Volume 643 Week 59 - Wednesday 24 October 2007 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 643 Week 59 - Wednesday 24 October 2007 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 24 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appointments 
Chairperson of Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand for his recent appointment as the new chairman of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum 
  
the the first person from New Zealand and the South Pacific to serve in this role an outstanding achievement in the furthering of importance of local government and democracy. 
Motion agreed to. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 23 October 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I wish to correct two figures given when responding to question No. 12 yesterday. I mentioned the figure of $3.6 million in respect of expense transfers to 2007-08 to fund Maori wardens’ development and extensions to the Treaty 2U touring exhibition. This figure should be corrected to read $3.06 million. In addition the figure of 2007 unemployed youths in Gisborne in 1999 should be corrected to 207. I apologise to the House and request that these figures be corrected. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taxation—Affordability of Tax Cuts 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Across the board tax cuts are not affordable and will inevitably lead to cuts in public services.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That July 2005 statement was absolutely true. I am happy to say that the continuing strong economy under this Labour-led Government now gives us many more choices. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall that yesterday in the House using Statistics New Zealand’s figures I pointed out that somebody who does not have children but who earns the average wage which has gone from $34000 to $44000 is in fact only $500 better off after the impact of fiscal drag and inflation and that by doing the same calculation using Treasury’s figures moving from $36000 to $46000 that New Zealander is in fact $500 worse off; and does she think that is fair to someone earning the average wage? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that the figures the member is quoting are those from Bill English. He got it wrong and we will have a bit of fun with him in due course. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that if tax thresholds had kept pace with inflation in the time that she has been the Prime Minister of New Zealand people on the average wage would now be better off by $1200 a year or $23 a week; and does she not think that would be the decent thing she could have done to at least just help them avoid bracket creep? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not take any of Bill English’s figures at face value because I know he sets the member up. Of course the Working for Families tax cuts make families immensely better off. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Prime Minister believe it makes economic sense to promote a policy of large-scale tax cuts in conjunction with asset sales and if such a policy was pursued what would have to be sacrificed in order to accommodate the reduction in these two income streams? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The National Party went to the last election with a tax cut policy funded by borrowing asset sales and cuts in spending. That was a bargain the public chose to see right through. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If it is true that cutting taxes as the National Party proposes to do would reduce Government income to fund services like health and education—which is a statement we agree with—is it not also true that if agriculture was brought into the emissions trading scheme now and taxpayers did not have to cover the cost of our agricultural emissions for the next 5 years then those hundreds of millions of dollars could also be used for hip replacements improved student-teacher ratios or many other public services? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to the first part of the question is certainly yes. In respect of the second part of the question the Government gave a commitment in 2002 that agriculture would not be included in the first commitment period and we have honoured that undertaking. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Finance that four conditions must be met before a Labour Government would give a tax cut and can she give a commitment that if those four conditions are not met then no tax cuts will take place under Labour? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am glad the member is taking the four tests seriously. They look like pretty good tests to me. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the public of New Zealand why she and her Minister of Finance are saying that tax cuts will be on Labour’s agenda next year when she does not know whether the four tests can be met? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Is that not an extraordinary statement from the leader of a party that has voted against the billions of tax cuts delivered by the Labour Government? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Prime Minister just received a verbal report suggesting that taxes should be cut even if it means borrowing for them even it means that services have to be cut and even if it means that totally unfair tax cuts are brought into place that do not do anything for low to middle income New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the record the public refused to vote at the last election for a party that promised inflationary tax cuts that would have put up every mortgage would have cut services would have involved borrowing and would have meant asset sales. That has always been the National Party approach. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister have a go at answering the question this time seeing that she avoided answering it last time: the Minister of Finance has laid down four tests that he says tax cuts have to meet before they can occur under a Labour Government so will she give a commitment to New Zealanders today that if those four conditions are not met there will be no tax cuts under Labour? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very confident that if there are tax cuts those conditions would be met. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Bill English argued today that tax cuts could be paid for by not properly providing for bad debts on the Government books and that if we did not write off those we could afford to pay for tax cuts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have heard word to that effect. I also heard on 9 March Bill English say: “Right now is not a time to be giving out extensive tax cuts.” and the very next day I heard John Key say: “We’re firmly committed to tax cuts.” Which is National’s policy? 
John Key 
: Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that under Labour the four conditions have to be met before there is a tax cut will the Prime Minister explain why she and Michael Cullen can confirm that there will be tax cuts under Labour next year when she does not know whether those conditions can be met now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member really should pay more attention to the answers given. The answer given was that the Government had many more choices in front of it. The answers consistently given are that these issues will be addressed in next year’s Budget. I do not know what it is about that that the member does not understand except that he is not in charge of his policy and Bill English is. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the proposal of the New Zealand Institute today to welsh on our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol would amount to an environmental tax cut for polluters and a reduction in the services provided by the climate and will she assure the House that the Government will not follow the institute’s advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very much inclined to agree with the assertion in the member’s question. What has truly amazed me is to see Mr Key go from climate change denier to jumping on the bandwagon to leaping off it again today and going back to the denial state. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Finance when he actually dreamt up these four tests that must be met under a Labour Government before tax cuts could occur because it may well have dawned on her that those conditions have been met before when the Minister of Finance was in charge and New Zealanders are wondering why they did not get a tax cut in that year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government has delivered billions of dollars of tax cuts to families to businesses and to savers and every single one of those cuts was voted against by National. There is a word for that and it starts with “h”. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table a document showing Treasury’s figures that if someone was earning 7 years ago the average wage of $36000 and now earns $46000— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that there is to be silence during points of order otherwise some people will be leaving the Chamber. 
Defence Force—Equipment Upgrades 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What plans does he have for investing in the further upgrading of equipment for the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Since 1999 the Government has committed some $7.6 billion under the Defence Long-term Development Plan and the Defence Sustainability Initiative to transforming the New Zealand Defence Force. The expenditure of course was necessary to rebuild and recover from the damage done by the neglect and the underfunding of the Defence Force by the National Government in the 1990s. So far 28 major projects have been advanced to significantly expand capability across the Defence Force. Further major projects will be considered by Cabinet before the end of this year with funding provided under the long-term development plan. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the major projects due for consideration in the near future? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The major projects include the purchase of a new training and light utility helicopter which will be a huge step-up from the old Sioux helicopters. It will include further major development in upgrading the Ohakea air force base. Cabinet will consider a business case for advanced pilot training when the current lease on the B200 Beechcraft King Airs expires. Finally preparations are under way for the major upgrade of the New Zealand Anzac frigates. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When will the Minister announce an unconditional sale of the Skyhawks or does he in fact know that the purchaser has got no money and that is why the Minister has given up parked them outside in the rain and the wind to corrode away with no sale value whatsoever? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is very hard of course to announce an unconditional sale when the conditions are set by a country outside New Zealand—that is the United States. I think the National Government signed those conditions for the sale of the A4s when that point in time came. However the New Zealand Government has a number of options and I am confident that the Aermacchis and the Skyhawks will be sold. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm that although in recent years we have seen the biggest purchase of military hardware in living memory the attrition rates of those who are meant to fly drive and sail all this machinery are still running at around 15 percent; that despite aggressive recruitment campaigns in the last year the navy has increased its strength by only 34 the army by 17 and the Territorial Force has declined by 150; and if he can confirm all of that detail as being contained in the annual report can he tell the House when the Government will approve a substantial pay increase for all Defence Force personnel equivalent to that given by this Government to nurses teachers and police? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers I just note that in supplementary questions the Minister is required to answer only one of them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly in relation to attrition rates of course when we have the success of this Government in halving unemployment and creating a third of a million new jobs in the New Zealand economy since December 1999 attrition rates will increase and attrition rates are at a higher level than I am comfortable with. Notwithstanding that of course the New Zealand Defence Force having declined in numbers through the 1990s is now going in the opposite direction. There have been significant increases in the hundreds overall in the Defence Force across all three services. 
Jill Pettis 
: Are any significant capital projects being planned to strengthen the capability of the army? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes obviously in addition to the major project—Project Protector for the Navy—and the huge upgrading that is occurring in the air force the New Zealand Army has also benefited. It has benefited now by having the state-of-the-art light operational vehicles and light armoured vehicles but beyond that it has now received new medium-range anti-armour weapons. It now has a new cueing and radar-directed air defence system. Major investments will shortly be made in the general service vehicle fleet and mortars and artillery though that will be a couple of years off. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Human Rights 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he still fundamentally disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s view that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; for the same reasons given on Thursday 18 October when the author of this question Mr Hide first asked it. It is the opportunity to hear and weigh the merits of various points of view without the views of those who would use wealth to drown out all the voices of others that enables informed citizen participation in the electoral process. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does he believe the public are to make of a situation whereby the Human Rights Commission which has a statutory responsibility to advocate for human rights in New Zealand has used the strongest possible words to describe the effects of the bill in calling it “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish” and in calling for the bill to be withdrawn and completely rewritten but the Labour Government just shrugs its shoulders and says it is happy with the bill and that is all that matters? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I have great respect for the Human Rights Commission—and that is a matter of longstanding record which is somewhat different from the National Party I have to say—the fact is that the principal purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who would use substantial wealth to drown them out. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has he seen the comment made by the Human Rights Commission: “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—a comment the Government is paying no attention to—so why bother having a Human Rights Commission if the Government will ignore it just because the Human Rights Commission thinks something different from the Labour Party which is unusual in itself? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the last quip is more in keeping with the usual tone of disdain that the National Party usually shows for the Human Rights Commission. But I have to say— 
Hon Member 
: No human rights. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Or for human rights for that matter. As I indicated the Human Rights Commission was a submitter to the parliamentary select committee process—a process for which I have the greatest regard. Out of that process I anticipate a refined bill that I am sure will add value to the process and many views have been expressed. I am sure that at the end of that process we will see a bill that we can progress through the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister see that it strengthens the Human Rights Commission‘s criticism of the bill when his own defence of it consists mainly of accusing the National Party and other people of trying to rort the electoral system; and why does he not take their comments seriously precisely because people from right across the political spectrum have the same views as the Human Rights Commission—in fact everyone except Labour? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As usual the member concludes his question with a completely erroneous statement. The fact is that it is appropriate that we can have disagreement with any submitter including on this occasion the Human Rights Commission in respect of some of its conclusions. That the National Party sought to rort the electoral system—and that the voters and the electors of New Zealand require protection from that behaviour—is beyond question. That is the purpose of this legislation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he think it appropriate that this Parliament pass electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to; and would the Government consider the suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission for the amendment of the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Human Rights Commission as I recall its submission made a number of suggestions for change which included some comment around the definition of advertising around spending limits and so on and which in fact were made by a number of submitters. I have indicated from day one that the Government is open to considering the recommendations made to the select committee and I await with interest the deliberation of the committee on the bill. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does he agree that the electoral finance laws must not be designed and determined by politicians and parties in isolation of the people; and what process will the House initiate to ensure New Zealanders have an opportunity to decide on any changes rather than just politicians? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: With respect to the member I think that process is in progress as we speak. It is called the parliamentary select committee process. Its entire purpose is to enable any and all with an interest in a matter being considered by Parliament on its referral to a select committee to have their say—and on this matter many hundreds of people have. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is he aware that one of the reasons the Human Rights Commission has described the bill as “a dramatic assault on … fundamental human rights” is the regulated period starting on 1 January in an election year; and can he confirm that the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom studied its country’s 12-month election period—the longest in the world—and recommended that the regulated period for candidate election expenses and national spending by parties should be fixed at 4 months because it found that the 12-month period was far too long? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the first of the several questions the member asked is correct—that was one of a number of issues raised in this particular submission as with a number of others. As to the latter my recollection is that the case the member refers to was for the first time that that legislation applied in the UK jurisdiction. 
Hon Bill English 
: Just how strong would the language of the Human Rights Commission need to be for the Government to take any notice of what it says given that it has already described the bill as a “dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish” and given that it has already said “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—what else would the Human Rights Commission have to say before the Government took any notice? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have already indicated to the member I have considerable respect for the Human Rights Commission but on this matter we are at odds. However a number of the specific recommendations the commission makes like a number of other submitters have some merit. I await the decision and consideration of the select committee—a select committee that has representation from every party in this House—in order to see what changes if any the committee is recommending. 
Business—Ease of Participating in New Zealand 
4.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any reports regarding the ease of doing business in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have seen the  
Doing Business 2008 
 report from the World Bank which again ranks New Zealand as second in the world out of 178 countries—only marginally behind Singapore—for ease of doing business. The data used by the World Bank was compiled just before changes were made by the Companies Office and the Inland Revenue Department to streamline the time it takes to set up a company down from 12 days to—now—a single day. If this change had been included in this year’s World Bank data New Zealand would probably have been No. 1 so I hope we can achieve that next year. New Zealand’s success featured in a  
Jakarta Post 
 article entitled “Ease in E-Business start-up: New Zealand’s Lesson to Learn”. 
Maryan Street 
: Has she seen any other reports that contain good news for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have. I have the seen the results of the fifth annual KPMG - Business New Zealand compliance costs survey which were released this month and which indicate that compliance costs for small business are on the way down. Interestingly this survey shows that for firms employing five or fewer staff compliance costs have fallen by about a thousand dollars per full-time employee over the past year. I think this is great news for small business which—due to issues of scale and scope—often feels the weight of compliance the most. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Why is she praising her Government over the World Bank’s ease of doing business survey when the survey does not cover issues such as taxation environmental law and resource management compliance which are some of the top concerns among business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would advise that member not to believe everything he reads in a Business New Zealand press release and to actually go and read the World Bank survey which does cover those matters. 
Maryan Street 
: Are there any other aspects of the KPMG - Business New Zealand survey that would reflect the Government’s commitment to business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As Minister of Commerce I am particularly proud that the Companies Office has been ranked as the most helpful Government agency for the fifth year in a row. This result reflects well on the staff but also the culture of an organisation that refuses to rest on its laurels and seeks continuous quality improvement. I know that my colleagues are also very pleased to see that the Department of Labour the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Customs Service all rated well with survey participants and improved their ratings over previous years reflecting the cross-Government commitment to improving service to business. 
Health Ministry—Confidence in Quality of Spending 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the quality of spending in the Ministry of Health; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Generally speaking I do. However I have no doubt that pockets of poor quality spending still exist somewhere in the system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister explain why despite Helen Clark’s pledge to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy the payroll of the Ministry of Health has rocketed by over 55 percent in the last 6 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I remind the member of two facts. The first is that the amount spent on the Ministry of Health in this country today is 1.82 percent of the total health budget. That means that about 98.18 percent of the health budget passes straight through the ministry and out into the sector. The second fact is that during the 1990s we had four regional health authorities then one Transitional Health Authority then one Health Funding Authority. That was big bureaucracy and it has all gone. 
Lesley Soper 
: How does value for money in the New Zealand health system compare with that of other Western nations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a very good question a very important question and the answer is that we compare very well. If we look at value for money in the New Zealand health system and compare it with that of the rest of the Western World we see that we are way ahead of the pack. One or two countries are better than us and Japan comes to mind but we are better than nearly all of them. What is more if we compare ourselves with the United States of America—and the National Party would have our health system head towards that of the USA—we find that per capita the USA expends almost exactly three times what we do on health but New Zealanders live a little longer than Americans do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How is it cutting a swathe through the health bureaucracy as was promised by Helen Clark that over the past 6 years the Ministry of Health has employed an extra 250 staff—a 24 percent increase—but the payroll has gone up by 55 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member just does not get it. The swathe that was cut through the bureaucracy of the health system was the taking out of the entire Health Funding Authority—the entire Health Funding Authority. Now we have all of the functions of the ministry—all of the policy functions all of the regulatory functions all of the payroll functions all of the information technology systems and much more than that—done for less than 2 percent of the health budget. I do not know another country that does better than that. I would like the member to point out one that can do as much as our Ministry of Health does on as little money as it gets. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Should not the Minister admit that he is being completely disingenuous because all the changes that he has talked about have happened already in the last 6 years; and why does he keep adding more very expensive bureaucrats to the Ministry of Health which Helen Clark described as bureaucratic and top-heavy and where the number of staff earning over $100000 a year has more than doubled in the last 6 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me disturb the member with this further uncomfortable fact: not only is the proportion of health expenditure used by the Ministry of Health less than 2 percent—it is actually 1.82 percent—but it used to be higher. Only last year it was about 1.85 percent and earlier than that it was higher than that. And it is proposed that it will drop further. In fact there are 10 health targets for our health system and target No. 10 is that we reduce expenditure on the Ministry of Health even further to 1.65 percent. The member has decided to pick on precisely the wrong aspect of health expenditure in this country; we run a very cost-effective ministry. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the Minister not followed Helen Clark’s diagnosis of the Ministry of Health: “Never have so many people been employed to do so little.” with the situation now being that if bird flu strikes there will be a public hospital bed for every bureaucrat in the health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am going to say it one more time: the Prime Minister said that a big swathe of bureaucracy needed to be taken out of the health system and it was: it was called the Health Funding Authority previously known as the Transitional Health Authority which was previously known as four regional health authorities. But whatever they were called those bureaucracies now do not exist. We have ourselves one ministry and 21 district health boards and that is that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How is it cutting a swathe through the health bureaucracy which the Prime Minister promised that the Ministry of Health in the last 6 years has employed 250 staff—a 24 percent increase—but the payroll has gone up by 55 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I rather suspect that if the member looked at the expenditure on those of us in this Chamber he would find that the number of MPs has gone up by diddly-squat and the amount of pay that each of us receives has gone up by more than diddly-squat. We call it inflation. 
Police—Assaults on Officers 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she concerned at the record number of assaults on police in the last financial year where an average of six officers were attacked every day; if so what is she doing to ensure the safety of police on the beat? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. This House and the public of New Zealand should always be concerned at assaults on police officers the people we rely on to uphold law and order on our streets. Several measures have been put in place to increase the safety of officers on the beat including the additional 1250 police staff under our agreement with New Zealand First; the roll-out of stab-resistant body armour which will be completed by December 2007; the strengthening and funding of community partners like Neighbourhood Watch Community Patrols and the Maori Wardens Association which work closely with the police to make our streets safer; the working with territorial local authorities to provide increased closed-circuit television surveillance and liquor bans in central business districts; and the trial of a non-lethal option the Taser to name but a few. However as every member in this House knows it is simply not possible to fully ensure the safety of officers. Policing is a dangerous job. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments of the Police Association president Greg O’Connor on the news of the rise in the number of assaults on police which totalled 2248 in the last financial year that “A lot of it has got to do with P—more people are on it so more people are prepared to have a go [at police].” and that the wider increase in violence in our society was another factor in the increase; and could she tell the House whether that concerns her? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously the answer to that is yes and yes which is why this Government in conjunction with New Zealand First has worked in additional numbers of police and has worked with the Police Association not only to ensure that there are better conditions for our police who must go out to face the front line but also to ensure that the people of New Zealand know that the safety of our streets is not just a role for the New Zealand Police but a role for all of us including our community partners. To expect the police to be on every corner is not realistic. Working closely with organisations like the Maori Wardens Association etc. I think adds to the capacity of our police to be able to undertake their role. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House when Tasers will be issued? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Commissioner of Police said at the time the Taser trial was implemented that he would withdraw the Tasers from the trial and then evaluate the project. He has informed me that it is on track for him to look at that report on 14 December. 
Chester Borrows 
: What assurance can the Minister give that stab-resistant body armour will be distributed according to the real risk of injury when 10 front-line police in Papakura still have no protection at a time when there are in excess of 80 violent street gangs operating in their patch; and just when will all front-line police in Papakura be issued with stab-proof vests? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I take the word of the Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope when he tells me that the stab-resistant body armour will be rolled out by December this year and that the aim was to get it to all front-line police first. If they are not in Papakura yet as the member claims then that is a decision for the district commander and one that I am certainly happy to take up with Mr Pope. But I believe that all the stab-resistant body armour will be in place by December this year. 
Ron Mark 
: When the number of attacks on police is running at six each and every day with one of them being a serious attack; when the Police Association is calling for the introduction of Tasers; when we have the Commissioner of Police Howard Broad reportedly telling police privately: “The Taser trial was a major success. The Tasers are a must.”; and when we have just witnessed the shooting to death of a drug-fuelled man who attacked a police officer can the Minister tell the House why Tasers have still not been introduced—or is it that this delay in issuing Tasers is simply a public relations exercise to defuse the expected political backlash from the “loony tunes” on the left who would oppose the police receiving the Tasers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is for none of those reasons that the member has given. The Commissioner of Police gave his word that there would be a trial that there would be evaluation of that trial and that at the end of that evaluation a decision would be made. To have gone ahead and issued Tasers without completing the word that he gave would have meant that he had not kept his word and he had no intention of doing that. 
State Services Commissioner—Inquiry into Environment Ministry Appointment  
7.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: When will the State Services Commissioner release the report of the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that he intends to release the report as soon as it is completed. The investigation is progressing but is not yet concluded and a completion date is yet to be determined. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she any member of her staff any other Cabinet Minister or any ministerial staff seen any draft or final reports of Dr Prebble’s or Mr Hunn’s investigations; if so when? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can speak only for myself and I have received a draft of those parts of the report to the State Services Commission that refer to me the Minister of State Services. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does Mr Hunn’s report include any comment or assessment of Dr Prebble’s actions; if so what actions will be taken as a result of analysis of Mr Hunn’s report? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no knowledge in the matters the member has just asked me. All I have seen are the comments that I made to Mr Hunn. They have been shown to me to check as to whether they are accurate in terms of my input into the inquiry. I have no knowledge of what is in the report. As I have already pointed out to the member I have seen only the comments that I have made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister telling the House that she has seen the drafts of this report that relate to her and her involvement but that none of those drafts in any way deal with any assessment of Dr Prebble’s behaviour and conduct in this particular matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member had listened carefully he would have heard that I advised the House I have seen the comments that I made to Mr Hunn. That is the only thing I have seen. No one as far as I am aware has seen the full report because as I am told it is still a work in progress. What I have seen are my own comments as one would expect in any report to ensure that they are accurate in terms of the person who took them down as a record of the interview with me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Brownlee that that is absolutely correct. I think I probably know myself a little better than the member does. After all they were my comments. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Don’t be so sensitive. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Don’t tell lies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I point out here that there is absolutely no risk of me telling lies on this matter but the Minister may want to reflect on her answers. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Madam Speaker I take offence at that. I have just told this House exactly what has happened in relation to that report. The member is insinuating something else—I am not sure what it is. Maybe he thinks he has seen a report and if that is the case I would ask how why and where? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My response was to the Minister yelling across the House “Don’t tell lies.” I am asking questions that is all and I think she should withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the Minister say “Don’t tell lies.” I must say. Did the Minister say that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If I did I apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have no idea why this question causes so much tension on the other side of the House— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh there was so much noise I did not hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Perhaps you could ask colleagues on all sides of the House to please keep their interventions down so members can hear when they are called. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has just claimed he did not hear you call him. If he did not hear you call him why did he start to speak? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Hunn’s report will simply be a factual account of what happened with any conclusions etc. left to Dr Prebble who remains effectively the judge the jury the defence and the prosecution? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Hunn’s role is to get to the facts. So obviously it will be factual I hope because his job is to get to the facts. It will be made public as will Dr Prebble’s report be made public. I would say that if the conclusions are not correct everybody will be able to see whether the right ones or the wrong ones have been made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why has the release of the report been delayed given that Dr Prebble stated on 3 August that the investigation was expected to take between 6 and 8 weeks and it has now been nearly 12 weeks; and is that because the Labour Government wants to release the report when it will be crowded out by other news such as the impending Cabinet reshuffle? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The trouble is that the member never listens to answers. The last time there was a question on this I was asked who would release the report and it is not the Labour Government. It actually happens to be the State Services Commissioner and as far as I know he does not know when why or how the reshuffle will take place. So he will not be basing the report’s release on that. I think the member has got it wrong once again. 
Cancer—Melanoma and Sunbeds 
8.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he been advised of research by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer showing that there is a 75 percent increase in the risk of developing melanoma for people who first used sunbeds in their twenties or teenage years; if so is he concerned that New Zealand has no legally enforceable standards governing the use of sunbeds? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I am aware of the information. I think the member has raised an important issue. I think we should take a look at whether a regulatory approach is called for or whether indeed we should consider education as the preferred way forward. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware that the harmful UV rays from sunbeds are estimated to be up to five times stronger than the midday sun and does he agree that along with the Government’s campaign to cut our shocking melanoma rates by reducing exposure to the sun’s UV rays we also need to reduce exposure to the harmful UV rays from sunbeds through legally binding standards and a public information campaign; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Amongst those various questions one answer would be that yes I am aware of the research that came out in July that said some solaria are capable of delivering five times the UV light of the midday sun and that is a source of concern. All these things are to do with dose and I think the important thing is that we now need to consider whether a response is called for—it may well be—and if so whether that response should be by way of a standard a regulation an education campaign or a mixture thereof. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he consider it satisfactory that over 300 people die every year from skin cancer mostly as a result of excess sun exposure but that there is no regulation of sunscreen products meaning that manufacturers can claim what they like about effectiveness without the benefit of independent evaluation; if not what is he doing about the situation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid that the member knows more about this issue than I do. I had assumed there would be some constraint on what one could say about sunscreen products under the Fair Trading Act or consumer legislation. I suggest that the member may wish to drop me a letter along the lines of her question and I would certainly undertake to look at it. It seems worthy of that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware of anecdotal evidence that young women and teenage girls are increasingly using sunbeds on a routine basis in the mistaken belief that sunbeds are a safe way to get a tan a belief promoted by sunbed providers such as in the ad I am holding that urges people to “relax and bronze on one of our fast tanning sunbeds with maximum safety” and why would he not implement what the Cancer Society of New Zealand the Australasian College of Dermatologists and the Cancer Council Australia are recommending namely regulations to restrict the use of sunbeds in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may recall that in response to an earlier question I said we will be looking at that and we do need to consider whether a future would involve regulation standards or an education approach. I think that is an open question and I think we should look forward to seeing what the advice—in the first place from the Ministry of Health—looks like. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table research by the World Health Organization pointing out that sunbed use in youth is unequivocally associated— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Secondly I seek leave to table a document from the Cancer Council Australia and the Cancer Society of New Zealand calling for regulations for the use— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Child Support—Liable Parents’ Contribution 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the level of child support collected from liable parents during the last financial year; if so why? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am never satisfied when there is at least one custodial parent or one child not receiving a full payment from a liable parent. But I believe that the Inland Revenue Department is doing an excellent job given the practicalities of the world in which we live. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has core child support debt excluding any interest or penalties more than doubled under this Labour Government from $192 million in the year 2000 to $456 million today bringing the total debt to nearly $1.2 billion? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member is actually confusing some figures. The total debt of $1.1 billion includes the penalties and other payments that she said were excluded in her question. The reality is that 88.5 percent of all child support collected since 1992 has been collected. The figures are improving. We are also assessing more people which of course means that the amount to be collected will increase. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm that over 16000 liable parents are not resident in New Zealand and that combined they owe half a billion dollars; and what action would he like to see taken to ensure that these parents meet their obligations to their New Zealand – based children? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I can confirm that at March of this year we had some 8000 New Zealand cases being collected in Australia. After the commencement of the reciprocal agreement with Australia in March 2007 of this year the Inland Revenue Department has collected around $23.1 million for Australian parents and around $28.4 million from Australian parents. Obviously we need to do more. Legislation before the House at the moment will enable us to do more in the way of data matching when people enter and leave New Zealand which in turn will improve the ability to track those parents who are offshore and to make them meet their liabilities. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with me that child support debtors should be prevented from leaving this country or does he share the view of David Cunliffe who said in 2003 that it would be “Draconian” to stop liable parents from leaving the country; is the Minister serious about this situation or not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: When we have the data matching in place we will be better able to track who is coming and going. But I point out to the House that we cannot detain New Zealanders at the border and stop them from leaving this country unless we have a warrant issued for that purpose. I am not sure whether the member is suggesting that all child support debtors should have a warrant issued against their departure from New Zealand. That would mean that we were placing them in a different category from any other person leaving this country with an unpaid debt. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be fair for defaulting liable parents to be able to come and go from New Zealand as they please for the Inland Revenue Department to consistently not use its power to apply for arrest warrants and for responsible parents to be left to shoulder the burden while this Government sits around worrying about the travel rights of people who fail their children? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The last thing that it would be responsible to do would be to start issuing arrest warrants for liable parents. Parents in that situation are in a very fraught tense situation as it is. The differences and divisions between liable parents and custodial parents are very tense and bitter. If the member wants to start adding to that by introducing the concept of arrest warrants for parents who seek to leave the country then I think she is simply escalating a tense situation far beyond what is reasonable to most people. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table United Future’s policy on this issue which was to stop them leaving the country. 
Document not tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article: “Call to stop no-pay parents skipping NZ”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Te Kete Hauora—Restructuring 
10.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the staffing reduction in actual numbers that is encompassed in the new “leaner” Te Kete Hauora and what evidence supports the relocation of the service development team and the chief adviser Maori health into the sector capability and innovation directorate? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The answer to the member’s first question is “Nine” and the answer to the second question is that it was done to further strengthen the ministry’s ability to respond to Maori health issues across the ministry. 
Tariana Turia 
: What kinds of skills and expertise are being brought into the team to measure the so-called gains in the last administration and why was a deputy director-general not appointed from the outstanding applicants who applied for that position? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the second question lies with the director-general. I have no role in that as the member may be aware. The answer to the first part of her supplementary question is that the main measurement is a census mortality survey which is ongoing and which is one of very few such studies in the world. It is a very important study and I look forward to the next update because I am hoping we will see still further progress. In general what is happening is that the ministry is intent on increasing its capacity and capability for Maori health across the ministry—the Maori Provider Development Scheme for example is now with the sector capability and innovation directorate because that is where its natural home is—but the budget for Te Kete Hauora has actually remained unchanged even though there are now fewer staff there which suggests that the director-general has in his mind the possibility of further appointments. 
Tariana Turia 
: How often will the ministry change the deckchairs from sector-specific to mainstream and how will progressively dismantling Te Kete Hauora and spreading a mere eight Maori people across all of the directorates improve health and reduce inequalities given the poor outcomes being achieved to date? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think we have gone from sector-specific to mainstream. In the previous incarnation there was a directorate for Maori health and in the current ministry there is a directorate for Maori health. Nine people have been shifted from that directorate across to the sector capability and innovation directorate. The reason for that is that they manage the contracts and they manage the development of Maori providers—they are quite clever people in my view. These are all decisions that are taken not by me but by the director-general. I think he is making a good job of the reconfiguration of the ministry and I think that it has quite a lot of momentum now that it did not have earlier. 
Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights)  Amendment Bill—Reform Process 
11.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Commerce 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill that “It is part of a wider reform process to ensure that our intellectual property legislation is up to date relevant and takes account of international developments.”; if so why? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I stand by my statement and would add that copyright law must operate to enhance the interests of all New Zealanders. To ensure that is the case we need to be aware of a range of factors including developments in technology business and personal use patterns and international practices. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the bill be up to date when it does not cover new technological developments such as person-to-person filing-sharing? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This legislation has been in the pipeline now for nearly 7 years. It has been negotiated across the vast range of interests of people who are concerned about intellectual property protection. Under this Government there have been seven pieces of legislation concerning this matter and indeed a number of new ones are coming through. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it the Associate Minister’s understanding that should Supplementary Order Paper 154 prepared by Gordon Copeland be passed by this House in its current form free retransmission rights could be accorded to Internet users meaning local writers and producers may just as well pack up go overseas and carry out their work there? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: That view has been put forward and I shall look forward to the debate in the House. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does she agree with industry representatives who have said that the current definition of “communication work” would have serious and potentially harmful consequences for New Zealand’s copyright law and what does she plan to do about that? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: As the bill is at present before the House I expect it will be debated and that the matter of defining “communication work” will be resolved to the satisfaction of this Parliament. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can she confirm that her poor handling of copyright law reform has caused a rift in her relationship with the Prime Minister and has she had any inquiries from her caucus colleagues about job opportunities beginning from Thursday next week? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: There is no rift whatsoever and I look forward to the Prime Minister making any announcements that she chooses to make. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can she confirm that her negligent stewardship of this bill has resulted in Steve Maharey being appointed by the Prime Minister to supervise her work and in the unlikely event of her holding on to her portfolios next week who is to be her new minder? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: It is not unusual for the Minister of Broadcasting to have an interest in broadcasting matters under a copyright bill. That is pretty good communication. In the Labour-led Government we actually talk to each other. 
Product Safety—Reports 
12.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: What reports has she received on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I recently received three reports on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers. The first was a report by TV3’s  
Target 
 show which stated that the level of formaldehyde in clothing being sold to New Zealanders was higher than internationally recognised acceptable levels. Unfortunately these tests were incomplete and misunderstood the international guidelines being measured. The second was a comprehensive report undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that found there was no risk to New Zealanders as 97 of the 99 items tested were well within international acceptable levels and the two that did not meet those levels did so after being washed. The third report was a statement made by National’s Kate Wilkinson that asserted we were “endangering our children’s lives” and insisted we “remove unsafe products from shelves” based on unsubstantiated and inadequate tests done on a TV show. I think that member should apologise. 
Darien Fenton 
: What action has been taken in light of the finding that clothes available in New Zealand pose no risk? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: There has been a great deal of interest from New Zealand manufacturers importers and retailers. There have been close conversations with Australia and other international partners and in line with those discussions we have introduced a draft product safety policy statement which sets acceptable levels of formaldehyde. I reiterate that the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act in this country guarantee that consumers can assume that all goods are safe and fit for the purpose. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In 10 days’ time the Labour Party conference will be celebrating the achievements of this Labour-led Government. People will be celebrating the fact that this is the fifth Labour Government and that the social and economic progress that has been made through the history of this country has been made when Labour has been in Government. They will be celebrating the leadership of Helen Clark whose leadership has endured whereas the National Party—that hopeless group across the Chamber—has been through five different leaders. We remember when Jenny Shipley stabbed Jim Bolger in the back Bill English stabbed Jenny Shipley Don Brash stabbed Bill English and John Key moved in when Don Brash saw what was coming and got out of the way. 
The Labour Party conference will reflect on the fact that while the National Party has been involved in internecine conflict between factions this Labour Government has been united and collaborative in taking this country forward. And how we have taken this country forward! Since 1999 the New Zealand economy has grown by over 28 percent. That is a higher per annum average growth rate than that of either the OECD or our partners in Australia and the United States. The conference will be celebrating the fact that this Labour-led Government has created a third of a million more jobs for New Zealanders; we have halved the unemployment rate in this country. 
The conference will be celebrating the fact that this is a Government that achieves for families and a Government that recognises the cost of raising children. Let us take a person on $35000 a year with a family. That person’s tax credits under Working for Families are worth $199 a week to that family. What orthodox tax cut policy would deliver to a family in need in the way that Michael Cullen’s Working for Families package has delivered for those low-income New Zealanders? Let us take even middle-income New Zealanders—a couple on $62000 a year. They would be getting back $92 a week under Working for Families. Those are real cuts making real differences in the living standards of ordinary New Zealanders. Put that together with cheaper doctors’ visits cheaper prescriptions the 20 hours of free early childhood education and we can see what a real difference this Labour-led Government has made for ordinary New Zealand families. 
One of the things that I am most proud of is that the cut in unemployment more people being in work and Working for Families will have lifted 130000 New Zealand children out of poverty. That is a track record for New Zealanders as a whole to be truly proud of. Businesses had their rate of tax cut; that was the first tax cut for businesses in decades by a Labour Government but that policy was opposed by the National Party. The sound economic management of Michael Cullen will mean that personal tax cuts will be available but not funded by overseas borrowing like John Key and Bill English propose; they will not be funded by cuts in investment in social services but funded because this is a country that has real and enduring growth. 
Let us look at the social investment that we have made. We now have 4000 more nurses in this country who were written off by the National Party as simply bureaucrats. We have 28 new public hospitals from Kaitaia to Bluff. We have 10000 additional elective surgery procedures each year. They are part of the achievements of this Labour-led Government. We have nearly 5000 new teachers over and above what the roll growth would normally justify. We have a 180 percent increase in the funding of early childhood education. 
We can compare those sorts of achievements with the National Party’s proposals—like the secret agenda of privatisation let out of the bag by Bill English a couple of weeks ago; the proposal by Tony Ryall to lift the cap on doctors’ fees; and the proposal to lift the cap on tertiary student fees. That party cannot remember backing the war in Iraq and cannot remember the way that the previous National Government cut education cut health and cut superannuation in the 1990s. The National Party is a party embarrassed about its own ideology and therefore it will not reveal its policies publicly. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Organic producers and consumers would have been surprised at the hostile comments of the Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton about organic farming yesterday. When speaking to organic farmers and taking the credit for the Green Party - initiated funding for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and the organics advisory service he praises the contribution that organics make to improving sustainability and economic diversity. But yesterday the mask came down and revealed the Government’s actual sneering indifference to organic farming with the Minister of Agriculture supporting Michael Cullen’s view that “Organic farming uses a range of unnatural inputs that happen to be 19th century in their technology and that are not necessarily sustainable”. 
 Well Government indifference means that despite our clean green and 100 percent pure marketing image only a quarter of one percent of our agricultural land is in organic production. In Sweden the figure is 19 percent. That the sector is worth $330 million and expanding rapidly is in spite of that indifference. Many of our key agricultural markets such as kiwifruit and apples are demanding organic or near-organic standards especially in relation to spray residues on fruit and those industries see the marketing and environmental benefits of moves towards organic systems even if our Government does not. 
Mr Anderton points out that sediment and nutrient runoff can occur from all hill-country sheep and beef farms organic or conventional but he totally misses the point. The most significant impacts on water quality are from intensive dairy-farming. That is where the environmental advantages of certified organic production methods which are less intensive and which increase humus and therefore the water and nutrient holding capacity of soils will be most clearly seen with regard to water quality. 
Where organic sheep and beef have the greatest advantage in comparison is probably in terms of economics. Returns for conventional sheep and beef farmers have been depressed for some time yet organic lamb has had a 100 percent premium. Demand is outstripping supply for wool as well as for meat and for many other organic products but particularly in the meat markets. If sheep and beef farmers can make a decent living by converting to organic production then that reduces the pressure to convert to dairying and that is why the Green Party is pushing for Landcorp to trial organic conversion of some of its sheep and beef units instead of simply attempting to boost its profitability by increasing its dairy operations. 
David Bennett 
: They’ve tried it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It has not tried it. It does not have a single unit in organic production. 
Finally in reply to Mr Anderton’s comments on the use of copper in organic apple production to control black spot well unlike its use in conventional production systems the use of copper is tightly controlled under organic certification standards and the industry is moving to phase it out. What is not part of organic production is the use of endosulphin a highly toxic insecticide banned elsewhere; growth hormones and antibiotics in cows pigs and poultry; the legacy of now banned DDT and other tools of chemical warfare; genetically modified animal feed; and tonnes and tonnes of artificial fertiliser that is dependent on fossil fuels. All of these things are widespread in conventional farming systems. 
Well talk about the Minister straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! Luckily farmers and consumers in this country are not all so gullible. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Does anyone remember the headlines that were around on 21 March 2005? They were fascinating. One stated: “Talented Kiwis dominate the Labour list.” Who were those talented Kiwis? It cannot have been Taito Phillip Field. It cannot have been Dianne Yates or Jim Sutton. It cannot have been Ann Hartley Dover Samuels Paul Swain Georgina Beyer Marian Hobbs or Steve Maharey. Neither with an announcement imminent can it have been Judith Tizard. The reason is that those members are all going. They are the people who have said they are off. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where’s Judith Tizard going? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I understand Judith Tizard has been offered the chair of Watercare Services in Auckland and is looking to do some great things in that regard. 
The Labour caucus is now 25 percent down on the numbers it had in 2005 and apparently according to Phil Goff—the leader-in-waiting—everything is just so wonderful that one would have to wonder why Labour members are bailing in their droves. And there will be more departures. I expect by the end of the week we will have heard that Jill Pettis Martin Gallagher and Steve Chadwick have decided to go and that will take out a number of people who could have been talented additions to Labour’s Cabinet. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Seriously it was in the headline in the paper so we have to believe it. 
What does that leave the Labour Party with? It leaves it with a number of people who have very safe Labour seats. That has to be the rump—or the heart should I best say—of the new Goff-led Opposition. Those people include of course Tim Barnett and Harry Duynhoven. I cannot understand why Harry Duynhoven has not been mentioned in the promotion stakes; I find that staggering. There is also Martin Gallagher whom I mentioned before. He may be one of those guys who goes or stays. There is George Hawkins Mahara Okeroa Lynne Pillay—I know that some of these names will be new to members—the Hon H V Ross Robertson and of course Mr David Benson-Pope. Those people clearly with their safe seats will be part of the future of the Labour Party. 
We have watched members opposite through question time today and we have seen the congratulations commiserations or whatever it is that is going on around Judith Tizard. We have watched the glum face of Mr Mallard who clearly is taking a step back. 
Simon Power 
: He’s not happy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He has been very unhappy over the last couple of days. We saw an exiting performance from Mr Burton today. We have noticed that Darren Hughes is off getting a new suit fitted and therefore is not in the junior whip’s seat today. Sue Moroney is there and she will be taking up her new position in it shortly. Labour did want to move Parekura Horomia but a little like me it is damned hard to get him to go. 
We want to know who is coming through. Who will replace Rick Barker? Who will replace Mark Burton? Who will replace Mahara Okeroa? Who will replace Damien O’Connor in the ministry? One would have to start looking at all of this and conclude that because 25 percent of the members of Labour’s caucus have bailed saying they are out of here because it is going to be too tough and because only another 25 percent are rock-solid in their electorates and will definitely be coming back to the House then David Benson-Pope starts to look like a very good bet. I think Helen Clark’s dilemma there is knowing how good he is. She will need to have a bit of a talk with him. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What about Taito? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague behind me asks: “What about Taito?”. Well when we look at the list and see that people are bailing all over the show then we realise maybe Helen Clark should creep over to that lovely office he has had and say: “Taito can we sort things out?”. I am not so sure— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s full name should be used. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Actually this is a general debate so we can be quite broad. Perhaps we should come back to the “member for Papatoetoe”.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speakers’ ruling 26/7 states members cannot use a member’s first name; they must use the full name. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think members are aware that the term “Taito” is a title and not a name and therefore I think its use is acceptable in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is actually right. I stand corrected and I apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I say to members that that particular member by offering that point of order may be crawling his way back. I will start to review my position there. 
I want to say Mr Assistant Speaker that you have a fantastic knowledge of Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. You are an enormous talent in the Labour caucus. Why is there no speculation about your future? I think that is most unfair. But I want to say that looking at the way things are going with 25 percent of your colleagues bailing out and a whole lot of others thinking about whether they are going or staying when you are sitting in one of those very safe Labour seats things look promising. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Was that not an interesting speech from that heavyweight? This heavyweight over here certainly knows brouhaha and incredulous statements that that member has no support for when he hears them. Gerry Brownlee is a member who was moved and who has seen leadership change five times in his party. He is a member who supported the member from the Bay of Plenty who said National would remove the cap on doctors’ fees and would let them charge anything they want to in this country. He is a member who has watched a dual role in leadership play off in the sense of diverse differences in relation to tax concessions and tax cuts. 
This Government has got involved in ensuring that working-class families are supported and certainly at the end of the day they are benefiting from the efforts of this Government. A person does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand what is going on there. 
All that this chap Simon Power from Rangitikei has been on about is the crime rate. He denies that the Government has built up the police force without too much pressure and with support from these people over here in New Zealand First and United Future. Katherine Rich certainly got her figures wrong the other day. My departing colleague Steve Maharey who is going on to lead one of the great bastions of education in this country is well rewarded in doing that because he knows where the future is in relation to that. We know that we will be fighting them in the trenches. 
There are some good people over there. I was at a function with Anne Tolley the other day where that joker Bob Clarkson who has plenty of dosh came over and looked after all the constituents there. I want to mihi to him and to Tau Henare and Georgina te Heuheu who are misplaced in that party—they are clearly misplaced. 
What has this Government done over the past 7 years? I want to remind members about that. We have achieved one of the lowest unemployment rates in this country’s history. It is good stuff—a double tick. We have put around one-third of a million people into work. What is wrong with that? 
A lot of those people roam around in the valleys and the dales of this country in the rural areas. In the rural areas the economy is so strong that there are many more new tractors and four-wheel bikes riding up and down in the Bay of Plenty and out in Rangitikei. That is because of this Government’s efforts in supporting all levels of the constituency out there. Certainly the Government could even lay claim to the price increase per kilogram at Fonterra. It is because of this great Government’s economic advancement achieved through the work of one of the best financiers in this country—Dr Cullen—and of our great leader Helen Clark. 
This Government has delivered almost the longest and most consistent run in the economy since the Second World War. We have done plenty. We have ensured that small business is surviving we have ensured that big business stays on these shores and we have done wonderful things for Maori business. I was privileged enough to deliver the futures document for Maori out to the year 2030 which tells us that Maori have an asset base in this country of $17.9 billion. At the end of the day we know how to support that and keep it alive. 
We have reduced the cost of doctors’ visits and prescription charges which is very helpful. One stands in wonder when one’s good efforts are put asunder by certain people saying: “Put the doctors’ fees up! Put the doctors’ fees up!”. What sort of legacy is that? It is outrageous and disgraceful. The Government has put out its free early childhood education scheme and now National members say they will put it down by 40 percent. Flip-flop flip-flop—it is very very interesting. 
Nearly 80 percent of all pre-school children are in education forums. We have now restored superannuitants’ living standards after they were punished so badly over nearly a decade when they were put out in the cold they had no power to keep them warm they were put asunder and their State houses were sold. Labour came back and we will still be here at the end of this debate. And we will still be here as we go forward to the next election. 
The other issue is that there is a lot of scaremongering in this country. Quite certainly at the end of the day when there are mad Pakeha and excited Maori it is not a good mix. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Sir Apirana Ngata Eruera Tirikatene Duncan MacIntyre Koro Wetere—they are men who were proud to be the Minister of Maori Affairs and who could stand on any marae in this country and not be an embarrassment to this Parliament. But then we end up with Parekura Horomia and his matrix of dysfunction. He is a Minister whom no one understands what he actually says. He has a matrix of dysfunction. The matrix of dysfunction that I want to talk about in this House today is the matrix of dysfunction opposite that holds itself out as the Labour Government of this country. 
I have to say the Prime Minister has been receiving a lot of mail from her colleagues recently and I have managed to get hold of what purports to be a letter from Pete Hodgson to the Prime Minister explaining why he should remain the Minister of Health. That is what this letter holds itself out to be. It starts off “Dearest Prime Minister” and these are the points. The Prime Minister said: “Write to us and tell us why you should remain a Minister.” This is what Pete Hodgson said: “First I am your key strategist.” That is what Pete Hodgson said to Helen Clark: “I am your key strategist.” Sure Mr Hodgson was the strategist for the 1990 election campaign but lost that. He was the strategist for the 1993 election campaign and the 1996 election campaign and lost both of those. Oh he was the strategist for 2005 where Labour stole $800000 of taxpayers’ money as the only way to win that election. So what Pete Hodgson said was: “The first point is that I’m your key strategist.” The second thing he said was: “I’m an electoral finance expert.” That is what Pete Hodgson said. Well that is very helpful in light of what has been happening. But here is the kicker. Thirdly he said: “I have a special connection with the health sector.” That is what Pete Hodgson said to the Prime Minister. 
This letter says to the Prime Minister that Pete Hodgson should not go. That is what this letter says; it says that Pete Hodgson should not go. We are to ignore everything that has fallen apart while he has been Minister of Health. In his letter Pete Hodgson will be blaming Annette King for everything that has gone wrong. But we are to ignore all that has happened under Pete Hodgson. We are to ignore the fact that the army of health bureaucrats is getting fatter and fatter by the day. If people are worried about the obesity epidemic it is in the Ministry of Health’s payroll. There is a 55 percent increase in the Ministry of Health’s payroll 24 percent more staff a doubling in the number of people earning over $100000 and 2000 more managers and administrators in the health sector. It is no wonder this health system is creaking under the pressure of bureaucracy. 
No more New Zealanders on a per capita basis are getting elective surgery today than when Labour came to office. The Government has put $5 billion extra into the health system and there is no more surgery for New Zealanders. No more New Zealanders are getting to see a hospital specialist. In fact the number of people getting to see a hospital specialist is 15 percent lower than it was when the district health boards started. Fifteen percent fewer New Zealanders are getting the vitally needed appointment with hospital specialists in order to get into care to get into the system. 
Then there are the emergency departments. Things have not improved in emergency departments around this country. We have all received correspondence concerning an elderly woman who died on the North Shore having spent 16 hours on a trolley before being taken to the ward. As her daughter has written to us how would those members like to spend their last 24 hours languishing in a corridor at North Shore Hospital? Is that the way Labour Party members want to treat the most vulnerable New Zealanders in this country? Do they want them to spend their last hours on this Earth stuck on a trolley in a corridor and under bright fluorescent lights? Is that the sort of end the Labour Party wants to give older New Zealanders? 
The fact is whatever Pete Hodgson is writing to the Prime Minister to justify his position he cannot justify it to the people of New Zealand. There is $5 billion a year extra and the public health service in New Zealand is in desperate need of new leadership new ideas and a fresh vision. That is why the National Party has released—and no other Opposition has ever done this—a detailed set of proposals that will improve the public health service of New Zealand. Do members know what? Labour has not criticised one of those proposals because its members know that those proposals are in the best interests of the health system. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 That was a fine rendition from the grim Reaper of the National Party Tony Ryall. That last 10 minutes was all doom and gloom. There were no new ideas. There was nothing from that member about a way forward. He is the grim Reaper of the National Party. In fact when he did have the opportunity to present some new ideas in the health portfolio what did he do? He buried it. He buried it so deeply that New Zealanders now see a stark difference between what the Opposition offers which is very little—higher doctors’ fees—and what the Government offers. The difference with this Government is that it is working to improve lives and it is making a difference for everyday New Zealanders. 
The Government’s health policy has put a high emphasis on primary health care. Indeed the member who spoke before me talked about elective services but let us look at what has really happened. The emphasis on a Primary Health Care Strategy has meant that people can now pay $10 down from $25 to visit a doctor if they belong to a primary health organisation. The charge for prescription fees is not $15 like it used to be; it is now $3. People can now access health care at an earlier point when they need to not at a critical point in the hospital care system when they have to. The stark difference in the Government’s strategy to ensure that everybody has the right to good health and well-being is to emphasise the importance of people accessing primary health care services earlier when they need to not later when they have to. 
But we have done a lot more in the health area which has made a difference. There are more knee and hip operations and more cataract operations. Phil Goff said that the number of hospitals that have been refurbished and that have been built is making a difference to many communities and to the lives of many people. We have done a lot more than that. In 10 days’ time the Labour Party conference will be an opportunity for everybody to see just how far we have come in the last 9 years and how much we have made a difference to the lives of everyday Kiwi New Zealanders in health care. 
In housing we have moved from income-related rentals we are looking to improve and increase the existing stock of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes and we are also offering options for homeownership. That has made a difference. We have done more. We have provided opportunities for many homeowners to access rates rebates of up to $500. We have retrofitted homes so that they can be warmer for our kids and our old people and that has had a vast impact on health care as well. 
We have also made inroads in education. Just this year the commencement of the 20 free hours’ early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds will make a critical difference in providing a strong platform for all young New Zealanders to access good strong education choices going into the future. We are increasing the number of teachers in kura and wharekura. We have built more kura and the first stand-alone wharekura is in my electorate which I am very proud of. We are also enhancing the school curriculum to ensure that all cultures and languages can continue to succeed in an inclusive education system. 
So those are the types of gains we are seeing. Sure we can do more to lift achievement but we have come a hell of a long way from where we were when National was in Government. Either people fitted into its education system or they just missed out altogether. We know we have a lot of work to do in this area and that is going to be a major emphasis for us. We understand the importance of the education pathway that the Labour-led Government is leading the way on—our kids get many options to look at the way in which they can succeed and Modern Apprenticeships is a really good example of that. In a number of our schools we have the Gateway programme where kids can get on-site work experience and then perhaps gain a qualification in a trade. 
The trades were totally neglected by National when it was in Government. It did not want to know anything about the trades. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it totally abolished apprenticeships. That was not a very good look because a lot of our young people in many of our provincial communities want to take up a career in the trades. The Young Apprenticeships initiative that we will be starting next year will again continue to have a fundamental and positive impact on the lives of many young people in the trades area. We can do more. 
In employment we have already heard that the Government has made a number of inroads into reducing the level of unemployment that exists in our communities but amongst young people in particular. With the support of local government and the Mayors Task Force for Jobs we now have fewer than 1000 young people unemployed and we know we are doing a good job. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It did not work for the All Blacks; it failed. In fact it failed absolutely miserably. But now Prime Minister Clark is bringing in a new rotation policy. It has finally dawned on her that her 1999 team is long long past its best—not that the benchmark was ever set particularly high. In fact many Cabinet members when they reflect suddenly realise how low that bar was and that they jumped over it. Many many names have been bandied around about who is going up who is going down and who is going sideways in the Labour Cabinet and caucus so let us have a look at a few of these names. 
Labour’s junior whip Mr Darren Hughes has been talked of as a new high-flyer and I believe that he is coming in representing the rainbow coalition with his penchant and attraction for all things orange. He may well be New Zealand’s first child Minister. Apparently at Mr Hughes’ student flat he had copies of  
Hansard 
 on the walls and on the shelves. When we were all out having real lives I believe that Mr Hughes was studying up for his future career. At least we have had real lives. But in fact his ministerial career is not off to a very good start. His Paraparaumu Airport bill has him in deep trouble not only with the locals but with Labour Party president Mr Mike Williams I understand. But one person will be cheering loudly if Mr Hughes does get the promotion to Cabinet and that of course is Mr Nathan Guy. As we all know marginal seats are not good places for Ministers to try to defend their turf from. 
Mr Shane Jones has also been mentioned. He has also been christened “Parekura Lite”. Mr Jones can get up and speak for 10 15 20 minutes about any matter whatsoever yet after he sits down we wonder what on earth he has said. We have no recollection of anything important whatsoever other than that a fair bit of oxygen has been chewed up. Mr Jones wandered into Parliament on the list of course. He double-dipped for a few years to the tune of about $100000 per annum I think. Now he wants to waltz into Cabinet and as we discovered today I believe that he wants to carve up the meat industry once he is in Cabinet. When Labour loses at the next election apparently he wants to leapfrog over Phil Goff and take over the Labour party leadership once Helen Clark resigns. 
Mr Charles Chauvel has also been mentioned as one of the up-and-comers. Mr Chauvel is indeed a very nice chap and a most eminent and very good lawyer. I know that because Mr Chauvel told me so. Maryan Street is another cool customer coming up and she is being talked of widely. It will be interesting to see what knowledge she brings to Cabinet. 
Many MPs are also being talked of who are on the downward and outward list. One of those is the Hon Rick Barker who was rightfully shown the red card by the good and very sensible voters from Tukituki in 2005 alongside his colleague Mr Russell Fairbrother who was shown the card by the good and sensible voters in Napier. Currently Mr Barker is preparing for his next career as we see him on Saturday mornings driving around Hawke’s Bay in a big red bus which belches black smoke into the atmosphere as he practises his new role as a bus driver. Apparently he is standing again for selection but I suggest to him that he keeps an eye out for his former union mates. Actually to indicate how out of touch some of these Ministers and MPs are I can tell the House that Mr Barker recently submitted to the Representation Commission on changes proposed to Tukituki’s boundaries. He wanted the name of the electorate changed from Tukituki to Hastings totally forgetting and basically insulting all of the people in Central Hawke’s Bay Flaxmere Havelock North Clive Te Awanga and Haumoana. How out of touch can a member get? 
Of course Mr Burton has been spoken about. He was quite frankly invisible to me until his recent hapless hopeless defence of the Electoral Finance Bill and his defence of that bill will tar him and his legacy for good. His use of curious interpretations of Canadian and Ontario law to justify the most Draconian bill New Zealand has seen in many many years—if not ever—will tar his legacy for ever. 
Mr Maharey announced his intentions last week but what really is not widely known is that he got the kiss of death from the Prime Minister on 11 October this year. On that date the Prime Minister and Mr Maharey opened a new electorate office in Palmerston North. There was glowing and wonderful public relations with gushing endorsements of each other then only 8 days later Mr Maharey announced his intention of resigning. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I want to do something novel this afternoon—it is certainly novel for me—and that is to give kudos to the Minister of Justice Mr Mark Burton. We know that we have a bill the Electoral Finance Bill that is not quite right. I think the Minister of Justice has said that and indeed the Prime Minister has said it. Parliament and the Justice and Electoral Committee are now working to fix it up. 
The concern I have is how we go about fixing it up the difficulty being that what we are doing here is regulating not just politicians and would-be candidates but indeed anyone who in an election year wants to express a political opinion and spend money to that effect. People actually have to make a statutory declaration even for $10 and if they want to spend more than $5000 on a policy then they have to register with the Government that they want to express a political view. That is pretty tough. 
I was impressed with the Human Rights Commission’s submission on Thursday. I myself think that we should not have any of these rules but given that in Parliament it is believed that there should be some limits on the freedom of speech it seems to me important that we get the rules right. The Human Rights Commission which is actually set up independently of the Government to have a statutory function to protect the rights of New Zealanders said that it agreed with the Minister and the Government on the intent of the bill but was concerned about its impact. The commission suggested that it would be happy to work expeditiously with the committee on how to amend the bill to deal with some of the concerns the public have—and indeed I think the Government now has in response to submissions. 
It seems that that is a good way forward. I will therefore propose to the committee tomorrow that we advise officials to attempt to amend the legislation in light of the Human Rights Commission’s suggestions and that we authorise the committee to consult with the Human Rights Commission so that we can speed up things with a bit of two-way dialogue. Indeed when the officials come to report back to the committee I suggest we invite the Human Rights Commission along as well. 
It seems to me that for this process to have any integrity Parliament should really work quite hard to have the Human Rights Commission on board with a tick. I was pleased that the Minister of Justice was prepared to say: “Yes we are going to be looking at changes to the bill; that is what the select committee process is about.” and that although he did not agree entirely with the Human Rights Commission’s submission he was not against the committee’s taking on board its recommendations and attempting to deal with those concerns. 
I believe that this issue is so vital and so important because it affects every New Zealander. I do not think it is the Minister’s intent to chill political debate or political expression; I think the Government wants to have a set of rules that attends to its objectives but does not freeze out people who have a dissenting view or who want to express a political opinion. 
I would like to think that around this House we could work with the Human Rights Commission to get some sound electoral finance rules so that we protect people’s freedom of speech and so that we ensure a proper and fair democratic process. Do we in this country really really want to be passing electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to because of its impact on our freedom of expression? I do not think so. So I will be looking forward to tomorrow and to each political party agreeing to work closely with the Human Rights Commission to see whether we can take on board its concerns. We have to say that the commission is the neutral arbiter of human rights in this country. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is good to follow Rodney Hide—somebody who was talking about ideas somebody who in his time here has actually changed his politics and wants to discuss ideas. That is unlike the National members. The poor old National members are obsessing over there after 8 years in Opposition and looking forward to another 8 years. All they can do is to obsess about who will be in the Cabinet. But the problem for them is that it will not be any of them. They do not have to worry about who will be in Cabinet because—I have to tell them—they are in Opposition. They are in Opposition and that is where they will stay. They are obsessing about who will be in the Cabinet over on this side of the Chamber; it is a nice problem to have. It is a nice problem for the Prime Minister to have: who will make up her team going into the future and going into the Labour Party conference the weekend after next? 
I have a question for National members. Why does Mark Blumsky want to leave Parliament? Why is it that National has got him chained to the desk down here when he wants to go right now? He is desperate to get out of here. He says that the politics of the National Party are rotten and that he wants to get out. Maybe somebody should look at who is next on the list and then ask National members why they fear Mark Blumsky leaving this place before his time comes up at the next election. I think that is an interesting little question for National members to contemplate. 
When Helen Clark makes a speech to the Labour Party conference the weekend after next she will not be going there to tell the delegates that the war in Iraq is over. 
Jill Pettis 
: No. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Oh no she will not be telling them that—technically or not. She will not be going there to say: “We are going to put your doctors’ fees up.” No she will not be making that sort of speech. She will not be going there to say to our delegates: “We’re going to sell assets that you already own.” No she will not be doing that. I tell the House what she will do. She will know which party she is leading; she will not get to the conference and get her words all mixed up like the Leader of the Opposition over there did with his ums and ahs. 
John Key tried to put out policy but has given up that idea because it has gone just so badly wrong around doctors’ fees. After poor old John Key’s ums and ahs through his policy launch up stepped the undertaker this grim figure behind him—the Hon Tony Ryall. And what did Tony Ryall say? He said: “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” He sounded like a bloody undertaker come to bury the National Party’s policy once and for all. He let the cat out of the bag; he said what National would do: put people’s doctors’ fees back up. Well National has to pay for the tax cuts somehow does it not? Doctors’ fees and prescription fees will have to go up because the market will take care of them. The market will determine doctors’ fees. Yeah right! 
New Zealanders know what the market did last time in the 1990s. People had to have a little plastic card issued by Jenny Shipley by the State to say that they were poor and that therefore they could get a cheaper visit to the doctor. Helen Clark will not be making that sort of speech to the Labour Party conference. She will be telling delegates about the halving of doctors’ fees about the prescription charges that have come down about the fact that this country has the lowest unemployment rate in the world because of Labour’s economic policies that we have more people in employment than ever before and that that number continues to grow. She will be telling them that we are doing something about the skills shortage which was actually created by the former National Government which scrapped apprenticeships and made tertiary education so expensive that it drove most talented New Zealanders offshore with a massive student loan—and of course this Government has put in place a dramatic piece of policy by taking interest off student loans to fix that issue. 
No the Prime Minister will be going to the conference to tell Labour delegates that the job is not done that we have to work hard in the future as a Government to make sure that we undo the damage that was done in the 1990s by the National Government by Jenny Shipley Gerry Brownlee and all that lot over on that side of the Chamber who want to go back to those days. They want to put up doctors’ fees and they want to put them at market rates. They want to say to young New Zealanders that they will pay a market interest rate on their student fees and on their student loans like they did in the 1990s. National wants to sell State houses—again. This Government has built 7500 houses and we are nearly getting back to the 13000 that the former National Government sold off. 
Jill Pettis 
: 13000 they sold. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: National sold 13000. The Government has rebuilt 7500. Those tenants who need help from the Government are about $120 a week better off just because of income-related rents. We have put money into the pockets of 360000 New Zealand families through Working for Families. That lot over on the other side of the Chamber voted against Working for Families. That is what our delegates will be hearing at the Labour Party conference. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That speech was from Mark Gosche a member who has huge potential in his party but who will never actually be able to take it further. Let us imagine the situation if someone were a member of the Labour Party at the moment. I was sitting here thinking that if I were the Prime Minister I would be very very disappointed and very sad. She has some big problems in front of her. What does she do with her political party? The message the Prime Minister will be giving at the Labour Party conference will be: “Look I know we are in trouble; we are going to lose this one. But I have a plan. I’m going to change the rules so that those guys can’t fight on a level playing field. I’ll change the rules not fight on the basis of policy or people.” 
Why can the Prime Minister not fight on the basis of policy or on people? She has nobody to put up the front now. Her loyal lieutenant resigned last week. The person she had put her money on to take over and lead the party after her departure is going. That opens a huge hole in the Labour Party now. Who will be there and who will be coming up behind? We can imagine the list of people she can look to. 
You know a Prime Minister would normally think that his or her Ministers outside Cabinet were there for a reason: to learn to come into Cabinet. Would that not be expected? But who would a Prime Minister choose out of these Ministers: Minister Judith Tizard Minister Dover Samuels Minister Harry Duynhoven Minister Mita Ririnui Minister Winnie Laban and Minister Mahara Okeroa. Who would be chosen to go on to the front bench? None of those Ministers have the potential the desire or the ability to go on to the front bench. 
So the Prime Minister will have to go further back. Will she go back to Shane Jones the man who has made his name in this House for his gripping questions at question time? Will she choose that person? Will she go for Charles Chauvel somebody who has been doing his time just sitting there patiently waiting for the opportunities? Or will she go for Maryan Street the loyal dependable former Labour Party president? What would members do if they were Helen Clark? There are not many choices and that is her problem. That is what she is sitting there thinking now: how does she go into an election with a team that will not do it a team that is divided and corrosive? 
One person out there is licking his lips at this and that is Phil Goff. Phil Goff knows that with Clark in trouble and Maharey going he has a straight road to the job he wants: Leader of the Opposition leader of the Labour Party. 
Politics is all about timing and the timing of the Labour Party and its members is bad. They know they will be out at the next election and they know they will be out for 12 years because John Key will be one of the greatest Prime Ministers of this country. Those Labour members who have any brains will be getting out now. They know they will be sitting in Opposition if they do not get out now. The ones that cannot get out have nothing else they could go to anyway. They are sitting there because that is their only option; that is the best they can ever achieve. 
We have to feel sorry for some people. The new Labour members who come in will have come in at the wrong term in the electoral cycle. They will come in and be in Opposition for the next 12 years. Let us imagine those members coming in. They will not get promoted and they will be sitting there for 12 years in Opposition. Is that not a shame for them? Is that not a shame for Labour? 
Well it serves them right. A party cannot do what Labour has done year on year and ignore what the public of New Zealand want. The public of New Zealand have seen in Australia a country that is developing and giving tax cuts to its people. Australia is rewarding people for hard work and enterprise—the kind of things that the Labour Government should be doing for our people. 
But what has Cullen come up with this week in response to that issue? He has just come out and made four tests for any tax cut. These four tests he made on the hoof and in the middle of question time. He had no concept of what they were; he could hardly remember them today when he was again asked about them. So what are these tests? Well the fourth test is probably the most obscure of them all: “they must be fair; that is the benefits must not all go to those on higher incomes but must be spread more fairly across the entire population.” That is the test the Labour Party uses to make tax cuts. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is not difficult to follow the heavy hitter—the previous speaker David Bennett—who demonstrated the Opposition’s obsession with looking at the refreshment on this side of the House and not coming up with one policy in the general debate today. How sad that is; what a waste of energy that is. I say to the member that he should hold his powder. Things are going to happen over here and he will be interested in watching them with great glee. 
Before I begin I just want to offer congratulations from this side of the House from this proud Labour team to the Hon Steve Maharey on his decision that it is time to move on. It reminds everybody in this House that one day they will personally face a decision about a time to move on and contribute to New Zealand society with the experience that one gains in this House. We wish him well. 
In 10 days’ time we are going to go out with our Labour conference and show that the Labour team has not collapsed and that we are actually continually refreshing ourselves. Our leadership is there to guide this team and to bring through new policies and new energy. We are continually developing as a team and working with our electorate branches around the country to bring through new policies and new ideas. We are bursting with these new ideas. We will show that we can build on the gains that we have made over the last 7 years which have been hugely significant. We now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We are the envy of the developed world with 3.6 percent unemployment and the longest run in continuous economic growth since World War II. 
The people of New Zealand vote on actual gains on experience and on what has happened over the last 7 years but they will also be watching for policy from the Opposition. I just want to mention one of its policy debacles. Actually it was the Hon Tony Ryall who seemed to love the term himself—the matrix of dysfunction. The launching of the Opposition’s health policy was a matrix of dysfunction. If ever I have seen those in the National health team look liked stunned mullets it was when they heard Tony Ryall. They said: “Yes he is right. John Key did not say he was going to take the cap off doctors’ fees. Tony Ryall is right.” He himself said today that that was rubbish. What Tony Ryall actually said was: “We don’t support Labour’s fee control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” 
To make matters worse John Key came in supported Tony Ryall and said: “Well the market will sort it out. They can go down the road if they don’t like how doctors are charging.” Well I wonder whether the leader has actually been out to Te Whaiti to Murupara to the rural heartland of New Zealand where people can go nowhere to visit another doctor. So where do they go for this? 
Standing behind Tony Ryall and the leader John Key were experienced doctors and people in the Opposition team who know about health. They looked absolutely stunned. It was not in National’s health policy. They did not know that this surprise was going to be launched that day; it was a ripper. Then Tony Ryall went on and got confused trying to justify this incredible blooper. He said: “I don’t think New Zealanders have GP costs as the top-of-mind issue in health.” Well I want to remind Tony Ryall that when we got into Government in 1999 it was one of the major issues that was at the top of their minds for New Zealanders and they have not forgotten. Lest they forget the privatisation by stealth went on for 9 years under a National Government and here we have Tony Ryall Bill English and Nick Smith still on the front bench. 
Leopards do not change their spots. The same people are there coming out with policy and forgetting what destroyed the National Party for 9 years in the 1990s—user-pays in New Zealand hospitals the break-up of the health system and the funder-provider split. Talk about bureaucracy in health when we had to deal with the funder-provider split! In 1998 and 1999 only half of Vote Health went to the public sector. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I will start with a question: who did Ron Mark mean when he referred in question time to the “loony tunes” of the left? He should not be referring to the Labour-led Government like that. It is in enough trouble without that kind of help from its minor coalition partners. 
You know the Prime Minister has a big problem because between her overseas trips she has to sit over there in the House look over at us and feel the chill—the chill of inevitable defeat. Those members opposite know it and they are panicking. The Prime Minister looks over at our side of the House and who does she see? She sees John Key the future Prime Minister. She sees National’s front-bench members our future Ministers and rows and rows of enthusiastic talented able and hungry members of Parliament from the National Party. She must look at our MPs who day after day get big hits on the Government in this Chamber. She must cast her eye over the National Party caucus and see those members who have removed and replaced her own Labour MPs from their constituent seats with young hungry capable hard-working and good-looking National MPs. 
So who have we got? We will start with young Craig Foss. Who did Craig take the seat from? He took it from Rick Barker. And what about Jo Goodhew? She had a famous famous victory over Jim Sutton. Anne Tolley took the East Coast seat from Moana Mackey. Then we have Chester Borrows who took the seat of Whanganui from Russell Fairbrother. It is a shame he could not do the same thing with the heartland rugby competition but I suppose there is always next year. David Parker was defeated in Otago by yours truly Jacqui Dean. What about David Bennett? What happened to Dianne Yates? David Bennett took the Hamilton East seat from her. Jonathan Coleman took the Northcote seat from Ann Hartley and Eric Roy took the deep-south seat of Invercargill. 
Why did we beat them? Why did we take all those provincial seats back and why will we go on winning more electorate seats at the next election? I will tell members why. The reason is that we are good. We are effective electorate MPs. We are the ones who live in the towns and villages of New Zealand and we understand the problems of provincial and rural New Zealand. We understand issues such as the compliance costs that have been heaped on small business and the utter frustrations of builders facing an onerous licensing regime. Of course this issue is not just confined to towns and villages; it is also happening in the cities. My colleague David Bennett in Hamilton East faces exactly these issues as well. 
What else do we good electorate MPs do? We fight and we try to help local authorities struggling with registration under the new Building Act. In the Waitaki District they reckon it is going to cost them the wages of another two building inspectors—this is in a small local authority—just to comply with the Building Act requirements. I ask the Labour-led Government whether that is helpful. We fight on a daily basis for schools that are being chronically underfunded and where principals feel more like building inspectors than educators. It is no wonder they are leaving the country at the rate of 700 people a week. We good National electorate MPs are fighting to find hospital-level care beds for elderly people who have lived in their towns all their lives and now because there is not the level of care for them there get shipped out of town into hospital-level care. The level of underfunding in elderly care services under this Labour-led Government is absolutely shameful. 
We are the constituency MPs who are fighting for the rights of high-country farmers under tenure review against a Minister who just does not care for the farming sector. Never mind productivity never mind the fact that these farming families have been good stewards of the land for over 100 years—the Minister for Land Information cares nothing for that. He will return it to the Department of Conservation’s control where it will be left to grow weeds and become a fire hazard which leads me on to the Rural Fire Authority. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I wish to begin by thanking the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its work on the bill. With the exception of one member—the Green Party member; and I acknowledge that—the committee was united in its support for the bill to proceed. 
Before discussing the bill’s key provisions I would like to note up front that this bill is not connected to the events of the last few days. The bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2007. It followed a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act undertaken by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. The committee identified a number of issues around the working of the Act and its compliance with our international obligations. New Zealand had also signed two new international treaties that required us to create new offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill contains the amendments required to address these issues. 
I will address firstly the issue of United Nations terrorist designations. New provisions are required to ensure that terrorists listed under United Nations Resolution 1267 which deals with al-Qaeda and Taliban activities are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law and that those designations remain in force until removed from the UN terrorist list. This change is required to reflect the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s obligations under the Security Council’s al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions regime. The mandatory nature of those obligations is not well reflected in the Act as it stands at present. It is not an option for New Zealand to maintain a procedure that allows the Prime Minister or courts to second-guess the Security Council and refuse to implement a designation made under a Chapter 7 resolution. Nor is it necessary to maintain a process by which New Zealand is required to consider individually every inclusion on the UN list. 
Changes are also required for reasons of practicality. Under the current procedure all designations lapse automatically after 3 years unless extended by the High Court. With 420 designations due to expire at the end of November it is clearly not feasible for the High Court to review this number of designations particularly when the court does not have access to the evidence on which the Security Council based its initial designations. For policy administrative and evidential reasons the current process is clearly inappropriate for UN list terrorists and requires amendment. The changes proposed in the bill will bring New Zealand into line with virtually all other Western countries. 
I turn now to the non-UN terrorist entities. Under the Act as it stands at the moment the Prime Minister is responsible for making designations of terrorist entities that are not related to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The bill will not change that position. The changes it will make relate only to the extension of initial designations. The bill will replace the role of the High Court in extending the designation of non-UN terrorist entities when these expire after a 3-year period. Instead the Prime Minister will renew a designation if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. As the committee itself has noted these decisions like initial decisions to designate involve judgments about national security and are appropriately made by the executive. That is consistent with the approach taken in Australia and Canada where decisions at the renewal stage are made by the same office holder who made the original designation and the same test is applied. Although the role of the court in extending designations will be removed the amended Act will retain judicial oversight over the designation process. Any decision by the Prime Minister to designate an entity or a decision not to revoke a designation will remain subject to judicial review. The select committee has also added a further provision recommending that as a final step the Prime Minister report the renewal of terrorist designations to the Intelligence and Security Committee. 
This bill will also repeal the “avoidance of doubt” provisions related to offences of financing terrorism. These provisions were included in the Act with the intention of providing clarity on the scope of offences in the Act. They have however had the opposite effect. The provisions create uncertainty by confusing the mental elements of the offences. Because of the way section 8(2) is drafted it has the potential also to undermine one of the key purposes of the legislation—that is to criminalise the intentional financing of terrorist acts—and would be inconsistent with both the Security Council resolutions and indeed our own position that acts of terrorism simply cannot be justified. The removal of these provisions will not compromise the right of New Zealanders to engage in or financially support peaceful protest activity but the provisions as they stand cannot achieve the purpose for which they were enacted. They do not remove doubt; in fact they create it. They were never intended to provide a defence for a person who intentionally collects funds to be used to commit a terrorist act or who intentionally makes property available to a terrorist organisation. There is no comparable provision in like-minded jurisdictions or indeed in our own criminal law. 
I also point out that the definition of “terrorist act” states expressly that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself a sufficient basis for implying an intent to commit a terrorist act. Therefore to the extent that a safeguard is needed to ensure that the Act is not used to repress legitimate protest activity this is provided for in that definition. The bill will also strengthen the Act by creating a new offence of committing a terrorist act. Although the Act currently criminalises terrorist bombings and a range of other specific terrorism-related offences it does not criminalise the commission of a terrorist act per se. The creation of a generic offence is intended to reflect the gravity of terrorist offending and to ensure that appropriate penalties can be imposed in appropriate cases if the actions fall within the definition of a terrorist act—that is for example if the actions were intended to cause death or serious injury or major economic loss for the purpose of inducing terror in the civilian population or to compel the Government to do or not to do something. These are not trivial matters and this change is not made lightly. 
The bill also addresses shortfalls in the Act by adding the mental element of recklessness to the offence of participating in a terrorist group. The addition of recklessness will maintain consistency with other offences in the Act. Adding this element will also expand the scope of the offence to include for instance persons with knowledge of a UN terrorist designation but no specific knowledge of a designation under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The test for recklessness sets a high threshold for a prosecutor to cross. For people to be deemed reckless they must know there was a risk that a group was a designated terrorist entity or carried out terrorist acts but they participated in the group anyway. It would also be necessary to prove that taking this risk was unreasonable when having regard to the nature and the degree of the risk. 
In addition to addressing shortfalls in the current Act the bill incorporates amendments necessary to bring New Zealand up to date with its international obligations. The bill creates new offences involving nuclear and radioactive material that are required to enable ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and comply with the recent amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. In response to submissions amendments have been made to better implement the international conventions. The new offence provisions were also narrowed to address concerns that the provisions could apply to legitimate protest activity. 
The handling of classified security information was also raised by submitters. The committee did not recommend any change to the process in the bill which involves the provision of a summary of classified security information. The recently introduced Immigration Bill proposes a special advocate procedure. Consideration should be given to the application of procedures for dealing with classified security information following the adoption of that Act. Discussion of this legislation will raise issues regarding the appropriate balance between giving effect to our international obligations and maintaining respect for human rights and civil liberties here in New Zealand. 
Despite some of the statements that have been made over the last few days this bill is not intended to substantially change the way in which the Terrorism Suppression Act operates; rather the primary purpose of the bill is to make the Act more workable and to update its provisions to reflect New Zealand’s international obligations. The changes proposed will bring New Zealand into line with other countries with similar legal systems and will do so in a way that is both appropriate and necessary. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The National Party supports the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Indeed we have been calling for some time for amendments to make this country’s counter-terrorism machinery more workable. We have been calling for better precautionary use of that machinery as nations like Australia and Canada have used similar machinery to ensure that all sensible steps are taken to counter international terrorist activity. 
This debate is given greater significance as a result of events of this month. Those events and the controversy that surrounds them in no way weaken our support for this bill or for the counter-terrorism machinery contained in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The bill does not in itself as the Minister has told the House extend in any substantive way the powers of the State to act against the threat of terrorism. Those powers are contained in the principal Act of 2002. They include the sanctioning of steps by the authorities to intercept communications weapons and funds of groups designated as terrorist entities. 
This bill streamlines the machinery by which designations of terrorist entities are made and renewed. The current provisions are in many respects unworkable and impractical. They provide for a lengthy process for the designation of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1267 when it is obvious that we should merely follow the lead that has been taken by the United Nations Security Council in making such a designation. 
With regard to designations made of New Zealand’s own initiative under UN Resolution 1373 the current procedures treat the renewal of designations as matters that are capable of being dealt with through a judicial process according to a normal standard of proof in the courts. The reality is that the process of making and renewing terrorist designations must be a matter for the exercising of subjective judgment based upon intelligence information and other material much of which cannot be allowed into the public domain. 
The National Party accepts that the appropriate authority to make and renew designations under UN Resolution 1373 should be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and is the elected official most fully and regularly briefed on security matters. We do have some concerns about the manner in which this process has worked under the original Act since it was passed in 2002 and I shall come to that a little later in these comments. That does not change in any way the fact that in terms of the design of our counter-terrorism machinery the Prime Minister is the logical person to carry the responsibility for designations of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1373. 
In recent days there has been considerable comment—some of it highly emotive—about the actions of the New Zealand Police in arresting a number of individuals on charges under the Arms Act and the Crimes Act with consideration being given to further charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 presumably under section 13 which creates an offence of participating in a terrorist group. The manner of the police actions and the public references to the prospect of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act have raised the stakes in this case well above the ordinary enforcement of the Crimes Act or the Arms Act. 
My colleagues and I will not buy in to debate or speculation as to whether the police were justified in taking this course or whether their actions have generally met the standard that should be expected of them by this Parliament. At this stage of proceedings we cannot possibly know and the members of the public and the members of this House who have been so critical of the police cannot possibly know either. We owe it to the law enforcement authorities to the public and to ourselves to wait to allow the facts to emerge in the courtroom and then to make considered and professional judgments based upon those facts. 
Having said that I want to give some reassurance to the members of the public and the members of the House who have expressed concerns about these events. In providing the authorities with a tool kit to deal with the threat of terrorism it is a brutal reality that this Parliament potentially overrides the civil liberties of some individuals or groups. This Parliament has done so because we have been persuaded that the threat of terrorist activity and the consequent danger to the safety of the public is such that we have little choice but to sanction some carefully considered intrusion into the civil liberties of some individuals or groups considered to be a risk to the safety of the New Zealand public. We can take some comfort in this regard from the fact that the steps we have taken are considerably less intrusive than those taken in jurisdictions like the United States or United Kingdom where there is a perception of a higher level of terrorist risk. 
From the select committee proceedings in relation to this bill and from the commentary of recent days it is clear that there will always be debate about where to draw the line in these matters. I personally remain comfortable with the evidence I have seen that we have the balance right in this country in this respect. But having provided this tool kit for the authorities to fight terrorism it would be a very serious matter indeed if it was misused. At this stage it is in my view appropriate that members of this House should operate on the presumption that the police have raised the stakes in this recent operation because there has been good reason for them to do so whilst remaining alert to any evidence that might emerge to the contrary. 
As one who supports the need for strong effective counter-terrorism legislation I accept that there is a particular responsibility on myself and others to scrutinise the actions of the authorities in relation to the use of this legislation when the facts are on the table to make such scrutiny possible. After those facts emerge and after such scrutiny is possible if it does appear that the police or other authorities have got it wrong then obviously there will consequences—very serious consequences indeed. But I believe we should leave the matter there until those facts emerge. 
In reporting back the findings of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the National Party has taken the unusual step of submitting a minority report to the House. It is an unusual step to take in relation to a bill that we support but we have done so for very strong and good reasons. Since the original Act the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in 2002 in the wake of the terrorist action in the United States New Zealand has met all its obligations under UN Resolution 1267 and has duly designated as terrorist entities all 450-odd individuals or groups that have been so designated by the United Nations Security Council. However in relation to UN Resolution 1373 which is the resolution that relates to non-Taliban or non-al-Qaeda - related terrorist entities our track record simply does not stand up to scrutiny. 
Since 2002 Australia has designated 88 individuals or groups as terrorist entities so that its enforcement authorities are licensed to employ the provisions of its terrorism suppression legislation to the supervision of those persons or groups. Canada has designated over 50 terrorist entities under similar provisions in its law. Yet to date New Zealand has not designated a single terrorist individual or group under UN Resolution 1373. In practice that means that groups like the Tamil Tigers Abu Nidal Organisation al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade Hamas Hezbollah and many others are designated as terrorist entities in Australia with their actions therefore circumscribed by the attention of the Australian authorities but in New Zealand not one of those organisations is so designated under our legislation. 
 Even if we take the charitable view that there is no direct threat from terrorist activity to members of the New Zealand public I think members would have to accept that Australia could not be said to be in such a situation. Clearly the Australian Government apprehends that there is a risk of terrorist activity to members of its public. Clearly members of the Australian administration have taken the view that these 88 groups should be the subject of some attention from its law enforcement authorities. 
Given our proximity to Australia and given the openness of our border with Australia it simply does not make sense that New Zealand should be operating from such a different page than that from which the Australian authorities operate. So in supporting this legislation National takes the opportunity to draw the attention of the House and the public to the fact that this tool kit for our authorities to deal with the threat of terrorism is only as good as the Prime Minister making the designations that the legislation makes possible. Those designations under Resolution 1373 have not been made in this country and we say to New Zealanders that this legislation can only be as good as the Prime Minister who has the tool kit to be able to enforce the law. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member opposite Murray McCully for his support and I thank his party for its support of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I also thank members for the comments that have been made and for the comments made about recent events. 
I also mention that the minority report from the National Party which is included in the report back to the House is not about the actual content of the bill but about the application of the bill. I also remind the House that New Zealand is a sovereign State and is not necessarily governed by lists that are compiled in Australia. However the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did include the National minority report about the application of the bill in the report back to the House. 
We also included the Green Party minority report which was concerned about civil liberties—as were all members of the committee. When we tried as the Hon Murray McCully has mentioned to achieve a balance between civil liberties and the protection of New Zealanders we discussed a great deal the wording in section 8. We were assured by officials and by our legal advisers that the wording we have presented to the House does achieve that balance between civil liberty and protection of New Zealanders and that the previous wording in there was unnecessary as a safeguard. 
I wish to thank all those who made submissions on the bill. There were 35 submissions from interested groups and individuals and the committee heard 14 of those submissions. We considered them very carefully and as I say there was considerable debate. 
There were changes made to the bill in the light of New Zealand interests around the offences concerning the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Those changes were made by the committee to ensure greater clarity and to ensure that the definitions were those that were suitable for New Zealand and the policies of New Zealand around those issues. We also noted that there were changes—as has been mentioned by the Minister Mark Burton in his opening speech in this debate—that may be necessary to the Immigration Bill. The committee has written to the appropriate Minister to point out that those changes may be necessary. 
Once again we are concerned that New Zealand does respond appropriately to international terrorism that we meet our United Nations obligations and that we are a very good member of the United Nations and honour our obligations. We are probably a leader in countries that sign up to agreements and keep those agreements. We wish to say that generally New Zealand is a very good and compliant member. As members will see the schedules to the bill give all the details of the implications for the conventions. 
One of the additions that the committee also made was in the matter of transparency. To ensure transparency clause 21 concerning renewing designations was amended to provide that the Prime Minister must report to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the proposal of renewal. That was a change that the committee also made to ensure there would be greater transparency. 
I can assure the House that the deliberations of the committee were rather long and serious. We had some very serious discussions with those who made submissions about achieving the appropriate balance for New Zealanders—I can say once again—between civil liberty and maintaining civil liberties within New Zealand and protection against terrorism. This was as I have said very much to do also with the collecting of funds and the legislation around the collecting of funds and—I think Mr Locke will agree with this—the discussion that we had reflected on what has happened in the past when New Zealanders have contributed to movements that have been involved in anti-apartheid and so on and that New Zealanders should be free to contribute to these. We also wanted to make sure that people who might accidentally contribute to something—sometimes people are raising funds and New Zealanders will when somebody comes to the door give money to a collection—would not be caught up in any provision concerning terrorist collection of funding in that regard. 
So we have been very careful around the collecting of funds and the supporting of democratic agencies. As we have said and as the Green Party minority report says funding to the African National Congress for instance would not be seen as an offence under this legislation. We were assured that that was not the case but we note that the Green Party minority report wanted to make doubly sure on that regard. So once again I thank the committee for its consideration of this legislation and for the work that has been done. I also thank the officials who worked on this and all those who made submissions. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I guess many people in the country will be asking why we have this bill and why we are debating it now. 
Rodney Hide 
: Yeah I am. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask. 
Rodney Hide 
: I want to know why National is supporting it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have to say given the circumstances those are proper questions to ask. But this bill is not actually related to current events. It is in fact all about designating international terrorist organisations. 
I will explain to the member why I say that. The current designations of groups by the UN mostly around al-Qaeda and associated groups expire later this year and if we did nothing at all those designations would all have to go through the High Court. The only way they could be renewed under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 would be to go through the High Court. We could have had a normal High Court hearing with the prospect of al-Qaeda members or some other international terrorists coming along seeking a hearing saying they are not terrorists and so forth. Frankly that is an untenable proposition and I think even members of the New Zealand Maori Party would recognise that reality. Designating international entities as terrorists particularly when nominated by the United Nations is par excellence a function of the Government not a function of the judiciary. That is why this bill is before the House because those entities do need to be redesignated. 
There was a lot of discussion in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee about who should do the redesignation. The initial designation was done by the Prime Minister and that is what is being proposed now. But we have added an additional requirement: the Prime Minister must inform the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee is made up of the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Anderton and two members of the Opposition those members being Mr Key and indeed Mr Hide. The committee does have an important oversight role. 
We recognise that there is a great deal of public interest in the terrorism laws at the moment. That is to be expected given that the police have used the surveillance and tracking powers of the legislation from 2002 which actually came out of the counter-terrorism bill of that time. In fact those provisions were added to the Crimes Act. So when the police used those powers they raised the question of whether there are terrorists in our country. 
Terrorism strikes at the stability of the nation because terrorism is no ordinary crime. Terrorists intend to overthrow the Government. They intend to create disorder. They intend to threaten the lives and indeed the infrastructure of the entire nation. So when the authorities raise the spectre of terrorism those are the fears they convey into society. It should be rightfully a very high threshold that the police have to meet before they can invoke the powers of the legislation. Clearly the actions of the police will be judged in the courts of this land and by the public and by this Parliament. We acknowledge that and we say as well that there is no prejudging of those actions. But I would say that the police need to be right on this issue because of the very implications of what terrorism raises in society. 
Parliament has dealt with the issue of terrorism on a number of occasions and the powers that we have conferred give the authorities more powers than is conventionally the case. They now have much greater power to track individuals. They now have much greater power to surveil bank accounts and the like. Those powers are contained in the legislation and approval for their use has to be granted by warrants issued through the District Court and the High Court. 
I say also that those powers need to be carefully controlled. The New Zealand Parliament has not gone as far as other countries have gone—in particular the United Kingdom the United States and Australia. We have not allowed the police to detain suspects without a charge; we have not given the police any power to question people without a charge. Those fundamental rights of New Zealanders are protected. The police can detain a New Zealander only if they arrest the person. The police can arrest someone only if they charge the person with an offence. When the police charge a person with an offence that person has certain rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which are given automatically. Anyone who is arrested must be brought before a court within 24 hours and a charge has to be laid or indeed withdrawn. It is the courts not the police that decide who gets bail. It was the High Court in Auckland that refused bail to one of the people charged last week; it was the District Court in Rotorua that also refused bail for Mr Iti. The courts have done that not the police. That is an important protection that all citizens have. 
Tariana Turia 
: The police opposed bail. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I know that they opposed it but the courts refused it. That is an important point. The defendants are able to put their cases before the courts and they are making appeals on the issue of bail. 
I want to make it absolutely clear that those fundamental rights of New Zealanders have been embedded in our law for literally centuries and at no stage has our terrorism legislation overridden any of those fundamental rights. New Zealanders need that assurance because there have been misstatements about that. It is easy to be alarmist it is easy to raise concerns—and I do understand why those concerns are raised—but I say that we should wait to see the evidence. 
I want to turn my attention to a particular offence. This bill creates a new offence and I know that that will be the subject of discussion. It creates the new offence of terrorism: carrying out a terrorist act. That offence carries a sentence of life imprisonment. I will point out what a terrorism act is. It is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 by a threefold test and it is a cumulative test. Firstly the terrorist act itself must have an ideological political or religious motivation. It is not an ordinary crime; it must have a very particular motivation. Second the act must induce terror in the civilian population or be designed to compel a Government to do something. Third the act must be intended to result in death to threaten the health and safety of the population—anthrax for instance—or to threaten major economic systems. The intentional release of foot-and-mouth disease for instance would be a case in point. All three tests must be satisfied and that is the important issue that I want to bring to the public point of view. In order to convict someone of committing a terrorist act a jury would have to be satisfied that all three tests were met. That is a high threshold. 
In conclusion I say this bill is necessary at this stage. It is simply coincidental that it comes at this particular time. The bill is primarily aimed at international terrorists. But when issues of terrorism are raised domestically the public are right to be concerned. They have a right to be satisfied that the threat is real because terrorism strikes at the core of society. We must wait to see the evidence that the police have but that evidence will have to be compelling or else there will be an accounting. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This debate is important because for the first time the police are considering laying charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act against several New Zealanders. This issue has brought home the debate. No longer are we talking about al-Qaeda and the like. 
The fundamental problem with domestic anti-terrorism laws is that all serious violent offending is covered by our Crimes Act. We do not need a parallel set of laws called anti-terrorism laws where higher penalties are imposed simply because the offender has a political motive. That political motive may be shared by many ordinary peaceful New Zealanders. It might be protecting Tuhoe land rights or saving a block of native forests. Why should we penalise it with a higher penalty? Why should someone trying to save some dolphins or some native snails if the person ever happened to turn violent be subject to more years in jail than a violent gang member with no social conscience would be? Also those with a social conscience are designated as “terrorists” into the bargain. 
Most environmentalists or supporters of Maori rights would never in a million years think of resorting to violence and they would be in favour of any violent people being brought to justice but by using the criminal law not anti-terrorist laws that smear only their own political cause. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill sets up a new offence of engaging in a terrorist act with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If this is passed someone could potentially get a life sentence for even engaging in peaceful civil disobedience where one does not intend to harm anyone. 
A terrorist act can be one where undue pressure is put on a Government by “serious interference with or serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life:”. Greenpeace tried to get the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to narrow that definition so that it would catch only those people in Greenpeace’s words “with the intention of endangering human life”. But the Greens were the only supporters of Greenpeace in the select committee on that amendment. As things stand if this bill passes those organising a hospital strike or a disruptive protest on the scale of the 1981 Springbok Tour demonstrations could be up for a life sentence for serious disruption of an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life even if they in no way intended to endanger human life. 
 Many submitters to the select committee were also worried about the removal of the “avoidance of doubt” clause whereby one would not be in trouble if one’s donation to an organisation was “for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.” even if the organisation one was donating to had engaged in some terrorist activity as broadly defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act—that is if one donated to an anti-apartheid cause yesterday or for a democratic Palestinian state today then one would not necessarily fall foul of the Act even if some African National Congress or Hamas members had been engaged in violent acts. The “avoidance of doubt” clause also recognises that we are in politically fraught territory and that one person’s terrorist can be another person’s freedom fighter. It all depends on where one stands politically. 
For example earlier this year a self-confessed State terrorist visited New Zealand and an Auckland judge ordered him to be arrested for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act. His name was Moshe Ya’alon who is a former Israeli defence chief who admitted ordering the bombing of a civilian neighbourhood in Gaza killing many people. The police to their shame point-blank refused to obey the judge and arrest him. Instead they declared they would wait for the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General to consider whether the prosecution should proceed. That consideration was either a model of bureaucratic efficiency or a travesty of justice. At 1 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon the Solicitor-General received from Auckland a big box of legal submissions and detailed evidence. In a few hours he had speed-read and assessed them all recommended that the prosecution not proceed and forwarded them to the Attorney-General who signed them off by 5 p.m. 
State terrorists particularly if they are aligned to the American superpower are off our police and Government radar. Tuhoe and local environmentalists are seen to be easier targets which is not to prejudge the current cases before the courts until we have seen the evidence. Anti-terrorism laws seem to bring out the worst in police forces here and overseas. There is no way that the police had any justification or legal right to stop and search every vehicle going in and out of Tuhoe country and to photograph everyone into the bargain. All sense of proportion and respect for people’s rights seem to have been lost in our rush to join in the war on terror. 
But there is a better way: do not politicise the issue with anti-terrorism laws. If people have committed arms offences or other offences under our Crimes Act then charge them with those offences. If any offenders had a political motive then I am sure there are many many New Zealanders who would be setting them straight—their families their friends and their colleagues in political movements. 
We who are activists on environmental and social issues can use what is happening today to rededicate ourselves and all our organisations to peaceful campaigning to inoculate ourselves against any temptation to use violence. We have a wonderful tradition of non-violent protest in New Zealand. Sometimes it stretches into the realm of civil disobedience as when a peace flotilla confronted US nuclear warships in Auckland harbour. I think some of the people in this House were on those boats. We probably would not be nuclear-free today without those mass non-violent protests some of them against the law that took place in the 1970s and 1980s. 
The big protests against the impending Iraq war back in late 2002 and early 2003 helped ensure that we did not join George Bush’s disastrous invasion of that country. Although we did not join that war our Government has been an all-too-willing recruit into Mr Bush’s so-called war on terror which has undermined human rights across the world. This bill is another expression of that. It puts more powers into the hands of the State operating in secret and it reduces due process and the role of the courts. 
If this bill is passed the Prime Minister not only will be in charge of designating terrorist groups but also will be reviewing those 3 years later when previously the High Court had the review role. The designation and the review 3 years later will not be a transparent process because a lot of the classified information will not be shown to the affected person or group. 
The select committee did make one concession in relation to the designation process. It said that after the Prime Minister makes a designation he or she must report it to the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament. The problem is that that committee—and I asked a written question about it recently—has met for only 2 hours and 38 minutes in the 2 years since the election unless it has had a meeting in the last week or two. 
Due process is even more undermined by a provision in the bill to automatically put UN designations on the New Zealand list even when our Government has clear evidence that the people or groups concerned are not terrorists. It is just silly to take out of the existing Act a provision that evidence contrary to the UN evidence can be taken into account. Following UN Security Council resolutions and recommendations does not mean that we should abandon our adherence to all the other international human rights standards and stop giving people a chance to prove their innocence. 
The Green Party will be voting against this bill as it is a serious attack on our human rights reinforcing and extending what is already bad in the Terrorism Suppression Act. However the Green Party does support one part of the bill—that is the provisions implementing our adherence to the nuclear terrorism convention and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. 
I am most disappointed that the Government did not listen to the overwhelming majority of submitters opposed to the bill including expert submitters from the Human Rights Commission who said that this bill should not proceed before a proper review of the existing weaknesses in the Terrorism Suppression Act and other expert submitters from Greenpeace Amnesty International and the New Zealand Law Society. The Law Society said that it was stupid to set up a parallel set of terrorist offences which would only make it confusing for judges in our courts to decide whether to prosecute on terrorism charges or on charges under the Crimes Act. It will be very confusing and as I said earlier it will be prejudicial to many people to have this set of terrorism laws. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. The report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill could not have come at a more pertinent time. Last Friday I fronted up to the community that has been forced into the national spotlight. It is small rural community under siege accused of being a breeding ground for terrorists. 
The valley of Ruatoki in my electorate has now assumed a distinctive classification in the national psyche as the place targeted with allegations of terrorism. The community came out in force on Friday—tamariki whanau teachers bus drivers and caregivers—all forming a hikoi to the Whakatane police station. Some of these people wore placards stating: “I’m innocent” “I’m a hunter not a terrorist” or “Don’t point the gun at me—I’m under five”. In one particular case a placard caught my eye. It stated: “State violence to Tuhoe: yet another generation 1866 1916 2007”. 
The statement on that placard is at the heart of the discussion on this new Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. The Terrorism Suppression Act is being reviewed in three ways: first in a political context as the laws to repeal sedition are being overthrown and while Tuhoe await the Waitangi Tribunal report on their claim; second in a social context best summed up by a young Tuhoe mother who describing her inability to leave the Ruatoki valley and the appearance of the black-garbed officers talked about “being terrorised when we were innocent”; and third in a historical context carved out in Tuhoe tribal memory by the confiscation line that marks the site at which they were punished for their supposed rebellion against the Crown by the confiscation of all their lands in 1866. 
Our party like others supports the notion that we take terrorism and the protection of our country very seriously. But in the case of the actions we have seen in the last week or so I want to make one simple point about the longstanding impact that the police raids have had on Maori psyche. A couple of weeks ago a game was played and lost and a nation mourned. The stages of grief immortalised by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross were described on national radio. The sportspeople were treated to grief therapy. New Zealanders psychoanalysed every last moment of the 90 minutes of pain critiquing the role of the ref reviewing the build-up activities and assessing the state of national identity as they moved through the process of loss. The trauma was taken seriously. The national heroes had suddenly tasted defeat and New Zealand reeled in shock. 
This is a useful example to show how the collective spirit of nationhood works in success and in the crushing overwhelming sense of loss. You see for tangata whenua what happened last Monday 15 October was even more traumatic and sinister because it was much more than a game; it was an armed and terrifying invasion of a community. It was an action that has carried a negative stereotype of Tuhoe to the nation as a tribe of terrorists and that has left trauma horror bewilderment and fear in its wake for people in that community who wonder whether their house will be next. 
The hurt that has been caused through the impact of the anti-terrorist Operation Eight has brought to the surface historical parallels that must be considered in any debate on the suppression of terrorism rebellion and political activism. The use of the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act has forced Tuhoe back to the memory of the 1863 Suppression of Rebellion Act. As the events unfolded last week we heard Tuhoe people talking of having been there before—referring to the massive confiscation of some 181000 hectares of land from the supposed rebel tribes of Tuhoe Te Whakatohea and Ngati Awa in 1866. They were labelled rebels because of their stand against Government atrocities. 
One koroua spoke of the hunt for Tame Iti having parallels with the pursuit of the Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki. Te Kooti was hunted by the Government of the day in a relentless scorched earth campaign in which people were killed homes destroyed lands and stock ruined and an iwi starved and deprived by the impact of Government actions. Another kuia spoke of a day in 1916 when the then Police Commissioner John Cullen and some 70 constables armed with rifles and revolvers marched into Maungapohatu and arrested Rua Kenana on charges of sedition and resisting arrest. The sedition charges were later thrown out. 
Now there is yet another generation. The perpetuation of injustice generation after generation cannot be forgiven or forgotten. To those who say that this was all way back I say: “Remember the foreshore and seabed legislation of 3 or 4 years ago.” 
I find it deeply worrying that the definition of a terrorist act in the principal Act that is under amendment here—the intimidation of a population in a situation of armed conflict that causes serious injury to civilians not involved in the hostilities of the situation—so specifically describes the actions of the police in Ruatoki. 
The reason we are now considering this bill to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is that we are told that certain provisions of the Act are inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations charter and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism. The bill is designed to bump up compliance with international counter-terrorism obligations—obligations that give effect to a number of mandatory resolutions relating to Osama bin Laden al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is fascinating that the executive although unable to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples just 2 months ago now expects us all to be very scared about the consequences of not signing up to these other United Nations charters and resolutions. 
The Maori Party is particularly concerned about the extension of national designations recommended in this bill. We are concerned that the independence of the High Court jurisdiction in the continued designation of terrorist entities is removed in favour of a determination by the Prime Minister. We believe that the process of review of designations would become less independent and even more vulnerable to political interference. There is also the risk of enabling greater influence from other nations such as the United States. 
We agree with the submission from the Global Peace and Justice group that if such a provision were to proceed then independent scrutiny of cases would be minimised as in effect the Prime Minister will become judge and jury. At least with the courts there is the ideal of independent scrutiny which if absent can be appealed for. 
Another key objection from the Maori Party rests with the creation of a new offence of the commission of a terrorist act—an offence that becomes punishable by up to life imprisonment. The Law Society brought forward its concerns that terrorist activities are not clearly defined in the bill the interpretation being more about motivation and intention rather than defining the actions committed in the actual terrorist offence. It is here that the recent events give us particular cause for concern when we consider the likelihood of double jeopardy. 
By the police detaining suspects under the Summary Proceedings Act and Firearms Act while they then search for evidence for another crime to fit the definition of the Terrorism Suppression Act there has been considerable speculation that the police are at risk of placing the defendants under double jeopardy—being charged with one crime but detained for the purposes of another. That is unlawful as I understand it. The terrorism suppression legislation makes it quite clear that the Attorney-General’s consent is required before a charge may be laid against a person. The time period is not specified yet natural justice must surely act against unreasonable delay in challenging a continued remand in custody. 
Finally I want to refer to the codes of secrecy that have led to such uncertainties around this week. Many of the submitters noted their concerns in the bill about issues of procedural fairness and about the human rights of designated persons in relation to the use of classified security information in court. The key message coming through from this week has been to query why people have been remanded into legal custody without being given reasons for the deprivation of their liberty—a legal right dating back to the Magna Carta. But it appears that no reasons have been given as yet despite repeated requests by legal counsel. 
We think it is important to note that although the general emphasis of this bill is focused on the threat of international terrorism the assumption that tangata whenua have been making this last fortnight is that it very clearly can also be applied to attack the activist cause across our domestic law. This bill seeks to create a climate of fear around anyone who supports liberation struggles and the fight for justice democracy and human rights whether in Aotearoa or offshore. 
This Parliament and the citizens of this country must be alert to the fact that any concept of democracy and free speech in Aotearoa given the events of the past week is very much at risk. This bill is a fresh attack on our civil liberties our human rights and the continuing story of injustice against injustice in opposing indigenous rights. We in the Maori Party oppose the bill in our strongest rejection of this Government yet. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT to oppose the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. We should reflect calmly and soberly in the wake of terrorist attacks and think very carefully about our response. We cannot fight terror by terrorising our own people. We cannot defend our freedoms which we cherish by adopting fascist policies. We oppose terrorism because we all wish to live in a free and open society. That means a society in which there is a rule of law and we are ruled by rules not by men and women. With our anti-terrorism legislation we have the rule of men and women because a body of people can declare an organisation or a person to be a terrorist and that is it. Once a person is declared a terrorist that person is a terrorist. 
The amazing thing about what this Parliament is signing up to is that it is not even our own Government—as bad as that would be—declaring who and who is not a terrorist. It is an outside agency— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Al-Qaeda! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Wayne Mapp says: “Al-Qaeda!” Actually declaring al-Qaeda a terrorist organisation has not sprung its members out of their cave. Mr Wayne Mapp says that we have to pass this bill because maybe Osama bin Laden will turn up in court and challenge his terrorist designation. I think it would be quite good if he did because then we would arrest him. 
Jumping up and down about bogeymen as scary as it is and then giving a response like this is not appropriate. How can it be that we are signing up to a group of people not elected by New Zealanders who can declare the ACT party or the National Party or the Green Party for that matter to be terrorists? Everyone will sit here and say: “Oh well that would never happen.” Well why allow for it to happen? Why allow that to happen in this Parliament? We are supposed to be protecting the people of New Zealand. 
Then we have the situation where the Prime Minister on his or her own bat can declare someone or some group to be terrorists. The assets of that person or group are frozen and that is it. I have huge respect for Helen Clark’s integrity. I do not think she will misuse that power. However—and I know this will be a shock to the Labour Party—she will not always be the Prime Minister although I know Labour members are working hard on the Electoral Finance Bill to make that a possibility. We should ask ourselves this question in this Parliament. We remember Sir Robert Muldoon. What would he have done with this legislation? What would Sir Robert Muldoon have done with this legislation? Are we seriously suggesting that the man who used the Economic Stabilisation Act to freeze everything in the entire economy to try to beat inflation would not be above declaring those in political protest movements that he did not agree with to be dissidents? Indeed would he not be above declaring people who opposed the Springbok Tour to be terrorists? Would that not fit the definition in this bill? 
Why are we giving that power to our Prime Minister? Why are we surrendering this power to an overseas agency over which we have no sway and no say? Let us track down criminals let us incarcerate those who offend against our person and our property but let us not indulge in a political witch-hunt and the opportunity for a political witch-hunt where people not the law rule and where a person can declare someone essentially illegal and does not even have to say why. How do we challenge it? Under this law one cannot. 
I think in New Zealand we live in a big village. I think we live in a village that is remote from the world’s troubles. We think of our Government as the fellow or the fellowess next door. We cannot imagine our political leaders misusing their powers. So we find ourselves very relaxed about passing enormous awesome powers across to our Government and saying: “Well we need this because there are terrorists.” Someone who stands up for our basic rights—like the Maori Party the Green Party or the ACT party—immediately gets accused by the parties that do not have an argument of somehow harbouring terrorists or going soft on terrorists. 
We do not want to concede awesome powers to our political leaders. We do not want to have a country and to live in a country where we can be declared guilty without a trial. We do not want to live in a society where the Prime Minister can declare someone to be persona non grata without actually having to charge that person and where there is no recourse simply on the basis that the legislation would not get misused and simply on the basis that we have this awesome threat called terror. 
I believe that with the passage of these measures—and New Zealand obviously is not alone in passing such laws—the terrorists are winning. In waging their terror the very freedoms that we are trying to protect are being eroded by our Governments in response. We should reflect on why we do not want to live under the Taliban. We should reflect on why we do not want to live in a society where we do not have basic human rights and where we cannot stand up for what we believe in. We should reflect on why we not do want to live in a society where rulers can just declare us to be guilty. And then we should ask ourselves: “Why oh why are we passing this bill?”. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Well that was interesting. Can I say for a start that New Zealand First does find it somewhat ironic that we are debating the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill at this moment and that we will shortly follow that with the third reading of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill which will seek to do away with the offence of sedition. It would be nice to think that the concerns that people have for the security of New Zealand might well have been part of the discussion we had yesterday in the Committee stage of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. It seems that New Zealand First is on its own on that bill but not so on this one. We support the passage of this bill. We believe that it does enhance the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. We understand the reason for the amendments to this bill that have been put forward. It is the need to ensure we are compliant with international counter-terrorism obligations including the provisions that cover the designation of United Nations - listed terrorist entities the extension of national terrorist designations after 3 years the freezing of the assets of a designated entity and new offences involving nuclear materials. 
It is interesting that we should be seeing legislation in that respect. It was not so long ago that I was reading books and seeing movies about fictitious attacks on Western democracies using small nuclear devices. People I have spoken to some of whom are in this House seem to share similar views that people then looked at such possibilities as being a nonsense as fiction and fantasyland. These days it is taken as a given that such potential exists and it needs to be countered or catered for. 
 I want to take the moment right now to point out because people tend to forget when they launch into vitriolic attacks on the counter-terrorism legislation and the actions of the New Zealand Police—and by innuendo make statements that are derogatory of and inflammatory about our security agencies—that these agencies are staffed and manned by personnel who in the main are New Zealanders. They are men and women mums and dads sons and daughters aunties and uncles—they are Kiwis. So New Zealand First wants it on the record here that we give our respect and thanks to the men and women who staff our security services in New Zealand be they with the Security Intelligence Service the Government Communications Security Bureau or the New Zealand Police or be they members of the Special Tactics Group the armed offenders squad the Special Air Service the counter-terrorist action groups or the Royal New Zealand Army Navy or Air Force. We want it on the record because we do not view those New Zealanders as irresponsible as irrational or as people who would act against the interests of their nation. 
Tariana Turia 
: What are you looking at us for? 
RON MARK 
: Well I am looking to my right because it is the Greens the Maori Party and the ACT party that are vehemently against this bill and two parties in particular have made some rather strong statements about the men and women of our security forces. By innuendo they have deemed them to be the types of New Zealanders who would specifically and deliberately set out to do ill to Maori without good cause and to do ill to any New Zealand citizen without good cause. They bring all Maori who serve in those organisations into disrepute. Let us be clear: the SIS is not staffed just by middle-class white Pakeha. 
Tariana Turia 
: It’s not the SIS. 
RON MARK 
: Well the SIS is involved in the security services and there are Maori in there. There are Maori in the Government Communications Security Bureau and there are Maori in the SAS. We all know about that now do we not? We know it very well. So let us be very mindful when we denigrate criticise and ridicule the police in particular of what it is we are saying. Let us also be mindful that many of those are Maori who have affiliations with many tribes. They are as I am tauiwi. I have whakapapa going back into Whakatohea as well through my grandmother on my mum’s side but I do not share some of the views that come out of the mouths of people and are trumpeted around this House as being the views of all Whakatohea people—they are not. 
But let us also look at the aspects of this bill that put the responsibility firmly with the Prime Minister in designating who is and who is not a terrorist which in the eyes of Rodney Hide is alarming. But Rodney Hide needs to look at the National Party’s minority report in the commentary on the bill. What I see in that report there is more alarming. The fact is that the Prime Minister has designated no one—no one I tell Rodney Hide—nobody. Far from a situation that that member has just espoused here where the Prime Minister is capable of designating the ACT party a terrorist organisation the real concern New Zealand First has is the concern so well expressed in the minority report by the National members that the Government has designated nobody. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about me in Epsom? 
RON MARK 
: Well Mr Hide may be somewhat misguided in some areas but he is not a terrorist. He terrifies some of his political opponents but he does not terrify me. The need to actually specify what a terrorist act is is smart; it is essential. New Zealand First has no issue with that. We point out though that terrorist acts by their nature must have a political motivation. For those who are challenging the police and making some rather outlandish statements about what they perceive as over-the-top reactions from certain people who have information available to them about activities up in Tuhoe land there is a political motive and background. 
I was of the clear belief that the motivation the goal of some Maori is to have sovereignty over New Zealand to achieve self-determination—to take back the land and rule as an independent nation—that is a political goal. What is interesting is the fact that no one has ever challenged these people to have them explain how they see themselves achieving that political goal. Is it by diplomacy? Is it by political activism? Is it by force of arms? The evidence that we are reading in the paper today would suggest that some people have given other people a clear impression that they intend achieving that political goal by force of arms. Some members may want to call that the activity of freedom fighters. Some members may want to sit in this House and envisage themselves as being a sort of replication of Sinn Fein in supporting their IRA mates out on the street but I say that that is terrorism. 
You see we are unique in this part of the world. We have enjoyed 150 years of democratic rule. We have seen many changes of Government and many of them have had hotly contested and fiercely fought election battles—and I think of the 1990 election as an example—but we have never ever in this nation witnessed an uprising or attempt to take control power or sovereignty by force of arms. 
Some would argue that if the police and the intelligence agencies throughout New Zealand have evidence that some people see that as a means—whether or not they are capable of doing it—there is an obligation to act. Let us be clear: some political parties in this House would be the first to string up the police if something did happen and it was found that the police had had intelligence but had not acted on it. 
That brings me to Mr Ross Meurant in my final minute I think I might have. Mr Ross Meurant astounded the nation by saying that he was brainwashed and that he believed that the police were overreacting and that their intelligence was misguided. He made a number of statements. This is the same Ross Meurant who in a post-protest meeting in Hamilton where protesters against the Springbok Tour actually breached the fence berated and belittled police commanders for failing to act on the intelligence they had that clearly pinpointed the part of the fence the protesters were going to target and breach. This is the same Ross Meurant who chastised criticised and demonised his commanders for not acting on the intelligence they had. 
I say to Mr Meurant that as time moves on some people’s memories get a little fuzzy and—to be kind—maybe that is what has happened. But I say to everyone in New Zealand that they should not judge the police hastily. We have a Police Complaints Authority and as a democratic country we have a process to hold people to account and to examine their actions after the fact. If they are found wanting no doubt we will hold them to account but right now we need to support the intelligence agencies and the police as they go about the work they have been given to do. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 This is an important bill and I acknowledge the contribution made by other people in the House this afternoon and the very serious way in which this bill has been debated. A lot of rather extravagant claims have been made over the last few days in regard to what this bill might mean. One of the funny things about human nature is that we seem to hate a void and we feel we must fill it—fill it sometimes with inaccurate statements while we are waiting to discover the facts. I am a bit disappointed that a degree of that has happened in New Zealand over the last couple of days. 
Some of the claims that have been made about what the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill will do have not been accurate. Those of us on this side of the House have participated in protests for as long as we can remember. Some of us have taken our children along to protests as well and some of the people we protested with in the past have made claims over the last few days suggesting that this amendment bill will mean they will no longer be able to protest and could be arrested and prosecuted as terrorists. 
 In regard to the events that took place and were carried out by the police in recent times I repeat that those people who have been detained have been detained on charges stemming from the Arms Act not the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that we are discussing this afternoon. We all hope that accurate information about those events will come out soon. I point out that the definition of terrorist acts expressly states that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself sufficient basis for inferring an intent to commit a terrorist act. Therefore to the extent that a safeguard is needed to ensure that the legislation is not used to repress legitimate protest activity it is provided for within that definition. 
I think we as members of Parliament have to be very responsible in what we say at times like this. Although legislation like the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill attracts controversy because it is not the usual run of the mill bill that we consider in New Zealand we as MPs must ensure that we are not being mischievous in deliberately misrepresenting what the bill really does. Those who misrepresent the bill do so I suggest in their own political interests rather than in the public or New Zealand’s interest. This bill does an awful lot less than what a lot of people in New Zealand over the last week have thought it does. This bill is not like laws that are passed in other countries; this bill does not create search or arrest powers. This bill does not allow indiscriminate phone tapping. It does not allow people to be detained for indefinite periods of interrogation or lengthy periods of incarceration without charge; that will not be allowed in New Zealand under the provisions contained in this bill. The bill does not permit the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions and it certainly does not prohibit the media from discussing what is going on. We just ask for responsible discussion about what is going on. 
I also have to say that terrorism offences in New Zealand are treated the same as other offences. The same criminal procedures are used and the same conditions under which people are arrested for other activities apply under this bill as well. So despite all of the colourful phrases and predictions we have heard over the last few days I assure New Zealanders that they can continue to protest in a peaceful and orderly way—as they do 99.9 percent of the time. They can continue to do that. I know that protests are planned in various parts of New Zealand this Saturday; I think there is to be one on my own patch. Those protests will carry on the same on Saturday as they did last week and as they did the year before and the year before that. New Zealanders will continue to be allowed to protest in a peaceful and orderly way just as they always have. This bill is not what it has been made out to be by some people over the last few days and I suggest that people breathe through their nose as they say and consider this bill in a responsible way. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and I want to echo some of the comments made by Jill Pettis the member who has just resumed her seat. I have been appalled in recent days to see the linkages made by some groups between recent police events and the likely imminent appearance of this bill before the House. The suggestion that any Government of New Zealand would conspire with the police to arrest significant numbers of New Zealanders simply to create a climate that made the passage of a particular piece of legislation desirable was not even what happened back in 1951—the heyday of those sorts of things—and it certainly would not happen today. I am appalled that there are groups in our community that have sought to play the conspiracy card the way they have done over recent times. 
Ron Mark 
: Loonies. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: My colleague to my right says “loonies.” I would probably not use that word but I would not disagree with his use of it in respect of at least some of those people. Their actions are not only inaccurate in terms of the current situation but they completely ignore the history of this legislation. 
I will take a moment or two to share with the House what has actually happened here. In the wake of the atrocities in the United States in September 2001 the Government passed a Terrorism Suppression Act in 2002. At that time the Government indicated that certain provisions of that Act would need to be reviewed by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during the life of the 2002-05 Parliament to put in place more permanent legislative provisions in respect of those issues. During that Parliament I was the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that undertook the review that led to this bill which when it is passed will be known as the Terrorism Suppression Act 2007. 
The process has therefore been a very long one. The select committee in the 2002-05 period when it undertook the review sought submissions from people on the way in which the previous legislation—the 2002 Act—was working. Then as a result of those submissions the committee made a report to this House and to the Government of the day that eventually appeared as this legislation which I note was sent to a select committee in March of this year. That select committee received some 35 submissions 14 of which were heard orally. In addition evidence was provided by the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Crown Law Office. Everyone who has had a legitimate interest in this legislation and in any imposition it might make on their human or democratic rights has had not one but at least two opportunities to be heard to state their concerns and to have those concerns heard by two different foreign affairs defence and trade committees and two different Parliaments prior to this legislation emerging in the House today. 
When one looks at the scope of this bill one sees that it deals with a number of very significant areas. It talks about the designations of United Nations - listed terrorism entities. It talks about the extensions of national designations—those designations that might apply to national organisations. It talks about a freezing of assets and forfeiture regime new offences being instituted involving nuclear material and the use of classified security information in court. It also brings into the principal Act a significant number of international agreements which are referred to in the schedules. 
I think that we have been through a very considered and careful process here. As I said in an earlier debate on one of the earlier pieces of legislation relating to counter-terrorism we will never get it absolutely right—that is the nature of the beast. We have to make our best efforts at the time. In New Zealand there will always be the suspicion that because we are not an immediate terrorist target or a hotbed of international terrorism—despite what some may say about recent events—we can somehow take a more lax attitude than other countries. 
 I submit to the House that whatever the outcome of the recent police activities might be they should serve as a due warning to people that any sense of laxity is in fact misplaced. We are lucky. We are not facing an immediate threat. We are not under risk. But that does not mean we have no need to act responsibly. The whole process since September 11 as far as I can ascertain in respect of New Zealand has been about ensuring that our domestic environment puts in place laws that strike that traditional balance between protecting the rights of the individual to free speech and dissent and ensuring that the security of our nation is not put at undue risk. I see the provisions in this bill as being a further step down the path of providing those protections. 
It is unfortunate that there are some who choose to see—and they are mainly outside this House thankfully—the passage of this legislation as being some sinister plot to try to overtake their liberty and impose fresh limits on their freedom. The reality is that it is too late after a significant terrorist event to say: “If only we’d had legislation in place that would have prevented this. If only we had known of the existence of these organisations. If only we had acted at the appropriate time.” 
In the last couple of years—I cannot remember precisely when but other members may—there was a suggestion in Australia that various nuclear plants of theirs were a target. It seemed extraordinary. It did not eventuate thanks to the vigilance of the Australian police and security services but we should just imagine for a moment what the consequences might have been had those attacks occurred. Now members may well say that that does not apply in New Zealand and that we do not have nuclear facilities in this country. But we do have nuclear material. There are people who are capable of developing such material here and using it for adverse purposes. So I think the provisions in respect of this legislation in so far as they relate to that are important as well. 
I have read with interest the minority view expressed by the Green Party. I have a huge respect for my friend Mr Locke and I know that although there are some issues we do agree on and we work very well and closely together on there are some we disagree on. But I would never doubt for a moment his sincerity or his integrity in pursuing those views. I think it is important that he continues to be an advocate for democratic and human rights even in a climate where perhaps there may be a majority of this House who are inclined to scoff at his views. Having said that however I do not agree with the conclusion that he reaches in his minority report. I think he is taking it too far. I think he is reading too much into the bill in terms of its import but I do believe that it is important that he is there to state the case and I acknowledge his contribution in that regard. 
So I simply reaffirm United Future’s support for this legislation. It is critical. It is important that it be passed and it is part of securing New Zealand’s long-term future. This is not about dealing with contemporary events; this is actually about making sure that some of those events that we might fear never come to pass. As I said before it is simply too late after they have happened to say “if only” and no one in New Zealand would thank this Parliament if it placed our country in that position. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Life even parliamentary life can be full of surprises. Like other members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who put a lot of time into this bill I thought until the events of last week that this would be pretty much a slam dunk politically—pretty much a routine piece of parliamentary politics because of the very large measure of agreement between the two major parties on what the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill sets out to do. But through a piece of spectacularly bad timing entirely fortuitous and entirely coincidental we find that it has become a matter of some real controversy in our country. 
I am not going to rehearse National’s position on the events of last week. I think Mr McCully in his intervention put our position in very very clear terms. We are withholding our judgment and there is every good reason to do so. But although I did not write down Mr McCully’s precise words at the time there was also contained there an implicit challenge. That challenge is this. If the legal process is now to unfold as it should in a country of our type and we find it was not done in terms of the letter and spirit of the law we will expect to hold people accountable for it. That is the way the system works and that is the way it should work. So we just want to park that issue on the side and come back here in this debate to the real substance of the issue. Because when the events of last week have played out—however they play out—I suspect this will become in the long run a relatively small political footnote in the history of New Zealand. What will remain is a much much bigger issue of international terrorism. 
I have to say that I am simply astonished at some comments that have been made not just in the House but outside the House at the way and the speed with which people have forgotten exactly what is the nature of international terrorism. The defence of the realm in classical political literature is meant to be the No. 1 responsibility of any State and I believe that is still the fundamental bedrock reality behind this legislation. Like many I have no doubt that for New Zealand in the 21st century the defence of the realm is threatened more by this issue of international terrorism than any other conceivable direct strategic threat. So although I talked about this being a piece of routine legislation until it got knocked off the rails by the events of last week I did not mean that I thought this was not an important issue. No I think this is a very very important issue and it is very important to get this right for precisely the reason that Mr Dunne has just reminded us. There will be no takers politically or in any terms of human reaction for any politician in any political party that could be held accountable after the event for not having taken this issue seriously. 
Listening to some of the comments of people I sort of wondered whether these people think that Osama bin Laden follows the Marquess of Queensberry Rules here; I mean giving them all the evidence so that they can sift through it in a reasonable way. This is simply naivety of the highest order. What we have here is a situation that actually has been around for centuries and centuries. For centuries there have been obscure bandits and warlords like Osama bin Laden and they have carried out their terror inside a localised community for obscure reasons which we and our predecessors were totally unaware of. But married to the modern technology of globalisation these hate merchants have been able to project their message of hate into a nightclub in Bali and into the twin towers of New York and they will do it again. Of that I am absolutely certain. 
This is not war conducted by the rules of the Marquess of Queensberry and I am sorry a State needs to defend itself with coercive power to survive. That is the ultimate responsibility of a State. That is why the Labour members and the National members of the select committee took this issue very seriously indeed while always having a discussion about where the balance between preserving the coercive powers of the State to preserve itself including the security of New Zealanders and civil liberties lay. This is actually a very fragile balance and when it breaks down it can break down unexpectedly markedly and I believe in any society. We saw it in Los Angeles in 1965 with the Watts riots. We saw it in Paris in 1968. I have actually seen something not as dramatic but of a similar process in a street called Jalan Diponogoro where the New Zealand Embassy in Jakarta lies. The moment the Suharto regime started to lose control I saw the process of people running amok and let me tell members that there is only one word to describe it. It is scary. It is seriously scary to see it up front. 
This issue of preserving the ultimate security of the State requires coercive power but in a society like ours it has to be disciplined by a very high test to preserve the civil liberties on which our system rests. If we look at the submissions we received we see that they were overwhelmingly from good people who were looking at the issue legitimately in terms of only the civil liberties side of the equation. That is exactly what one would expect. Standard political theory tells us that when the public interest is so diffuse we will not find lobbies that come together necessarily except in times of real crisis to put forward the general public interest in maintaining the security of the State and the security of the people who live in this country. So it was really up to the politicians to provide the counterbalancing arguments. As a conversation essentially developed across the table of the select committee it was very clear that there was a very high degree of concern that we absolutely get the balance right between the coercive power of the State on the one hand and the need to deal with this extraordinary threat of international terrorism using the powers of globalisation and civil liberties on the other hand. 
I think it is a commonplace thing to say that terrorism like water always seeks the weakest link in the chain. There are only so many things we can do to stop a terrorist act. Ultimately if somebody with a suicide bomb walks into a certain place in New Zealand I do not suppose that there is anything we can do about it. But what the theory of counter-terrorism rests on is prevention and trying to send a very clear message that one—in this case our country—is not the weakest link in that chain. What we know about international terrorism is that it is a borderless activity. It pays no respect to borders. It pays no respect to human liberties. It will use the existing legal frameworks and processes that societies like ours have built up over centuries for their own advantage and naive people in some of our communities will no doubt lend political support completely unwittingly to these people. We must make sure that this country is not the weakest link in the chain. This bill is a part of that process. 
There has been a lot of confusion in my opinion in this discussion over the issue of the designation of terrorist organisations. Let me just give members my own particular take on it. We have these two resolutions. One resolution came out of the political history of September 11. It used the political impetus of a crisis to get international agreement on a particular set of terrorist organisations and some international cooperation around the politics of the moment. The idea that New Zealand would not be part of that is to me almost inconceivable. So what this bill has done is remove possibly a theoretical possibility but in situations like this we have to look at things in extremis—the extreme possibility that the procedure agreed on at the time and in the haste of that appalling event could have led New Zealand to be in breach of a Security Council resolution. I find it inconceivable that people have problems with that. So that is the fundamental purpose of this bill. That is what this bill is tidying up and I am absolutely certain that we are doing the right thing. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That speech made by Tim Groser in which he congratulated and praised the speech made by Opposition spokesperson Murray McCully will not do his promotional chances in the National Party any harm at all— 
Hon Member 
: How are yours going? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: —I do not need to worry about mine. I was pleased to hear that speech. I agree with virtually everything the member said including the very high level of agreement apart from that of the Green Party on the major aspects of the bill. 
I do not want to go over all the old arguments that have been made but I will just make three broad comments at the start. I agree with the member for Ohariu-Belmont in that this bill was the product of quite a major review of the Act so the implication that somehow this bill has sort of popped up out of nowhere because of the events of the last week is just plain silly. 
The second issue we grappled with quite considerably in the select committee concerned the balance—which the member who has just resumed his seat talked about—between the right of people to protest in a democratic community and the right of the broader community to come down very strongly against those who want to commit acts of terrorism against it. That balance was quite openly debated. 
Thirdly I want to make it absolutely clear that this legislation as that member also said is to do with timing in Parliament. It has nothing to do with the events of the last week. 
The select committee has made a couple of really important changes. The renewal of the designation process was something we spent some time on and now it has been recommended—if I remember rightly the recommendations were from some National members—that the renewal process be taken to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think that was a good suggestion. In the end I think there is potentially some transparency in that which would involve all party leaders in Parliament. 
We also looked at the new offences involving nuclear material and we said they were too broad. It is a bit disingenuous for the Green Party member to make comments about the fact that this will mean that people cannot protest against ships carrying nuclear waste. In fact I will read from the committee’s commentary on the bill: “We were concerned that the proposed new offence of committing an act against a nuclear facility in clause 13(3) was too broad and could apply for example to protest action against ships transporting radioactive waste through the Tasman Sea.” So we actually listened to what the member said made changes and narrowed it down yet he still wants to criticise the committee— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misquoting; I said no such thing. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well notwithstanding that the member could have at least said that the committee took some positive action on some of the comments that were raised. 
Finally there is an issue about the new immigration bill. There are some processes in there relating to classified information and decisions to be made under that legislation. So we decided that once that immigration bill had been passed we should look at the relationship between it and this particular legislation. I support this bill and commend its further progress in the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. In the report the Law Commission concludes that seditious offences are overly broad and uncertain that they infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and that they have the potential for abuse. 
In respect of the Australian sedition offences Laurence Maher argued in 1992: “So long as the various sedition offences remain governments will inevitably be tempted to use them improperly especially when highly unpopular opinions are expressed … the law of sedition is anachronistic and an unjustified interference with freedom of expression … abolition of sedition offences at both Commonwealth and State level is therefore to be preferred to any attempt to ‘modernise’ the crime of sedition.” 
The Law Commission as with the majority of submitters on the bill agree with that argument: “As long as the New Zealand seditious offences remain on the statute book there is the potential for their misuse against people who criticise the government publicly especially at times of civil unrest and of perceived concern for national security.” I agree as does the Law Commission that it is not appropriate to retain modernise or clarify the provisions; nor for that matter is it necessary to do so. To the extent that such conduct should continue to be a crime we can rely on prosecutions for existing crime such as incitement conspiracy and other public order offences. 
The seditious offences in New Zealand are contained in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961. The offences cover making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention conspiring with a seditious intention and using apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. The offences hinge on a seditious intention. This is defined in the Crimes Act very broadly as an intent: “(a) To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice; or (b) To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution laws or Government of New Zealand; or (c) To incite procure or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder; or (d) To incite procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order; or (e) To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.” 
Three main options were looked at by the Law Commission’s report in respect of our seditious offences. The first option was to maintain the status quo and leave the offences unchanged. The second was to amend and modernise the relevant sections. The third was to abolish the seditious offences. The principal argument for retaining the status quo is that we do not know what the future will hold so we should not remove sedition as a weapon from the law enforcement armoury. This is a position that was strongly argued by Mr Mark during the Committee stage. I acknowledge the interest he has taken in this particular bill. However I suggest that one could equally argue that because we do not know what the future will hold we must try to ensure that the law does not contain a weapon that might be used in the future to suppress dissent. 
The second option as I indicated was amending and modernising the offences. This could be done to limit the ambit of the offence to focus on speech that amounts to an incitement to violence against lawful authority. However the Law Commission argued that if the offences were so amended they would add very little if anything to existing offences of incitement to commit other crimes already proscribed in the Crimes Act. 
The third option was to repeal the offences. The term “sedition” carries with it considerable historical baggage and is closely associated in the public mind with its origins as a Tudor-era crime rooted in criticising or exciting disaffection against established authority. Thus as a matter of policy the present law of sedition invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason. 
Five principle reasons are given in the Law Commission report for repealing sedition. The first reason is the legal profile of the offence which is broad variable and uncertain. The meaning of sedition has changed over time from an insurrection or revolt to describing the act of inciting or encouraging revolt. The common law then added the act of exciting violence between different classes of people and an intention to incite violence against lawfully constituted authority as an element of the offence. In New Zealand the statutory provisions have included inciting lawlessness generally. Unlike other jurisdictions under the New Zealand defence one can be found to have had a seditious intention without ever intending to incite violence against an established authority. 
The second reason is that it is a matter of policy. The present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason. A US judge has said that debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open even if it includes vehement caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. That is something most members of this House are well familiar with. 
The third reason is that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Specifically freedom of expression is endorsed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Law Commission does not see the breach as justifiable in the case of sedition. 
The fourth reason is that the seditious offences can be inappropriately used to impose a form of political censorship. They have been used for this purpose. In fact in the past sedition has been used for this purpose on a number of occasions as was well canvassed by a number of speakers including myself during the Committee stage. The State should be entitled to punish such statements advocating imminent violence against the State the community or individuals only when a criminal offence is the likely outcome and when there is proof of intention to advocate it. 
The final reason is that the law is not needed because those elements of it that should be retained are covered more specifically by other offences. An argument made in support of sedition is that it is easier to establish than some of the other offences. As the Law Commission also noted I consider that in the interests of freedom of expression such speech-only offences should not be easy to prove. 
A number of existing offences in New Zealand law that adequately deal with the elements of seditious offending should be retained. These include the offences of conspiracy and incitement that can be used in conjunction with other offences. Incitement and conspiracy like sedition can be a thought or intention crime. For example one could be found guilty of incitement of an offence even if the offence one was inciting was not actually committed. In addition if the inciting leads to the committing of an offence then the inciter could be prosecuted as a party to the offending under section 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. 
Offences that are particularly relevant to sedition are treason riot unlawful assembly criminal nuisance offences in the Summary Offences Act and inciting racial disharmony which is an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993. The fact that a victim of an offence was targeted because he or she was part of a particular group such as race nationality or religion can be taken into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act 2002. The offender may therefore be subject to a higher sentence if it can be shown that the person incited the offence because of his or her attitude towards the victim’s race nationality or religion. Thus behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can more appropriately be dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. 
In closing I would like to thank again the Justice and Electoral Committee for its efficient and thorough consideration of this bill and also those who took the time to make submissions on the bill. Parliament should always appreciate those who take the time to engage in the democratic process through our select committee submissions. The submissions in my view in the vast majority were in strong favour of the bill. Finally I again acknowledge the excellent report by the Law Commission which led to the introduction of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I suppose it is fair to say that in the process of a bill through Parliament the highlight for that bill is the third reading for a number of hurdles have been surmounted—sometimes effortlessly sometimes with great difficulty. Now in the final stage there is but one perhaps small further part to follow before we see this legislation in its full-blown form. That final stage of course is the Royal assent which sees in due course the enactment of the legislation. 
I have had the opportunity as has the Minister Mark Burton of making several contributions in the course of the perambulation of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill through the Parliament. I will pick up three or four points that I think summarise where this bill sits in the context of a number of issues. The starting point—and the Minister dwelt very briefly on this—was a report by the Law Commission that was tabled in Parliament in 2007 called  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. I note that the Law Commission and the report that it did then recommended the abolition of New Zealand’s seditious offences. Sir Geoffrey Palmer the ever-popular president of the Law Commission said in the comments he made at that time: “These offences are too wide. They are unclear. They can be misused to suppress dissent”. He went on to say: “Sedition has been used to muzzle vehement and unpopular political speech. It is high time the offences were removed from the New Zealand statute book.” So it is that the report recommended that the seditious offences set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act be repealed and not replaced. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no no. Fix up the police; don’t change the charge. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I am interested in these faint interjections which have come from the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. I hope that when there is an opportunity for him to speak in the debate he will give us the benefit of the suppressed excitement that he currently feels. 
Another point that Sir Geoffrey made which I think is probably important was: “Where behaviour that would be covered by the existing sedition provisions needs to be punished it can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. By abolishing sedition we will better protect the values of democracy and free speech.” 
We have been treated in past debates on this topic to a history of the law of sedition and that has been marked by references to a number of cases that have occurred over a significant period of time illustrating various aspects of those offence-creating provisions. But I suppose in the New Zealand context what really stirred up those who follow these issues with interest was what happened to Tim Selwyn in 2006. Tim Selwyn faced a number of charges including sedition after sending emails calling for militant action against the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation. He smashed the Prime Minister’s electoral office window. He published two sets of pamphlets. He was jailed for 15 months for an unrelated fraud-related offence and the District Court judge seeking to do justice in all the circumstances added a further penalty of 2 months for criminal damage conspiracy and publishing a seditious statement. 
What is sedition? It is variously defined but I think for present purposes it is neatly picked up in the proposition that it is a term of law that refers to covert conduct that is deemed by the legal authority as tending towards insurrection against the established order. In very simple terms it is stirring up rebellion against the Government in power. It is more about encouraging the people to rebel whereas treason—to which the Minister has referred—is actually betraying the country. 
One of the issues that I very provisionally explored last night was to suggest that in the context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 we are talking about balances. We are talking about on the one hand the desirability of continuing with an offence called sedition and on the other hand these rights of free speech and free expression which are contained as freedoms and as rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It needs to be said that they are not absolute rights; I dealt with that last evening. 
I would say something about freedom of speech in the context of the sedition law. Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an illustration of that and in a domestic setting we have our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The right is called freedom of expression or freedom of speech—maybe “freedom of expression” is the preferred term because the right is not confined to verbal speech. 
If one looks at the writings of those to whom this is an aspect of interest one sees that the most important justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However there are a number of specific justifications that are commonly proposed to justify freedom of speech. I think of the decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court—in particular in a case called  
R v Keegstra 
 in 1990 which was a case on hate speech where one of the judges identified four elements that he thought characterised free speech. He said: “free speech promotes ‘The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions’ and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms.” The second thing he picked up was a concept that has been freely floated by philosophers which is that free speech promotes a marketplace of ideas. That is a concept that people like Oliver Wendell Holmes and others have propounded which includes but is not limited to the search for truth. Thirdly the judge said: “It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners;”. The fourth point the judge made was: “It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.” 
I guess we all know that there are significant restrictions on free speech. That is where part of the debate arises. A well-known example—I do not want to dwell on this in any detail—is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow one sitting in a crowded theatre to shout falsely: “Fire! Fire! Fire!”. That has been a classic statement in a number of decisions. There are a whole lot of restrictions on free speech. They include defamation slander and libel; hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence; and a third illustration is of course what we are concerned with here—sedition. 
What happens now in terms of this legislation is that a chunk of the Crimes Act 1961 is changed; it is repealed. A whole lot of offences that touch sedition disappear from the statute book. If one looks at what is left in Part 5 of the Crimes Act which deals with crimes against public order one sees that still quite a lot remains. As I said last night it is somewhat of a hotch-pot really that is left behind. Treason remains espionage remains unlawful assembly remains forcible entry and detainer remains—[ 
Interruption 
]—and of interest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs offences like piracy and dealing in slaves are still there. The Minister has a detailed knowledge as I know from my past associations with him of those important issues. 
There is another criminal provision that sits in section 98A of the Crimes Act which deals with participation in criminal gangs. I am not sure whether the Minister has had any interest in that but doubtless we will hear about that. That is why National supports this legislation. It looks at some arguments propounded by New Zealand First and says: “How sad. How stupid.” 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak again on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill this time in the third reading. At this stage firstly I would like to thank the Law Commission— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last thing I want to do is interrupt this speech— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has only just started. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know and the last thing I want to do is interrupt it. I know there are rules Mr Assistant Speaker by which you choose whom the next speaker will be but if you are going to have all “for” and none “against” then the rules somewhat change. As you well know from the previous speeches the National Party in its inimitable style goes along with the Government as it does on most issues and is for the bill. The Government is proposing the bill and it is for it too. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. You have missed my point. There is a party here that is against the bill. In the interests of parliamentary debate can we hear the other side as soon as possible after the start of the debate not at the end? That is why we have had this adjustment in the rules and I am just reminding you of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his point of order. If he wishes to raise something like that then it should be done through the proper channels. All I can say is that this is a Government bill and that the rules of debate have been established for some time—since the start of this Parliament. The honourable members will have an opportunity to debate the issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know when the rules of this Parliament were set and how many times they have been changed. Where there is a need for a debate not just repetition of one side of the argument the order of the call as called surely should be changed and that has been recognised in the past by Speakers. It is time in this debate we heard from the other side. You have heard two “for”; how about one “against”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to Mr Peters that I have already called the member to speak and under Speaker’s ruling 24/5 she has the call. I cannot take it back. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sorry to cause so much concern to the member and I look forward to hearing the debate. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: We’re all looking forward to hearing from him. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes indeed. Meanwhile the debate might seem a little repetitive but I am standing to speak in support of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill at the third and final reading. 
As I started to say I think it is very important to acknowledge the Law Commission’s work. Its consultation document on reforming the law was produced in October 2006. Then the report which advocated repeal was published in March 2007. The bill is now before the House for its third reading. I think that is very efficient and probably indicates except for one or two parties pretty widespread support for this bill in the House. 
I would like to talk very briefly about the select committee process. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 17 submissions from groups and a variety of individuals and heard five submissions. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 17. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes 17. Only two submitters opposed the bill. The committee did take those points into consideration but in the end all members agreed that the bill should progress without amendment. 
I also want to acknowledge the submission made by the New Zealand Police. We listened very carefully to the evidence particularly about sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act. The police advised that these sections had very rarely been relied on by police officers that in bringing charges they were quite confident that there were other means to address the crimes and that there were no specific guidelines for officers on the application of those sections. That indicated that the sedition laws are not in the mainstream of charges—if I can use that term—that police officers consider when they are looking to prosecute. 
It was good to receive a unanimous report from the committee that the bill should progress unamended. We have some important work before the select committee at the moment and I hope that we are able to have a meeting of the minds on that legislation but we will have to wait and see. I also think Dr Worth spoke very articulately about cases of sedition and about having perhaps a more common-sense approach to cases that may have previously fallen and may currently fall under seditious offences but would easily be covered by a number of other charges. 
If we ask ourselves and I know that I have done so in previous speeches whether repealing the offences of sedition leave gaps in the law I think the majority of this House agrees there will not be gaps left in the law. Incitement and conspiracy like sedition can be either thought or intention crimes. One can be found guilty of incitement of an offence even if the offence one was inciting was not actually committed. Additionally if the inciting leads to the commission of an offence then the inciter could be prosecuted as a party to the offending under section 66 of the Crimes Act. 
Dr Worth mentioned offences that are particularly relevant to sedition: treason riot unlawful assembly criminal nuisance offences under the Summary Offences Act and inciting racial disharmony which is an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993. The fact that a victim of an offence was targeted because he or she was part of a particular group—such as race colour nationality or religion—can be taken into account at sentencing as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act 2002. The offender may therefore be subject to a higher sentence if it can be shown that the person incited the offence because of his or her attitude towards the victim’s race nationality or religion. Thus behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. Like the majority of the members in the House who support this bill I cannot think of an instance where the lack of a sedition charge would result in justice not being served. Quite clearly there are other means and other ways of dealing with those misdemeanours 
I have said before that the heart of the case lies in the protection of freedom of expression and in particular in this day and age of political expression and its place in our democracy. We can all feel very proud to live in a country where democracy is celebrated and where people may hold dissenting views. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I cannot quite hear what the member Sandra Goudie is saying but I am sure the member’s comments would like sedition be considered unpopular and unreasonable by most people. However such expressions— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s just within her own caucus. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member may well be right. Such expressions should not be branded as criminal simply because they involve political opposition or a political statement. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yet again I cannot quite hear what the member is saying— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Unintelligible. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is unintelligible. I am sure we could not envisage a day or an age where something a member says in this House—no matter how offensive or silly—would be ruled unlawful. I think that applies to sedition as well. 
This bill certainly did not spend a huge amount of time in the select committee process but members of the Justice and Electoral Committee can put their hands on their hearts and say that everybody who wanted to be heard was heard and that all submissions were considered very carefully which is a very important part of the select committee process. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House at its third reading. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have only a few brief comments to make about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. I too very much enjoyed the opportunity to look at this legislation—legislation that for most lawyers is looked at in law school then is never gone near again. But it was a very interesting exercise as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee said to receive a limited number of submissions from interested parties to reflect on those submissions to read the Law Commission’s report and to send this bill back to Parliament for a full debate in the Committee of the whole House. 
As the National Party spokesperson Dr Worth said National supports this legislation. It is timely for a repeal of the offences related to sedition. I do not intend in the course of this speech to spend any time analysing those parts of the Crimes Act that are to be repealed; I covered those aspects in my second reading speech and in the Committee debate we had last night. Rather I want to confine my comments as follows. 
In the United States Congress when members of the Senate or the House of Representatives sponsor legislation sometimes as an honour to them the legislation is named after them. So for example a former Democratic senator from Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes and a United States Congressman by the name of Oxley sponsored securities enforcement legislation that is now well known throughout the world as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 
I think that if we were to accord names to this legislation then it could be called the “Locke-Hide Bill” because those two members from smaller parties are responsible for running with the idea that sedition is a crime whose time has now passed in New Zealand. They worked very effectively in this MMP Parliament to persuade the Government to ask the Law Commission to look at this issue and then sponsor legislation. I repeat what I said in the Committee on the bill last night in congratulating Mr Locke on his passion for human rights and on his dedication to the cause of reforming the law of sedition. I also repeat what I said last night in hoping he applies that same zeal for freedom of speech and for fundamental human rights to the vile Electoral Finance Bill which this Government is sponsoring aided and abetted by some parties that should know better. 
I also congratulate Mr Hide on the work he did with Mr Locke to ensure the passage of this legislation and on the hugely significant speeches he has made in this Chamber on the subject of sedition. His second reading speech on this issue is far and away the most impressive contribution that I have heard for some time. Certainly it would far exceed anything the Minister of Foreign Affairs would ever contribute. I suggest that instead of wittering away like an oaf he should listen very carefully to what is being said in the course of this third reading speech because important issues are raised by this bill. 
Sedition is a crime that was used from time to time in the 20th century. Various speakers including me in both my first and second reading speeches and the Minister in the Committee stage outlined some of the historical charges that have been brought against New Zealanders. There was the very sad case of Te Whiti there was Bishop Liston in Auckland and we heard mention of various Labour party politicians including the late Walter Nash over the years. 
Then nothing was done for many many years—for at least 42 years after the Crimes Act 1961 was introduced—until the legislation was used in the infamous case of Mr Selwyn who hiffed an axe through the front window of the Prime Minister’s Mount Albert office. Then there was another attempt to use it in Dunedin in respect of some students who were burning couches. Clearly when one looks at the legislative history and at the number of prosecutions that have been brought over the years one sees that sedition is an offence that has not been used very much at all and that the rationale for its existence has been called into question. 
The most powerful argument that was raised against repeal was raised by Mr Mark and I acknowledge his very careful and considered speeches on this issue. I know that the New Zealand First Party was initially in favour of repeal but in light of recent events has changed its mind. Mr Mark’s speech last night was a very considered one. He raised the issue of whether in light of the events of recent times it would be better to keep the offences on the statute book in order to determine whether there is a rationale for them. 
I reflected long and hard on what he said but I think that when one looks at other legislative mechanisms available to the executive one sees that they address more effectively the kinds of issues he raised than the sedition legislation does. I refer particularly to the Terrorism Suppression Act which was passed in the aftermath of the dreadful incident in New York in September 2001. Although I am not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I understand that the committee has been looking at that legislation again recently. So although I note Mr Mark’s concerns I think that Parliament need not be too troubled by those concerns and that the legislation can safely be repealed. 
I too join with the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee in congratulating the members who have worked so hard on this particular issue; the Law Commission which once again has shown what good work it can do for the State and has produced a very important report—a very interesting historical report—at reasonably short notice; the officials of the Ministry of Justice who have brought together this legislation; and all those who have made submissions to the select committee. Whether we accept their views is almost beside the point because important constitutional and criminal law issues were raised and they all made a contribution. 
At the end of the day this is very simple legislation comprising only two parts. As Dr Worth said the effect of it is that the definition of sedition in the Crimes Act goes the particular seditious acts that are covered in the Crimes Act go and there are some small consequential amendments to the District Courts Act. 
In conclusion it is an idea whose time has come. Sedition has never been a particularly good servant of the criminal law particularly in the 19th and early 20th century when it was used as an instrument of oppression. As I said there are much better legislative devices for dealing with some of the issues that can be raised by sedition. It is for that reason that the National Party having reflected on the Law Commission’s report and having noted very carefully the submissions of those who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee has concluded that this legislation is timely and should be supported. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was beginning to think for a moment I was going to be denied my freedom of speech and I would have to bring a member’s bill to the House to ensure that the right to speak at an appropriate time since I am a member of the third-largest party in this House is respected and accorded. We know now how many people in this House are determined to uphold the freedom of speech. I can only conclude from the debate and discussion—and it has been a good debate and in the main in good heart—that the only parties who have stuck firmly to principles that they believe in are the Maori Party the Green Party ACT and New Zealand First. 
It might seem strange that I should say that because we have all taken different positions on the legislation. The Maori Party the Green Party and ACT are supporting this legislation for reasons that they have stated very very clearly; New Zealand First is opposing it for reasons that I believe we have put very very clearly. The National Party and the Labour Party are supporting this legislation but I note that in the debate we have just concluded—on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—they also both supported that. If we are to go through the reasons that have been espoused by those in support—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Mr Hide has just twigged to what I have just said and he agrees. 
Rodney Hide 
: It wasn’t that hard! 
RON MARK 
: For some it is I say to Rodney. For some it is very hard out there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First names! 
RON MARK 
: Mr Hide. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
RON MARK 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. We are actually good mates and we do refer to each other by our first names on occasions. I know that it does not often happen in the Labour Party; often members refer to each other by surname only over there but Mr Hide and I do refer to each other by our first names all the time actually. 
But let us stop and think about what has just happened in this House; we have a Minister standing up to say that this legislation needs to be repealed because it is not used. Well hello—neither has the Terrorism Suppression Act until very recently. But then he goes on to say that this legislation needs to be passed because the Seditious Offences Act has been inappropriately used in the past and that is not a good thing. Well hello—there are people saying that the application of the Terrorism Suppression Act right now has been inappropriately used. The Maori Party has said that and continues to argue that—and so do the Greens. They have consistency not schizophrenia. 
The Minister then went on to say that this legislation brings with it a whole lot of historical baggage. Well I ask the Minister the following question. If 6 or 8 months or 2 years down the line when the current processes have been followed through and we have a decision out of the courts that is not in the police’s favour and we have a whole heap of political baggage attached to the Terrorism Suppression Act do I take it from what the Minister said that the Government will go back and repeal the Terrorism Suppression Act? Will it now have tagged to it a whole heap of political baggage? It does not make a lot of sense does it? 
How can one stand up in this House and argue the passage of highly controversial legislation aimed at protecting our democracy aimed at protecting our citizens and then come to the House within 1½ hours and argue that legislation that does exactly the same thing should be got rid of because it denies freedom of speech? Well hello—people are arguing and have always argued about this and I have to point to Mr Locke. He has always said the Terrorism Suppression Act denies freedom of speech. How can he argue that it should be repealed because it is not used? Well hello—we have only just been debating the Terrorism Suppression Act and currently at this point in time that legislation has not been used despite all the claims and all the hoo-ha out there. How can he come here and say we must repeal it because there is a lot of political baggage? Well excuse me—there is a whole heap of political baggage around the Terrorism Suppression Act right now. It seems to me that the two major parties share a lot in common and now it would appear that one of those things they share is schizophrenia. They have one thing to say on one day and completely the opposite thing to say on the same thing the next day—in this case within 1½ hours. 
A lot has been made of the need to protect freedom of speech and New Zealand First has been consistent. We will stand and defend people’s right to say what they are able to say no matter how stupid we think it is no matter how bizarre we think it is no matter how inappropriate we think it is—right up to the point—[ 
Interruption 
] Here we go hold on to the varnish again she is back. I can hear her somewhere around here. I ask members whether Sandra Goudie is in the House or whether that is the plaintive cry of one of those Wairarapa parrots that seem to be inhabiting my place lately—I cannot quite figure it out. But let us just be clear— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Back to this bill for instance. 
RON MARK 
: There it goes again. It is one thing to stand up to advocate freedom of speech and demand it whilst at the same time shutting down Brian Connell and kicking him out of the caucus for saying simply what was on his mind. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s true! 
RON MARK 
: And the real gut-ripper the undies-tearer is that what he said was true! [ 
Interruption 
] I ask members whether it was true. Did he ask? In fact did he ask a question of the leader? Well Mr Assistant Speaker you want me to narrow my focus to the third reading. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am taking a point of order because I do not want to lose speech time. I see you waving the bill at me and indicating to me that I should narrow my debate. But am I not correct in saying that the third reading is an opportunity to canvas the entire debate that we had at all other stages and that where the debate was allowed to move in certain areas during the second reading and Committee stage so too should it be allowed to be dealt with in the third reading? Is that not true? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The third reading is a wrap-up of the debate. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will continue. It is fine and we support people who advocate that this bill needs to be repealed because it impinges upon freedom of speech. But let us not have people coming into this House saying that that is what they stand for when they fired and got rid of one of the brightest stars to ever grace their political party—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. And there are others. Marilyn Waring—what did she do that was so bad that was so wrong? This party whose members now stand here and say they support the Government legislation on the main principle of ensuring freedom of speech is littered with the corpses of people who have been shot for daring to speak their minds. 
I ask members to think back. In fact my colleague Barbara Stewart was reminding me that when she was sitting over on that side of the House in the last term sitting beside her not in front of her was a former senior member of the National Government—Maurice Williamson. Why was he at the back? It was because he dared to speak the truth freely and openly on television. He criticised his leader and one is not allowed to do that in the National Party. 
New Zealand First has said that it objects to this law being passed because we do not believe that the response to repeal is an appropriate response and particularly not now. We believe that the other options that were put forward by the commission and that were ruled out by the commission and ruled out by the Government and the National Party were worth exploring further. Specifically we believe the focus should have been on an amendment to deal with it that would have zeroed in very tightly and narrowly on violence—and purely violence—and any challenge to lawful authority and the lawful institutions that underpin and actually give us our democracy. 
We have heard the arguments and we understand them that say that other legislation will cover these offences. But we actually believe that democracy is special that Parliament stands above that and that there are institutions that give us the democracy that we enjoy that underpin our society. Their value is far greater than having them treated just within common law within the Crimes Act or through other legislation as has been claimed. We are concerned that some of the historical examples that have been used have been misrepresented. Specifically we talk about the example used to justify the passing of this bill of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi being charged with sedition. Everybody seems to forget that the charges of sedition were dropped and never resumed and that they were imprisoned using other law. It is the very thing that people are saying that they want to happen now. 
My nana always used to say: “Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.” If what we are saying now is that we will use other laws then I am sure that is of no satisfaction to Te Whiti o Rongomai given what happened to him. I caution the Parliament and say that from New Zealand First’s perspective we would have supported an amendment but we certainly do not support the repeal at this time. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think there is a certain celebratory atmosphere in the House tonight and rightly so in that this Parliament can take considerable credit for knocking these archaic provisions off our statute book. When we think back as others have mentioned to the roll-call of those who have been charged with sedition we see that it is really a roll-call of our political heroes. When students today study our history in secondary school the names that pop up quite regularly in their studies are Rua Kenana Te Whiti o Rongomai Peter Fraser Harry Holland Bishop Liston and Walter Nash. The names of all of those people pop up as part of our history and as important leaders in our society. I feel them on my shoulder today in a sense as we get rid of the laws that so hurt them those many years ago. 
Perhaps the one I am thinking about most today is Rua Kenana. Let us just remember who he was. He was a very strong Tuhoe leader and very strong on the Tuhoe people running their own show up in the Ureweras. Despite the fact that when he was arrested one or two of his people had guns he had strong anti-war views against the First World War and against Maori being a part of it. He was treated as being seditious and dragged away. 
I think it is interesting in the light of current developments that one of his direct descendants is the well-known TV star personality and artist named Tame Iti who is much in the news today. It may be that some of Tame Iti’s comments over the years could be seen to be a little bit seditious. He was not all that keen on the Queen and the Queen’s representatives being here when he went up to Waitangi and he did and said certain things. He will not have to worry about the sedition laws from today when we scrap them off the statute book. 
I noted the Minister Mark Burton’s comment that some of the things that previously might have been seen to come under the sedition laws will still be offences under the Crimes Act and that is right. Direct incitement to a crime and conspiracy to do criminal activity are already covered in our Crimes Act. It was interesting to reflect when I was listening to that speech as to why we need to use the Terrorism Suppression Act in the way it is envisaged if there are such fall-back crimes on our statute book as incitement to commit a crime conspiracy and offences like that. If people are really what we might regard as terrorists they would fall under those Crimes Act provisions. The situation is a bit like that of the sedition laws we are considering here tonight. 
In some ways I regret the passing of the sedition laws—the end of the sedition laws—because the offences themselves in the Act have a certain ring about them. Section 81(1)(a) states that one act that counts as sedition is: “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice;”. It trips off the tongue a little bit and in some ways I feel a bit of sadness at its passing. 
I think the origin of those words in both the British and the New Zealand jurisdictions goes back to well before the full flowering of parliamentary democracy. They were really put in legislation to keep the British King or Queen of the time however incompetent or oppressive he or she was beyond both public criticism and criticism within the emerging parliamentary system. In the days when we did not have a proper parliamentary democracy an MP would be carted off to the Tower of London if he or she was deemed to be seditious in criticising the monarch for one thing or another. The result of that problem is reflected in a tradition in our Parliament whereby neither the Queen nor the Governor-General are allowed to enter this Chamber because the monarch or the representative of the monarch did tend to come in and nab MPs and put them in the Tower of London. 
As parliamentary democracy fully evolved and we had constitutional monarchies in Britain and in New Zealand the Government also thought sedition laws were a good thing. The laws might have started out to protect the monarch but the new parliamentary Governments thought: “We want to protect ourselves from criticism too.” It is interesting that sedition laws were used against early Labour leaders to protect the Government not only against criticism of the monarchy which some of these early radical Labour leaders tended to do but also against the more trenchant attacks on the institutions of the time and criticisms that Parliament and the institutions of the State were very much run by wealthy business people landowners etc. 
Harry Holland later to become a Labour leader fell foul of the sedition laws because of his strong in working-class terms challenge to the Government of that time. I think he fell foul of another part of section 81 which we are amending tonight which renders it an offence “to excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.” Lynne Pillay talked about some of the essence of that provision continuing in the human rights legislation but I think that the sedition laws were really to stop those who were challenging the system from below—the poorer people the working people of the time—rather than protecting people who were not from the dominant culture such as racial minorities etc. The procedures we have under the Human Rights Act today are more to protect people who are subject to racism or put into some sort of second-class position in society. It is a different concept altogether. 
I think that New Zealand society will welcome the passing of this law. It is interesting that the select committee did not get very many submissions. Nobody got terribly exercised about the passage of this law. It is interesting that although people were a little cautious about any change a year or two ago when I started talking about this law once the movement for change started—and Sir Geoffrey Palmer had a big role in this—most politicians got on board. I congratulate the select committee on that. I think it means that we can take up what might seem to be more controversial things with greater ease. For example the blasphemy laws need to be taken out of the Crimes Act as well. 
 I think what we are doing tonight reflects what New Zealand society is all about. We have a very robust democracy where we can criticise each other often in very harsh terms without really breaking the ties between people. I think that rather than using the law to stop people from speaking out the very fact that we can speak out and say all sorts of outrageous things is actually a safety valve in our society—a safety valve that makes us a peaceful and harmonious society. I hope that as time goes on bearing in mind current worries about people talking about violence we will allow more tolerance for a certain amount of outrageous speech and see it as something that can be rectified by taking people aside and teaching them better manners or whatever. 
I also thank Tim Selwyn because in some ways even though he suffered a prison penalty under the sedition laws he along with Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the work of the minority parties in coming together produced this change. So I think we should thank him tonight. He might have suffered a bit of time in prison but he will be remembered as one of the people who helped to end these outdated laws. I thank Chris Finlayson for his comments and for his idea of naming bills after people. I think Rodney Hide might talk a little bit about that in his contribution. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Nothing in this House is a matter of chance and we in the Maori Party have wondered then why today of all days the minority Government has deemed that Parliament must deal in rapid succession with Acts to do with terrorism suppression seditious offences armed forces courts martial and defence. As any keen historian would know today 24 October marks the 90th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution which overthrew the Russian Provisional Government and was followed by civil war. The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists with troops commencing their takeover of the Government buildings on 24 October. Far be it for me to draw any comparison between the October uprising of 1917 and events in Aotearoa in the last few weeks but I do have to wonder at the cause of the timing in the sudden placement of these bills at the top of the Order Paper. 
I say from the outset that the unity and spirit of cooperation evident amongst the MMP parties has been a key feature of getting the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill on to the agenda in the first place. This time last year my esteemed colleague Hone Harawira was drafting a private member’s bill to amend the Crimes Act 1961 in such a way as to repeal all offences related to sedition. As is the way with MMP parties a chance discussion with Green Party members revealed that they too were seeking to repeal those offences that cut across the concept of freedom of expression. 
We joined forces and on 24 April this year we welcomed the ACT party and United Future in a joint call to the Government to push through legislation that would pick up on the recommendation of the Law Commission to scrap the charge of sedition. And here we are today 6 months to the day after that historic press conference with Parliament finally discarding the charges of inciting rebellion or resistance. But unfortunately it is putting in place more Draconian laws such as the legislation that is also in the House today. 
It is reason for great jubilation that MMP can prove and has proven its effectiveness in the form of this significant legislation before the House. I also have other reasons to acknowledge the important precedent this bill has set Parliament for in reviewing the question of sedition all political parties have invested in the very important task of looking critically at our history. 
The parties in this Chamber have become familiar with the pacifist prophets of Parihaka Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi. They have recounted the legacy of passive resistance that has been passed down to subsequent generations. We have heard the stories of how the peoples of Taranaki refused to accept the brutal land confiscations the extensive land loss and the military force and takeover by the terrorist actions of a rampant colonial force. Taranaki stood firm like their majestic maunga. They ploughed up the fields put the fences back up again and resisted colonial imposition and theft with the simple statement naku te whenua—mine is the land. This statement which saw Te Whiti and Tohu charged with sedition and sent to jail is a statement that to this day remains embedded in the heart and on the lips of the people of the land the tangata whenua. 
Through the passage of this bill our thoughts in this House have also turned eastwards to the Urewera settlement of Maungapohatu the home of the Tuhoe prophet Rua Kenana. We have heard how over 1000 supporters from Tuhoe Ngati Awa and Whakatohea established a communal farm a temple and a communal bank as their spiritual movement blossomed into a significant force. It was a movement based on the return of the whenua and mana to Maori—naku te whenua. Members of the House reflected on this history our history in Aotearoa in which Rua Kenana spoke out against the war and was duly arrested on the charge of sedition. He was eventually found not guilty of the charge but nevertheless he had already spent 9 months in Mount Eden Prison. 
As this bill has progressed through the House other more contemporary episodes have been raised to illustrate the urgent need to reform the law of sedition. We have heard about the case of Tim Selwyn and the Pakeha movement that he led to express Pakeha disgust and fury at the Government’s attempts to steal by confiscation and without consultation Maori land in the form of the seabed and foreshore legislation—naku te whenua. We have heard how my dear friend the late Nico Tangaroa along with Annette Sykes Mike Smith and Tame Iti was threatened with a charge of sedition over comments they made opposing overseas investment in our assets during the Asian Development Bank conference—again naku te whenua. 
Democracy must be about justice for all. We must have certainty in the law and certainty in its application; values that would be given life through the means of free speech. During the process of hearing this bill we have received many many responses from everyday New Zealanders who are proud of their tradition of supporting and participating in civil actions against injustice. One person wrote to us telling how his late great-uncle Bramwell Robinson was arrested and taken to prison in 1912 and served a sentence for sedition for protesting against the action of the police in breaking the Waihi strike. In Mount Eden this seditious character kept good company with Peter Fraser before he became Prime Minister and with Bob Semple who was Minister of Works in the first Labour Government. Both Peter Fraser and Bob Semple were leaders of the miners union and were also in prison for sedition. 
Finally I bring to this debate an unfortunate exchange that occurred in the House yesterday as my colleague Hone Harawira raised issues to do with Maori perceptions of the justice system. As a proud and independent Maori voice the Maori Party is here to raise issues as they are expressed to us regardless of whether they are issues that everyone accepts or understands. The relationship between Maori and the criminal justice system is probably best expressed in the work of Moana Jackson and his publication  
The Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
. In that epic work Moana stated: “When the analysis of law is founded in the belief that ‘one law for all’ means ‘one process for all’ rather than ‘one resultant justice for all’ the debate becomes confined by monocultural strangulation.” 
This comment came home to me last evening when another member in this House described the speech delivered by Mr Harawira as “one of the most disgusting embittered divisive and downright irrelevant speeches I have heard in this House for a long time”. There is no place for political censorship in a healthy democracy. We must have the courage in this House to listen to alternative points of view to consider the context from which such views emerge and to value independent thinking as the very basis of our democratic right to freedom of speech. 
The Maori Party celebrates the third reading of this very significant Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill as a benchmark for upholding and ensuring the rights of free speech and as recognition that more than one cultural reference point is valued across this Parliament. We will almost certainly be supporting this third reading of the bill. Kia ora. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have to say that my friend Mr Ronald Mark actually has a point. I think as I survey the debates we have had that only two parties have been entirely consistent—one being New Zealand First and the other being the ACT party. We have disagreed on every bill but we have done so consistently. The ACT party believes that the individual citizen should enjoy the maximum freedom but it is very clear that Mr Ron Mark thinks that we should pile up law upon law just in case the authorities need it that there is always someone who needs dealing to by the police the Security Intelligence Service or the agents of the State and that it is handy to have the odd weapon or two to throw around. Well the ACT party does not go along with that. 
It was quite something to hear the Minister of Justice Mark Burton introduce a bill at the second reading with a quote from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and to hear him talk about the importance of freedom of speech which I think there is agreement on when we have a bill before Parliament—which New Zealand First supports and which I guess the Government supports with some changes—that shuts down freedom of speech once every 3 years. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: For a year. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: For a year which is pretty astonishing. So what I will do in this third reading speech is talk about what the law is for. The law is not the plaything of Parliament; it is not to give politicians and the authorities the ability to do as they please. The law does not serve the role of shutting down people who disturb us or upset us with what they say—people we might disagree with or people who we think look suspicious or different or people who express way-out or wacky views. That is not what the law is for. The law actually exists to protect us—and when I say “us” I do not mean MPs political parties or this Parliament; I mean the citizens of New Zealand. I find that we are passing laws that far from protecting individual New Zealanders actually allow us to be attacked by the very agencies that should be protecting us. 
So what is it that we have that should be protected? What is it that we enjoy which the law should be protecting? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Freedom! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I think freedom is important but let us put some context in it. The first thing is obviously our life; our lives should be protected. As a free citizen one cannot just come along and extinguish my life or another person’s life. We have a law against that; it is called murder. We have a right to our life. So firstly the law should be protecting us. Secondly the law should be protecting our property. That is what it should be doing. It should be protecting our property from the bullies and the thugs who would come along and steal it from us. In fact I believe that is fundamentally why we have a Government; it is the big policeman to protect us from the thugs and the bullies. But we have passed law here today that allows on the say-so of the Prime Minister our property to be seized—and the National Party voted for it. Funnily enough Gordon Copeland voted for it and he has a bill in his name to protect our property rights! The National Party which was founded on the protection of the private property rights of New Zealanders voted that on the say-so of the Prime Minister a free citizen who is not charged with anything in court can have his or her property seized. That is astonishing. Labour members go with that I know because they are socialists; they do not think we should have property. But I did not think that was the National Party’s position. The law should be protecting our property. Why did National members not stand up for that? I do not know why they did not. 
The third thing we should be protecting is our freedom so that we can live our lives as we best see fit. I have nothing against people who choose not to work or who choose to have as many kids as they possibly can; it is their right to do so—they just have to accept the responsibility of the consequences. People’s freedom has to be that they can think what they like and say what they like as long as they do not infringe the rights of others—as was expressed very eruditely by my colleague Dr Richard Worth. One cannot go into a crowded theatre and shout “Fire!” because that impinges on the rights of others. One cannot go around defaming someone—unless you are Mr Peters or Dr Cullen operating in Parliament—because that is to take the property right that that person has in his or her good name. 
I think that there is also a third thing: one cannot use bad language around my mother. I think that is a restriction on the freedom of speech—one we should enforce more vigorously. 
Ron Mark 
: Well stop swearing in front of her. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I never swear in front of my mother. My mother is convinced that I do not swear. 
They are the reasons that we restrict free speech. Beyond that one can say whatever one likes as Keith Locke says. One can stand on a soapbox and preach fascism. One can stand on a soapbox and say that the greatest man in the universe is Osama bin Laden. I think that is great because when one hears it it sounds so silly. It is when we shut it down that it sounds attractive and interesting. 
Hone Harawira is a good case in point. I have got to like Hone; I sit with him on a couple of committees. He is always good for a sound bite on TV; it is not so good when one hears 10 minutes of it. You know what I mean? So we want to hear the whole story the whole argument the whole debate. If we shut down political speech we make it exciting and attractive. Nothing turns a person off more than hearing a Marxist give a lecture. Their slogans are hot; it is the speeches that are deathly—as Keith Locke knows having sat through a few of them. So we want people to have the freedom to say what they want. People should be able to say: “Let’s get rid of the King.”; “Let’s get rid of the Government.”; “Let’s vote the Greens out.”; “Let’s destroy the capitalists.”; or “Let’s vote the ACT party in.” People should be freely able to say those sorts of things. So why oh why—as we get rid of the sedition laws which are wrong—are we passing law to allow the seizure of people’s assets if the Prime Minister thinks they are terrorists and declares them to be so or because some foreign agency like the United Nations declares them to be terrorists? And why oh why are we passing a law to regulate political speech so that everyone has to register with the State every 3 years if they want to make a political comment and spend their own money doing so? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Advocating a vote for the ACT party is not sedition; it is just plain stupid and senseless. I ask members to consider this: “If the Government tried that sort of [expletive deleted] here the people up north wouldn’t take it. The boys would be out on the streets with guns and I’d be with them.” That was said recently by a New Zealand member of Parliament. I ask members to also consider these words: “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers I jumped for joy. I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack”. That was said by Annette Sykes a person who is tonight being quoted as someone being wronged by the laws of this country in respect of 9/11. 
I want to make it very clear that this country has become terribly naive when it comes to security and protecting its citizens and that is what the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill we are talking about tonight is all about. All sorts of weak-kneed decisions have led to this country having very bad border control. The warnings on our airplanes are so kind as to be of no concern to anyone seeking some nefarious purpose that will threaten the biological security of New Zealand let alone anything else. 
Then there is the question of medical clearances. Who was it that let out hundreds and hundreds of people already suspected of having tuberculosis because it was said they had been confined too long and they needed to be with their families? In Auckland today one can see whole wards paid for by the taxpayer filled with tuberculosis victims all of whom were not born here but were brought in and never properly supervised on the way through. The response from the authorities in New Zealand is to hide the truth from the people because in other countries it would be the cause of a full-scale inquiry and people being fired. Here there is nothing. I can tell members right now that Aids is increasing in New Zealand and its increase can be measured precisely with transient worker movements around New Zealand. That is how precise it is. Why do we not hear from the authorities? Because someone would be responsible for that. In New Zealand no one has to be responsible and that is why we have the kind of soft lily-livered discussion that has characterised the debate in the last 2 days. All sorts of people have been standing up majestically talking about freedom and liberty who by their past actions understand nothing about it whatsoever. Who checks the documentation from all sorts of sources of those coming to this country? In the main the answer is no one at all. 
I am told that the Law Commission says we should do this measure so we will do it. Well who heads the Law Commission? Sir Geoffrey Palmer who is a very esteemed former parliamentarian. But Sir Geoffrey is a former MP a former Minister of Justice a former Deputy Prime Minister and a former Prime Minister and in all the time he was here he was not moved to do this. What has changed since 1979 and 1990 and now? Actually the circumstances internationally are worse. The concern regarding terrorism is far worse than it ever was back then. 
I see these sorts of phrases in the explanatory note of the bill: “[sedition] can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law.” Which ones? Have members heard? Not in tonight’s or yesterday’s debates. It states so blandly: “more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law.” This is the marvellous sort of legalese that so many people repeat in this House. Let me ask members this: which areas of the criminal law? Were members told? No. Apparently members are going to vote for this without knowing. I ask members to consider this phrase: “the present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason:”. Is that true? How? Were members told how it does that? No. Apparently members are going to vote for it even though they do not know. 
This is meant to be a debating chamber where sometimes things should be seen beyond the political divide and for their merit because they may have some legal historic or present substance. I believe that this law has present substance—more present now since 9/11 and the events since—than it had in any past period in this country’s history. I know that some people were wrongfully prosecuted but some members decided tonight that we never prosecuted under that law. So why are those examples part of the reason being used? In short it becomes a straw man. For example inciting racial disharmony is not really the core of the sedition legislation. Sedition is about the promoting of rebellion and anarchic acts that have nothing to do with democracy or a vote but rather to supersede the will of the people— 
Ron Mark 
: Like the Russian Revolution. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Like the Russian Revolution as was recited tonight. It has been 90 years since the Russian Revolution. What a breakout of freedom that was! I cannot believe that that was used as an example tonight. Did a glowing plinth of freedom not waft across the world as a consequence of that! 
Let me ask members this question: why would one repeal these offences when there is every reason to believe if one listens to certain radio stations that in New Zealand today sedition is more of a concern than it has ever been? I know of radio stations receiving all sorts of calls cheering on Osama bin Laden whenever he gives a warning to the West about what is going to happen next. The radio stations hum with approval condonation and acceptance of it. There are some naive people in this Parliament if they do not know that. Maybe they should get out on the streets and find out a bit more about what is going on in their own country because it is going on in this country. If members do not believe that what makes us so exempt from the circumstances of certain activities in Britain France and other parts of the world? Those countries are known to be as strong believers in the rule of law and freedom as we are but their circumstances have led them to believe certain things and they are not just suspicions; they are based on detailed investigation and fact. What would make New Zealand in 2007 exempt from that? Nothing. 
The point that Ron Mark made on behalf of New Zealand First is simply this: members now will have suppression laws that set the stakes very very high when it comes to reasons of proof and causality in a court case. Members may well find themselves missing or failing to sheet the charge home when a charge of sedition would have been more appropriate. Alas because this Parliament has been swooned into thinking that that charge is no longer required it will abolish it. Well who was the last person charged with necrophilia in this country? 
Rodney Hide 
: Couldn’t tell you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Then we had better get out there and repeal it. It was not Rodney. Members could imagine it would be Rodney by the look of him—his eyes are too close together. Rodney is a nice guy and he would not think of that but I know people who would suspect him of it. When was the last time someone was charged with necrophilia and is that really cause reason or logic to say: “Well we’ll repeal the law because of it.”? Sometimes things on the statute book are to prevent people from even conceiving of committing those offences. 
But the point I come back to is this: would we as a country feel safer having repealed this law? Not 12 lovely sentimental feelings but one hard fact is what parliamentarians should be governed by; not a whole lot of sentiments and applause from outside from a certain lot of people who are not committed to or charged with the security of this nation but rather one hard fact in respect of what happens inside the Parliament of this country and the Government. 
I have just given members a whole lot of explanations of how weak-kneed liberal wrong-headed decisions have got this country into severe trouble. On medical security border security and questions as simple as Aids which we have sought to confront for over two decades now—and all in the main by way of increase imported. And today we have imported some further liberal lily-livered stupidity. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I support the third reading of this bill. My understanding is that the third reading is a summary of the progress of this bill. It has been very very interesting for me as a new member of Parliament to sit in the House and listen to the quality of the debate particularly that which has occurred tonight. I am grateful as I am sure my colleagues are for the opportunity to listen to those who have had a lot of experience in debating. I guess it is something we can all learn from and develop as we go. I do query though—and I am sure that in the spirit of parliamentary debate there will be no objection from the member—why in a recent debate Mr Mark is recorded in  
Hansard 
 as saying “and that is why we will be supporting the passage of this bill.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To the select committee. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed—I understand that. I am grateful to Mr Mark for the expression of his opinion which I listened to last night. I would have thought though that New Zealand First a party founded on the very stuff of dissent and radical opposition would be quite comfortable about losing the law on sedition. But I say that perhaps as a little light-hearted remark and I do understand the approach the member has taken. 
There has been general support for this bill from pretty much all parties— 
Ron Mark 
: You don’t agree with this do you? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No not really and I am perfectly happy to explain why. I listened very carefully when the member being keen made heavy emphasis on the point that we should reconsider reflect and wonder whether in fact this bill should be dispensed with. I have thought about that. I thought about it during the day and I reflected on it just as the member asked us to do. The member raised some questions in my mind. 
However let us look at some of the points that have been made during the first reading debate by a number of speakers. Keith Locke told us that the laws were put on the statute book to constrain dissent against Governments and have been used for that purpose ever since. He gave the example that they were used to convict Maori leaders in the 19th century notably Te Whiti and Rua Kenana. Then in the earlier part of the 20th century a Catholic bishop Bishop Liston was charged for making supposedly seditious statements when he hinted that he supported the Irish nationalist cause. We have also had the example of three leaders of the Labour Party—Harry Holland Peter Fraser and Walter Nash—who were convicted of sedition for supporting workers’ struggles for being against conscription and for selling left-wing books. I think it has been commented on more than once that copies of those books were actually in the Parliamentary Library at the time. 
The other event that propelled change which Keith Locke mentioned was Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission report entitled  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
 which called for the law’s repeal and provided all the reasoning as to why it should be repealed. It has been suggested that one of the reasons this bill is before the House is that the Government’s legislative programme is slightly light and that may be the case. But the Green Party has supported the bill and has been quite instrumental in bringing it before the House and generating support for it. 
I too heard the honourable member Hone Harawira when he spoke in the debate. He certainly spoke very strongly and with passion. He spoke about the celebrated prophets of sedition Erueti Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi who in 1881 were both charged— 
Ron Mark 
: He was acquitted. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes but they were charged. We spoke about this last night when Mr Mark said that the charges still had to be proven. He said: “Yes they can charge them. It doesn’t matter; it still has to be proven.” I do not think that in the reality and fairness of justice the member simply wants to be able to go around charging people so that they have to prove themselves innocent. There are connotations in my mind in relation to these sedition charges—and I am sure in the minds of many—that once a person is charged the person really has to prove his or her own innocence rather than it being the other way round. The very wording of it implicates a person in guilt and as a freeborn Scotsman I find that a little hard to stomach I really do. 
We heard an expression of views from someone who is certainly very strongly influenced by the rights of the tangata whenua or should we say by the lack of those rights in the past. I quote him: “Sedition has been used to quieten the natives and to suppress and oppress anyone daring to challenge the status quo. In fact even former Prime Minister and President of the Law Commission Sir Geoffrey Palmer admits that the archaic offence of sedition was too wide and too unclear and had been used to muzzle unpopular political speech.” I have something to tell that will possibly appeal to those in New Zealand First who oppose the bill. I went to a school in a very old town in Bury St Edmonds in Suffolk where the knights gathered before they went down to Runnymede to sign the Magna Carta. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You went to school? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes I did go to school. I thank the member for the inquiry. I am able to affirm that during tonight’s debate. The reality is that the rights of people are hard fought and freedom of speech is a hard-fought thing to go for. 
Then we heard Peter Dunne who gave instances of earlier generations of his family who were caught under this law. In one case a very elderly relative said she would not like to see sons of hers go to war. I am sure that other families in New Zealand have had that experience. She was taken away and threatened with being charged with sedition. 
If we look back at earlier times we see that the Elizabethans introduced the law of sedition. I think Henry VIII did it first and the government of Elizabeth I probably took it further. It was an uncredited quote but it was designed to control the commoners frighten the intellectuals and deal to people like Jesuits and clergy. It has always been a legal frightener. I can see my military colleague Mr Mark thinking “Yes! What’s wrong with that?”. But we should not really need that sort of thing and indeed it is the opinion of this Parliament clearly that we do not need that sort of frightener. 
The Hon Peter Dunne finished his speech by saying: “I stand here delighted to see the bill before the House urging expedition in its passage and looking forward to a time when the references to sedition in this country are purely historical never to be repeated again. A country that is confident about itself and its direction”—and I think this is important—“does not need laws of this type to regulate its behaviour. I look forward to the third reading of this bill which will hopefully be not too far away when we can farewell this particular legislation to the dustbin of history where it deserves to lie and rot.” 
So the debates and discussions have gone on from other parts of Parliament. I think it was the National Party that suggested that this was very much an MMP type of legislation as it has emerged from the smaller parties and has been picked up and debated. Certainly having sat on the select committee that heard the public submissions I know there were really not very many strong supporting voices in favour of the sedition laws. I think we had 17 submissions in all. 
Ron Mark 
: Peace in our time. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Oh no; I think the member probably knows me a little better than to credit me with that sort of expression. But I am confident and the police were clearly confident that they have sufficient laws to cope with the possible requirements of offences that normally would attract convictions under the sedition law. But even the strongest supporters of retaining this law would have to admit that it has not really been used very much at all effectively. 
Ron Mark 
: Neither has necrophilia. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well yes there is necrophilia and—what was that other one? Running off with an adulterous—no; running off with a nun! Those things changed in about 1960 and this one can go. I really do not think we will be overly concerned at not having this law but I would be concerned as I said as a good free-thinking person to think that it was being retained for no good purpose. I am very proud to be part of this Parliament and I will be very proud to tell the people of the West Coast - Tasman seat—that ever-increasingly marginal seat—that I have been part of reducing some of the laws and regulations in this House. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the challenge laid down by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his speech tonight. He put to the House—and perhaps to the nation—the question of whether we will feel safer if the law of sedition is repealed tonight. Of course we will not feel unsafe if it is repealed tonight because the law of sedition does not accompany acts of violence or threats to property; the law of sedition concerns the offence of words said. It was described best perhaps by one of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee the Maxim Institute which was reported to be the lone voice in support of sedition laws. On 16 August a person from the Maxim Institute said that to remove the law of sedition would be against democratic principles because it would erode the sense of respect that people hold for authority and may then lead to a lack of engagement with democracy which is a danger to democracy itself. So the Maxim Institute was saying that the law of sedition should remain because its removal may undermine the respect people have for our democratic process. 
What the Maxim Institute forgot—and what the Rt Hon Winston Peters forgot when he criticised Sir Geoffrey Palmer who during his time as Minister of Justice and Prime Minister failed to remove the law of sedition—is that in 1990 or just before Sir Geoffrey Palmer ushered in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which in section 14 decreed that everyone is entitled to express their views on any matter and that free speech is a fundamental right in New Zealand. No one has criticised that tonight. If free speech is a fundamental right then one cannot have the present law of sedition that is contained in our Crimes Act. 
In contrast to the Maxim Institute we had a comment at about the same time from The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand which is a movement that has much going for it. It pointed out that the monarchists on the other side of the fence believe that if anyone questioned whether Prince Charles should become the King of New Zealand then he or she could possibly be committing a seditious offence. Clearly if that is the ludicrous level that the present crime has reached then it should be removed. 
More seriously than that we must also pick up on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comment that people in this debate have referred to other crimes or offences that make otiose the requirement to have the law of sedition in the Crimes Act. As that challenge has been laid down and as it has been suggested that no one had dared to enumerate or identify the offences I want to take the time of the House to put on the record what other offences could be included. First of all we have in our Crimes Act the crime of conspiracy. Conspiracy is when two or more people reach an agreement to commit another offence. 
Ron Mark 
: When was it last used? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: It is used frequently in drug trials particularly. It was probably used this year and as recently as last month. 
Conspiracy is when two or more people agree to commit an offence. It is the act of the agreement that is the crime but accompanying that is the agreement to commit a further offence. 
The crime of incitement is defined in section 311 of the Crimes Act. It states that everyone who incites counsels or attempts to procure any person to commit an offence is himself or herself committing an offence. In respect of the crime of incitement one does not oneself need to cause violence or property damage but one does need to set about encouraging others to commit a crime. The statement of encouragement to commit a crime is the act of incitement. 
Other relevant offences include treason which is still in the Crimes Act. That is surely another matter we should be looking at more closely. There is unlawful assembly. That is an interesting offence. It is a gathering of three or more people who have a common purpose to carry out conduct that is unlawful or to conduct themselves in a way that will cause disorder. Three or more people who act in a way that will cause disorder or is likely to cause disorder are responsible for the crime of unlawful assembly. Disorder does not need to occur and another crime does not need to occur but conducting oneself in a way that is likely to lead to disorder or is intended to carry out a crime is the offence of unlawful assembly. 
Also contained in the Crimes Act is the offence of rioting. A riot as defined in section 87 is a group of six or more people acting together and using violence against people or property. Every member of a riot is liable to imprisonment for up to 2 years. Another part of the Act deals with threatening to commit specific offences. Again that deals with a statement but the purpose behind the statement is to encourage others to commit offences. Then of course under the Summary Offences Act we have the offences of disorderly behaviour and offensive behaviour and under the Human Rights Act we have inducing racial disharmony and other similar offences. 
Ron Mark in speaking against this bill made extensive reference to the Terrorism Suppression Act and to its amending bill which had its second reading earlier today. I want to dwell on that for a few minutes. In his speech Mr Mark harked back to the events of last week and said that today of all days is the worst time to be removing the law of sedition. In fact I think today is one of the more appropriate times to be removing the law of sedition because one of the underlying issues in this country is the issue of Maori sovereignty. 
Sovereignty is not an issue that is unique to New Zealand. It is an issue that exists in countries around the world and on the international stage. We see the Kurds for example advocating their own degree of sovereignty. The argument for Maori sovereignty is a deep-seated and sincerely held argument and one with considerable merit. But for us to move to the stage of giving true expression to that in a constitutional sense requires vigorous debate challenging present authority and our concept of democracy and trying to understand how concepts of Maori sovereignty would be embedded into our constitutional principles. That can be achieved only by vigorous debate with excitement overstatement rhetoric and making clear the commitment to one’s cause. We have heard mentioned in earlier speeches today some of the radicals who are committed to Maori sovereignty and some of the members of this House who also hold that view. Of course there are valid arguments to support that developing concept. I say “developing” because although it is certainly a well-known concept many members of the public are unwarrantedly afraid of it. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act is not about repressing arguments in favour of Maori sovereignty; the Terrorism Suppression Act relates to acts of terrorism. Section 5 defines what terrorism is. There are three requirements: first the acts must be designed to create terror—the dictionary defines terror as real panic—second there must be a desired outcome; and third that outcome must be one that is specified in section 5 and that includes death damage to significant buildings or other infrastructure damage. Making inflammatory statements is not an offence under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Making inflammatory statements designed to bring about an outcome defined in section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act is an offence under the Act. 
That is the difference between the law of sedition as it presently stands—and by the end of the day it will have been removed from our statute book—and the Terrorism Suppression Act. One Act deals with the mere words—we are censoring people’s thoughts and the articulation of those thoughts and we might think back to the Springbok Tour. One can imagine many occasions in 1981 when the present law would have been applied if those in authority had not exercised common sense and restraint. 
The law of sedition is entirely about rhetoric overstatement and challenging authority. The Terrorism Suppression Act and the offences outlined in the Crimes Act the Human Rights Act and the Summary Offences Act—to name a few—are about encouraging dissent through the vehicle of violence through challenges to personal safety or at its lowest level through challenges to public disorder. The Terrorism Suppression Act of course is at the high end of that in that it threatens the welfare of the democratic State of New Zealand not by oral challenge but by physical confrontation—either death or damage to significant infrastructure or property. 
 So this bill is not about people feeling unsafe in their beds. It is not a challenge to the safety of anybody at all. It may in fact enable people in this country to move toward a greater agreement on some of the deep-seated dividing issues in New Zealand as we prepare and state our case on either side of for example the Maori sovereignty issue and find an ultimate resolution because the case is argued strongly colourfully and clearly. It is time that this bill passed and the sedition laws were repealed in this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Defence 
: I move  
That the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Bill be now read a third time 
. The Committee of the whole House divided the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill into the four separate bills that are before this House today. I welcome the strong support of the House for this legislation the purpose of which is to establish a modern effective and fair system of military justice. The legislation being amended dates back to 1971 and reform is needed to take into account considerable changes in attitudes and the environment since that time. 
The principle followed in the new bills is that the military justice system today should to the extent possible given the need for efficient and disciplined operation of the New Zealand Defence Force apply to Defence Force personnel the same rights enjoyed by other New Zealanders in the overall criminal justice system. During the second reading and the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill a number of members have rightly referred to the reforms contained in these bills as representing a once-in-a-generation opportunity for this House to provide the New Zealand Defence Force with a modern military justice system that reflects the values that we hold strongly as New Zealanders. Today we set a new milestone which will stand New Zealand’s armed forces in good stead for another generation. 
As our Defence Force of today modernises to meet new and complex challenges throughout the world it is fitting that we should have a new military justice system that is suited to the conditions of our armed forces in the 21st century. Today our Defence Force has a very high degree of joint orientation in which the three services operate as one force. This is evidenced by the success of the Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand in Trentham. It is also evidenced in the operation of our armed forces overseas such as the provincial reconstruction team in the Bamian province which is and has been since its inception a joint deployment comprising members from all three services. 
At the same time New Zealand has bound itself to important international human rights standards which have been incorporated into our law. We have a proud and deserved reputation for being upholders and advocates of those rights at home and abroad. Our forces like all modern deployed forces are subject to unprecedented scrutiny through the media and the World Wide Web. Issues such as the legitimacy of military action respect for the rule of law and compliance with the law of armed conflict are of vital interest to the public of this country. These issues can greatly affect public support for the action being undertaken. The military justice system that this Parliament delivers to the men and women who serve this nation in the Navy the Army and the Air Force must take into account this new reality when it delivers the vital elements of a military justice system—discipline consistency in all strategic environments portability expedition fairness efficiency and simplicity. I believe that these bills achieve that objective. 
The Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) will standardise across the three services the delivery of justice at the summary level and will ensure that service members appearing before their superiors on disciplinary matters will be better advised of their rights and will have someone to speak on their behalf. It will remove the anomalous distinction that has prevented senior officers being dealt with summarily for minor offences thereby ensuring that military justice is applied in an even and transparent manner to service members regardless of rank. It creates a new position of Director of Military Prosecutions; an appointment that will greatly enhance the independence of the decision whether to prosecute a member of the armed forces before the Court Martial of New Zealand. It also creates a Summary Appeal Court of New Zealand before which any summary disposal may be reheard by an independent judge. 
The bill also creates a new body called the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. This committee provides commanders and the members of the military justice community including the Judge Advocate General with the ability to set sentencing guidelines for offences against the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. With the abolition of the board of review this measure was regarded as being necessary in order to provide command input to the maintenance of discipline and to ensure consistency in sentencing. 
The Court Martial Bill will establish for the first time a Court Martial of New Zealand as a permanent court of record. The bill provides for the constitution powers and procedures of the court. In particular it provides that the judges of the Court Martial of New Zealand will preside over hearings and may more efficiently deal with preliminary issues before the military members of the court have been assembled. 
The bill introduces many new features reflective of the nature of modern armed forces and the manner in which discipline should now be effected within them. For example warrant officers will be able to sit as military members of the Court Martial of New Zealand. The bill also contains provisions for the granting of bail. It will introduce a greater measure of independence and impartiality into the court martial system. The bill will bring about a significant number of other amendments that will make the administration of justice in the armed forces more effective and fairer. 
The Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill will introduce important new provisions relating to the constitution procedure and powers of the Court Martial Appeal Court. For example a person convicted by the Court Martial of New Zealand will be able to appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court against conviction or sentence or both. The Director of Military Prosecutions will be able to appeal to the court against sentence unless the sentence is one fixed by law and against a ruling on a question of law made by a judge of the Court Martial of New Zealand. 
The Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) clarifies the relationship between the new appeal process at summary and court martial level and the very important right that members of the armed forces have to seek a redress of a complaint about any other matter from their commanders under the Defence Act. 
These four bills contain a comprehensive package of reforms that update significant parts of the military justice system. The reforms ensure that in the course of maintaining military discipline which is vital to an effective modern Defence Force we also provide for the delivery of the highest possible standards of justice to those men and women who serve their country in our armed forces. I commend these bills to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The National Party of course is supporting the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. We recognise that this is an important update of New Zealand’s armed forces law. 
I want to reflect on the unusual coincidence today. Earlier in the day we were talking about the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and I want to touch on that briefly. Later we dealt with the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and now we are dealing with this legislation. They are all about the rights of citizens in each and every case. 
One of the things that concerns me is some of the quite extraordinary statements made in the House today by some members of political parties who should know better. They have sort of confused if I can put it that way genuine intent around issues of Maori self-determination and so forth with actions of the legislature today that actually deal with international terrorism. 
I want to reflect on the very high level of threshold that international terrorism must meet. These are the issues that our armed forces are dealing with overseas—in Afghanistan at this time and elsewhere. Indeed Corporal Willie Apiata got a Victoria Cross in relation to New Zealand’s operations in Afghanistan which were all about international terrorism. I say to the Maori Party the Green Party and to my surprise I must say the ACT party that the legislation on terrorism that was debated today was actually about international terrorism. It was about designating groups that the United Nations by unanimous consent had designated as international terrorism organisations. No country including Iran dissented from the categorisation of those entities as international terrorism organisations. To find that parties in this Parliament today are essentially saying they want New Zealand to opt out of our international obligations which were agreed to by virtually every State on the planet beggars belief. 
When I hear Mr Hide declare that the United Nations’ designation of these entities as terrorists—the very people who committed the acts on September 11—was some kind of fascist legislation I think it beggars belief. That speech has to be one of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever heard in this House on an issue on which we expect people to lift themselves up a bit expect people to take their role as legislators a little more seriously. I sort of have an understanding I think of the New Zealand Maori Party which has deep-seated issues that arise from the Tuhoe people and their very particular history in New Zealand extending over 100 years and involving the confiscation line. Clearly there are issues of sensitivity around that and I well understand that. But we have to remind ourselves that fundamentally there was not a conspiracy no more so than it was a conspiracy that we ended up debating today these three pieces of legislation. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill are not part of some sort of perfect storm of conspiracy; they just happened to arrive in Parliament all precisely at the same time. 
I really do ask members of Parliament to lift their sights and take these issues a little bit more seriously. I know that the smaller parties have particular issues and objectives but surely they must recognise that New Zealand as a democratic country in the family of nations and as an ardent member of the United Nations has responsibilities under the United Nations when it comes to international terrorism. Surely those parties recognise that reality. I ask them to show some recognition of that reality if not in their votes then at least in some of the language they use. 
Turning specifically to the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked long and hard on it and I think that would be conceded by members of that committee. We knew we had a once-in-a-generation chance to get it right and we were concerned to ensure that individual service people—men and women deployed overseas in particular but also in New Zealand—had full access to their civil rights. That means putting in place a modern judicial system. I think New Zealand as a nation has been very careful to ensure that those rights are fully protected so that for instance future courts martial will look like proper courts of law. I would have to say that in the past they did not always meet those thresholds. 
I see Ron Mark who had long and deep experience in the military acknowledging that point. He made some very pertinent points I must say during the Committee stage on how rights have been ridden roughshod over and people have been effectively required I would go so far as to say to plead guilty to things they did not do. One of the important points of proper procedure is that people’s substantive rights actually are protected. 
I come back to the issue that we were discussing earlier today—the importance of procedure in protecting substantive rights. The United Kingdom Australia and the United States—admittedly countries much closer to the sources of terrorism—have changed the basic procedural rights of their citizens. The fundamental change that they have made has been to give the authorities—particularly the police—the ability to question people before they are charged. They can haul them in as suspects and detain them for a lengthy period of time and it is not just to give them lunch; it is to question them intensively. We have seen examples of the nature of that questioning. It can be extraordinarily coercive. How can substantive rights be protected when we ride roughshod over procedural rights? 
I said earlier that the fundamental rights of New Zealanders are protected that the police cannot arrest people without charge—and a charge means that people have to be brought before a court and the charge has to relate to a particular offence in a statute. That is a huge protection that all New Zealanders have and at no stage has this Parliament or any political party ever given even a thought to infringing those basic rights. So the whole point of this legislation is to protect the procedural rights of service people be they in summary charges or in court martials because as a very wise person in this Parliament said—a person who has deep experience of international negotiations—arguments about procedure are actually arguments about substance and if we take the time and trouble to protect procedural rights then we actually protect people’s substantive rights. 
We have done that in the terrorism suppression legislation and I want the smaller parties to recognise that reality. We have tonight literally repealed sedition laws in order to protect people’s rights. And today I am pleased to say that the National Party is taking its part and its role in protecting the procedural rights of service people so that their substantive rights are preserved for at least another generation. I believe that this legislation will give our service people whether serving in New Zealand or abroad—including those dealing with terrorists who attack the very foundations of our democratic society—the rights that they are actually defending. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third readings of the bills coming out of the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill which are the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Bill. I find it very interesting—although I agree with his final conclusion—that the argument of the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp was somewhat convoluted and not necessarily consistent with other arguments he has put forward in the past. But I am sure we will be able to use his speech many many times in the future. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Absolutely—I’m going to quote it tomorrow. 
DIANNE YATES 
: The Hon Lianne Dalziel says she will be able to use it tomorrow when discussing other pieces of legislation. In Dr Mapp’s speech process and the content seem to be equated as one and I am sure the logic will come back to haunt him. His speech was not necessarily consistent with previous speeches but it is said that consistency is the sign of an unthinking mind. 
I want to mention today that I recently attended an art exhibition in Hamilton. It was actually a book launch by a well-known artist who is also a playwright. His name is Campbell Smith. Campbell Smith wrote a play that was performed in Parliament in the room next door to this one called  
Soldier’s Song 
 which was about New Zealand soldiers executed in World War I by the British Army after a court martial supposedly for desertion. Through the efforts of Campbell Smith and my colleague Mark Peck in 2000 a pardon was obtained for these New Zealanders who lost their lives in a dreadful war. 
When thinking about this legislation it is fortunate to think that that circumstance will never ever happen again. In New Zealand we have our own armed forces discipline legislation which not only applies to New Zealand and is administered by New Zealand but has been reviewed. I thank the two people involved Brigadier Riordan and Commander Griggs—particularly Commander Griggs—for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into these bills. 
The previous speaker said that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked hard. Commander Griggs has worked very hard and thoroughly over a number of years coming up with four pieces of legislation that are very profound and accurate. We have found only one mistake now that we are at this stage of the bills’ passage and that is where we referred to “accredited journalist”. I understand there is no such thing. I think probably “discredited journalist” might be more correct. But the error is in several pieces of legislation and the Minister has promised to look at those in the future in respect of the term “accredited journalist”. Evidently such a thing does not exist in New Zealand. Apart from that this bill has been a very thorough exercise in drafting legislation. I have been tremendously impressed by the work of those who have prepared the legislation and as I said worked very very carefully with the select committee. 
As has been said this amendment brings the legislation up to date. It is consistent with international developments particularly with movements in the UK and in other like-minded countries to ours. It makes the law consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which has been quoted several times in the House today. It allows servicemen and servicewomen similar rights as those enjoyed by civilians and in so doing brings the legislation up to date. Also perhaps it makes the armed services more attractive employers in terms of the rights of people who work within them. 
We have noted that the legislation brings about a degree of cooperation between the three armed services that it has bound New Zealand to our own human rights standards and that it brings international human rights standards into the law. Also it has brought about a consistency of strategic environment in terms of fairness efficiency and simplicity in the justice system within the armed forces and it has standardised these issues. 
 The select committee did have changes to make—some amendments around timing around petitioning around delegation around promotion around hearing of appeals around bail around media access around the chaplains and about legal representations. So there were a number of amendments but those amendments were worked through very thoroughly with the committee staff and those who had drafted the bill and I think it has been a very successful exercise all round. 
In particular I want to thank those who made submissions on the bill. As has been said before in earlier readings in this House it is a bill where we are not going to get a lot of public involvement because it is very specialised legislation—it is legislation dealing with the armed forces. But there were several submissions from legal experts and we also had submissions from judges and those involved through this procedure. Those submissions were very good and very constructive. Ideas were taken on board by the select committee and I think members of all parties on the select committee worked together to come up with what we hope is very workable very successful and much more modern legislation. In many ways we look forward to seeing some cases brought before the law to see how the new legislation will actually work out and be implemented. We look forward to its successful use and implementation. 
Once again a big thank you to both Riordan and Griggs for the work that has been done. I said before in a debate on a previous bill that it is a pity we cannot put the names of people to bills when they have done so much work. Nevertheless those who have done all the work will have the personal satisfaction of seeing the legislation coming into force and knowing that it is part of the New Zealand law. 
As we have said the legislation is divided into four bills and we are now in the third reading process of those four bills. I thank everyone involved and look forward to the implementation and the signing by the Governor-General of the four pieces of legislation before us as a whole: the Court Martial Bill the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2). I thank everybody once again for the work involved and the effort they have put into it and for the cross-party cooperation on this legislation. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 As we reach the end of this very long process this is a chance I think to reflect on the overall debate. This is the first time I have looked at defence issues through the prism of legislation that is a very comprehensive part of the New Zealand armed forces. It was a very interesting way to look at the evolution of thinking politically about defence. 
Quite clearly discipline in the armed forces is an absolute integral element in the overall picture. Without a comprehensive military justice system that keeps up with the realities of maintaining discipline in a military environment and up to date with social changes and other legislative changes we cannot have confidence that New Zealand has the armed forces that we need. 
This has been an extremely detailed exercise. As we have said on frequent occasions we have been extremely well served by the professional legal services of the New Zealand Defence Force. But I would also like Dr Mapp like to hark back to a very interesting speech Ron Mark made at the second reading I think it was. It is always interesting to listen to somebody—whatever the subject of the bill may be—who actually has some genuine personal or professional experience in the topic of debate. The burden of his remarks was that politicians have not at all times served the men and women of our armed forces properly. Yes there has been lip-service but when we come down to the stories that Ron Mark told the House about some of his training experiences members would be hard-pressed if they could keep a straight face through some of those stories to argue that we—or our predecessors in some cases—not only talked the talk but walked the walk. 
 My sense is that this legislation has come into the political process at a time when quite genuinely I see a new political basis for defence moving forward in a very interesting and sustainable way. We ask a great deal of the men and women of our armed forces. I do not have in mind the normal issue when I say that—the issue of the literally supreme sacrifice. I am thinking about the highly complex role that our modern defence force has to play and the way in which it is really closely integrated now with what we on the National Party side have accepted is an independent foreign policy. The role of our defence forces—and I do not suggest this is an original way of characterising it—requires a political role in terms of providing governance in gravely weakened States in our region. 
The role of discipline and thus the purpose of this legislation—and there is a huge technical exercise that we are bringing now to a successful close—is absolutely central. We do ask a lot of these generally young men and women to go off into unfamiliar societies play these roles and maintain internal discipline. We know that in certain highly publicised cases peacekeeping officers from certain other countries have not maintained discipline and that that has been absolutely lethal to the underlying purpose of their being there in the first place. It is more than lethal; it is totally counter-productive. They are exposed to unfamiliar situations and different cultures. We in the National Party take the criticism that Mr Mark made but I think today we fully recognise that in these complex roles the multicultural aspect of our armed forces particularly our army is of immense political benefit obviously to New Zealand but also to our other partners. I would not want to publicly refer to some conversations I have had recently with some very senior foreign policy strategic figures in Australia but I have had conversations. In one of those conversations one particularly noted strategic thinker in Australia came up to me and said quite bluntly: “Your guys are actually much more effective than ours for that very reason.” I think he is absolutely right. 
This is an important thing to consolidate politically. Closely associated with that aspect of the wider environment within which we have been looking at the role of discipline and thus military justice has been the slow coming together of a view—which we can describe in various ways—about the future of our armed forces. Some people describe this future as being in a niche role with higher specialisation and a focusing on core strengths. Whatever phrase we want to use there is a germ of a very shared view here that in a country of our tiny size the three constituent groups that literally in numerical terms are the largest contributors to this multicultural society—the English the Maori and the Scots—each have a warrior tradition that has come together to form what is “New Zealand Inc.” 
Martin Gallagher 
: What about the Irish? 
TIM GROSER 
: The Irish? I stand to be corrected if the Irish are numerically of equal importance to our population base but I do not believe that is the case. I think the Irish too probably also have a warrior culture. Whether or not the member is correct in terms of the arithmetical point I take his point. In any event coming together now is a distinctive warrior culture that has been part of our past. 
We cannot do all things; we know there are some things historically that the New Zealand armed forces have been extraordinarily good at. They clearly centre in part on the army and I think that this new consensus that has emerged is that we have to put the resources and the other efforts into building up those aspects of our armed forces that can make the biggest bang for the buck. I think this is quite a profound change. I do not want to take that too far. I entirely lack the expertise to explore the limits of this policy—I say “limits” because I am quite sure that if we took this to an extreme it would collapse. We need for example facilities for training our army with strike-force aircraft which is a sort of sub-theme in the whole issue of the Aermacchis debate. I do not have the expertise to take that analysis. That is one of the reasons why the National Party in its recent discussion paper has foreshadowed a white paper—as a means of consulting both within New Zealand and with countries we work closely alongside to try to put some flesh around some of these new ideas. 
It is about large money. We all know the political cliché of the senator saying: “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money.” and concerning the armed forces we are talking very large sums of money. They are modest by international standards but significant by our standards. The over-expenditure on the NH90s between the actual cost and the upper-bound estimate given to the Government of the day was enough to build the Auckland City Hospital. Those are the sorts of hard policy issues that have to be dealt with in the future. 
All of this really comes down I think to a new basis in which this country can move forward on defence. Military justice and the maintenance of discipline is a unique problem in the armed forces. We have brought this up to date I think with the aid of our expert advisers in a way that I believe will serve the test of time. We certainly all know that although this is an issue that will not engage the public interest much at this point behind this was always the historical reality that when military justice goes wrong the public reaction will be immensely strong and can literally last a hundred years or more if a grave injustice has been seen to be done. 
So we have worked through these issues. We have established I think a far more independent justice system and I hope that somebody in 20 years’ time when he or she next comes to have a look at this space will say that we have done a reasonable job for the beginning of the 21st century. 
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.