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Peter Jackson who is a great New Zealander is our greatest film director and producer. He brings to the review unrivalled experience and expertise including an intimate knowledge of the film-making process from beginning to end. His films have encompassed the full spectrum from low-budget films such as  
Braindead 
 and  
Meet the Feebles 
 to artistic movies like  
Heavenly Creatures 
 through to global blockbusters such as  
King Kong 
 and  
The Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy 
 .  
I can think of no one who is better placed to conduct this review. 
Todd McClay 
: What other reports has he seen about the New Zealand Film Commission? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have seen a letter that was sent to the chair of the Film Commission asking for a meeting to discuss film issues which concludes “I look forward to hearing from you on behalf of your sector organisation or personal commitment to the arts culture and heritage.” The literary community will be surprised to hear that this masterpiece was sent by Steve Chadwick. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Local Representation 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by the Government’s report on Auckland governance that the proposed 20 to 30 local boards for Auckland will “provide for strong community representation and the ability for residents and ratepayers to influence decision-making”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I certainly do. The Government wants local boards to have a meaningful role as a strong local voice on local matters for their communities. This important role will allow the Auckland Council to focus on the critical regional issues. However this is a delicate balance as the Government does not want the local boards to undermine the Auckland Council’s decision making on regional issues. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule and former chair of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance Justice Peter Salmon that the Government must revisit its proposals around the 20 to 30 local boards in order to ensure that the identity of Auckland’s local communities is preserved and that local assets are managed in the best local interests? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do agree with him but it is not about revisiting the Government’s decision. The Government’s decision has been to consult the people of Auckland. That is why we have the select committee and that is why the process is under way. That is exactly what we are doing. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Prime Minister John Key that public feedback has revealed “a desire that the second tier could be stronger” should have “more authority and autonomy” and that he had “no doubt” there would be changes to the second tier as a result? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I do— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: You made a mistake then. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —and far from getting it wrong as the Hon Shane Jones is calling out that is actually what genuine consultation with the people of Auckland is all about. It is about putting up our proposals and listening to what people have to say. I know that that might be quite a novel approach for Labour but it is the way this Government operates. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of his colleague the Hon Judith Collins that as they stand the Government’s local boards are nothing more than tea and scone clubs; if not why not? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I must say that I support Judith Collins. She has been a fierce advocate for Papakura and her district. I have had many meetings with Judith Collins and two letters. She and I are both of the same mind in wanting the local boards to have a significant role to play in their communities. Having said that I point out that as I said in answer to the primary question it is important that the local boards are not in a position to undermine the regional decision-making of the Auckland Council. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Amendments 
11.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme is the Government proposing in the short-term prior to the completion of the select committee review of the Emissions Trading Scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Today the Government introduced into the House a bill amending technical aspects of the timing of the emissions trading scheme relating to forestry. Without this bill many forest owners would unknowingly find themselves in breach of the law or being adversely affected. The bill has no impact on obligations or on the effect of the emissions trading scheme on forestry. It is changing only the reporting and the submission dates in respect of units. 
Hekia Parata 
: What submissions has the Minister received on this bill from the Maori Party and has he taken any steps in response to these concerns? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Maori Party has indicated a strong interest particularly in the provisions on forestry fishing and farming all of which iwi have very substantial interests in. It has also sought assurances that this bill will not adversely affect the very significant central North Island forestry settlement and I have given that reassurance. 
Hekia Parata 
: Has the Minister seen reports on Charles Chauvel saying on the radio this morning in respect of talks between National and Labour “Build a consensus so that you don’t always have politicking and political argument around the content of your emissions trading scheme.” yet this afternoon putting out a press statement saying that the Minister was incompetent and out of his depth and that his policy defies belief? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the pretty obvious point that if one of us had asked that question which was about something that the Minister has no responsibility for the question would have been ruled out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The bit that I believe brought it within the scope of the Standing Orders was when she asked what reports the Minister had seen on the matter. That has long been accepted as a way to ask Ministers whether they have received any reports on a matter. I ask the Minister to be a little careful in answering the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is certainly how she started but then the last leg of the question referred to a press statement from my colleague. It had nothing to do with a report at all. It was something for which the Minister could not have responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked what reports the Minister had seen on those matters. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have received reports. I did find it amusing and a tad inconsistent but National remains committed to working with all the parties in Parliament to come up with an emissions trading scheme that carefully balances New Zealand’s economic and environmental interests. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Government complied with all deadlines and requirements currently contained in the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008; if not which departments or agencies have not complied and why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The existing law required all forest owners to report any deforestation by 31 January this year. It was drawn to my attention in February that Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation were potentially in breach. I drew that to the attention of both Ministers. Both agencies immediately met and ensured that their departments complied. However I have to say that I think there will be quite a high level of non-compliance with those procedures with many private forest owners being in exactly the same position. That is why I commend the bill before the House for consideration. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Given that the Minister said in his media release today that the dates in the Act are “unreasonable given the Committee review and the lack of public awareness of these requirements.” what efforts if any has his Government undertaken to make the public aware of the requirements of the law; if the answer is none is that because he had mistakenly thought until now that he had the numbers to repeal the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. National’s policy has been quite consistent and it is that we favour a modified emissions trading scheme. But it is also true that we have strongly supported the select committee process being chaired by Mr Peter Dunne because I think it would be worthwhile to build broader consensus. I think it would be somewhat confusing for forest owners at the very time that they are making submissions to a select committee to seek changes to provisions in the Act in respect of forestry to meet some of the compliance requirements—for instance those around exemptions for small areas. That is why I think the change in the bill is sensible. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I refer the member to the Prime Minister’s response to question No. 12 on Tuesday. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Prime Minister release a press statement on 3 June stating that Dr Worth had resigned but then say on bFM radio 8 days later that “I sacked him. Yeah I sacked him.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may wish to litigate the details but the results of the whole process are pretty clear. Mr Worth did not enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister. Dr Worth has now left Parliament and is a private citizen. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House on 3 June that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on the afternoon of 26 May but tell Leighton Smith a day later that he lost confidence in Dr Worth 3 or 4 days after 26 May? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The outcome of these events is pretty clear-cut. The Prime Minister acted swiftly and decisively because he lost confidence in Dr Worth. Dr Worth has left Cabinet and he has left Parliament. He is a private citizen. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister suddenly or progressively? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister moved decisively which is more than can be said of the performance of the previous Government which allowed incompetent Ministers whom the former Prime Minister did not have confidence in to sit around for months while collecting salaries. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a very simple question about whether the Prime Minister lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth suddenly or progressively. The question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult for the Speaker to try to insist on the member defining what is suddenly or progressively. The answer was that the Prime Minister moved swiftly and I guess that the answer indicates the fact that the loss of confidence was pretty swift. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not about how the Prime Minister moved but clearly about when his confidence was lost. The question was about whether he lost confidence progressively or suddenly. That is different from the swiftness of the sacking once confidence had been lost and it was a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I invite the member to think about what he is putting to the Speaker. Once the Prime Minister loses confidence that is the end of the matter. It is not something that can happen progressively because until that point confidence is not lost. I invite the member to carry on with his supplementary questions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is how the Minister should answer the supplementary question could I perhaps get another chance to ask it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member still has some supplementary questions available to him. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Richard Worth as a Minister suddenly or progressively? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister lost confidence in Mr Worth and he moved swiftly. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of conversations between the Prime Minister and Dr Worth in the first week of this month why did the Prime Minister tell Mike Hosking on 
Newstalk ZB on Friday 5 June that “The only conversation I had with him was on Tuesday night.” but tell Paul Henry on  
Breakfast 
 on Friday 5 June that “I spoke with him yesterday.”? Did he speak with Dr Worth on Tuesday 2 June; on Thursday 4 June; on both days; or on neither day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is typical of the Opposition’s style of politics that its members focus endlessly on the details of the process. This Government is about results. The Prime Minister moved swiftly and got decisive results. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Bill English to not answer the question by launching into an attack on the questioner about the questioner’s behaviour or performance. The House deserves an answer that is a little more focused on the question asked. I invite the Hon Bill English to answer the question again without attacking the questioner. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has brought to this Government a decisive style. He works for results in contrast to the previous style of Government which focused endlessly on the process. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the question in summary. The Prime Minister has said two things about when he spoke to Dr Richard Worth. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister which one of those two things was the case. I have written records of the two interviews. They are inconsistent— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We should not debate the issue. I will give the member a further supplementary question although he has plenty of supplementary questions left with which to state his question absolutely precisely. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of conversations between the Prime Minister and Dr Richard Worth in the first week of this month why did the Prime Minister tell Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB on Friday 5 June that “The only conversation I had with him was on Tuesday night.” but tell Paul Henry on  
Breakfast 
 on Friday 5 June that “I spoke with him yesterday.”? Did the Prime Minister therefore speak with Dr Worth on Tuesday 2 June; on Thursday 4 June; on both days; or on neither day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because of the recession since that time several thousand people have joined the unemployment benefit and the Prime Minister has been focused on that issue. He would have to go back and consult his diary on the details of those conversations which the Opposition seem to regard as being more important than thousands of people losing their job. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has Dr Worth retained the honorific “Hon”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would expect given the Opposition members’ attention to detail that that is a question that they no doubt know the answer to. The Prime Minister is focusing on the things that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question that was asked was pretty specific about a retired member retaining the title of “Hon”. I believe that the question deserves an answer. There is probably public interest in the matter. It may be that the issue is not known yet. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If members had listened to the Minister’s answer they would have heard that he did answer the question. He said he does not know and does not care. That was a clear answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to further answer the question. If that is the case then that would be a perfectly adequate answer obviously. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has not taken the trouble to establish that minor detail given the very significant issues this country faces with the recession and thousands of people losing their job. But I welcome advice from the Opposition members who clearly know the answer. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that he has a good understanding of the difference between the need to protect the public interest as expressed in Standing Order 377/1 and his desire to protect a political interest? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Questions to Members 
Banking Practices—Inquiry 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Is the Finance and Expenditure Committee considering initiating an inquiry into banking practices including the relationship between the official cash rate (OCR) and short-term interest rates? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The answer is no. The member may note that yesterday the Finance and Expenditure Committee issued a press release noting that it had resolved to further investigate whether it will initiate an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and short-term interest rates in the context of matters raised in its report on the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 for May 2009. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When will the committee make a decision on this inquiry given that the Governor of the Reserve Bank the chief executives of two major banks and today the Minister of Finance have all indicated their support— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should resume his seat for a moment. I am not sure that he can ask the chair of the committee about when the committee may do something because that is not a matter that is in the hands of the chair of the committee. That is a decision for the committee. I invite the member to rephrase his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without seeking to trifle with your ruling I seek further guidance. I had deliberately phrased the question in that way because I believed that in asking the question “when” I was directing the question to a process matter as guided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct; supplementary questions should relate to the procedures of the committee but the chair of the committee cannot be asked about matters that are properly the decisions of the committee. Forgive me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that a decision on something that the committee might do is a matter for the committee to decide. The chair cannot be— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I fully agree with you that it would be improper for the member to presage what the decision of the committee might be. But I submit that the question of when the committee might make that decision is entirely a process question and the member is not only at liberty but obligated to tell the House if he knows the answer. If no time line has been set by the committee that would be an entirely appropriate response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is obviously able to frame a question along those lines with respect to process about when a decision might come before the committee. That indeed would be within the Standing Orders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Perhaps I could assist by rephrasing it. Is the member aware of when the committee will make a decision on this inquiry given that the Governor of the Reserve Bank the chief executive officers of two major banks and the Minister of Finance have all indicated their support for the proposal; and does he therefore agree with the  
Dominion Post  
that National MPs are dithering on the matter? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No. The committee will make its decision when the committee sees fit. I have seen such a report and the member who is asking the question is a member of that committee. The press release that was released yesterday was from the full Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is normally only one supplementary question allowed on questions to members. I believe that the chair of the committee answered the question very appropriately. 
Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
In Committee 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to take clauses 1 to 5 of the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill as one debatable question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This comment is addressed to Ms Bennett. It has just been drawn to my attention by people who have watched a video of question time in the House earlier today that Ms Bennett was waving rather than making a one-fingered gesture. It did not look like that from this angle. I apologise to her for the comments that I made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has offered an apology. That is acceptable I am sure but it is beyond the scope of the Committee to deal with it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that but this is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Breaching the rules with good intention I assure the member is usually acceptable. 
Clauses 1 to 5 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill and to bring to the attention of members of the public the reason for having the Committee stage of the bill which will then be voted to go through to the next stage. 
This Government bill proposes an interim meaning for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” where it is used in the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and will apply until 31 December 2010. Generally speaking the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 was passed and it preserves the convention observed by members before then which was that parliamentary publicity entitlements should not be used for electioneering. 
The bill actually goes further than that. Clause 4 of the bill “Interim meaning of ‘funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes’ ” is quite specific in that it covers “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” and includes “funding for all or any of the following purposes: (a) the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament: (b) the performance by a recognised party … of its role and functions as a recognised party: (c) the provision of travel accommodation and attendance services in accordance with any determination made by the Speaker … (d) the provision of communications services”. 
Clause 4(d) is the clause that states “(other than services including electioneering)”. That is quite an important point and it goes to the heart of the point that the press have been making around the use of parliamentary services while electioneering. Clause 4(d) specifically excludes communication services which means that one cannot use any parliamentary services or parliamentary expenditure to promote electioneering purposes. That point goes to the heart of the matter whereas the wider clauses allow travel in respect of other parliamentary purposes throughout the entire period of a member’s term which would be for 3 years. That is an important point that not only members of the House may be interested in but also the wider public. 
The bill is important. It maintains a clear definition of “parliamentary purposes” going forward. It allows us to have that definition while a review is under way which the Hon Simon Power has started to conduct. It is a cross-party review which will allow us to get to a clear definition so that we will not have to roll this bill forward in the future. That is a positive step forward. It is step that is genuinely cross-party in this instance and is a definite step forward. I commend this bill to the Committee and I look forward to the third reading and to taking the legislation through. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will not be taking a lot of time on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. It is not hard legislation; it has to be supported. The task that Simon Power has taken on is a considerable one. To get the definition right may not be quite as easy as Mr Tremain has indicated it will be. I think the one thing Simon Power has going for him is that he now has Rodney Hide within the ministry and he will be able to draw on his experience in these matters and ensure that we get something that will not be criticised. However in order to get something that works I suggest he work with Rodney Hide’s colleague Roger Douglas. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) 
In Committee 
Clause 3A Short Title and commencement 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this clause of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). This bill has been put forward by the Minister Steven Joyce and I will quickly get a copy— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you want someone else to take a call I will. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Could you take a call? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes sure. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is now getting pretty much universal support within the Committee. The progress of the bill was started under Labour. There was a long select committee process and I think the bill was considerably improved as a result of that process. Because of the industrial relations position that I held I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and focused on the first part of the bill the bit that relates to drug-driving. I think we made considerable progress in that area in the select committee. There were a couple of outstanding issues but I am pleased to report to the Committee that those issues have been resolved as a result of discussions between the Minister Steven Joyce the new Associate Minister Nathan Guy and the chairperson of the select committee David Bennett. I will outline very briefly for the Committee the effect of those changes. 
The first change is that when people are blood tested and found to have class A drugs in their bloodstream when they have been injured—when they are in a surgery or when they are in hospital—that evidence will be able to be used against them in a land transport case just as it is when people are over the alcohol limit but not in a misuse of drugs case. The second suggestion is that it be made very clear in the law that just because someone has failed a breath test that does not mean that he or she should be then forgiven or not proceeded with regarding drug testing. The legislation is very explicit that people will be able to be tested for both alcohol and drugs. So if for example a police officer in administering a breath test comes to the point where someone is a marginal failure but the person’s eyes are all over the place he or she has trouble walking and is slurring words very heavily—much more than would be indicated by the level of alcohol on the person’s breath—then the police officer will be able to proceed to a drug impairment test. If the person fails that test then the blood will be tested for drugs. 
I thank the Minister for his focus on this matter in the last 24 hours and I am sure that as a result of that focus the amendments that he has drafted will more adequately take care of the policy intention than those that I was able to have drafted without being able to give direction directly to parliamentary counsel. I also acknowledge my sparring partner Tau Henare for the work that he did in the select committee to ensure that Government members focused on these issues. I think that without him the officials might have had their way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next call I draw to members’ attention that we are on clause 3A “Short Title and commencement”. I recognise that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a pretty broad debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well it can be. I let the member have a wide-ranging speech because the Committee is getting itself into the debate but I remind members that we are on clause 3A. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a broad-ranging debate here on the understanding that we will not mess around on the later clauses. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is the member seeking leave to have the bill taken as a single question? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not think we want to do that because there are two quite different parts to the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: OK. Well without seeking leave the Chair will give a degree of grace and favour. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson thank you very much for allowing the Committee to have a broad debate on a very important bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The bill will toughen up the legislation with regard to those who decide to pop a whole lot of pills or to inject a drug into their arm and then go driving behind the wheel. It is important that we protect the other motorists on the roads. 
There has been a lot of discussion on this issue. Unfortunately I was not part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that heard the evidence but just today I have had a thorough briefing from the officials who I believe have done some sterling work on this bill. There has been some cross-party discussion on some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we will get to in the debate this afternoon. This Parliament needs to send a very strong message across the whole of New Zealand that driving while drugged up is not appropriate nor is driving under the influence of alcohol. 
This is an important bill. It is heading in the right direction. The Supplementary Order Papers on the Table are wide ranging. I acknowledge in particular the work that the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce has done in his Supplementary Order Paper 10 which will I think encompass a lot of what the Hon Trevor Mallard— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s got the same policy intent. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: It does have the same policy intent and that is important. I acknowledge the discussions that had gone on before we got to the Committee stage today. 
I know there will possibly be some discussion and debate on the classes of drugs: whether the bill covers class A class B or class C and whether the drug can be picked up relatively easily when a blood sample is taken. I know from listening to the officials today that heroin does not last very long in the blood and that LSD cannot be picked up from a blood sample but from a urine sample only I understand. I am sure the focus this afternoon will be on class A drugs which are the serious ones. They are picked up in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The other important thing we need to be aware of is that from time to time when a person is hospitalised the general practitioner or the surgeon may administer a drug caught in the schedule; the example there would be morphine. 
This bill is heading in the right direction. I think it has broad support across a lot of the Committee this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the debate. I acknowledge the work of the Minister the Hon Steven Joyce and the officials. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have been working with the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) from the very beginning: from its introduction in 2007 under a Labour Government through its first reading and through the select committee process and the various submissions that were made over quite a long period of time. I think the only other person in the Chamber who has been through that process is David Bennett who was also on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year and now chairs it very well in the new Parliament. 
I think it is important to acknowledge that although the Minister of Transport has done some good work on the bill it came from a Labour Government initiative. It was the Hon Harry Duynhoven who put this bill through bless him. At the time the bill was introduced to the Labour caucus and we discussed it it was reasonably controversial. We were quite cautious about this bill even though we recognise that there is a problem and a gap in the law if you like on drug-driving. There is also evidence that drug-driving causes considerable concern and damage to innocent citizens. 
I am very pleased that the Government has agreed to adopt and adapt Trevor Mallard’s amendments. We had a lot of debate in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about those two particular issues. I am also confident that we now have a bill that deals with the very very difficult issue of identifying drug-impaired drivers through a walk-the-line test on the side of the road followed by a blood test. The issue that the previous speaker Nathan Guy raised about levels in the blood and so on do not apply under this bill. This is a transport measure; it is not a drug enforcement measure. The main purpose of the bill is to get off the road those drivers who have drugs in their system and who can be a hazard cause accidents and hurt other people in doing so. 
The bill is very substantive. I think that most debate will be about the first part which covers drug impairment but I also note that a significant Part 17 is being inserted into the Land Transport Act by clause 18. It concerns the register that contains information about vehicles. That issue has also caused some debate and a lot of submissions were made on it during the time this bill was before the select committee. 
What I had not understood until I started to look at this issue was that personal information held in the motor vehicles register was able to be accessed by everybody. People can go in and get one’s name and address. It is one of the few registers whereby people can do that. They can get the names and addresses of all persons and organisations registered as the owner of a motor vehicle. The information is available over the counter at post shops and other registration agencies and there have been no safeguards on the use of this personal information. The system has become open to abuse. We have seen an increase in the number of road rage incidents recently. In the aftermath of those incidents angry motorists have used the register to trace a person and then harassed that person. There have been other issues. For example an angry spouse who has separated from his or her partner has sought to track down his or her partner afterwards by following his or her car taking note of the number plate and then getting the address associated with it. There have been incidents of professional car thieves targeting high-value vehicles and using the register to find out where the car is kept. 
The select committee heard a number of complaints from people and heard from a number of submitters about their own personal experiences around this issue. Because we require citizens to provide this information—they do not have any choice about it—the Government has a particular responsibility to protect their privacy and to make sure that that information cannot be used for nefarious purposes. This bill does address that concern although there are some differences with some of the approaches which has more to do with the use of that information for marketing purposes. The second part of the complaint we received about the register was that people— 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Transport and members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. A number of members of the committee are here today. As the previous speaker Darien Fenton noted the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) has been carried over from the previous Parliament. Both parties have worked hard to find a constructive solution for the issue that we are dealing with. 
I think the first thing to take into account when we look at this legislation is that it is only a starting point. Throughout the passage of the bill and throughout the debate in the select committee many valid points were raised about taking the bill further making it watertight to cover every situation that may arise in the future and making our testing processes more technologically advanced than they are at the moment. That is all fine and well to do but the reality is that we had to come back to the starting point which is the legislation in front of us today. It may not be the most mature legislation in the sense that it has not been fine-tuned over many years of work through the parliamentary system but it is an extremely good starting point that the Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce can be very proud of. He can see it delivered at a point in time when other Parliaments have failed in the past to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He did so much of the work on it! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: A member over there from the Labour Party Mr Mallard is laughing at this point but I think we need to give him due credit for the constructive way in which he worked within the select committee. His parliamentary experience was invaluable in the way that he approached the legislation and looked through it. I thank Trevor Mallard for that; it was most appreciated. On our side of the committee also not only did members like Tau Henare show their experience but also our newer members really got into this issue and enjoyed it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’m a new member. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh he is not a new member; he is a widely experienced member. 
When we look at the bill we see that it has two angles. The first is the drug testing. Basically that provision goes back to the good old days when there was an impairment test to see whether people could walk in a straight line and if they could not do that then they went for a blood test. The difficulty with going to a blood test straight away is the expense of those blood tests so the impairment test is there to weed out people from the others who may potentially be in a state where they need to be tested. It is an opportunity to cut it down so that the group with which we will have the greatest proportion of success goes through those more expensive blood tests. 
The second part of the bill deals with the motor vehicles register and some issues there look at what we are dealing with with regard to registration issues. There has been a lot of talk in the past about information on the register that people thought was private and unavailable for public use being made available in the public arena and especially commercialised. Provisions deal with that issue in the bill as well. Then there are some minor provisions that had been put in a separate bill earlier around some of the tidying-up we needed to do around time frames in the land transport area. Drug testing is the heart of the issue that the public will be interested in and it is probably the heart of any amendments that will be made through this Committee stage. Those amendments relate to particular issues in that area and provide some clarity to the situation. However many of those amendments also relate to things that this legislation already covers though probably not in as specific a way as the amendments will make them do. To have that happen will provide some unity within Parliament and also some direction through the legislation so that people know explicitly what it intends to achieve and what some of its goals and limits are. 
The drug-testing requirement gained public prominence recently—a few months ago in fact. The Government had committed to making sure that we provided a solution to this issue in reasonable time. I think the first thing we have to acknowledge in that respect is that this Government has kept its word and delivered the legislation in that reasonable time. This legislation will be in force by the end of the year and it will give an opportunity for the enforcement mechanism our police to be able to deal with this issue. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). Although I have not been part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which helped to develop the bill the issue it addresses is really close to my heart. I have absolutely no time for those who drink or take drugs and drive. I come from a beautiful part of the country and we have many talents and skills up in the far north. However one of the problems that we have is the availability and accessibility of drugs. I do not want to cast a shadow over the far north but that is one of our problems. 
As a school principal I saw the effect of the availability and accessibility of drugs firsthand. In fact one time I asked the youth aid officer of the local police with whom I had a really good working relationship to do a raid on a house from which I suspected a child brought drugs to school. Whereas most people in New Zealand would have in their lounge a bowl for peanuts potato chips or snacks of some sort in 14 places around the lounge of that house the people there had cannabis. While the family was watching TV they would just roll up a joint and smoke it; it just became a normal part of the kids’ lives. To quote another example in the late 1990s when I shifted to Kaitaia instead of the player of the day in the local league competition that was running at the time getting a meat pack or petrol vouchers the player got an ounce of dak. That is disgraceful. That shows how prevalent and normalised the use of drugs has become in some parts of the country. 
To bring this speech back to drug-driving if it is normalised behaviour in sports clubs to take drugs after sports then that combined with alcohol means that people are drinking and taking drugs. The booze bus turns up regularly to Kaitaia and the reason it does so is that it regularly catches people. I support that. Even though we are talking about people whom I have played sports with and people whom I know in the community I agree that there need to be measures to make sure these people do not continue with this sort of behaviour. As the same youth aid officer I have already mentioned said to me the only way to change people’s behaviour sometimes is to severely inconvenience them and the inconvenience of having to get out of a car and walk a line is something I agree with. To take blood samples and to check to see whether people have drugs in their system are measures I totally agree with and I congratulate the members who have developed this bill. 
There is one area where I do not think the bill goes far enough. We are talking here about dealing with class A B or C drugs but there is also another class of drugs that we should not take lightly and that is recreational drugs. I struggle to see how we can possibly call drugs “recreational” because we do not have recreational assault or recreational murder. I think we should also be testing for recreational drugs whatever they may be because to me it is wrong for drugs of any sort to be combined with alcohol and taken by people who are going to parties or coming back from sports events. I have a 14-year old daughter who has started to learn to drive and it concerns me that when she gets a licence and she does not have her father sitting next to her telling her what to do she will be going out on her own. She will be on the road with people who may have drugs and alcohol in their systems. So I support these steps that we are taking to make sure that people whose actions are clouded by the presence of drugs in their system will be taken off the roads so that my daughters my son and my other family members will be safer on the road. 
Clause 3A agreed to. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Part 1 of this legislation clauses 4 to 18 relates to the heart and soul of what members will be debating today and also to the amendments that have come through. When we look at those provisions we see that they contain the rules and regulations about how drug-driving will be tested by the police to determine whether someone is under the influence of drugs while driving. 
When we look at the offence of drug-driving compared with the more common or more understood offence of drink-driving we see that the nature of that offence is the difficulty in measuring the drugs in someone’s system. There has been a lot of debate on that and Part 1 reflects that difficulty. Testing for drugs is not as easy as testing for alcohol in the sense that a method of roadside testing for drugs has not yet been developed for drugs. We do not have that technology available to us so the testing regime has developed through a two-step process. 
The first step is the traditional impairment test to see whether somebody is under the influence of some substance. The nature of that test is very much what we used to do in the old days to test for alcohol impairment before the technology was developed. That first test is to see whether there is a case of an impaired driver. The officers working in that area are extremely well trained and there will be special training for officers involved in testing for drug-driving. If an officer believes that a driver is impaired then the driver’s blood is tested which is the next level of tests. Those tests are expensive so it is not expected that every driver will be expected to do a drug test. That is why we have the impairment test to filter out those who may potentially be seen as impaired but not impaired enough to warrant the expense of a blood test. 
Part 1 covers a number of issues about blood testing that have become quite prominent. They relate to some of the issues that arise around the current testing for drink-driving in the sense that there are some holes in the law and this bill attempts to plug them. Those holes relate to particular situations which one could debate all day and all night where people cause injury to themselves and to some of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition members in regard to amendments that have been followed through. 
The Minister of Transport has today put before the Committee amendments that try to dilute one offence provision by using another offence provision. Those kinds of requirements and changes to the legislation will be integral in trying to make sure we have a system that covers off as much of that drug-testing as possible especially in regard to the blood component where there are possible angles whereby smart lawyers or poor drivers who are breaking the law could take advantage of a law that is in its infancy and try to create holes by which they could avoid the full force of the law. 
This bill is an attempt to try to cover off those angles as much as possible. One such angle relates to the traditional situation where we have that point of difference between drink-driving and drug-driving in the sense that somebody may be convicted of drink-driving and then the question arises as to whether the person could be convicted of drug-driving. That issue has been covered off in Supplementary Order Papers to this bill so if there is a minor breach of the drink-driving requirements then the drug-driving requirements can also be applied. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) to address Supplementary Order Paper 24 which is before the Committee at the moment. It addresses two matters. I acknowledge the assistance of the Hon Trevor Mallard in advancing these matters. If I may say so by appearances through this issue he is emerging as a kaumatua of the Labour Party. 
The first matter is a substantive change and relates to circumstances where a driver normally has to do an impairment test before he or she can be prosecuted for the offence of drug-impaired driving. However if the driver is hospitalised and unable to perform the impairment test the driver could not be prosecuted under the bill as introduced. The Supplementary Order Paper will ensure that hospitalised drivers can be prosecuted for a new offence of driving with class A drugs in the blood. There will not be an impairment test for that offence because it is impractical. Again I thank Trevor Mallard for bringing that amendment forward. We had quite a discussion about whether it was going to be class A drugs or controlled drugs generally but across the Chamber we settled on class A drugs at this time for new section 57A inserted by clause 6. 
The second matter is more one of form rather than substance in that officials advised that they felt we had already covered this one. But it was agreed and I am comfortable with amending it to be very clear that the police can advance both the alcohol test and the drug-impairment test at the same time on the side of the road and they are not precluded from proceedings from both alcohol and drug processes at the same time. Amending these clauses will strengthen the message that drug-driving is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It will also give judges the option of conviction for drink-related and drug-related offences. So that issue is dealt with by amendments to section 71A in clause 10 and section 72 in clause 11 which are the subjects of Supplementary Order Paper 24. 
While I have the microphone I would like to add how pleased I am to be able to lend my support to a good bill. We talked about the various people who have brought it forward: the previous Government back in 2007 and the excellent work of members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after the election as well. I also add my personal pleasure in being able to bring this legislation forward because drug-driving is a very very big issue for this country. It has been underplayed in the issue of transport safety and I am pleased as Minister of Transport to bring this bill forward. Perhaps my biggest contribution as Minister is the impetus in terms of getting it through the Chamber as we hope we will be able to do by next week. Then I think we really will have achieved something in terms of advancing the prosecution of drug-driving in this country. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is not my intention to speak for long. I have a request to make of Government members: could they stop praising me please? It is causing some problems with my colleagues. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: I understand that yes; it ruins the whole reputation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ha ha! 
I think we have made a lot of progress. Members will understand that there is some training in the delivery of the impairment test to be done for police officers. The test will probably take about 15 minutes to do; it is not as simple as walking along a white line. It was demonstrated to the select committee. I watched a couple of my colleagues attempt to do it and I am concerned that it can be pretty hard. We might end up with some failures in relation to people who are entirely unaffected by drugs. But of course the test will not be randomly imposed on people; police officers will have reasonable cause before they start the process. 
I think we have made a lot of progress. There are some other things that we could have done but that we have not done. I think we could have brought parts of the testing provisions in earlier and had police officers who had had their training out there doing it even before we had all the police officers right around the country trained to do it. But we have chosen not to do it in a progressive way like that although there is an option under the Order in Council procedures to bring the testing in earlier. I encourage the Minister to bring it in as early as possible and I make it clear that the Opposition will not criticise him if he does not have enough police officers trained. There will be places around the country even when this testing has been implemented that will not have enough people to do the test. We know that; we accept that. But if we can start catching people early and get them before the courts I think the message will very much be one of perception as well as one of the facts of prosecution. If people know they can be prosecuted for drug-driving we could well get the behavioural change that we are looking for. In the end we are not looking to have people convicted of driving under the influence of drugs; we are looking to not have people drive with P and other drugs in their system. That is the objective and it is very very important. 
There are some other changes too. Frankly I think that if the select committee had had another month to have a go at the legislation it might have been able to better look at some of the future-proofing of this legislation. If I have one request of the Minister it is that he does not let his officials think that the job is finished now. Work has to be done on the legislation going forward because we know that the technology will change. Although I am generally not in favour of having things come in by way of regulation or Order in Council it may well be that we can have more flexible primary legislation while changes as far as the testing equipment for drugs is concerned are brought in by Order in Council. I hope that in the end we will get past the need to have blood tests. I think that technology is heading in that direction and it may well be that we get to the point of having the easy swab at the side of the road. 
The other point I make in this area is on the question of costs. I do not think that anyone has focused on that question since the select committee brought the legislation back to the House. The changes made at the select committee provide for the presumption that people found guilty will in fact pay the costs of the tests. At the moment—and I say this with some care because up until quite recently I was the shareholding Minister for the Institute of Environment Science and Research and also on and off the Minister for Sport and Recreation—we have found that in sport and recreation it is much more cost-effective to send tests to an accredited laboratory in Australia than to have the institute develop the systems and accreditation to do the tests within New Zealand. One thing the committee was unanimous about was that wherever it is practical the person caught with drugs in his or her system should be the person who pays for the test rather than use the system as it is at the moment where the cost of testing falls much more heavily on the taxpayer. 
So the message to come out of this legislation is first of all to not take drugs. But absolutely certainly if people do take drugs then they should not drive. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I thank Mr Mallard for his request that we stop killing him with kindness. I have to say that I found it very very hard to break the habits of a lifetime and speak well of him in the second reading debate. I found that my emails and text messages when I left the Chamber were full of questions like “What has happened to you?” “Have you gone mad?” and “Are you weakening?”. But I need to say that Mr Mallard made a major contribution on this part of the discussions at the select committee. It was a very challenging aspect of the bill. 
The committee was superbly served by its officials and by the police. I think many of us on the committee watched in bemused wonderment and with a great degree of confidence the police demonstration as to how the impairment test will be applied on the roadside. A two-part process is outlined. Firstly there is the establishing of impairment and secondly where necessary there is a quite expensive follow-up blood test. 
I concur with what Mr Davis said when he spoke on the title of the bill. He was a very very fine school principal working in a challenging community and setting standards. There are two ways in which we will finally lick this drug business. The first is having community-minded citizens standing up and being counted. In my book  
What’s Up with Our Schools?  
I talk about the need for respected figures in communities like school principals to stand up and confront the filth that is drug use and drug dealing. Secondly we need the backing of the law. 
I think all New Zealanders will welcome the passage of Part 1 and the statement it makes that this country is no longer prepared to go light on or to tolerate drug use particularly when it comes to driving motor vehicles. This bill is one more step in the process of ridding our communities of the scourge of drugs. I had no doubt at all during my 16 years as a school principal in two communities that people were driving the streets while drug impaired and preying on youngsters. If this part of the bill gets those people off the streets and if it takes away their ability to drive their vehicles with impunity then a lot of good will have been done for New Zealand and New Zealanders—in particular for New Zealand youngsters. 
I am looking forward to this bill being passed and to the police getting out there on the streets and having another instrument in their armoury in the fight against drugs drug peddling and drug use. The committee thought long and hard about how far the bill could go and how tight its measures could be but everybody was motivated by one thing: the desire to make a start and get it as right as we possibly could. I think the committee aided so well by officials and the police has taken some big steps in that direction. I compliment each of the members of the committee on their diligence and thoughtfulness and on the way that the committee was able to work across parties for the common good of New Zealand. At the end of the day New Zealanders will welcome this law. They will cooperate with it. They will accept the minor inconvenience that is involved in being stopped on the side of the road because they want the issue of drug-driving to be addressed. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I echo what has been said already. Part 1 is the heart and soul of this legislation as my good colleague and able chairman of the committee Mr David Bennett said. 
Hon Member 
: And a great MP. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And a great MP—so far. I also echo my whanaunga Kelvin Davis in his speech about the scourge of drugs and alcohol in our communities especially in relation to their use behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is interesting to note in relation to Part 1 that we now have TV programmes like  
Sudden Impact 
 and all sorts of reality-based programmes but that a lot of what we see on those programmes comes from the United States. Invariably most of the incidents that we see on television are due to two things—drugs and alcohol. The police in the enforcement bureaus overseas do a sterling job of trying to weed out all of those drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired people. We have seen those people walking the white line touching their noses with their fingers and carrying-on in all sorts of ways. Although society would not like to have to go through all that it is a sign of the times; it is a sign that we have to take more responsibility. As my relation Kelvin Davis said if people do not want to get caught then they should not do drugs. If they do not want to get caught tanked up behind the wheel of a vehicle then they should not drink and drive. It is pretty simple. I think of the campaigns about driver safety over the last few years and I know that this bill is just another tool for weeding out those people who do not really care about themselves and who do not really care about other drivers on the road. Innocent people are always the ones who get it. 
The amendments that the Minister has talked about in line with the suggestions by the Hon Trevor Mallard are good ones. They are sensible and they are a common-sense approach to a problem. I also say that when we have a lack of new technology we cannot run ahead of current technology. We always have to keep apace of that technology and not get too far out from it. One day we will have the technology that we see on  
Star Trek 
 and all sorts of things. We would like to see it tomorrow— 
Todd McClay 
: Teleporting. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Maybe we will have a bill before us called the “Drug-Impaired Teleporting Bill”. But it is important to realise that the enforcement agencies are only as good as the tools that they have to police with. We should not try to get too far ahead because we think we have the right technology. I want to say here what a wonderful job our enforcement agencies do—not so much in terms of the drugged or drunk driver but in terms of what they do in trying to protect and serve the innocent people on the road. It is important that we at least acknowledge the very hard and difficult job those agencies have. As I said this provision is the heart and soul of a bill that I think is able to be sold to the public. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that I found interesting the first time that it was discussed. There was a very interesting discussion on the issues and the challenges that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had to face. 
Essentially the bill is about getting unsafe drivers off the road and making our roads safe; that is the prime purpose of the bill. We already have an established mechanism in relation to drink-driving that has been well publicised. Drink-driving is not acceptable and there is a very easy screening test that can be done at random in just a few seconds. But that is not the case at all for drugs and driving. 
I was really interested in the input from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research at the select committee. It presented some fascinating reports that really made the point that drinking and driving and taking drugs and driving cause death. I will quote from a couple of the studies that the institute gave us. One study which was carried out over 4 years from June 2004 to July 2008 was of 826 drivers who had died as a result of motor vehicle accidents and biological samples were able to be taken from these 826 deceased drivers. The deaths were deemed not to be due to medical problems that had occurred prior to the accident or due to intentional harm such as suicide. These accidents occurred on designated roads as well. 
The study found that 80 percent of drivers were culpable for their own accident. That was particularly true for those aged under 20 and over 80. These drivers were all analysed for drugs and alcohol use and these are the interesting statistics: 48 percent had had no alcohol or drugs but over 52 percent had used alcohol and/or drugs; that is over half. Further analysis confirmed that 14 percent had had alcohol and cannabis; 31 percent had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs; 177 drivers had mixed cannabis with other drugs; and 38 percent or 316 drivers had used alcohol or cannabis or both but no other drug. The most commonly detected drugs were methamphetamine 36 percent; methadone 13 percent; and morphine 7 percent. 
We asked the Institute of Environmental Science and Research how many innocent people had died as a result of drivers taking drugs. It came back to us with a further evaluation of the data. In the 5 years from 2003 to 2007 it looked at 90 people who had died in crashes where drugs were cited as a contributing factor. Of those people 53 were drug-affected drivers who died as a result of their own driving and having taken drugs but 28 were passengers of those drivers and a further nine were other road users. So out of the 90 deaths 37 were innocent victims; that is over 40 percent. 
That is truly terrifying and that is why this legislation is so important as a way to ensure that drivers can be tested for drugs through the impairment method which has already been described. It is not yet a screening test. We do not have a screening test. There was some debate about whether a saliva test could be used as a screening test but that was considered to be unreasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We considered it to be invasive and that insufficient evidence was available to justify that measure. So until we have the technology for a quick screening test that can be used for drug taking the impairment test will do. The other measures today mean that we can get drug-drivers and drink-drivers off our roads and keep our roads safe. I commend this bill to the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I congratulate the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce on moving to address the issue of drug-driving. It has long been due so I say good on him for moving in this direction. 
The Maori Party has two concerns that are important to us and that I have addressed with the Minister’s officials. Basically those concerns relate first to informed consent and second to the prohibition of storage and analysis of the blood samples. I will refer first to the prohibition on the storage and analysis of blood samples. I was thankful for the information that I got from the Minister’s officials as it gave me some background to the issue. When blood samples are taken from drivers for prosecutions under the Land Transport Act the samples are split in two. Sample A is initially tested by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research for the presence of alcohol and/or controlled and prescription drugs. If positive the samples will be stored securely for 12 months for the purposes of appeal. That is all pretty logical. If a driver wishes to appeal the result of a blood test the unopened sample B is provided to the testing facility of the driver’s choice and tested. After 12 months all samples are securely disposed of—very good. 
The key for us in the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is that it states that occasionally research will be conducted on the alcohol and drug profile of convicted drivers and if this occurs then a random sample will be taken from the available blood stocks—that is the samples of those who have been convicted in the last 12 months. Officials have confirmed that even the samples used for profiling will be kept for only 12 months. That is pretty good. This research is conducted only by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Samples are not allowed out of Institute of Environmental Science and Research facilities for security and biohazard reasons. That is fine. Such research is conducted anonymously and no identifying information is collated during the research. 
That is all pretty good but in the end there was another key aspect for us. I think that the issue of storage has been covered; we take the institute’s word that the samples will all be locked up and secure. From the perspective of the Maori Party it is all about retention of the information about whakapapa and making sure there is no tampering with that information. The second issue is about the ethics of the use of those samples for research. I understand that it is widely accepted that there are ethical protocols around the use of samples for research and as the bill states occasionally samples can be used for research. We are trying to angle at the notion of informed consent. How can that be dealt with knowing full well that the samples will be disposed of in 12 months? I suppose we are asking for consideration that a practice be established around informed consent. I understand that if somebody is in a car accident and samples need to be taken at that point in time informed consent is a part of the protocols that are required in terms of the retention of blood samples. Having set that precedent I just ask the Minister to consider whether there is a possibility of looking at and considering the ethical considerations around informed consent and whether it would be possible right from the very start to have a set process around informed consent for the use of research if we ever head down that way. 
At the moment the door is wide open about how blood samples can be used in terms of research and from the Maori Party’s perspective we are keen to plug that gap. For the purposes outlined in my speech yesterday about whakapapa being very important the retention of the fact that those samples are destroyed takes care of one line. There will be no tampering with the samples as they will be under lock and key. Those sorts of issues are dealt with. But as I said our major issue is the whole question about the protocols around research. In one sense the new section 209A in clause 17 of the bill before us breaches that fundamental principle. On that basis we hope that some consideration is given by the members of this Committee to that particular provision. I leave it at that and I hope for a response from the Minister at some point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will make a brief comment on the points that the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell made. I have been reminded that we were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that an approach like the one that the member proposes would kill stone-dead the research being done. The committee found that research particularly valuable in coming to some of the conclusions it reached and that research is ongoing. Some of the results that we were getting were interim results but being able to relate the amount of alcohol the types of drugs and sometimes the amounts of drugs to accidents was very useful to the committee in making its conclusions as to the shape of the law. 
I understand that there is a balancing act here. It is an area where Mr Henare and I did not quite get to an agreement on—it was not entirely a love-in—but there is a balance. There are cultural issues particularly Maori cultural issues around the taking of blood the storage of blood and what blood samples are used for. The balance that goes the other way is the quality of the research that could well lead to fewer deaths in New Zealand. I am sure that this legislation will lead to fewer deaths. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: That’s fine—informed consent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the problem is in getting informed consent from someone who is drunk from someone who is high on P from someone who is unconscious in a hospital or in some cases from people who are dead. We just cannot do it. In my opinion it is impossible to get informed consent for that sample in those circumstances. Although I appreciate that all things being equal and everyone being reasonable it might be a good approach I think that all members of the Committee know that unfortunately the worst offenders in this particular area are not people who are generally reasonable and cooperative. For that reason the member’s suggestion will not work. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of comments in response to Te Ururoa Flavell’s suggestion. I find myself agreeing with Trevor Mallard twice in one afternoon and he will be as discombobulated about that as I am. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Please stop it! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes exactly; normal business will resume shortly. 
The need for this research has been canvassed and I think it is very important research. We need to know what proportion of drivers operate under what levels of impairment whether it is by drugs or alcohol. We have a bit of a window on it from the work done by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research on deceased drivers but it is a very very incomplete picture. My hunch—and it can only be a hunch; as Minister of Transport one worries about operating on hunches—is that it is a lot worse than we think. If it is and there are many people in this country who think that is the case we will have to keep focusing on it and to take Trevor Mallard’s point keep bringing forward more refinements to this legislation. For that reason I think the research is very important. We want as large a sample as is possible. But the trouble is the moment we start disqualifying elements of the sample because certain people do not want it used—and bearing in mind that the tests have already been taken; people are not being asked to have blood taken as it has been taken in the course of enforcement—we immediately reduce the efficacy of the sample; the way the sample works the quality of the sample and the information that is gathered from it. 
I place huge emphasis on the importance of the anonymity of samples when the research is done and the fact that the research must be done within a year and then the samples are destroyed. I hope that that gives the member sufficient comfort. We are balancing on the one hand the desire for people’s privacy and to be respected and on the other hand we are saying that this is a big problem that we need to get on top of. I hope this goes some way towards satisfying the member’s concerns. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I very much appreciate being able to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I add my voice to the acknowledgments of the excellent work done by the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Although I mentioned it yesterday I also want to congratulate and acknowledge the officials who helped the committee through some quite complex aspects of the law as it related to the bill as well as some questions we were asking about the Misuse of Drugs Act and how the two married together. 
It struck me during that process that we were probably asking a little bit too much of this bill in our consideration. I wonder whether we were thinking about whether the bill sends a message that it is wrong to take drugs and drive or that it is wrong to take drugs at all. In that respect Mr Davis and Mr Peachey provided some very compelling new information about the impact of drugs on their communities and particularly on the schools that they led. But fundamentally this bill is about road safety—keeping us safe on the roads. Yet the question of whether there was sufficient correlation between the Misuse of Drugs Act and this bill continued to underscore the things we were dealing with. 
Mr Mallard brought to the Committee the issue of whether somebody who has been in an accident and gone to hospital should have blood taken for the purposes of evidential examination for drugs and that is a very good issue to raise. We discussed it quite robustly and there were some very good reasons both for and against doing it. I think the proposed amendment put forward during the Committee stage will achieve what I think is a satisfactory compromise between the two positions—that it should not be done and that it should. Someone crashing a car and looking a bit glazed might be prima facie evidence of some form of impairment and if there is a very good context to that I think that giving the police the discretion to test for class A drugs is a very good compromise. I also say “Well done!” to the Minister of Transport for listening very carefully to the reasoned arguments that were put forward and for providing the amendment that will see that occur. 
I want to touch on the issues that Mr Mallard raised with regard to future-proofing the legislation and I add my voice to what Tau Henare was saying. We had a very good discussion on whether an Order in Council or some kind of regulatory provision would enable the technology to be used as it comes online. This discussion was more difficult in substance than it appeared on the face of it. The technology at the moment is a very very long way from enabling that to occur. We heard scientists from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research say that the swab that presently can be taken—to be processed by the company in Christchurch—simply will not detect some of the drugs that we are ruling out. It will not catch cannabis for example because the atomic weight of cannabis is much larger than the existing test is able to deal with. The handheld device is not easily used and so on. So I think there are very good reasons for not doing that. But I think it was a worthwhile discussion. We have gone on a journey and we have come back to the point where we started. I look forward to watching with interest how that matter evolves. 
I think we are all agreed that as a result of the passage of this legislation our roads will be safer. So I offer my congratulations to the committee I thank the officials and I say “Well done!” to the Minister of Transport. I support this part. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I take a brief call to respond to one issue. Following on from the Hon Trevor Mallard’s korero and from the discussion by the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce I ask the Minister to give a brief overview of how the samples taken for research are used. I ask this question which is on our minds to settle and allay our concerns about the use of that data. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will have a go at answering the question raised by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell while the Minister of Transport gets briefed. The indications we had when considering the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were that the samples were tested through a two-step or three-step process. It is a broad test that indicates some sort of drug and samples were cross-tested for alcohol. There was some fine-grain testing to sort out the particular types of drugs that were there when there had been an early indication of drugs. That research was then used for what was essentially a statistical analysis of the correlation between the accidents the seriousness of the accidents and whether the accidents caused death or serious injury. In particular there has been quite a lot of research around whether people were more likely to have serious accidents if there had been a multiplicative effect—if they had alcohol or a drug or more than one drug. 
The very clear evidence coming out of that research is what intuition would tell us. For a number of drugs having the smoke after a couple of jugs is much much worse than having a couple of jugs or having a smoke. It is not additive; the substances can actually multiply on each other and accidents are much more likely to occur. It is emerging evidence. Some of the testing especially around some of the harder drugs is relatively new. There are research papers on it and although sample sizes are now getting to the point of being valid earlier on they were not. It is an ongoing process but it is very clear that we do not have enough information— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Solely around road crashes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is based on road crashes and the samples are taken from drivers. There is no random testing of blood for people who have not been involved as drivers. I think there is another group—I am just looking for a nod or otherwise from officials—where there is testing of people who are hospitalised such as active accident victims who are not drivers. My memory is that we had some indication as to drug testing in respect of other people in the cars. There will not be any prosecutions of those people under the Misuse of Drugs Act because this is strictly a land transport matter. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) and again I would like to thank my erstwhile assistant the Hon Trevor Mallard who is perhaps almost a relative now in terms of how much assistance he has offered. 
I just clarify very clearly that this research can be used for road safety purposes only. The sorts of things we are looking for literally are statistical analyses of the sorts of drugs that are involved. The research will be broken out in terms of geography age the time of week and those sorts of things. This will assist the officials and the road safety community to work out where to target their advertising and their road safety measures. It has to be completely anonymous. We could not go down to the level of one bloke in Stratford or wherever else it may be. I stress that the amount of information we have at the moment is limited to that on deceased drivers only and we strongly suspect that that skews the numbers one way or the other. We could be looking at a far bigger problem than there appears to be on the basis of that information or we could be dealing with a smaller problem or we may need to focus on other areas. But until we have that statistical work we will not do that. Again I say we will be very careful to retain anonymity and it is about road safety purposes only. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
6AContravention of section 12 
Section 58 is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsections: 
“(1)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road— 
“(a)while under the influence of drink or a drug or both to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or 
“(b)if the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73 contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
“(1A) To avoid doubt subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a).” 
7BPerson in charge of motor vehicle causing injury or death 
Section 61 is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsections: 
“(2)A person commits an indictable offence if the person is in charge of a motor vehicle and causes bodily injury to or the death of a person— 
“(a)while under the influence of drink or a drug or both to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or 
“(b)if the blood of the person in charge as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73 contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
“(2A) To avoid doubt subsection (2)(b) does not limit subsection (2)(a).” 
to omit clause 8 and substitute the following new clause: 
8Causing injury or death in circumstances to which section 61 does not apply 
Section 62 is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsections: 
“(1)A person commits an indictable offence if the person causes bodily injury to or the death of a person by carelessly driving a motor vehicle (in a manner that is not an offence against section 61)— 
“(a)while under the influence of drink or a drug or both; or 
“(b)if the blood of the person driving as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73 contain evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
“(1A) To avoid doubt subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a). 
“(1B) A person commits an indictable offence if— 
“(a)the person causes bodily injury to or the death of a person by driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle; and 
“(b)the person does not complete a compulsory impairment test in a manner satisfactory to an enforcement officer who is trained to give the test when required to do so by an enforcement officer under section 71A; and 
“(c)the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 72 or 73 contains evidence of the use of— 
“(i)a controlled drug; or 
“(ii)any prescription medicine.” 
Section 62(2) is amended by inserting “or (1A)” after “subsection (1)”. 
to add to clause 10 the following new subsection: 
“(5)An enforcement officer may exercise the powers in subsections (1) and (2) in addition to any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69 and regardless of the outcome of any such tests.” 
to add to clause 11(2) the following new subsections: 
“(1B) Subsection (1)(e) applies regardless of whether the person has failed any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69 and regardless of the outcome of any such tests. 
“(1C) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers in subsections (1) and (2) in addition to any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69.” 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Trevor Mallard has withdrawn Supplementary Order Papers 24 and 26 in his name which he is entitled to do under Speaker’s ruling 114/5. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 17 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill without amendment and the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill be now read a second time 
. I begin by thanking the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of the bill and for reporting it back to the House. The committee’s recommendation is that the bill be passed with no amendments. 
The committee also conducted an international treaty examination of the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area and its associated treaty and non - treaty level agreements. The enactment of this bill will allow the agreement and its associated treaty-level outcomes to be brought into effect. I would also like to thank those who made submissions on the treaties and on the bill. The report reflects the strong agreement in this House and the wider business community for the free-trade area as well as for alternative views. 
As the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee noted in its report tabled in the House on 9 April this free-trade agreement is a significant agreement for New Zealand that provides new opportunities for New Zealand exporters and investors. The scale of the opportunity is significant. New Zealand - ASEAN two-way trade was worth more than $12 billion last year which is 85 percent greater than New Zealand’s trade with China for the same period. ASEAN is our fastest-growing market with New Zealand goods exports growing 121 percent—or 25 percent per annum—since 2000. The free-trade agreement will further facilitate this growth. 
A number of submitters welcomed the very positive outcome for services. The agreement provides new market access opportunities and greater certainty for services trade with sectoral commitments by ASEAN countries that in many cases significantly expand on their existing commitments in the World Trade Organization. This is an important outcome as services currently constitute about 30 percent of our exports. Submitters also recognised the agreement’s investment protection disciplines as providing improved certainty and security for New Zealand investors and investments in ASEAN countries. Importantly the committee also reported that a failure to sign on to the agreement would leave New Zealand exporters and investors at a disadvantage in the region. 
ASEAN is now an integration hub for free-trade agreement activity in Asia. It has free-trade agreements in place with China Japan and Korea and it is about to sign an agreement with India. It is also in free-trade agreement negotiations with the European Union. The agreement ensures that New Zealand exporters and investors enjoy the same treatment—and in some cases better—that is granted to ASEAN’s other free-trade agreement partners in addition to an advantage over our key competitors in the region who do not already have a free-trade agreement in place. 
The committee’s report recognises that the agreement does not affect New Zealand’s ability to protect public morals; human animal or plant life; national treasures or sites of historical or archaeological value; or its ability to support the creative arts where measures do not constitute an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised barrier to trade. The committee was also satisfied that the agreement through a specific provision protects the intellectual property rights of Maori and New Zealand’s ability to take measures to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in fulfilment of Treaty of Waitangi obligations. 
Some concerns were raised about the effect the agreement may have on the New Zealand manufacturing sector and on employment. The agreement is expected to have a positive effect on exports gross domestic product and employment in New Zealand including in the manufacturing sector. Significantly improving market access for New Zealand firms through a progressive trade agenda that includes free-trade agreements like this ensures that we continue to stimulate economic growth and help safeguard the jobs of the many thousands of New Zealanders who work in or support export-oriented industries. 
As a consequence of this 12-country free-trade agreement New Zealand manufacturers and producers that export directly to the ASEAN region or that use imports from the region as inputs into their products will enjoy the benefit of the elimination of 99 percent of all tariffs on current trade with key ASEAN economies. Furthermore the enhanced regional rules of origin encourage Australian and ASEAN producers to make greater use of New Zealand inputs in regional and global supply chains. 
The agreement takes import-sensitive industry concerns into account through the phased removal of tariffs to smooth any adjustment process. New Zealand has left the elimination of existing tariff protection for its import-sensitive industries until the end of the tariff phase-out particularly between 2017 and 2020. That is a time frame of up to 12 years. This represents New Zealand’s most conservative tariff phase-out time frame ever negotiated in any free-trade agreement to date. 
New Zealand’s ability to regulate the financial services sector was another concern that was raised. Under the agreement existing regulatory and policy settings for services and investment are protected as is this country’s ability to regulate the financial services sector where this regulation does not constitute an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised barrier to trade. 
The free-trade agreement’s financial services annex includes specific provisions that protect New Zealand’s current regulatory settings and preserve its ability to regulate its financial services sector. In fact the annex on financial services also provides a framework that may help to prevent any future financial crisis in New Zealand by providing for enhanced transparency and certainty through provisions relating to the application of prudential measures transparency and transfers of information relating to the broader sector. 
I note the concern expressed in the committee that the agreement undermines New Zealand’s ability to tackle tobacco use. The agreement does not in any way change New Zealand’s current approach to tobacco regulation nor is it likely to have any significant impact on the price or availability of tobacco products in New Zealand. Furthermore there is nothing that contravenes or undermines New Zealand’s commitments under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. New Zealand currently employs a number of policy tools outside trade policy to regulate tobacco use including education excise taxes and labelling requirements. The use of these policy instruments to address tobacco use is not undermined or compromised in any way by this free-trade agreement. 
In conclusion I point out that the free-trade agreement represents a significant achievement and new opportunities for this country. It ensures we are not left on the sidelines of the rapid economic integration of east Asia. The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation so that the agreement can be brought into force. It amends the Tariff Act 1988 in order to implement preferential tariff rates on imported goods from free-trade agreement parties and enable transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances on such exports. 
The bill also amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 by creating a system for issuing certificates of origin for goods exported from New Zealand to ASEAN markets. The Government would like to see the bill enacted as soon as possible so that New Zealand can be ready to enter the free-trade agreement into force by the 1 July target agreed by the parties. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this legislation which enacts something that has been in the making for many years. The ASEAN free-trade agreement enshrined and implemented in this legislation has been a long time coming but given the state of the global recession as we now see it it is timely that this legislation is before us and that the negotiations around the agreement have been concluded. I had the pleasure of accompanying the Minister of Trade when this free-trade agreement was signed in Thailand and it is a great pleasure to be the spokesperson in a portfolio where there is truly a bipartisan approach to trade. I underscore that point because the kind of time frame in which businesses choose to invest in foreign markets is generally much longer than an electoral cycle. The last thing that New Zealand businesses need for a long-term plan some strategic engagement with foreign markets and the application of a great deal of investment needs is for those things to be interrupted by a very short 3-year electoral cycle in New Zealand. It has been a very good thing that over the last 10 or 15 years New Zealand has enjoyed having both Labour and National adopting a bipartisan approach to the trade agenda—in fact working under New Zealand Inc. as its operation effectively for trade policy. This is a significant moment. 
The ASEAN market is hugely significant to New Zealand. We have some agreements already in place with some ASEAN nations including separate agreements with Singapore Brunei and Thailand. But this agreement binds together 12 countries—10 ASEAN nations plus Australia and New Zealand—in a market that has the most extraordinary potential for growth. It is very clear that in the operation of this free-trade agreement from New Zealand’s point of view even a very small percentage increase in trade represents a huge benefit for our producers. This is a market where quite simply the volume of the population and the volume of the emerging middle classes really represent an extraordinary opportunity particularly for New Zealand’s food-producing industries. The quality of our produce and for once the proximity relatively speaking of New Zealand to these markets are two elements that position us very well to take advantage of this free-trade agreement. 
There is another matter that I will touch on in the context of this free-trade agreement. I have talked significantly about the opportunity and the value for New Zealand and New Zealand industries to enjoy access to these markets over quite a short period of time in the scheme of things and eventually at no tariffs. It depends on the country as to just how quickly tariffs will be phased out but generally speaking they are moving quite quickly for us and moving more quickly for us than for others in the ASEAN agreement which is a very good thing. So although we will enjoy this access eventually we have to remember also that there are three developing countries in this ASEAN grouping. I think particularly of Burma Laos and Cambodia. Those three developing countries have a particular status as “least developed nations” in the context of a free-trade agreement such as this one. 
I have for a long time been very committed to the achievement of democracy in Burma. Sometimes critics have asked why I am entering a free-trade agreement with ASEAN nations that includes in this agreement a brutal regime one that is more oppressive than almost any other in the world. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What was the answer? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The truth of the matter and the answer I say for the benefit of members opposite—if they do not know it already but they probably do— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No I don’t. I don’t know the answer. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Oh they do know the answer. The reason is that least developed nations which are recognised by the World Trade Organization as having that status have automatic access and no quota barriers to the markets of developed nations. That is something we live with regardless of whether or not Burma is part of the ASEAN alliance and this free-trade agreement. The free-trade agreement although it does not improve anything particularly for Burma does not impede anything in New Zealand’s interests if we wish to protest vigorously against the conditions and the regime in that country. So we are still well within our brief and our responsibility in this region to protest at the regime and its operation in Burma and at the lack of progress towards democracy. 
I make that point because sometimes critics of free-trade agreements think that we have given up the right to criticise partners in those agreements; that is not the case. There are some international obligations which we share with every other developed country in the world and which come under World Trade Organization rules that will require us to continue to deal with Burma in the very very limited way that we do. Meanwhile we will continue to protest about the regime and the continued detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and a number in excess of 2000 political prisoners. 
But for pure trade terms this ASEAN free-trade agreement opens up to New Zealand and gives us a priority access to an area that is growing despite the recession an area of the world that is close to us and to which we can consider ourselves to be a near neighbour. And it has enormous potential; if our businesses in New Zealand with the assistance of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise can maximise the possibilities that this agreement presents then they will do extremely well. There is enormous potential there and that will benefit not only those businesses but the New Zealand economy as a whole. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am really intrigued by what my colleague has said and by the reflections on the fact that Myanmar—or Burma depending on which set of words one wants to use—is a member of ASEAN and that we should be concerned about this. I make the point because here is today’s  
Trans Tasman 
. The No. 1 headline is “NZ in the Economic Trough Export Sector Flat on its Back”. The second headline is “Dairy Sector’s Debt Bubble about to Burst?”. So we can wring our hands about the good people of Burma or we can focus on the purpose for which each of us was brought into this Parliament and that was to bat for our collective constituencies. 
I am here to support this bill because that is what we have to do if we are going to lift this economy up the OECD ladder. I reflect particularly on Burma because if I go back to our select committee’s report back I would draw attention in it to the minority view of the Green Party. The Green Party minority report says: “The Green Party is not supporting the legislation because of the objections noted in the party’s minority view on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Agreement. The Agreement and this legislation constrains New Zealand’s right to ban tobacco imports on legitimate health grounds.” I thought that that was a pretty selective issue on the part of the Green Party because in another context we see them out batting furiously for the people of Burma. I have no objection to them doing that but I would like to see a principled approach. If we are going to attack this legislation and not support it on grounds of tobacco it would have been nice if the Greens had also focused on the membership of Burma in the ASEAN group. 
Earlier this week I spent my luncheon with a number of ASEAN heads of mission. The reason was that we as members of this Parliament need to be focused on going into bat for the interests of our economic activists—people who actually deliver to our economy. This bill is hugely important to us because the ASEAN market is the third-largest export market in the world; it brings together 566 million people. I was sitting at lunch earlier this week in Wellington with the representatives of those 566 million people and together those people represent US$1.4 billion in trade. 
Let us revisit this issue of why this legislation is important. It is important and it has cross-party support—except from the Greens—because it will expand opportunities available to New Zealand exporters by removing barriers to trade. It will help us establish sound frameworks under which trade and investment can flourish. We need that to happen to get rid of the  
Trans Tasman 
 headlines that we have seen here today. 
We want to move this economy forward we do not want to stay in an economic trough and we do not want the dairy sector’s debt bubble to burst. We need to provide additional incentives in New Zealand to utilise New Zealand materials by way of incorporation of the cumulative principle in the rules of origin which allows originating goods to be cumulated between parties and used in the production of further goods. This sounds a bit academic but it is fundamentally important to increasing our productivity. I shall digress for just one minute to try to give a practical example of the importance of these trade agreements to us. At the moment Mr Groser is offshore. He has been actively engaged in trying to establish a free-trade arrangement with Korea. What is the consequence of that? Well if we can get New Zealand kiwifruit into the Korean market without a duty payment we will save $8000 per kiwifruit farmer in this country. In other words the simple stroke of a pen to sort out this problem with Korea will increase on average every kiwifruit farmer’s income by $8000. 
The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement will provide much greater certainty and transparency for New Zealand businesses operating in ASEAN markets. We will put in place a range of mechanisms that will allow individual New Zealand exporters to sit down with the Government officials in those 10 ASEAN countries and to have a formalised arrangement for addressing their problems when issues arise in export areas. That will hugely reduce transaction costs and the costs of doing business in those countries. That applies to the direct export of products and also to the goods and services trade. 
This agreement between the 10 ASEAN countries Australia and New Zealand will assist New Zealand investors operating in the ASEAN markets because it will allow State-to-State investors arbitration procedures to be brought into force. We will be giving investors exporters and traders a more certain market platform to operate from and that is important from the point of view of alleviating or reducing business risk. Many of our companies are quite small. Risk is very important to them; it is a very high-cost area. So the Government is moving forward to try to insulate our companies from that. 
The other really important area is around profile. When we engage in a free-trade agreement of this sort we inevitably raise the commercial profile of New Zealand and New Zealand companies. We get huge free advertising which can only benefit our exporters. That is another reason that will enhance New Zealand’s strategic engagement with the ASEAN region and more broadly. These things are absolutely central to lifting our economic well-being. 
The agreement will also provide a framework for more effective discussion and cooperation on issues around labour and the environment for example with the Philippines. These outcomes supplement existing instruments on labour and the environment with other ASEAN parties because we have those in place already with Thailand Brunei and Singapore. It is really important that we can engage with all the ASEAN countries and engagement with the Philippines is a particularly important issue. 
The expansion of trade in goods and services as a result of reductions in tariff barriers with duty savings and new exporters will really assist small New Zealand companies. It will be good to get greater regional integration including an expansion and a facilitation of improved investor business links which will further improve productivity gains with improvements in productivity as a result of dynamic effects including the potential for enhanced levels of investment and greater innovation and cooperation. 
One of the things that we have to watch for is that we do not lose our bright ideas to ASEAN countries. I know that some of those ASEAN countries actively look across to New Zealand for our No. 8 fencing-wire innovative solutions. They like to vacuum those up and take them off to places like Singapore repackage them and sell them. So having this free-trade agreement in place will enable us to assist those companies and in general to move this country forward towards far greater economic prosperity. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I need not necessarily take all of my allotted 10 minutes to make some comments but I have a few things to say and I will try to say them as briefly as I can. 
The first is that this is a very important trade deal. It is a strange situation that it is not seen as being particularly important. It is not optically as important in the eyes of many people as say China or optically as important as say CER but that is because ASEAN is a collection of countries. So we do not immediately know; the ordinary person in the street might find it a little difficult to rattle off what the ASEAN countries are and as a result the importance of the agreement seems to be just passing below the radar a little bit in the New Zealand public’s eye. I will use two statistics to show how important it is. First ASEAN has more than half a billion people and has had a compound average growth rate in trade volumes of 24 percent in each of the last 3 years. That is an astonishing figure. So I want to just underscore the importance of it. Secondly everyone thanks everyone else about trade agreements and that is the right thing to do in this House but let us acknowledge Tim Groser let us acknowledge Phil Goff and let us acknowledge Jim Sutton before Phil Goff. These were the people who were involved. But now let us acknowledge the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who probably should not be named but boy did they put in the hard yards! It was a complex free-trade agreement because it was so multilateral and because ASEAN comprises countries that are quite different. It was not a perfect agreement by any means for that reason but it is a very very solid beginning and one that we can build on. 
I will make some brief comments about the Greens’ minority reports. In an earlier reading of this bill I took care to make some I suppose accommodating comments towards the Green Party and its approach to trade in general. Indeed the Green speaker who followed me thanked me for that and that was nice. I do not want to withdraw any of those accommodating comments because I am respectful of the Greens’ position on trade in general. They are hesitant free-traders: they are not antithetical to trade but they do not embrace it as freely as do most parties in this House. 
However if I may I say to the Greens that their excuses are starting to run a little thin in their minority reports. The bit about tobacco imports is easily dealt with. Yes we can ban tobacco imports from ASEAN countries if we want to—not that we have any but we can. We import nearly all our tobacco from Australia as it happens. If we were to have that ban we would have to ban tobacco from all countries. But the World Trade Organization rules say that we cannot pick off a particular country for a ban on tobacco if that is what we want to do as a nation; we have to do it for all countries. That makes sense because if we did it only for some we would be importing from others. The Greens have raised that flag erroneously I am sorry to say. 
The other point is that we never did have a national interest analysis on the issue of how many climate change gases would be generated by that extra trade. Well that is true; we did not. But then again if one is to approach climate change one cannot approach it through trade; one has to approach it through the economy and society as a whole. The emissions trading scheme legislation which is now on ice was a fantastic response to the issue of climate change as it affected New Zealand. It was strongly supported by the Green members and I thank them for that yet again. But I point out that if one is going to take an approach to climate change one cannot do it in such an itsy-bitsy way as in a minority report on the ASEAN free-trade agreement. 
The last thing I will say is to the Government. I am not convinced that the support that will be delivered through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—and especially the latter—into the ASEAN countries will be good enough; I am not convinced. In the case of China we moved quickly to strengthen the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise presence there. We moved quickly to get a beachheads programme up in China; we moved quickly to have planeloads of business people go to China for the celebrations the ceremonies and so on; and we had a lot of focus on the aftermath of the signing of the China free-trade agreement. 
But it has not been so with ASEAN. The effort has been muted. What is more New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has had its budget cut. We have this free-trade agreement at a time when we are saying to ourselves that we have a current account deficit we need to export our way out of this recession so let us go and cut the budget of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. That is just dumb. It is just dumb and I think that another Government speaker may want to get up and defend that. But I would have thought that in the May 2009 Budget there would be a significant increase in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise funding precisely because that would help to drive the engine that will pull us out of the recession we find ourselves in. Of course we all know that it will address somewhat the current account deficit as it goes. 
I am critical of the Government for that and I do not think that it has done a full rounded job. It is great that the Government has closed the deal it is great that we have this legislation and it is great that we have made the progress we have. I warmly congratulate all who have been involved. But what about the aftermath? Where is the support to New Zealand business? Where is the increased support to New Zealand business? These people may not have gone into Viet Nam or the Philippines prior. That opportunity which was not open is now open. How is it that at the same time as this free-trade agreement has been signed and is now being written into law on the passage of this legislation we have decided not to increase but instead to cut the degree of support that New Zealand businesses will receive in the export drive that must follow? 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I thank other members for their comments. As Pete Hodgson said the Greens are not at all against trade or trade agreements; we are against agreements that reduce tariffs to nothing across the board in an ideological way rather than in a practical way. We are against agreements that open up New Zealand to foreign investment in an across-the-board way—be it investment in production services or whatever. That is our concern because we believe that the motivation of the other parties in this House is more ideological than practical. 
If we look at the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area in practical terms we see that there are some advantages for our exporters. We often refer to our dairy exporters gaining greater access to overseas markets and perhaps getting more returns. But at the other end our domestic manufacturers will compete against very low-wage economies. In the ASEAN area Viet Nam has expanded quite dramatically as a manufacturer and exporter as have some other ASEAN countries. Thailand is another country that exports either actually or potentially quite a bit our way. There is a serious problem in that our manufacturing industry is declining quite rapidly. Our manufacturing associations are much more cautious about these agreements than the export sector is. The clothing and textiles industries are losing much of their skills base. If we want a really well-rounded economy with at least a minimum amount of skills in textile and other manufacturing industries we have to be careful not to expose our manufacturers to the full blast of competitors from very low-wage economies—economies with which we are to be partnered under this agreement. 
The other criticism which was made in submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was whether this time of a world financial meltdown was the right time to have a free-trade and services agreement that covers in particular financial services. Under such an agreement we would have to allow a financial instrument—be it a futures contract or one of those funny names that have come up in the American-led financial crisis—operated by a Malaysian or Singaporean firm to be introduced into New Zealand. We would not have control over it. 
At the present time we are trying to work out ways to regulate the financial industry. President Obama is doing something on financial regulation this week. This agreement goes in the opposite direction. The Greens have been saying that there is some good in these free-trade agreements. That is true. We are not totally against this agreement. But hold on is this the time to be throwing the doors wide open to these different financial services in particular? There have been discussions on these matters in this Parliament over the last few days. We even find it hard to control the Australian banks making huge profits from having their mortgage rates way above the official cash rate which is determined by the Reserve Bank. It is even more difficult to control some of the banks and financial services people in the ASEAN bloc which is even more distant from us and operates in a different framework from that of our Australian brothers and sisters. 
I turn to the point raised by Maryan Street about making sure we promote democracy in Burma. The Greens are at one with that member with Labour and with most members in the House in going all out in promoting democracy in Burma and opposing the current trial of Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of the democracy movement in Burma who has been unjustly held in prison for so many years. When it comes to the economic dimension of our relationship it is true that under a measure brought in a few years ago imports from Burma are free to come into New Zealand. The Green Party is not for a total ban on imports from Burma although we note that the European Union and America have certain restrictions on imports. The European Union for example has banned the importation of timber and gemstones from Burma because they are used by members of the junta to enrich themselves and they use that enrichment against the people. The Green Party here and the green parties in Europe support that ban. Those sorts of targeted sanctions have some validity. The United States has targeted sanctions on the assets of the Burmese junta in the United States. It has frozen those assets it has placed certain restrictions on investment in Burma and it has placed certain restrictions on imports from Burma. Economic sanctions can be a useful complement to the political pressure placed on Burma. The political pressure on Burma takes the form of strong criticism but there is also engagement. The United States engages with the junta. It is not an isolationist policy; it is an engagement policy. It is also a policy that involves economic pressure. 
Under this agreement we have to give preferential treatment to Burmese junta members who invest in New Zealand. If those generals who enrich themselves from native timber or whatever want to invest in any New Zealand company they have the absolute right to do so under this agreement. This agreement actually gives them more rights than they had before whereas the United States and Britain have been taking away the rights of the junta. Similarly the agreement gives New Zealand companies more rights to invest in Burma in collaboration with the junta and against the people who are often used as slave labour. Some of the big projects in Burma are done with slave labour. That is an apt term because those people have no rights. They only get fed and they are housed in camps and all the rest of it. They are effectively slave labour. This agreement if Parliament supports it today gives extra rights to New Zealand companies that are involved in investing in slave labour. The question of slave labour has come up at the select committee. The Government was quite opposed to our developing a clear stance on slave labour because it was seen to be too vague and indefinable. There was quite a discussion on slave labour at the select committee. The Trade Aid organisation which was promoting a ban on slave labour got short shrift from the Government on that unfortunately. 
The question of tobacco came up in this debate. The anti-smoking organisation Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was very strong in its submissions. It did not say that there should be absolutely no trade in tobacco. The Green Party does not say that at the present time there should be absolutely no trade in tobacco. ASH said that we do not include trade in machine-guns and things like that in a free-trade agreement; we can have exceptions. We can still have trade but we do not need to give preferential treatment to certain types of trade. Tobacco arms and things like that—the “bads” in our society—can be separated from a free-trade agreement to eliminate tariffs. That was all that ASH said. That is all the Green Party says. 
When we put the “bads” outside the agreement it gives us flexibility if at a future time we want to put restrictions or some sort of qualification on certain types of tobacco or on all tobacco that is imported into New Zealand. It will not create difficulties with the country where that tobacco comes from. It may be that not much tobacco is coming from ASEAN at the present time but we will not get into the battle of whether a particular restriction put on one type of tobacco which say has more nicotine is a trade restriction. We will have more freedom to put on the restrictions we want—although we might still be constrained by some World Trade Organization provisions. 
Tobacco is traded in an entirely different context because it is a harmful product. World society is trying to reduce consumption of and trading in tobacco. We are not trying to reduce the price. With all other goods the concept is that by trade we reduce the good’s price to the consumers. We are not trying to do that with tobacco. It is a different concept altogether. I think the Green Party’s position on that is quite sound. Thank you. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I regard the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill as an incredibly positive and important bill. The bill is supported on a bipartisan basis. It is a shame that the Greens take a different view on the bill and I find it very hard to understand how they see that imposing restrictions will make a difference to the regime. In fact I think the opposite is more likely to be the case. 
Nevertheless I agree entirely with the Hon Mr Hodgson who made the point that the genesis of the bill has taken place over a considerable period of time. I would go back even further to the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith for his work in the early 1990s— 
Stuart Nash 
: Phil Goff. Come on; at least give credit where credit is due. 
Paul Quinn 
: No. Lockwood Smith. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Absolutely Lockwood Smith did some amazing groundwork followed by the Hon Jim Sutton the Hon Phil Goff and now of course there is the sterling work of the Hon Tim Groser. I think people on every side of the House admire the fact that there are a few professionals here like Tim Groser who was imbued in the world of trade professionally for 30 or so years. We are very lucky to have him here as Minister of Trade. 
Although I was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during the period of the deliberations I have taken the time to look at the various submissions on the bill. I thought it was interesting that the Seafood Industry Council felt that if anything New Zealand was a little unambitious in terms of its attitude towards the free-trade agreement and that in fact we could have embraced it earlier and more rapidly than we have. The council pointed out that New Zealand is a relatively small producer of seafood products in global terms and that it accounts for 0.4 percent of global production from wild capture fisheries in aquaculture. Australia funnily enough accounts for only 0.2 percent whereas the ASEAN countries make up about 15 percent of global trade. However the point I would like to make here is— 
Phil Twyford 
: Watch and learn Cam. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Indeed that is a very good point and I am sure he will. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How did Phil Twyford get on in Mount Albert? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes how did Phil Twyford get on in Mount Albert? The really important point to be made here is that New Zealand has an incredible opportunity in terms of fishing in the ASEAN region. After all along with the Pacific Islands we have an extraordinary amount of ocean territory that could be better utilised and harnessed and that perhaps in future joint ventures with the Pacific Islands we could turn into trade with ASEAN countries that we are not using now. The Seafood Industry Council pointed out that New Zealand imports about $130 million worth of seafood products annually but that we have huge potential for considerably more exporting in the future if we want it. 
The second submission that I think is worthwhile pointing out is the submission from the Chamber of Commerce. It said that it was extraordinary and excellent that the free-trade agreement was signed on the same day as Prime Minister Key’s employment summit and that “Growing New Zealand’s international markets is the key to job creation in the longer term and the new FTA will be an important platform from which to do that.” 
The Chamber of Commerce emphasised that there is an area of 566 million people with an estimated GDP of something like $700 billion covering 12 countries. Again the potential for expansion is enormous. But it points out that the removal of many of the tariffs facing New Zealand exporters—in particular tariffs on as many as 99 percent of our current exports to Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Viet Nam—within 12 years equates to a huge and significant saving in annual duty. The Chamber of Commerce says that in addition to these direct gains benefits are likely to flow from the generation of new two-way trade with ASEAN countries that have hitherto been deterred or diverted by the high tariffs. 
The other point the submission emphasises is that “In contrast to previous FTA negotiations the China-New Zealand FTA has achieved a very positive outcome for services. This is most welcome as the services sector has not been well served by New Zealand trade policy. Even though services constitute 70% of our GDP and almost 30% of our exports”. 
A further submission came from Fonterra. It was highly supportive of the proposed free-trade agreement and undoubtedly the reasons for that are obvious. The submission pointed out that dairy tariffs into key ASEAN markets typically range up to 10 percent and our exports incur approximately $50 million in tariffs per annum. That is a huge amount of money and the agreement will eliminate tariffs on almost all of New Zealand’s dairy trade into the region by 2020 and remove the risk that trade barriers could be introduced in the future. 
Fonterra says that the certainty achieved from eliminating trade barriers will allow us to grow our dairy supply into populous regions that have huge potential for demand for growth. Right now there is no doubt that this is particularly key for New Zealand. There is no doubt that there are significant nutrition problems in the ASEAN region and the protein that is so effectively and efficiently produced here has great markets there. 
One of the criticisms I heard in the first reading of this bill was the fact that there was an obsession with trade alone. This is part of a huge change that has come about over the last 30 to 40 years and it has particularly affected Australia and New Zealand. I find it extraordinary to think that my wife who is a classical ballet teacher regularly goes to places like Hong Kong Viet Nam and Kuala Lumpur to teach and judge for the Royal Academy of Dance. Those cultural interchanges that occur are incredibly important for the rich tapestry of life in our part of the woods. Not only is this agreement one that is very important for trade but also it is very important for a whole spectrum of activities that enrich our lives. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to speak in support of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I will start with just a few brief comments in response to earlier contributions from Green and National members about the ethical underpinnings of the debate around free trade. I think they are important and are worth discussing. Out there in the community and in the public New Zealanders like people all over the world have some anxiety about globalisation and fears about the possible loss of jobs and livelihoods as a result of free trade and globalisation. I say very clearly that on the Labour side of the House the approach we take to this issue is one of engagement. We are internationalists; we believe we have an important role internationally on all sorts of issues. The purpose of our foreign policy is not about only our own economic prosperity; it is about being part of an international community. We believe that we can do well through trade and that we can also do good things in the world. 
I was disappointed by the contribution that I heard from the member for Wairarapa John Hayes. He seems to practise a fortress Wairarapa mentality when it comes to foreign affairs. He thinks that in a recession we should retrench back behind our picket fences in the Wairarapa and look only to our own short-term economic benefit. That is precisely the kind of attitude that is driving the protectionism that we see in Europe and in the United States as a result of the global economic crisis. 
When it comes to matters of trade we differ from our friends in the Green Party. We embrace wholeheartedly the need for trade and economic engagement. It is not because we are blind to the economic and social downsides of globalisation; it is because we believe that globalisation is a reality in the world today. There is no choice but to engage and to do so economically socially politically and diplomatically. If one looks at the amazing developments in New Zealand foreign policy over the last decade or so and particularly the free-trade agreement with China one sees that the developments have been pursued with a view that our economic destiny lies with Asia. The prosperity of our children and our grandchildren rests on how successfully we can engage with our neighbours in that region which will be the economic powerhouse in the global economy for the next century. 
We cannot engage simply on the basis of treating those countries and their people as potential customers. It has to be a fully integrated strategy that has been thought through and that sees us becoming truly a part of that regional community. The free-trade agreement with China was premised on that kind of thinking which is that we have to have a full relationship with the Chinese Government and with the people of China so that our firms can do business there. We also need to have a full relationship with China so that we are in a position to have conversations with them about human rights labour standards the environment and the rights of Chinese people to organise themselves into free and independent trade unions. How will we do that if we do not have a substantive real relationship with them? 
Labour believes that we must engage trading opportunities in our region as vigorously as we possibly can. We also believe that we should do as we have done with this agreement and talk about labour and environmental standards. We were able as part of this process to conclude agreements with the Philippines on both labour and the environment. We must continue to talk to our trading partners about human rights and we must pursue those concerns in multilateral forums at the same time. 
Labour strongly supports this bill. It is a major achievement in our foreign policy and in our trade agenda over the last few years. I recognise as colleagues have before me the work that has been done by previous Ministers of Trade including Phil Goff. I commend the way that the current Minister the Hon Tim Groser has continued with this work in a bipartisan way and I also commend the work that has been done by officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They have conducted the entire body of negotiations in a really— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.