Volume 608 Week 24 - Wednesday 14 May 2003 
Volume 608 Week 24 - Wednesday 14 May 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5677] 
Wednesday 14 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a couple of points I would like clarification on. You will recall yesterday that question for oral answer No. 4 from the Hon Bill English to the Prime Minister attracted quite a considerable number of supplementary questions and ran to some three pages of  
Hansard 
. The result of the afternoon investigations I suppose by the Prime Minister led her to make a personal explanation in the House at 7.30 last evening that in many ways vindicates the lines of questioning that were being taken yesterday. We fully accept that. The question we have for you is this. Having looked at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders it seems very unclear just where a personal explanation leaves off and a ministerial statement begins. It would be an interesting point for you to tell the House that a Minister decides when to make a ministerial statement but there can be nothing personal about a Minister coming to the House after a question that has been in the system for some 4 hours and then that Minister clearly making what we will call a mistake in answering that question. That cannot be personal to the Minister. Surely it is a matter for the Minister’s department or his or her advisers who we all know are very very involved in the process of putting together answers to those questions. 
So we are asking you to consider the Speaker’s rulings that are around both the personal explanation and the ministerial statement—there is very little around a ministerial statement—and the Standing Orders themselves and perhaps come back to the House with a new ruling about where a ministerial statement should supersede a personal statement. This matter arose in question time in the House and that is a time when a Minister is being questioned by the Opposition and is asked to be accountable for the way in which he or she is conducting his or her role as a member of the executive. It would seem that if a Minister can give answers in the House that are quite clearly wrong and then at a later time under the cover of a dinner break make a personal explanation and have that as the end of the matter that is not appropriate. We think it should be subject to a ministerial statement. That is our first point. The second point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to hear the first point one at a time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest to you Mr Speaker that this is not a question that will require a great deal of consideration upon your part. Standing Order 341 states: “A Minister may make a statement informing the House of some matter of significant public importance …”. Those are matters relating for example to some kind of disaster event in international affairs and things of that nature that require to be brought to the House’s attention. [ 
Interruption 
] I assume that I will not have interjections during the point of order being addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not. There is only one warning and it has now been given. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have never seen a ministerial statement being given in relation to a Minister correcting an answer in the 21-odd years I have been in this House. It has always been done by way of a personal explanation. Indeed I am aware of Speakers’ rulings—whether or not in the record but certainly while I have been here—whereby Ministers if they fail to make a personal explanation at the first available opportunity can expose themselves to some risk. 
 I say from my own personal knowledge that the Prime Minister’s explanation at 7.30 p.m. was the first available opportunity in that the matter was brought to her attention in the dinner break. I say that very specifically because it was brought to my attention after the House rose at 6 o’clock and I was informed before the Prime Minister was informed. So the Prime Minister did exactly the appropriate thing. She made a personal explanation at the first available opportunity which was 7.30 p.m. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 You will recall that some time ago I raised the issue of the timing of personal explanations by Ministers in this Parliament. The recent phenomenon or trend has been to wait until the press gallery has gone and then to sneak down to this House and give a personal explanation setting the record right. The real issue here which required a number of us to apologise yesterday was a Prime Minister going against all the evidence in front of her face in the introductory bill. That clearly meant that she could not have been telling the truth. That is not a matter of whether she was saying something deliberately or otherwise. On the bare plain facts before this House she nevertheless asserted that she was telling the truth when in fact she could not have been because the introductory bill had the offending clauses in it. And then we had her comments which were the subject of the question when she said they had been introduced at the select committee. 
So the first available opportunity about which Dr Cullen speaks could not have been 7.30 p.m. last night but was straight away when she became aware that the bill which I sought to table had the offending words in it. That meant that she could not have been right on her radio broadcast when she said that those very clauses were introduced at the select committee stage. 
I want you to address that issue and the issue of this business of people coming down to the House away from the glare of publicity away from the glare of television’s coverage of question time and the media presence and getting away with saying that black is white for 4 hours and not apologising instantly when it is known to them that they have simply not been telling the truth. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The House has to accept the explanation given to you by Dr Cullen. There is no doubt that the proper way to correct an answer is by a personal explanation. There is also no doubt that it has to be at the first available opportunity. I know there is a view by some members that errors at question time should be corrected at the beginning of the next day’s question time because the whole House is here at question time. I was here at 7.30 p.m. and I doubt whether there were a dozen members in the House and there was no one in the gallery. But that does not alter the fact that under the Standing Orders that was the appropriate time for the explanation. 
The other issue is that it may well be that everything the Rt Hon Winston Peters says is correct that the House is incredulous that a Minister cannot remember that the bill says all these things. Everything that Mr Peters says is correct but we have to accept the Prime Minister’s statement that she is not conscious;we have to accept that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say that I completely agreed with the member’s comments right through until the last clause. This is a very easy point of order to resolve and I will do it right now. It goes back over 37½ years of my experience. It is up to the House whether to give leave and the House gave it. I have never yet seen an example of a question being corrected by a ministerial statement. The way that it was done was entirely appropriate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I point to Speaker’s ruling 106/4. It states: “The fact that a member makes a personal explanation with the leave of the House does not deny another member the right to discuss comments made by the first member or by any other member.” I just want to get a clarification that that ruling will be upheld today as you will see from the question sheet that there are questions there that will lead to supplementary questions that will inevitably will re-traverse some of this area. I just want to get a clarification that the existing Speaker’s ruling that allows that will be upheld. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A personal explanation cannot be debated according to Standing Order 343 and that includes referring to it in a question. But the events that give rise to the explanation can be referred to as long as the veracity of the statement made to the House by the member is not challenged or questioned. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday during the exchanges that occurred when the Prime Minister was giving her answers I was one of a number of members who were required to stand withdraw and apologise for questioning the veracity of the Prime Minister and her answer. She has since come down to the House and given a corrected answer which places me in a position of wondering whether there is any way the  
Hansard 
 record can be changed to expunge the withdrawal and apology that I had to make because what I was saying was proved to be correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. It is never in order to question a member’s veracity no matter what the circumstance and of course if members want to take that any further there is a way of doing it by coming to me on another matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That last comment you made which I am sure you meant to be some sort of assurance to us is totally illusory. If we came to you and said that the Prime Minister was not telling the truth you would have said: “But she has already explained that in the House at 7.30 and therefore your breach of privilege charge has to be denied.” That is what you would say so the comment that we could come to you is simply not one of any substance whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. It would have had to be raised with me before 2 o’clock today. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whether it was raised with you at 2 o’clock today would not have mattered. If someone had raised this issue with you at 10 o’clock this morning—that the Prime Minister was guilty of misleading the House and deliberately so—you would have said: “She’s explained that away at 7.30 last night in a personal explanation and therefore such a charge cannot stand.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I cannot deal with hypothesis. I do not know what would have happened. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can. I am telling you what you would have said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to have the member interjecting on me when there is a point of order. He will keep quiet or he will go out and I mean it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thought it might be helpful to say that if the member has information that contradicts the personal explanation and acquires that information after 2 o’clock today then that becomes the “first available opportunity”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not dealing with hypothesis at all. You told the House that if members had any other concern they could not challenge the Prime Minister’s veracity—you said that would always be ruled out—but they could come to you. I assume that meant by way of a breach of privilege a claim that is set out in the Standing Orders and numerous precedents excepting—and this is not a matter of hypothesis in the way you sought to rule out my point of order and I object to that strenuously—that had someone done just that you would have said: “Well this cannot stand because the Prime Minister by way of personal explanation has come down to the House and put the record straight.” Now that is the point I am making and I object to the way you have frivolously slid past it as though it is of no moment at all. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a deal of confusion in the member’s mind in this respect. You are quite correct that if a breach of privilege charge had been raised with you before 2 o’clock today you would have been looking at both what was said in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister and at her personal explanation. For a breach of privilege charge to be referred to the Privileges Committee the member would have to demonstrate evidence in contradiction of the combination of what the Prime Minister said and the personal explanation. What the member seems to be confused about—and confusion often seems to occur in this House—is that telling the truth does not mean to say that what one says is correct. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I wondered whether I could raise another matter with you Mr Speaker and perhaps the Prime Minister will contemplate your reply. Although I most certainly support your ruling that correction of a question should be done by a personal explanation if one reads the personal explanation one sees that it leads to some ministerial matters. We have to accept that when the Prime Minister requested all relevant documents from her department they were not sent over. There is something seriously wrong in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and that is a matter for a ministerial statement and not a personal explanation. It is not personal; it is a matter relating to her ministry. The Prime Minister will no doubt be holding an inquiry into that matter especially if the documents were requested in order to give answers to Parliament. It would appear to me that this is a matter that would be appropriate for a ministerial statement and no doubt the Prime Minister is very keen to find out why she was misled like the House. Members of Parliament were required to withdraw and apologise when in fact they were correct in what they were saying and the Prime Minister was wrong. That is a matter for a ministerial statement is it not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 In my own experience—and probably in that member’s experience as well—if a Minister had to make a ministerial statement every time the information that came from a department was not entirely complete I doubt we would be doing any other business during the week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member was entitled to raise that point but it is in the hands of the Prime Minister or any other Minister as to whether a statement is made. That is where the matter rests. 
Questions to Ministers 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—Provisions 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Why did her office on Monday ask the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to forward to her the official files relating to changes to the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 So that I could be fully informed should there be follow-up from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article on Monday morning. Unfortunately in the event I was not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now the Prime Minister has given an explanation for her statements in the House is she willing to apologise to the listeners to Newstalk ZB to whom she said: “People don’t recall having made conscious decisions to include them” and to the readers of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to whom she said as reported that “the offending clauses slipped into the bill unnoticed”; and if she will not apologise to those New Zealanders why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No because I had no recollection of it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Prime Minister and the Clerk’s Office had the offending statements put before both the office and her yesterday so how can the Prime Minister get up today and say she has no recollection of them if not for the reason that she has utter contempt for you and everybody else in this House and in this country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debatable issue. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Why did the Government agree to the amendment to remove the phrases from the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Bill Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Minister for the Environment stated on 8 May United Future had raised some reservations about the terms with her. Upon further consideration and consultation with colleagues she considered that removal of the words was sensible because they created uncertainty and the issues concerned were covered by other more understood terms in the definition. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister accept that when she gave her answer yesterday—while she had the primary bill in front of her—the answer could not have been correct and she could not have been telling the truth; and more important does she accept that the explanation relating to United Future that she has just given could not have been the truth either because at the time of the approval of the bill those offending words were in it in the introduction; so if the Prime Minister accepts that she was not telling the truth andshe is prepared to admit that is it because she did not read the bill or was she deliberately not telling the truth? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for suggesting that someone deliberately did not tell the truth. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Unconsciously did not tell the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. First of all the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will withdraw and apologise for that and I will amend the last offending phrase. Does she admit as a third proposition that she was unconsciously not telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My references to the primary bill were to the bill that was introduced in 1999 which came back to the House in 2001 with the changes. Then the reported-back bill of course was re-introduced in March and went through the House yesterday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister recall the statements she made on 23 February 1999 recorded in  
Hansard 
 regarding the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley’s statement that she had some papers missing with regard to Kevin Roberts and her own statement to the House that that raised very serious issues about the integrity of the Government that the then Prime Minister’s statements were rather Clintonesque and that the Prime Minister had an opportunity to make a ministerial statement to the House on those matters; and given that would she not think—unless she wants to be accused of being hypocritical—that she should make a ministerial statement explaining how the Ministry for Culture and Heritage came to have those documents missing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is reviewing what happened—because I did not come to the House fully informed. Having been Prime Minister for 3½ years I have a great deal of sympathy for former Prime Ministers trying to remember everything that happened. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that whenever this Prime Minister gets in trouble she acts as if the Government does not do anything that she does not remember; that she always says she cannot recall it; and she ends up giving an apology that is never sincere? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bigger offence when asked about this on Monday morning would have been to say that I recalled things I did not recall at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: Now that we know we had to fend off cultural and ancestral landscape provisions inserted at the Prime Minister’s express written request why did she ever want to impose them on property owners and what did she think they meant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The report that came to my attention late yesterday showed that officials in September 2000 responded to submissions made to the select committee going back to the original bill introduced in 1999 which was reported back in May 2001. Among the submissions were submissions sympathetic to the inclusion such as one for example from the Palmerston North City Council. What the officials did—and I accept that they did because I have now seen the document since question time yesterday—was ask me to approve the contents of the draft report prepared between the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Ministry for the Environment as their response to the submissions. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us at what time officials presented the information to her yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I got into a car after a function at 6.15 yesterday I was advised as the Leader of the House had already been advised that this document had come over. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister a much simpler question: having had access to the bill and seeing therefore that on its introduction her words could not be correct why did she take 4½ hours to come down to the House and explain herself when it is demonstrably palpably true— 
Hon Annette King 
: Didn’t you listen? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is in the bill junior. [ 
Interruption 
] Why are there all these interruptions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have a question; she will leave the Chamber. I have asked the member who interjected during question time to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Annette King withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the offending words are in the bill and therefore her comments against that bill could not be correct why did she not come down immediately someone read the bill out to her explain that she was wrong and correct it in the House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It became clear in the course of question time yesterday that the member and I were speaking at cross-purposes. I was referring to a bill introduced in 1999; he was referring to the reported-back bill that was reintroduced. Can I remind him that I said in answer: “The bill was introduced in 1999. It was a bill that came back to the House after changes had been made to it in the select committee. The form that the select committee had reported it back in was the bill that was withdrawn and reintroduced ... ”. So that point was covered. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is she prepared to table the full information she received from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage at her request to see whether Opposition MPs can find the references to the word changes to the definition of heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which was the specific information that her department sought from that ministry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I am satisfied that I do have the full file I will be making it available to members pursuant to the Act as some have already asked for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has made a personal explanation in respect of saying that these provisions were added by the select committee when they were in fact added by the Minister. But the Minister for the Environment both in a public statement and in a parliamentary statement has also said these matters were made by the select committee and I believe that that Minister should make a personal explanation on misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is just a debating matter. 
Terrorism—Saudi Arabia 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What steps has the Government taken to protect New Zealanders in countries like Saudi Arabia against the threat of terrorist attack? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Can I first express on behalf of New Zealanders our condemnation of last night’s terrorist attack and our condolences to the families of at least 29 people who were killed and as many as 194 injured. Our embassy in Saudi Arabia established a register of New Zealanders living in Riyadh following the deterioration in security conditions earlier this year. It used that register 10 days ago to advise 450 New Zealanders registered of US intelligence information about the risk of an imminent attack by terrorists. That register is also being used to determine whether New Zealanders were living in the compounds that were attacked last night and to confirm that the two individuals and one family of New Zealanders resident in the Alhambra compound were in fact not casualties. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the level of protection offered to New Zealand diplomatic staff based in Riyadh? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Perhaps fortuitously I announced on Sunday a budgetary provision that includes $3.5 million to improve security at those of our embassies that might be considered as being at risk. That does include Riyadh. Additional security being put in place includes the reinforcing of a double perimeter fence closed-circuit television additional guards and enhanced facilities for screening those entering the embassy compound and mail being received by it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why would New Zealanders believe now that New Zealand receives full intelligence from the United States given the Prime Minister’s recent foolish comments about the United States and in the light of the fact that New Zealand clearly did not receive all the available intelligence that Australia received following the Bali bombing? This is a crucial issue that the Minister must address. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part is not part of the question as it was an extra piece. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Perhaps because the warning given to New Zealanders in Riyadh was identical to that given by the United States to its residents. 
Keith Locke 
: How does it help protect New Zealanders in countries like Saudi Arabia from terrorist attack for our Navy to issue a press statement as it did yesterday praising “coalition forces taking military action to liberate Iraq and secure weapons of mass destruction” and for us to have our frigate  
Te Kaha 
 and now an Orion conducting operations in the Gulf under overall US command? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would have thought it was obvious to almost every member in this House that the reason we have the frigate in the Gulf the reason our P3 surveillance aircraft went up there last week and the reason our CI30 military aircraft will be going up there in a couple of weeks’ time is that we need to assist the international efforts against that form of terrorism which endangers every civilian everywhere regardless of race colour or creed. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Minister spoke of a $3.5 million allocation to upgrade security in embassies deemed to be at risk was that risk determined on the basis of generalised intelligence briefings or have there been specific threats issued against New Zealand embassies from time to time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is the former. There have been no specific threats in recent times issued against New Zealand embassies but there is a generalised threat. The at-risk embassies are obviously those embassies in countries that have had a tradition of bombing against Westerners and diplomatic posts. 
Prime Minister—Procedures 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What procedures are in place to ensure that she has seen and read documents to which her signature is affixed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The procedure is that my signature confirms that I have seen and read a document. It does not mean that I will recall that paper or its detail 2½ years later. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister recall questions in the House regarding the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in which she wrote a foreword stating it was her Government’s goal to return to the top half of the OECD by 2011 and does she recall her response that she had no recollection of that foreword and how does she reconcile that response—that she had no recollection—with this document which is a memo from her adviser Nicholas Bain which asks her to “confirm you are happy with the foreword before I pass it on to the authors”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: At the time that was raised I did not recall that either. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course it has just been revealed that the member could not recall his party’s principles—in the middle of an election campaign! 
Hon Bill English 
: When she receives a memorandum addressed to her from a senior member of her office saying: “Please confirm you are happy with the foreword before I pass it on to the authors.” why should the House believe the statements she made that she had not seen the foreword could not recall what was in it and nothing in it was her responsibility? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That matter was raised in the House by that member a few weeks ago. He is harking back to memoranda that were dealt with in late 2001 and as I say perfect recall with the best will in the world is not possible. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister recall on 23 February 1999 on the question of missing documents saying to the House: “The reason the Prime Minister was choosing the mechanism of a personal statement is that she knows that her word following that statement cannot be doubted” and further saying: “the Opposition was absolutely correct to insist that this be a ministerial statement.” then saying: “It comes down to the question of the integrity of the Prime Minister”? Was she right in what she said in February 1999 or is she right in what she is saying today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly recall the occasion. As I have already said I am somewhat more sympathetic to the former Prime Minister than I was at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement made recently that the public see her as a person who means what she says? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I stand by my statement that the New Zealand public appreciate the Prime Minister speaking her mind even if the Opposition does not. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Were these procedures in place when she signed a painting that she had not painted or were the procedures adopted after that incident? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not intend to traverse that matter. It has been well dealt with in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that she is a person who front-foots issues and that being the case could she please advise some of us who are interested in physical sports how one front-foots things when one is constantly on the back foot? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member should know—he has not been able to get a single allegation to stick in the last 3 years. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister any advice for the public of New Zealand and for Parliament so that when she is front-footing an issue and speaking her mind we can tell that firstly she is recalling everything; secondly she is conscious at the time of making her statement; and thirdly she is actually telling the truth and is correct; or are we to find out only if she subsequently gets caught out? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can assure the public that I answer each question to the best of my ability which is more considerable than some. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that the standard by which this Government and her behaviour should be measured is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand takes no responsibility for anything that she cannot recall absolutely clearly; and if that is the standard how do we know when she is not selectively forgetting things that do not suit her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There would simply be no truth or honesty in pretending to recollect things one does not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Accepting totally that she is doing the best according to her ability that she was not conscious that she was misleading the House yesterday and given her performance over the last 3 weeks does the Prime Minister think she is up to the job? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If I can paraphrase my own words I am a hard-working and conscientious Prime Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the Prime Minister clarify whether she said “conscious” or “conscientious”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member is just making a fool of himself. 
Foreign Policy—European Union 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How was her statement that New Zealand’s relationship with the European Union is of “paramount importance” received by European leaders and what steps is she taking to ensure Government policy gives effect to this statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 New Zealand has a number of key relationships including that with the European Union. My visit to Brussels was well received because of the strength of that relationship and the Government will continue to prioritise the relationship with the European Union. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is New Zealand joining a United States – led case to the World Trade Organization disputes tribunal to force European Union citizens to eat genetically engineered (GE) food and plant GE crops against their democratically expressed will? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government will participate in that case as a third party because of New Zealand’s strong interest in defending the integrity of the international World Trade Organization system and in particular the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement which requires members to set health-related standards based on scientific evidence and risk analysis. 
Hon Bill English 
: When she was discussing New Zealand’s relationship with the European Union and she said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russia link-up with good links through to the Chinese” has she had time since she was last questioned on this matter to find out just who “everyone” is and whether “everyone” includes New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The question is falsely premised. That statement was not made in discussions in Europe. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would be happy to repeat the question because I believe that the Prime Minister misheard it. I did not say that the statement was made in discussions in Europe. I actually phrased it like this: “In discussing New Zealand’s relationship with Europe ... when she made the statement” and her answer was based on misunderstanding the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the member said “discussions” but if the member says he said “discuss” I accept—[ 
Interruption 
] There is to be no interjection at all. If the member says he said “discuss” I accept his word. The Prime Minister might care to comment. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: New Zealand has no interest in being asked to choose between the United States and Europe. Both are very important to us. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Which outstanding New Zealand issues with the European Union does the Prime Minister now expect to be advanced considerably as a result of her visit to Brussels? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have had a concern for some time about the effects of the Schengen Agreement if implemented as it stands on the rights of New Zealanders to travel without visas for a period in Europe. Over a period of representations leading up to and including those in Brussels I believe we should be able to get some movement. Apart from that I was able to discuss with a number of European commissioners—and indeed in the bilateral visits with other Governments—the issue of getting movement on the common agricultural policy so that the European Union can make a meaningful contribution for the Doha round in getting agriculture dealt with. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Did she discuss with European leaders her intention to undermine the social democratic notion held deeply by many European Union nations that citizens have the democratic right to elect representatives who may legislate to set standards such as for the import of GE foods; and why is she challenging this tenet of international social democracy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that detailed questions on this should be put to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. But can I say that I am not aware that the European Union has legislated. One of the problems is that it is a de facto moratorium without limit and that is what has caused the US frustration because over a long period of time it has not been dealt with. I repeat the answer I gave to the member’s first supplementary question: New Zealand stands as the third party in the case because that enables us to set our position of setting standards based on scientific analysis and risk analysis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given that GE foods have never received any safety testing and that the reason for that is the Food and Drug Administration’s decision contrary to the advice of its own scientists that it was substantially equivalent and therefore needed no safety testing what scientific information is she relying on in considering these foods to be safe? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suggest that the member cannot possibly authenticate her claim that GE foods have never been subject to any safety checking. There is an enormous amount of checking going on with all food. It is a ridiculous question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not here to judge the question. The Prime Minister however I am sure will be able to provide a brief answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The European Union like New Zealand like the United States has very stringent food safety standards but I do not think that this is an issue of food safety. I think it is an issue of a de facto moratorium that has gone on and on and is not seen to be based on thorough scientific evidence and risk analysis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table documents presented to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification showing that the Food and Drug Administration overrode the advice of its own scientists. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the document I referred to in my question—a memorandum from Nicholas Bain of the Prime Minister’s department to the Prime Minister. 
Document not tabled. 
Electricity—Water Heating 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What is his response to the comments made recently by the head of the Winter Power Task Force that cutting hot water in households for up to 18 hours a day was being considered—which would mean people having to take cold showers—and he could not rule out pensioner homes being treated the same as other houses? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 My response is that that is a very good reason for New Zealanders to save power now and help to avoid the need for hot-water cuts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he seen any reports indicating that due to the contractual arrangements with its half a million - plus customers Vector the country’s largest lines company cannot cut hot water heating for more than 5 hours a day meaning that Auckland electricity consumers will continue to have hot showers while the rest of the country goes cold? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Dr Patrick Strange of the Winter Power Task Force advises that he is confident that should it be necessary to go to hot-water cuts there will be a national protocol in place that shares the burden fairly. 
Mark Peck 
: How much would hot-water cuts contribute towards the 10 percent power savings target? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that cutting hot water for 18 hours a day would reduce electricity consumption nationwide by about 3 or 4 percent a saving that could readily be achieved by voluntary measures. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers and the answers to similar questions yesterday is the Minister telling the House that despite our having millions of tonnes of coal his preference is to export that coal to nations that largely ignore the Kyoto Protocol and that New Zealanders should potentially suffer power cuts and cold showers; is that what he is telling us? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of fact that New Zealand’s largest generator is being fuelled today almost entirely by coal and that the constraint on that company is how to mine it fast enough. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Before consigning pensioners to cold showers has the Minister investigated the net economic cost to New Zealand of Colmalco shutting one of its three potlines and thus saving half our national target in one go and could we afford to buy that electricity cost effectively for the nation at a price that would still see Colmalco better off? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to warn any more members about interjecting during question time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If that were to happen it would be a matter of commercial negotiation and therefore I am afraid must be wrapped in the confidentiality attending that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given the contractual arrangements that Vector has with its half a million - plus customers that would prevent it from cutting water heating or introducing power cuts of more than 5 hours a day how can he assure all New Zealanders that if 18-hour power cuts to hot-water heating are called for Auckland households will not be exempt? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is the question I placed to Dr Strange who advised me that he is confident that should it be necessary to have hot-water cuts a national protocol will be in place that shares the burden fairly. Currently Dr Strange is holding a press conference where he says that the new regional data that are out show that Auckland has now closed the gap. I congratulate Aucklanders accordingly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does having a national protocol in place mean that Vector will be relieved of any legal obligations it has and therefore will not be liable to court action from its consumers if it cuts the supply for more than 5 hours a day? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can do no more than advise the member what I have already advised him—that is I have put that question to Dr Strange and his advice is that he is confident that should it be necessary to go to hot-water cuts a national protocol will be in place that shares the burden fairly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked a question of this Minister of the Crown about matters that are extremely important in his portfolio area. He has given me this House and this country an answer that says he has taken his advice from Dr Patrick Strange. Dr Strange is heading the Winter Power Task Force as we all know which is a group that has no direct reporting to the Government whatsoever. What I am telling the Minister and what he should know is that the largest lines company in New Zealand cannot comply legally with a requirement should it brought to it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. A general debate is coming up and there are other opportunities for the member to raise that subject by way of a question at another time. That is a debating point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my third supplementary question I very clearly asked the Minister whether the so-called protocol he talked about will relieve that company of its legal obligations. Surely that then becomes a matter for the Minister. It is a matter that the ministry should be dealing with. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did answer the question in my view. It may not have been satisfactory to anybody else but he answered the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Should he not give us an answer that comes from his ministry? Referring us to an individual who has— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. No the Minister has to address the question that is asked and he did each time. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question came down for the Prime Minister and left the Clerk’s Office for the Prime Minister whereupon it was promptly referred by her to the Minister of Energy except that anyone who has been involved in Cabinet would know that if the answer is that there has been no prime ministerial involvement that is an answer that the Minister of Energy cannot be certain about. Anyone above that Minister would know that from past and present practice. That is why I referred this question specifically to the Prime Minister. Dr Cullen can look curious but it is a fact that a number of issues to do with a Minister may have been considered away from his or her office and portfolio by a Prime Minister a Treasurer or a Minister of Finance. That is my point and that is the reason that I wanted my question to be answered by the Prime Minister. I now seek leave for the Prime Minister to answer this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I will now rule on the point of order. There is no reason that one Minister with responsibility for an issue which the Minister of Energy has here should not answer for the involvement of another Minister even the Prime Minister in that issue. That has been the ruling for as long as I have been in this House. 
Energy—Television Advertising 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Did the Prime Minister have any involvement in the preparation of current energy savings advertisements that run on television? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he telling me that such a serious issue as a potential national crisis which requires substantial savings to be now made by New Zealand people and the expenditure of massive amounts of taxpayers’ funds on that purpose actually occurred without the Prime Minister having any idea whatsoever of what would be in those advertisements; if that is the case why is it fitting for her to go on morning television and criticise the content of the advertisements if she was so unconscious frivolous or careless as to have no involvement in the first place as Prime Minister? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The advertising campaign is being commissioned by the Winter Power Task Force under the supervision of the Grid Security Committee. The origin of that is that I called in the industry some months ago now—I cannot remember the date—and said: “You will manage this.” and it has done so. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the electricity industry commissioning and paying for the television advertisements this year when the Government commissioned and paid for them in 2001? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because the industry got a very clear message from the Government earlier this year that it needed to take more responsibility for dealing with a very dry year than it did in 2001 when the campaign was led by the Government. I congratulate the industry on its actions to date. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did he decide to have the power crisis managed by the Winter Power Task Force in order to have someone else to blame when things go wrong just as he has this afternoon? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If other people are to be responsible as he phrased the answer when he said: “You will manage this.” then why on earth are we employing him and second does he think it is fitting for such a campaign to have the sorts of responses the Prime Minister gave when she said: “Fortunately I have gas for my hot water and for my heating so that puts me in a reasonable position.” or “I’m not a great TV watcher myself; I am not seeing them.” and does he think that he is doing any way a halfway competent job? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure which part of the question is best answered but the issue about who should manage this matter was discussed by the Government and the industry earlier this year. The long and short of it is that in 2001 the industry was not up to scratch. This year it most certainly is. The underlying reason it is being managed by the industry be it the contracts with Vector or any other aspect of the management is that under a previous Government the market system was set up and there was partial privatisation. Indeed the member who asked the question was the Treasurer at the time. 
Television—New Zealand - made Programmes 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent reports has he received highlighting the achievements of putting New Zealand - made programmes on television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The New Zealand On Air local content survey which was released today shows the biggest increase in locally made television programmes in a decade. Last year local content accounted for 27.4 percent of the total television schedule up 3.8 percent on the previous year. All three channels increased their total local content. 
Dianne Yates 
: How did those figures reflect the level of the Government’s investment in New Zealand On Air? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There was a 20 percent increase in the screening of first-run New Zealand drama and comedy both of which reflect our unique culture and identity. That increase in higher cost high-risk productions highlights the benefits of Government funding increases to New Zealand On Air in 2000 and last year. There was also a marked increase in children’s programming after nearly a decade of decline. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it pertaining to Standing Order 375(2) in respect of some parts of my question that have come from the reply to a written question to the Minister. I seek your indulgence in looking particularly at the time that question was lodged and the time the reply was due back. The answer to that question was due back to me on 13 May this year at 1200 hours. My office received it on 13 May at 1547 hours which was clearly after question time had got under way. It concerns me that information such as that which is so critical to the questions I have been asking should have been delayed. It was in the Minister’s hands until after question time had started thus preventing me from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has not read the Standing Order correctly. The reply is due back on a particular day not at a particular time. It was given on that day as the member himself has said. Please ask the question. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please ask the question. 
RON MARK 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have ruled on the point of order. Oh another point of order? 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Then can you as Speaker take steps to speak with the Clerk’s Office about the offending words—which clearly have misled me—that state: “Due Date: 13.05.2003 at 1200 hours” because I took them to be factual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is nothing in the Standing Orders about that as far as I am concerned. I have just consulted the Clerk. If those words are there that is a mistake made at another level. Certainly I know the rule that when a question is due on the 13th the answer has to be submitted on the 13th. As the member himself has said it was. 
Bail—Mandatory Provisions 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why is he seeking all-party support to make an addition to the Statutes Amendment Bill requiring bail conditions to be mandatory for offenders who have had their sentences deferred? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Judges have always been able where there are special reasons to place offenders in the community without conditions for a short period before the start of their sentences. I would hope that all members of this House would agree that offenders whose sentences are deferred should be subject to strict bail conditions. The concurrence of all parties would allow a straightforward and common-sense change to the criminal law that does that to be enacted without delay through the current Statutes Amendment Bill. 
Ron Mark 
: How long has the Minister known that in the year 2002 98 drug dealers four kidnappers two rapists 11 killers and 12 sex offenders were released into the community on deferred sentences under the legislation; and is he proud of that achievement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would want to challenge at least some of those statistics from that member and that number of 11 killers if he is talking about front-end detention. If the member is talking about back-end detention which he says was put in place without the authority of this Parliament he should read the statute of 1993—10 years ago—that explicitly allows back-end detention. People are able to be put out and have been put out on back-end detention since that time. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is it correct that the sentencing laws have for at least 18 years allowed judges to defer sentences on convicted offenders leaving them in the community without bail conditions; if so why is he making this change now? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is correct. The law has been that way for at least 18 years and quite possibly for longer but I believe there are good reasons for making this change now. Most alleged offenders while awaiting trial remain in the community but do so under bail conditions provided they are not an undue risk and provided they are not at risk of absconding. It makes sense that an offender who has been convicted and released temporarily into the community before his or her sentence starts should be subject to conditions that are at least as strong as those he or she had when on bail awaiting trial. That is why I have proposed this change. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth would the Minister try to duck the issue by doubting the veracity of information provided by his own department on 13 May at 1547 hours and 41 seconds—it is all clearly laid out in the papers—or is he like the Prime Minister and not conscious of what he does and just plain soft on crime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Patently the last point is incorrect because the Sentencing Act under debate is the toughest piece of legislation that has ever gone through this House—including the legislation passed in the many years that that member spent as a member of a Government party. I have the same answer that Mr Mark has delivered on 13 May—the day it was due to be delivered to Mr Ron Mark—and the figures that he has quoted do not appear to align with the figures I am reading on the chart. 
Ron Mark 
: What faith should New Zealanders have in a justice system that on the one hand operates a traffic ticket quota system supposedly with the aim of making our roads safer and on the other hand released back into the community 132 offenders who had been convicted and sentenced to jail for driving with excess blood alcohol dangerous driving causing death reckless driving and driving whilst disqualified? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In reply to the first part of the member’s question I say that nobody gets a ticket for speeding unless he or she is breaking the law. Unless the member is advising the House that he thinks one should break the law and not deserve to get a ticket I am not sure what he is telling us. With regard to the people who are put on home detention I can say that quite a number of those people under the sentencing regime so preferred by the National Party New Zealand First and the ACT party would have got suspended sentences. That is like a wet bus ticket—there are no conditions and no penalty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot go from not knowing the details of the law or of his portfolio to alleging the policy of other parties about which he knows nothing and for which he is not responsible. He will have a letter shortly telling him just that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion the member has made a valid point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: In order to clarify the clear confusion that the Minister has I seek the leave of the House to table the answer to written question— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Research and Development—Investment 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports has he received about the level of investment in research and development in New Zealand and what do they say? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has released summary results of the 2002 research and development survey. The report shows that business research and development increased by more than 40 percent in the last 2 years which is a remarkable astonishing increase. In part it is due to the many positive policy changes the Government has made over the past 3 years and in part it is due to the fact that more and more New Zealand businesses are treating research and development as an investment not a cost. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: If the 30 percent increase over 2 years is a remarkable effort does that mean it is also a sufficient effort? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it does not mean it is a sufficient effort—not by a long shot. New Zealand still ranks low in private sector research and development expenditure but the latest figures show that the transformation has begun emphatically and I acknowledge and congratulate the business sector on its contribution to the research and development effort. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister give an answer that everything is glorious in the area of New Zealand’s investment in research and development when a leading expert namely James Dyson as published by the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 talked about this country heading straight for the Third World given its current level of investment and lack of understanding of competitive taxation policy for research and development? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The author is clearly and usefully out of date. 
Taxation—Inflation Compensation 
10.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In light of the tax cuts in the Australian Budget giving every worker a tax cut partly by lifting the tax thresholds to compensate for inflation does he believe it is fair to compensate workers for inflation; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I think the assumption in the question is incorrect. As the editorial in the  
Australian Financial Review 
 says all Mr Costello is doing is giving back “some” bracket creep. Of course in Australia there is a much more steeply progressive taxation system; roughly speaking below $36200 Australian tax is lower than New Zealand’s and above that level it is higher than New Zealand’s. This Government’s approach when it considers it prudent to do so is to address tax issues on a more targeted basis to low and middle income earners. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Minister know that to compensate taxpayers in New Zealand for inflation the low tax threshold should be lifted from $9500 to $13200 the $38000 threshold should be lifted to $41700 and the $60000 threshold should be lifted to $65000; and does he accept that his failure to adjust the tax thresholds has meant he has increased the real income tax paid by working families and what is fair about that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The total tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) has risen slightly under this Government over the last year or so largely because of the growth of the economy and also because of some temporary factors. I note that tomorrow’s forecast will show that proportion falling back to around the 30 percent mark which is well below the OECD average for tax revenue as a proportion of GDP. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is all very interesting but it had nothing to do with what the Minister knows about the tax thresholds. Can I take it that he does not know about them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It actually does have a great deal to do with it because the proportion of GDP that tax revenue takes in is the best expression of how much of the country’s income the Government is taking proportionately. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What areas will the Government be highlighting in tomorrow’s Budget in relation to tax? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The primary areas that will be highlighted tomorrow relate to taxation as it relates to encouraging investment in New Zealand from outside and also issues relating to tax compliance costs of small and medium sized businesses. 
Rod Donald 
: Given that the Minister has said that his priority is tax relief for low and middle income earners why will he not implement the Green Party’s proposal for a tax-free threshold at the bottom of the income tax scale bringing New Zealand into line with several OECD countries and giving low-income families in particular the pay-packet boost that they deserve? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Comparing tax rates between countries is one of the most difficult tasks there is. Many countries have some form of social security or payroll tax which often starts at the first dollar of income. So although their income tax rates may have a tax-free area they may well have social security taxes that do not have a tax-free area at the front end. Of course New Zealand does not separate out hypothecated social security taxes. In any case as I am sure the member is aware in order to achieve rough fiscal neutrality if there is to be a large tax-free area at the front end there has to be a steep increase in the rates paid at the upper levels. 
Hon David Carter 
: Given the Minister’s answer to Mr Prebble’s question that the best method of measuring tax collection is as a percentage of GDP how can the Minister credibly argue—as he did in the House last week—that New Zealand enjoys lower taxes than Australia when the total tax take in Australia as a percentage of GDP is 31 percent whereas in New Zealand it is 36 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is confusing Government revenue with the Government’s tax take. 
Waitangi Tribunal—Inquiries 
11.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does she consider that Waitangi Tribunal inquiries are being completed in a timely fashion? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes. 
Murray Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that inquiries have been completed in a timely fashion when the Department for Courts assessment of the new approach inquiry process makes it clear that resolution of claims by 2010 will occur only if the Government provides greater financial resourcing to enable it to do so? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government in 2002 committed $1.5 million to support that process and we can I am sure look forward to some good news tomorrow. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does the Minister expect the Waitangi Tribunal to receive extra funding in the near future to ensure that its inquiry process—so critical to the final settlement of claims—is able to keep pace with the Crown’s negotiations with central North Island iwi in respect of their hundred or more claims which are scheduled to reach formal agreement within 2 years as indicated in her address to claimants on 23 April? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member will know the answer to her question tomorrow. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Could she enlighten the House on the pace of settlements that the Government has been able improve upon? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government has been able to make considerable progress through the settlement of claims and at the moment we have increased the pace of settlements to the unprecedented rate of two deeds of settlement yearly. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister clarify whether the $5.5 million of additional funding for the treaty settlement process will be directed to the Waitangi Tribunal rather than to the Office of Treaty Settlements given that in the last year the Office of Treaty Settlements underspent its operational budget by almost $3 million an amount equivalent to half the Waitangi Tribunal’s total operational funding? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member is correct that funding is required both for the tribunal process and for direct negotiations. Funding is being directed to both those parts of the settlement process. 
Murray Smith 
: Given the Minister’s advice concerning greater resourcing of the tribunal will she commit herself to doing all that she can to ensure that enough resourcing is provided to the tribunal to implement the new approach for all claims given her promise to the House on 17 October 2002 that if the Government could resolve historical grievances before 2010 it would? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. 
Murray Smith 
: Given the Minister’s commitment to assisting the tribunal to complete its investigations by the 2010 deadline is she willing to commit herself to a target date of 2015 by which to have 90 percent of historical treaty claims fully settled; if not what date is she prepared to target? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am confident that we will still be the Government at that time and yes we will put forward our best endeavours to be able to achieve that target. 
Murray Smith 
: How does the Minister intend to address the concerns expressed in the assessment of the new approach inquiry process that there are insufficient experienced historians skilled inquiry facilitation personnel and historical report writers all of whom are vital to the process? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: We are in the process at the moment of trying to refine the processes and align them better with the process through the tribunal and direct negotiations to make sure that the resources available are used efficiently and productively. 
Murray Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Department for Courts assessment of the new approach inquiry processes of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
Document not tabled. 
Biotechnology—Regulation 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will she support changes to the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that are complementary to the changes recommended to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 by the Biotechnology Taskforce “to ensure New Zealand has a world class regulatory system that … is quick and cost efficient”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The New Organisms and Other Matters Bill is now before the select committee and I will take that committee’s recommendations into consideration. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Noting that in the Minister’s press release of 8 May 2003 she stated that the words “cultural landscapes” and “spiritual” should be removed from the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) because “they created unnecessary uncertainty” I ask whether she will now make a conscious decision to apply the same logic and remove similar confusing phrases relating to cultural and spiritual effects from the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: “Spiritual” is within the call-in provision of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) it was within an extended definition of historic heritage. They are quite different contexts. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a specific question: would she remove it? She did not answer. Simply talking about the subject matter then saying that that addresses the question does not obviate the need actually to answer a question that has been asked. A direct question was asked. She must know the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister could perhaps elaborate just a little on her answer. She does not have to give “a direct answer”. However I am sure she can address the question. [ 
Interruption]  
That member is lucky today—very lucky. I am on my feet. The Minister could perhaps just address the question as originally asked. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Because the word “spiritual” is used in different contexts: one in the Resource Management Act in the definition of historic heritage; and one as a provision for call-in in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I do not expect that it will be removed. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What reactions to the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill has the Minister heard of? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: During the first reading debate on the bill all speakers in this House spoke in favour of the bill except of course for the Green Party. Even the leader of the National Party spoke in favour of the bill saying how important it was for New Zealand’s future biotechnology. Clearly however he has no sway in his caucus because when it came to the vote the National Party consciously or unconsciously voted against the bill. 
John Carter 
: I was going to leave this till later but I now admit to making a mistake. I voted incorrectly and I seek the leave of the House to correct the vote to 27 in favour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly fair comment. The member has sought the leave of the House to change a vote that was made on behalf of his party. Does anyone have any objection to that course being followed? 
John Carter 
: In favour instead of against. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The vote is to be changed to “in favour” instead of “against”. There is no objection. We will come back with new numbers and I will announce it to the House accordingly but that has been given the leave of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think that a world-class regulatory system would establish strict liability for any harm caused regardless of whether the law had been broken instead of letting the cost of any disaster fall on society at large as the bill proposes? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: A world-class regulatory system has actually been devised in this bill for some liability not the liability that the member has envisaged there. 
Larry Baldock 
: In the light of the biotechnology task force recommendations for changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act will she consider amending the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill to ensure the Bioethics Council is used to complement existing Environmental Risk Management Authority processes—thereby assisting in the timely progress of applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—and does not become a source of duplication? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Bioethics Council is designed to be the Government’s future watch and will not look at individual applications which is the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s responsibility. I think the council’s task is almost in line with action 18 of the biotechnology task force. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to ask a further supplementary question as I understood from my whips that we had not as yet— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a paper regarding the Minister’s press release of 8 May where she said referring to spiritual and cultural landscapes: “The removal of these words is sensible because they created unnecessary uncertainty.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that paper. Is there any objection? There is. 
General Debates 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today it is time to reveal to all New Zealanders once and for all that the minority Labour Government is being led not by a Teflon lady but by a tinselled time-server. In fact this is no longer a Labour Government and its hangers-on in the other parties do not really matter. Savage Fraser and Kirk will be spinning in their graves so fast they could be hooked up to the national grid. There has been a political sea change in New Zealand in the last 2 months and we saw it straight after Easter. We can tell by the frightened faces of the Beehive drones and the MPs around her. They know that their so-called heroine of “Helengrad” has become the queen bee of crisis. Some obsequious self-serving obedient courtiers in the media have given her the longest honeymoon in our country’s political history but even they now realise that one just cannot silk-purse a sow’s ear. 
Let me list the crises we have in this country today. We have a power crisis. Everyone knows that but the Prime Minister—but she has gas for her cooking and heating so it is OK. We have a law and order crisis. We are the only country in the Western World where crime pays and if the grossly under-resourced police do catch serious offenders this Government gives them deferred sentences into home detention—offenders like drug dealers murderers rapists and violent offenders—and beyond 100 of them as we heard today. It is a slap in the face for the victims the taxpayers and all law-abiding citizens. 
We have a health crisis. Tens upon tens of thousands of New Zealanders are denied hospital treatment and dumped out of hospitals whilst we treat non-taxpaying overstayers at huge cost to the New Zealand taxpayer. But worse still we lie about their status. Someone who will never work we call a worker while tens of thousands of New Zealanders miss out. We have an education crisis. We have prostituted our secondary and tertiary system for foreign students whilst thousands of New Zealanders leave school not being able to read or write properly. We have an immigration crisis. Three-hundred thousand people in New Zealand today do not speak English. 
Larry Baldock 
: How many? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Three-hundred thousand do not speak English. We kick out qualified English-speaking professionals who could contribute and who are contributing to our economy but we welcome some Middle Eastern takeaway bar worker who cannot speak English. That is Lianne Dalziel’s policy. We have serious Asian crime in Auckland. It is up 750 percent and “United Nations Helen” buries her head in a beach of crime and denies it is all happening. She denies all the facts. Policemen go public in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 outlining their predicament in trying to get on top of crime in Auckland and she and her Minister of Justice—both from the same fringes of political science academia—claim it is not happening. They are not fit for their jobs. One cannot say though that the Prime Minister is losing it because she has never had it. We all know that. If we look at every election campaign we see that she never goes public she does not hold meetings and only an obsequious media umbrella disguises her inability to do her job. 
 But the Teflon is coming off. Every day since Easter she has come into the Chamber and got creamed. In a long political career even longer in the case of my colleague Dail Jones we have never seen any leader get done so badly. She is so bad she is making Jenny Shipley look good and I say: “That’s real bad!” She cannot talk straight she cannot talk direct and Parliament has sunk to a new low because with Helen Clark the buck stops with the drain-cleaner. With Helen Clark the buck never stops with her or any Minister but the drain-cleaner. She is overseas strutting the world stage and so seduced by her self-importance that foreign policy is made on the hoof. Now we have one ally left and it is called France. As they say in the Tui’s advertisement: “Yeah right!” I can say from experience that around the Copperfields consultations and around the clusters in the corridors and the sourness of the sisterhood amidst growing criticism by the men in the Labour caucus things are starting to go—not like they used to be. As for the Maori Labour members— 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to correct the division list on the first reading of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. The Ayes are 105 the Noes are 9. 
General Debates 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 That was a speech that shows why Winston Peters is considered by many to be a de facto Leader of the Opposition. It also shows why Winston Peters will always remain in Opposition. Winston Peters was some time a member of a Government. He was a lamb in Government but he has become a lion in Opposition. All the issues that he has talked about today he had the opportunity as Treasurer to do something about but he did nothing. It will be very galling for Winston Peters to know that in respect of all the issues he identified this Government has done fantastically well. For example unemployment is at an all-time low in this country—an 18-year low. We have the highest level of apprenticeships and the highest record level of growth. Winston Peters talks tough on crime—but when during the time of his Government did we see someone sentenced to 33 years in jail? When did we see anybody sentenced to 27 years in jail? That has happened under this Government. Those penalties are the toughest penalties to be handed down in my lifetime. This Government is committed to building three more jails. Do we hear any support from the Opposition? Not on your nelly! The Opposition joins the legions of the opponents of the jails. This Government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and we are going to get results. 
Winston Peters wants to move along the aisle to where Bill English sits because he wants to be the Leader of the Opposition and he has every chance—because what does Bill English stand for? He made some of the most extraordinary statements I have seen in all my life from a politician campaigning to be the Prime Minister. When I looked at his campaign I thought: “What’s that guy campaigning for?” This is a man who spent years in politics and still does not know what he is campaigning for. He leads a party that once had a proud record in building cohesiveness in our society. I admired Duncan MacIntyre. He could speak Maori. He was respected by Maori and he tried to make sure that New Zealand was a cohesive society. I did not agree with a lot of his politics but a lot of it was good. This National Party wants to create division in New Zealand with its attack on Maori. Bill English and other National members want to attack Maori seats. As Ranginui Walker said they want to get brownie points by attacking Maori. They want to destroy the history we have had—over 100 years of Maori seats. Everybody in New Zealand accepts them. But National wants to take the Maori seats away unilaterally. I say to the National Party that Maori should have the seats as long as Maori want them—and those were the words of the National Party in 1993. That is what Tony Ryall said. That is what all the National Party speakers said as well as the leader of the ACT party Richard Prebble. That is what they said. But now they want to beat up on Maori and Maori seats and they use the phrase “One state of citizenship” or “One citizenship’’ and that is code for “One nation”. 
The National Party flip-flops. I want to hear a clear statement from National about whether it will be running candidates for Maori seats in the next election—that is the challenge. Will there be rhetoric simply to get the votes? Are National members going to do that or will they listen to what Tau Henare says and not do that? Or will National do another flip-flop like it did with Iraq? The National Party had three positions on Iraq. We had a flip here a flop there and a flip somewhere else. National supported the Government in sending the SAS into Afghanistan then it wanted them to come home again then it said it was a mistake. Where does the National Party stand on the issue of Maori seats? We want to hear a definitive statement. Will the National Party be standing candidates in the Maori seats at the next election? We want to see whether that will be National’s stated policy. 
The Government deserves a strong Opposition. We need someone to hold this Government to account. But only part of the Opposition is working and that is Winston Peters and New Zealand First. The ACT party is here only part time; it has not cast nine votes all this year. It is here only part time. It is a part-time Opposition that we have from the ACT party and there are flip-flops in the National Party. Fran O’Sullivan wrote very poetically on 7 April when she wrote about Bill English. She wrote that the National leader Bill English is dead meat; left hanging far too long to ever again provide a tempting morsel. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 It is no wonder that David Cunliffe yesterday said that it was one of the worst days of his life. It is no wonder that yesterday around the corridors David Cunliffe was so upset at not making Cabinet. When we heard that speech from the new Cabinet Minister we saw that there was no vision no mention of his new portfolios and no pride in his new job at all. Instead he came into the Chamber parading his new shirt and was content to stand here and shout and rant and rave. I have to say it is no wonder that David Cunliffe Nanaia Mahuta and Judith Tizard—all the people who thought they were going to be in Cabinet—managed to find something else to do other than listen to that Minister. 
I say to the House and to New Zealanders that we are starting to see a trend from this Prime Minister. It started with an incident that was referred to as the “paintergate” incident when the Prime Minister just over a year ago stumbled on a new phrase. The new phrase for her was: “I have no personal recollection of that event.” Firstly she had signed a painting. She had no personal recollection of that at all. She did not recall signing it. Then when it came to her attention that she had signed not just one painting but about half a dozen paintings she said that perhaps she could recall it but lots of other people had done it—everyone had done it in fact. Then of course everybody became nobody and suddenly in the Prime Minister’s terms it was “time to move on”. So we did move on. We moved on to the “corngate” affair. 
In July of last year just before the election campaign the Prime Minister when asked about a release of genetically modified corn responded that she did not recall it. She said that her memory would be pretty stretched in that area. She said we were expecting her to dredge up from her memory but that she had no recollection. 
That is what she said about “corngate”. Then when suddenly the documents started to fall off trucks people started to talk about the release and the requests made under the Official Information Act started to come out the Prime Minister said: “It’s time to put this behind us and move on. It is time to move on.” And we did. We moved on to December of last year and Gregory Fortuin’s mediation with the Alliance and to the Alliance meltdown—and all that became public. The Prime Minister was asked in the House when she first became aware of Mr Fortuin’s involvement with the Alliance negotiations. She said that she was not aware of it until after his involvement began. When she was asked when it began she said: “I have no recollection of being briefed on that matter.” When asked whether she had any meetings and briefings on it she said that she probably did but she had no recollections of them. Mr Fortuin by this stage had gone and it was time to move on. And we did move on. 
We moved on with the OECD growth targets and with the revelations this year that the Government had decided in 2001 to talk about New Zealand reaching the top half of the OECD by 2011. That being a goal that being in a foreword that was signed by the Prime Minister that being set in concrete and that being the vision the Prime Minister was asked about it. She started firm and strong like a Prime Minister who says what she believes and said: “No time frame was established.” She then moved to: “I have no recollection of this event.” 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 53/2. The constant barrage that my colleague had to endure from the member for Otaki who shifted his seat to better position himself for interjections is something that this House has had a long custom of discouraging. I ask that you speak to the member about the fact that if he is going to change his seat he should not use that to his advantage to interject on members who are carrying out their contribution to the general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. He is quite right. It had crossed my mind that Darren Hughes had changed seats specifically for the general debate. But I guess if I can stand it members can too. It is the general debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of that 5-minute contribution by the deputy leader of the National Party there was over 3¾ minutes of continuous shouting from members of the Government. I took note because it was just a shambles. In other words there was shouting from Government members for more than half the time. We are supposed to live in a democracy where a Government can be held to account in this House but how can that be possible when a member for over two-thirds of his speech by my rough calculation is subject to constant barraging? If our Parliament is to deteriorate to that extent we may as well shut up shop. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Darren Hughes to cease the interjections. They were a bit loud but it is the general debate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not aware of anywhere in the Standing Orders where there is a special provision for the general debate. The point of order raised by the honourable member Mr Power was quite correct. There is no special provision in the Standing Orders that means there is some lower standard for the general debate. Sure it is robust but the Standing Orders still stand and they make it quite clear that members cannot reposition themselves to gain benefit for interjection. I am glad that you have brought the matter to the attention of the offending member but I was concerned with the suggestion in your ruling that there is some special lower standard for the general debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 It has been a longstanding Speaker’s ruling that interjections will be rare and reasonable—the latest Speaker has added to it—and perhaps occasionally witty. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: These are 5-minute contributions. The reason I chose not to take a point of order during the speech made by the deputy leader of the National Party was that that only adds to the breaking up of a member’s speech. Does the Speaker’s ruling that interjections are to be rare and reasonable apply to the general debate; if it does can you please enforce it? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
I cannot help but observe the double standard being exhibited by the speaker from the Opposition given the extraordinary 5-minute barrage my colleague Mr Barker faced during his contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. These speeches are very short speeches. If members could show much more restraint it would be appreciated but it is entirely up to the members. I take the member’s point—it is a point that occurred to me too. The barrage against Rick Barker was of the same intensity as the barrage from the Government benches when the Hon Roger Sowry was speaking; maybe a little louder. It is entirely up to members. I ask them to show restraint because the speeches are of only 5 minutes duration. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I want to discuss the results of the  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 survey announced on 4 April in relation to the health behaviours of our year 9 to 13 youth. The study covered 9570 students from 133 randomly selected secondary schools across New Zealand in 2001. I raise the matter today because serious issues were revealed in those survey results and I do not believe it is satisfactory to ignore them. The survey covered health choices such as wearing seat belts drinking alcohol smoking cigarettes smoking marijuana and sexual intercourse. Each of those categories bears further analysis as do the questions that relate to violence suicide and family life that were covered by the survey. 
Today I will focus on one issue and make some comments in relation to the current sexual education programmes in our schools. When the sexual activity results were announced in the media the first commentator said something like: “Well there are not as many sexually active kids as we all thought. It’s not as bad as we were led to believe.” The survey revealed that two-thirds of our young people had never had sexual intercourse. If people were expecting that the majority of young people were sexually active then the results could be seen as positive. It is certainly a point worth making that not every young person is “doing it” as the sitcoms on television continually try to tell us. However my thoughts upon hearing those media comments were immediately directed towards the 33 percent of young people who are doing it. 
I have to say that further examination of the statistics reveals a more depressing figure. The two-thirds figure is an average across the ages represented in the survey. It was actually revealed that 16 percent of our 13-year-olds 33 percent of our 15-year-olds and 48 percent of our 17-year-olds are sexually active. That has to be tragic for our nation. Who is weeping for our young people in this nation? Who will protect their innocence and fight for their right to have a childhood? Would any of us in this House who are parents really want our 13-year-old children to be included in those percentages? 
Last weekend I attended a wedding where a young couple had chosen abstinence in their relationship before marriage. What a stunning ceremony as the couple exchanged their vows! Statistics and surveys all over the world overwhelmingly give them a better chance of a happy sexually fulfilled future. Do our youth get told that what happens in the back seat of a car at 13 15 and 17 cannot be compared to what can happen when sex is supported by commitment intimacy and a life-long relationship? 
On my return from Sweden last year I briefly visited Washington and met Dr Wade Horne who is the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services with the Bush administration. He was able to inform me that teenage pregnancy in the US is showing substantial decline. I asked what his programme was that was making a difference. He said: “We are simply telling the young people that they can postpone sexual involvement until marriage and the young people are responding to the challenge in great numbers.” Our young people need to be told the truth and the truth is that condoms will reduce the risk if one is sexually active but they do not guarantee safe sex. 
The survey further revealed that 29 percent of the female survey participants aged 13 to 17 had thought about killing themselves in the last year. Ten percent had tried in some way or another to take their own lives. How many of these precious young lives came from the 30 percent that had already been sexually active? Did no one tell them that a piece of rubber will not protect their hearts? Later today we will continue debating in this House whether to legalise prostitution. Will this be the future career choice for our next generation? 
Many excellent programmes are being used in schools in parts of the country. I applaud the work of Parenting With Confidence the Family Education Network—with its postponing sexual involvement programmes—and Campaign For Our Children. These programmes must raise their own funds or require school boards to pay from their tight budgets. I ask the Government to give school boards the choice as to which programmes they wish to use in their schools by allowing the funding to be provided on a fairer distribution basis than the current system which favours the Family Planning Association. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to stress the importance of veracity—old-fashioned truthfulness—from the executive wing of any Government. When Ministers or officials of any Government fail—in public interviews or in the Parliament of that particular country—to be fully truthful then that is the precursor to loss of trust and without trust there is no integrity. Without truth openness and transparency the very democracy we cherish is placed in danger. This week in the House that truthfulness has been brought into question. It appears that Ministers of the Crown under pressure do make it up. They are prepared to expand the truth or conversely to be very economic with the truth to the point where truth and the meaning of truth are lost. I put it to all members that when we face that situation democracy is undermined. 
The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was actually introduced by this Government. It did not go to a select committee. It was a conscious decision of the executive of Government to put it in this bill to introduce it into this Parliament under urgency and bypass the select committee process. What we had was the Prime Minister of this Government—the Prime Minister of the country actually but the head of this Government—telling the nation on an interview with Paul Holmes on Newstalk 1ZB that the references to “ancestral landscapes” and “spiritual resources” were inserted by the select committee. That just cannot be because that bill did not go to the select committee. It is true that the previous bill the Resource Management Amendment Bill contained those references—which I believe are very offensive—but that committee actually had a Government majority. It was a Labour majority so whichever way one wants to cut the mustard that was the policy decision of that Labour Government—to introduce nebulous terms like “ancestral landscapes” “ancestral lands” and “spiritual resources” into our planning laws. When challenged on that it is saying that various papers came over and did not make reference to them. 
Well I am sorry but the Prime Minister said that on Monday this week her department requested that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage supply her with all the papers relating to the definition of heritage in that Act. It was then told that the references to “ancestral landscapes” “spiritual resources” and “cultural landscapes” were not mentioned. They are contained in the definition in the Act. That is an extraordinary situation. Today I invited the Prime Minister to table those papers so that Opposition members could check the veracity of that statement. What did we get? We got obfuscation—“I’m sort of looking at the papers.” Having claimed that she had researched them thoroughly and no references were contained in them we are now told that they are sort of being examined and pored over and will be released in good time. Why were those papers not tabled today? That challenges the very veracity—and certainly the openness and transparency—of this Government. Government members are sneaky and deceitful. 
We have had numerous incidents when this Government in a corner has resorted to deceit and sneakiness to try to get off the hook. “Paintergate” was a classic example of that. That was a dishonest act by our Prime Minister—there is no question about it. Last week in the House the Prime Minister made a claim that “everyone”—in fact I have the words here—was looking at whether there was going to be “a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links through to the Chinese.” She said “everyone” but she was challenged to name one. She avoided two questions to name one then when pushed said: “It’s perfectly clear to any student of the English language that ‘everyone’ is used in the generic sense.” So everyone becomes nobody. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that speech the senior Government whip Mr Benson-Pope yelled out across the House: “You are nothing but a bunch of crooks!”. I think it was directed at the member who was on his feet but it was said in a way that reflected directly on you. I believe that is grossly offensive and he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I did not use the word “you” and reflect on the Speaker. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I did not hear the comment but it makes it worse to find that the member did use those words and that he directed them at me. If he did and he is nodding his head confirming that I certainly take offence. He should stand withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Shirley for assisting me. The member was speaking so vigorously that I did not hear the comment. But the comment has been heard and the member indicates that it was said. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the course of the 5-minute contribution from Mr Shirley I took note that there were 37 interjections. Twelve of those were made by the chief Government whip and nine were made by Jill Pettis who is a junior whip. My understanding is that whips should be setting an example. My point to you is that if the Speaker’s ruling is that interjections are to be rare and reasonable does the Speaker believe that 37 interjections in a 5-minute speech complies with thatruling? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not. It is quite clear that they would not comply with that ruling. But in a case like that if the interjecting is not upsetting the speaker which it clearly was not—and in most cases in the general debate it assists the speaker—then there is no problem. But if members are having difficulty following the speech because of the interjections then I thank the member for raising that matter. However I go back to when this debate started and the Hon Rick Barker was speaking. I did not keep count of how many interjections there were but they were much louder. They were not as great in number but they were louder. They were drowned out because Mr Barker’s speech was very loud. It was not aggressive but it kind of drowned out the interjections. I point out to the two whips—and I did call order on both of them while they were interjecting—that they have a responsible position in this House more so than ordinary members and I ask them to please desist. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for your balance and protection regarding this side of the House. I say from the outset that I welcome the Opposition’s interjections. I eat them for breakfast as we all do on this side of the House. Every time they open their mouths they are condemned. It is just another illustration to the New Zealand people of what a bereft useless group of whingers and whiners they are. All they can do is squawk from that side. All that the deputy leader of the Opposition—the little squawk box formerly from Otaki—can do is sit there and squawk away. Well I eat him for breakfast and I enjoy it because it shows them up for what they are. 
As for the ACT contribution I would never in my wildest dreams accuse anyone in the ACT party of being a crook especially Mr Hide—the only honest man in politics! Mr Shirley stood up and talked about integrity and truthfulness. What a laugh it is to be hearing about integrity and truthfulness from that lot when we recall Owen Jennings and pyramid schemes Rodney Hide and dodgy investment schemes physical indiscipline and intimidation by Mr Hide on Waiheke Island—in the odd toilet I am told—Donna Awatere-Huata and her scandal and the Pipitea Street scandal. That genius from the ACT party thinks he is being credible. He thinks he is convincing New Zealanders that he is a credible bloke and that the people should back his party when he stands up and talks about integrity and truthfulness. Give me a break! I am absolutely gobsmacked. I am speechless on that count. 
Today’s general debate is another example of the stark contrast between the party that is bereft of ideas—that is the National Party; a party of whingers and it is hard to attack a party that has no ideas—and the Labour Party which has notched up substantial achievements. Labour enjoys—and I say this not in an arrogant but a very humble way—the support of 50 percent of our countrymen and women. 
Jill Pettis 
: It has 52 percent. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh it has 52 percent support—I lose count—up against a party of mediocrity. 
The deputy leader of the Opposition took the first call for the National Party because the Leader of the Opposition did not want to. The deputy leader is the trumpet boy for the National Party. Could he tell us the secret of his success over the last couple of years?He complained about the interjections from Mr Darren Hughes. If I were Mr Sowry I would too because it was Mr Hughes who buried him at the last election. Maybe in a couple of years Mr Hughes’ housekeeper or somebody else will stand and bury him again. Mr Sowry—the “Al Bundy” from Otaki—should go back to Hannahs and sell shoes because I am sure he is an expert at that. He is not cutting the mustard in here and the people of New Zealand see it every time he gets up. They just giggle as we do over here. All the Opposition can do in a general debate is complain and whimper about interjections. Well come on team! Where are they? Let us hear them. They are all very silent. They are like stunned mullets. 
Let us look at National’s leadership. There is a leadership crisis in the National Party and we know it. Mr English is on the rocks on the skids. Don Brash wants the job and would crawl over powdered glass in bare feet to get it. He wants to be the first statue to fly over the pigeon and he might well be. He will get there. National members have tried everything for weeks. Do they have any policy ideas? No. Have they made any policy announcements? No. All they have done is try to attack the Prime Minister on every little minor issue. They will have a go at every little grubby bit of dirt. The one thing they have not been able to do is knock her off her perch and convince the people of New Zealand to lose faith in her. The people of New Zealand have faith in the Prime Minister and that has been demonstrated. The Opposition should give up—they are on a loser. They have tried it for months; they blew an election apart trying it. I say to Opposition members: “Attacking the Prime Minister team does not work.” 
Maybe Mr Sowry the great genius of the Opposition can go back with that other genius and tactically brilliant general Mr McCully who did a brilliant job at the last election and circle the wagons for Custer’s last stand. Maybe they can actually work out that their tactics are not working for tomorrow we will write another Budget. Tomorrow there will be yet another opportunity for us as a Government in a humble but not arrogant way to show the stark difference between the Labour Party—a party of ideas a party that keeps its word a party that delivers 4.4 percent economic growth a party that delivers the lowest unemployment for 15 to 20 years a party that delivers 5000 apprenticeships for our young folk—and the National Party which has been blown apart and decimated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Nothing could be more amusing than hearing a Labour member talking about this Government and Prime Minister keeping their word when example after example shows that we can do anything but trust the word of the Prime Minister. Time after time we see a lack of accountability. This Parliament is about accountability and whether it comes to the power crisis whether it comes to important issues like resource management law whether it comes to important issues about the goals and the economic goals that this country has this Prime Minister has been found time and time again to be what can at least be described as economical with the truth. 
What we found out is that the official papers continually contradict what the Prime Minister is telling the people of this country. There is a blame game going on. When they found out that the silly spiritual cultural and ancestral heritage provisions of the Resource Management Act were no good who was blamed? It was the select committee we were told that had got it wrong. It was the officials who had got it wrong; it was nothing to do with the Prime Minister! Then we found out that the Prime Minster had signed out a very specific instruction that those provisions be included. 
John Carter 
: She said she couldn’t remember. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She said she could not remember. I have to say that that is not good enough. If the Prime Minister put her signature to a piece of paper instructing officials then she has to be held to account. I say that we cannot trust this Prime Minister’s signature and that is an indictment on the standards of this Parliament and this country. I simply ask this: can we judge the Prime Minster by the standards that she set herself? 
Jill Pettis 
: Eighteen percent and falling! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Jill Pettis that when Helen Clark was the Leader of the Opposition what was the standard that she sought of Jenny Shipley? Oh she said: “They’re a bit tough now. Don’t want to be judged by the standards I set for Jenny Shipley!” Because it was simply Jenny Shipley’s oral word. Never was it found out that Jenny Shipley dishonoured her signature. Yet on five separate occasions we have now caught the Prime Minister out where her signature is not to be trusted. 
I ask members to take one of the most important issues that should be at the core of the Budget. The Prime Minister signed out a statement that said the goal of her Government was to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD within 10 years. That is what her signature said. But she stood up in the House and said: “No it was nothing to do with me. Never did that—that was some official. That was someone else. Don’t blame me.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: “I wasn’t conscious.”! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She said: “I wasn’t conscious.” but I say “Not good enough!” We then come to substantive issues. I say that one of the reasons that the people of New Zealand are treating with contempt the Government’s aim to try to get New Zealanders to save power is that the situation is everyone else’s fault! It is not Pete Hodgson’s fault; it is not the Prime Minister’s fault that they had a crisis in 2001; it is not their fault! I say to the people opposite that they have been in Government for 4 years—it is their fault. They must take responsibility. They must have accountability and that is what members on this side of the House ask. 
Now I turn to the issue of “corngate”. Right in the middle of the election campaign the Prime Minister says things—because she did not tell the truth. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Did the Prime Minister tell the truth I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove when she said there were further tests? We got the official papers— 
Jill Pettis 
: We won you lost too bad! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it was lies you see I say to Jill Pettis. The Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand that there were further tests and we at the select committee have been searching through the papers looking for more tests. They do not exist. The Prime Minister of New Zealand in the middle of an election campaign was economical with the truth. I say to members opposite that they should stop telling porkies. Chris Carter is not prepared to take accountability for his decision to decline a new power station on the West Coast. He said it was the court when he got into a tight spot and was caught out. I say to members opposite that they should start telling the truth. When they get in a tight spot they should defend their decisions. They should not try to blame others because accountability in this Parliament matters. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I would like to speak in this debate today—before tomorrow because tomorrow the country will hardly blink an eye with our prudent fiscal management and New Zealanders will sleep well in their beds confident that this is a Government that admires the principles of veracity and accountability that our Opposition has recognised here today. This country knows what it has got. It is a country with hands-on leadership out there in the electorate. Every electorate is exhausted with busy Ministers rolling up their sleeves and going out to the people. We have projects coming out of our eyeballs in every electorate looking at crime reduction strategies building up primary health organisations looking at truancy and getting on with the work. We have great policy strategy long-term vision and teamwork. 
It is tragic when the deputy leader of the Opposition has to acknowledge us humble back-benchers and worry about which of us will come through with an opportunity outside of Cabinet. Opposition members cannot attack our front bench; it is too strong and they certainly should leave the leadership alone. 
I turn now to our leadership. We have brave and committed leadership leading New Zealand Inc. into the global environment. Our leader is intelligent and astute as we have seen with her handling of Iraq. Also with the America’s Cup we will be out there marketing New Zealand on the world stage. We have a leader who gets behind the tough issues and remains committed and consistent. 
I want to talk about one tough issue and that is the Maori seats which are very dear to our hearts. Our Maori MPs are certainly not second-class MPs and we on this side are proud to have a Maori caucus and that is thanks to the Maori seats. That invisible man—the Leader of the Opposition—“Mr Wiremu Pakeha” is about to abolish the Maori seats and it is going down like a lead balloon in our electorate. I want to read for members— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is well known that according to the Standing Ordersmembers have to call members by their correct name. If we called the member on her feet what her colleagues call her that would be out of order. I ask you to ask the member to call our Leader of the Opposition by his correct name. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I forgot the name of the Leader of the Opposition and I am sorry about that. I want to read to members an article from a very esteemed Maori journalist in our local papers: “If you are in politics and out of power and out of the loop and you are looking for a headline then the best cheap shot to line up is a Maori one. The New Zealand First obsession is called the so-called treaty industry and ACT seems to just fire at anything that builds capacity moves and is Maori.” 
As a country we are not yet ready for the argument to abolish seats for Maori in this country and I think it will doom the Leader of the Opposition to invisibility for the long term. Ask the people what they want and the people will say by going on the Maori seats or on the general roll. That is what they do. Maori will decide. My children will decide and it is certainly not an issue for a referendum. 
Simon Power 
: Have a referendum. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No they will decide which seats they will go on and they have and they have chosen differently in my family. I have two on the general roll and one on the Maori roll and that is their choice. We will not change that and we will stand beside our Maori seats. 
Until we as a country realise until we have settled the treaty settlements—and we are on an absolute roll here with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—and until we work out our destiny on arguments which at the moment are based purely on Maori representation to the Privy Council until we sort out the Supreme Court Bill the settlement the Maori seats and whether they choose to go on it we are not ready for one standard for this nation. My children are not ready for it yet. They are asserting that they want to take part in their own destiny. 
I also point out some of the other issues on health that are really rather peculiar. Sadly the Opposition is leaning on back-to-the-future policies and that is reflected by the National spokesperson on health in a letter dated 6 May stating: “I say to GPs retain your independent practitioner associations. National sets your right to set fees.” Goodness gracious! National is supporting the old network. The Opposition has not woken up to the fact that it is growing public health organisations around the country and by the end of this year we will have 40 percent of New Zealanders registered with a public health organisation and some very excited general practitioners out there. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There was one part of the contribution from the previous speaker from Labour that was sensible and that is when she said that the people should decide about Maori seats and general seats. She said that the people should decide did she not? We should have a referendum. Not only should we have a referendum on that particularly important constitutional issue but we should have a referendum on the other constitutional issue facing this country and that is the abolition of the Privy Council and its replacement with a politically correct little group appointed by the Hon Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General. 
The rule of law is absolutely the most important feature of our cultural identity of our country of our way of life and of our constitution. The rule of law is under extreme threat from this Government and I shall give members the facts. In 1990 5276 commercial filings in the High Courts of New Zealand took place. Last year there were 1300. That is about a quarter and there is a reason for that. Lawyers and people who use the courts have completely lost faith in that Attorney-General in that party and in its court system. What has she got for it? She is going to give us some little patsy group that she wants to put together. She has come up with all sorts of little arguments about it. 
I am happy to quote from Alan Galbraith QC one of the top commercial lawyers in this country who has spoken about his concern about the erosion of the rule of law. He said that in practice much of the real law is now put into arbitrations and the reason is that they have lost faith in our court system that that Attorney-General has been administering for the last 4 years. It was that Attorney-General whom the Hon Justice Dyson Heydon a High Court judge of Australia referred to when he talked about the threat to the rule of law where judicial activism has created the present state which they said at least is not as bad in Australia as it is in New Zealand. That is what the Australian judiciary thinks about us: it is not as bad as it is in New Zealand because we have an appalling situation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr Galbraith went on to say—for that “Minister” from Wanganui who should occasionally take a call instead of screaming like some banshee. One thing I will say about that particular member from Wanganui is that she could get a job stripping the paint off the walls of Parliament should we ever wish to change the colour. Honestly what an appalling sound that cackle is. 
Mr Galbraith went on to say that it is important that the New Zealand court system maintains the integrity and confidence of the commercial community in its processes and outcomes. I know that that member might not want to hear the facts. I know that she does not want to hear any sensible argument. I see David Cunliffe the would-be Cabinet Minister who should be in his own seat because No. 1 he is interjecting out of order and he is not in Cabinet and never will be. Oh dear what a shame too bad! That Attorney-General says that we should have our own Supreme Court. Canada which has its own Supreme Court has 136 permanent appeal judges from which they select their final Court of Appeal. Australia has 37 permanent appeal court judges. 
 Do members know how many we have? We have five. That is all we have and we are trying to compete with Canada which has 136. Both of those countries Canada and Australia have federal systems. Both of them have a system where there is a constitution to protect their people. They have a constitution and a federal system. In this particular Parliament we have only one House. We have no other protection constitutionally and the Supreme Court will not be able to protect us. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise today to acknowledge a good friend and colleague in the Labour Party who has been promoted to Cabinet the Hon Rick Barker. He epitomises everything that is good and great about a Labour Party member. He was born on the West Coast—born out of the good labouring stock of the West Coast where the blood runs deep in the Labour Party and where our founding fathers of Labour begat the party. I just want to honour and acknowledge him today during the general debate in the House. 
The general debate was led off by one of the many leaders of the Opposition fragmented as they are—I think that the Tory boys over there think that he is their leader: the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He is obviously looking a bit tired and jaded. An interesting thing about the Rt Hon Winston when he walks into this House in his pinstripes dressed like a zebra—black white black white—is that he finds it very hard to strike a position. He is all over the place. The other thing is that when one sees him in question time he is a person who suffers from serial indignation and serial whingeing. After listening to Winston Peters during a couple of speeches one feels like going home and doing the proverbial with the razor blades on the wrists. But I think that the House owes it to itself to lift above that. 
The other interesting observation that I happened to make was that when Winston Peters wanders into the House we see this ragtag mob walking behind him. God bless the most professional Speaker the House has ever had: even he struggles to identify them and know them! The security personnel continue to stop them at the door and ask them who they are and whether they are part of the cleaning gang and what the hell is going on. Rumour has it that there are 13 members in the New Zealand First caucus but we know that there is only one who meets in the caucus room on a Tuesday and that is the leader. 
But notwithstanding that I do have a challenge for the Maori members of New Zealand First. They regularly rock up here and vote against Maori-related matters. They will then walk out of this House—and I find this duplicitous—and into the communities and regale with another story altogether. So let us get it right. Will they stand in the Maori seats in the next election? Will they stand as Mr Ed— 
Edwin Perry 
: No. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: “Mr Ed” up there has agreed that they will not stand in the Maori seats. I accept that because for the first time on the New Zealand First list the people in Tauranga will know that there are about six natives lining up on it. So for the first time at least they will know that on that list we have some Maori coming out of the closet and that is great. I acknowledge that today and I take the honourable members’ word—Mr Perry’s word and Mr Mark’s word—that they are not going to stand in the Maori seats at the next election. So now we have them owning up. Now when they go back into their communities they will sing a different tune. 
Edwin Perry 
: No they won’t. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes they do. I will move on to another point about the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ pogrom against immigrants and the like. He gets awfully confused over numbers and thank the Lord that he does not have the cheque-book of the nation in his hands any more and more than likely will not ever be allowed near it. Let us hope like hell that never happens because it is a scary thought. He just does not understand the numbers and if one does not understand the numbers on basic immigration one can never understand the numbers on the country’s fiscal risk and capabilities. 
I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the Attorney-General particularly in terms of treaty settlement processes. I want to acknowledge that Te Uri o Hau has been settled. I want to acknowledge that an agreement has been settled with Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I want to acknowledge the Taranaki people’s settlements. I want to acknowledge Ngati Awa on the eastern seaboard. When one puts all these together they have all come down the pipeline in a significant way. We are moving on nationhood-building processes. It has been this Attorney-General who has broken the back of it without the whisky soirées and the cigars. It has been done with some integrity and credibility and not behind closed doors. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I started out in this debate asking the question why did John Tamihere not get the job that Rick Barker got? There is a man who speaks the truth and speaks openly—but now I know why he did not get the job. He has just answered my question! 
Darren Hughes 
: Is he in Cabinet? 
RON MARK 
: Well one is in Cabinet and one is not. I want to bring to the attention of this House that right now there is a looming problem facing this country that the Government continues to ignore about which it closes its eyes buries its head in the sand and pretends that it does not exist. It is about law and order. Right now we have shown the House that there have been glaring gaps. The first gap that was brought to my attention by a businessman in Christchurch was that of deferred sentencing. This businessman came to me and asked: “How is it that a woman who embezzled my company of $100000 and got sentenced to 18 months’ jail is out on the streets wandering around and worst of all the thing that got her into trouble in the first place—playing the pokies—she is back doing in the Hoon Hay Working Men’s Club?”. Well a bit of investigation found that not only was that one person out on a deferred sentence having been sentenced to jail we now know that there are 461 people out on the streets having been sentenced by a judge to jail for the seriousness of their crimes. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How many? 
RON MARK 
: Four hundred and sixty-one! So I asked the hapless Rick Barker how this could be so? We got the answers from that man. He said that nobody who had committed a serious crime would be out on a deferred sentence or that nobody who had committed a serious crime would worst of all be on home detention and the reason people were on a deferred sentence was that they had applied for home detention. Well excuse me but at the last election in 1999 I thought 92 percent of the population said that when someone was sentenced to jail he or she would go to jail. That is not what has happened. 
But even worse today I got information from the Minister’s own office. Let us look at the crimes that these people have committed who have been given deferred sentences that allow them to be put back into the community. Are they minor offences? Well are they heck! There is one person in Wellington who committed manslaughter. Do we get any more serious than that? Probably murder and serial killing—but manslaughter! 
There are four people out on the streets who have been convicted of kidnapping and abducting people and this Government allows them to be given deferred sentences—go home stay at home with their wife and family and be at large in the community! Indecent assault—seven people! There have been 31 cases of grievous assault by people out on the street within moments of having been sentenced to jail and there are nine people convicted of serious assault. I am appalled at the Attorney-General a female who waxes lyrical about men who bash and injure women. There are five people who were convicted of threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm. If members think that is bad I will turn the page and have another look. Sixty-five people who deal in cannabis and 33 who deal with other drugs have been released into the community having been sentenced to jail. 
I find that absolutely laughable particularly in the light of the fact that last night we sat in the House and debated a Government motion that saw fit to make methamphetamine a class A drug. So we have a confused Government. Ask me if it is confused—by heck is it confused! Last night the Government said that drugs were top of the agenda. It was top of the agenda as a big offence and we need to protect our kids and community. Today we find that the Government has released 99 drug dealers into the community. 
Dail Jones 
: How many? 
RON MARK 
: Ninety-nine drug dealers were sentenced by a good judge to jail and let out into the community under this Government. Is that hard on law and order? No it is not. Has New Zealand First found out about it? Yes we have. Can they fix it? No they cannot. Can we fix it? 
Dail Jones 
: Yes we can. 
RON MARK 
: By oath we can. We will fix it and we will keep applying pressure to that hapless Government. We will keep embarrassing it in the public arena until it fixes these faults and puts them right. Because the message for this Government is that ordinary New Zealanders do not like the fact that they have put 99 known convicted drug dealers back on the streets. Ordinary New Zealanders do not like the fact that they have people who have committed manslaughter and grievous bodily harm back on the streets and they are sending this Government a loud and clear message. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is amazing is it not that that party whose member has just finished speaking says that it is going to fix it! That party was actually in coalition with the National Party and it was going to fix an awful lot of things a few years ago. All it did was fix up Mrs Shipley and give us Bill English. That is a great bonus for the country is it not? We have a completely divided Opposition—a nit-picking Opposition. 
When people have nothing to say in a debate they attack personalities. We have seen in this House over the last couple of weeks attacks on personalities not attacks on issues or on policies. We have an Opposition that is totally devoid of policy. It knows we have one of the most popular Prime Ministers ever—a Prime Minister who has integrity and who says what she thinks. All we can see from the supposedly brilliant Bill English is personal attack after personal attack—which will not wash. 
We have just had an attack from Judith Collins on the issue of the Supreme Court. I say to the National Party that it should grow up and let New Zealand grow up. New Zealand has an opportunity through the Supreme Court Bill to grow up as a nation. I thank John Tamihere for talking about our nationhood and about New Zealand being a nation. I say to the Opposition that it has a chance through the Supreme Court Bill to add to the nationhood of New Zealand. So let us see the Opposition’s mettle and let us see its support. 
I do not want to be negative but I ask where National’s policy is. We have spent a good deal of time as the Government in undoing that party’s mistakes—13000 State houses were sold off and we have to retrieve those. We have health and education systems that were bitten with the bug of privatisation. What was that doing? It was just paying out to National’s cronies. 
But when we come to Maori and Pacific Island people—yes we have the treaty settlements but what is more important we have the unemployment rate of Maori and Pacific people going down. People are getting jobs and are able to earn a living. People are becoming full New Zealanders because they can have those jobs and get decent earnings. 
I thank the Minister for Economic Development and the Prime Minister for growth in New Zealand. I also thank Minister Maharey for the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. I want to talk as the Minister I mean the member for Hamilton East—I would not mind being the Minister for Hamilton East—to say that the partnership going on between local government central government and some of the trusts in our city is absolutely marvellous. The Prime Minister turned the sod a week ago on the Innovation Park in Hamilton and during the “smart growth day” last Friday I visited a wonderful firm in Hamilton called Biozone.This company was started by a man called Richard Allan and employs eight people who because of grants from this Government have been able to attend trade fairs in the United States. 
They are also able to do market research and develop an e-commerce strategy. They are people who are now selling education resources in the United States in the UK and in Australia. They are looking for contracts in India—and I ask why. It is because they got assistance from the Labour-Progressive Government to do that and those grants have been invaluable particularly in terms of their graphic technology. This is a good-news story and it is happening in the electorate of Hamilton East. Not only Biozone but 11 other firms have received assistance to help them grow from being small businesses to larger businesses to export and to increase New Zealand’s wealth. It is a good-news story and once again I thank the Minister for Economic Development for that. 
There have been at least 93 awards in the last week worth $1.2 million. I give members information about other firms: A.R. Jacobsen which is developing frost protection systems; a Polynesian firm which is developing a golf tee tool; a firm developing anaesthesia care medical hardware which is being worked on increasingly in New Zealand at the moment; Grasshopper Ltd which is producing a digital imaging software product and Health Concepts which got a grant to help with business planning. These are but examples. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee 
New Zealand Post Limited 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the reports of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 28 February 2002 in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Limited to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and on three questions of privilege concerning disclosure of select committee proceedings 
. New Zealand Post through its international consulting arm Transend was helping to manage the South African Post Office. In 2001 the South African Government reviewed the performance of the South African Post Office using an international investigative and forensic firm called Kroll Associates. 
Transend’s role in the South African Post Office was part of that broad review.  
On 7 November 2001 the chief executive officer of New Zealand Post Mr Elmar Toime appeared before Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of the 2000-2001 financial review of New Zealand Post. Arising from oral questions at the committee hearing of 7 November the committee resolved to forward to New Zealand Post a written question relating to the report that Kroll Associates had made for the South African Government on the South African Post Office. The written question submitted by the Hon Mr McCully who was a member of the select committee read as follows: “Does New Zealand Post have a copy of the Kroll report or a summary thereof and can it be made available to the Select Committee?” 
Mr Toime replied on behalf of New Zealand Post: “As orally advised by the Chief Executive to the Committee New Zealand Post does not have a copy of the Kroll Report. This report was commissioned by the South African Government and covers many areas not involving New Zealand Post. New Zealand Post does not expect to receive a copy.” Thus orally and in a written reply to that written question New Zealand Post declared that it did not have the Kroll report. 
In February 2002 Mr Hide MP a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee released to the media a copy of a report that he declared was the Kroll report to the South African Government. As a consequence Mr McCully wrote to the Speaker of the House on 11 February 2002 as he was entitled to under the Standing Orders to raise as a matter of privilege that New Zealand Post had misled the committee because in Mr McCully’s view it did have a copy of the Kroll report at the time of its appearance before the committee and at the time of the written question. 
The Speaker ruled as follows on 28 February 2002. I quote from Appendix B of the report before the House: “For a matter of privilege concerning a deliberate attempt to mislead a committee to be made out misleading information must have been given and there must be evidence pointing to the misleading information having been given deliberately. On the face of it there is evidence in this case that the information given might be misleading—the company said it did not have a copy of a report when it apparently did have a copy of a draft report. It is for the Privileges Committee to determine whether that is actually misleading. 
“On the issue of whether any such misleading was deliberate the fact that this answer was given in writing after notice is relevant. It is a more considered process than an oral answer at the committee given without benefit of reflection and reference to company records. If the answer were misleading it could well be considered to have been deliberate. 
“I therefore feel that a question of privilege has been made out. However a Speaker is not obliged to hold that a question of privilege arises just because the ingredients of a contempt exist. If the matter has been or could be otherwise cleared up the Speaker can as a matter of discretion rule that no question of privilege exists. One of the reasons that I sought the advice of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was to establish whether this matter would be better explored as part of the financial review. I do think that that would probably be the most satisfactory way to proceed but I take the member’s point that he is entitled to a determination of this matter by the Speaker within a reasonable period. … This question consequently stands referred to the Privileges Committee.” 
Consequently after that ruling the Privileges Committee in the last Parliament chaired by the Hon Margaret Wilson was seized of the matter. Consideration of the matter was not completed by that committee and it was taken up by the Privileges Committee established for this Parliament on 13 February 2003. The previous Privileges Committee had decided to defer its consideration until the Finance and Expenditure Committee had reported on its financial review. In the meantime the general election of 2002 intervened. 
The present committee considered the key documents before it on the narrow question on which it was called to decide: had there been a deliberate attempt to mislead? On 18 February 2002 Mr Ross Armstrong the then chairman of New Zealand Post wrote to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the issue. Of importance to the Privileges Committee in making its finding was the evidence put forward on whether New Zealand Post had a copy of the Kroll report. 
The chairman of New Zealand Post advised as follows. “On 3 July 2001 the Independent Auditors provided Transend with a section of a document bearing the full title:  
Draft Preliminary Report of the Independent Auditors to the Minister of Communications of the Investigation into the Financial Affairs of the South African Post Office 
. … The section we received concerned itself with one element of the investigation the Strategic Management Partnership. It also focused solely on financial performance and ignored the other targets in the contract with Transend. This is the document Mr Hide has provided to the committee. … 
“No final copy of either the full report of the Independent Auditors or of the section of the Draft Preliminary Report we received has been seen by New Zealand Post or by Transend. It is not known if a final report has even been given to the South African Government.” He concluded: “If the request had been made during the Committee meeting with New Zealand Post to explain the status of the investigation by Kroll Associates we would have described the situation fully. The Draft Preliminary Report would of course need to be read in conjunction with Transend’s response.” 
In a statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 6 March 2002 which is contained in Appendix D of the Privileges Committee’s report Mr Elmar Toime stated as follows: “Out of respect for this committee and because of my concern for what has occurred I should like to take the opportunity to provide the Committee with an explanation of the events that led to my drafting the reply in question. … 
“On 1 July 2001 Transend received from Kroll Associates a document entitled  
Draft Preliminary Report of the Independent Auditors to the Minister of Communications of the Investigation into the Financial Affairs of the South African Post Office 
. … 
“While the document was described as a draft preliminary report an examination of its contents revealed it was principally a series of issues concerning Transend encompassing transcripts of conversation between persons relative to matters addressed. The document was identified as part of a drafting process was labelled as such and was forwarded for comment. … 
“If the written reply to this Committee has been perceived as inaccurate in any way by the Committee or any of its members then I express my regret that that has occurred. I believe that the reply is entirely accurate and I can unreservedly assure the Committee there was no intention whatever to mislead or hide anything from it.” 
Mr Toime wrote further to the Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson as follows. This is contained in Appendix E of the Privileges Committee’s report: “With the advantage of hindsight I deeply regret the brevity of my written reply. I saw it in the context of the 28 written questions in total being asked of the company at that time by the Select Committee. I regret the answer because it has given some MPs the impression that the company was attempting to hide something when in fact it was not. I should have said we had received and responded to a draft preliminary report from Kroll but in my mind I did not define what we had received as ‘the Kroll Report.’” 
At this time I advise the House that the Privileges Committee did not have the benefit of hearing Mr Toime who I believe is in England in another position. At the request of the Privileges Committee the present chairman of New Zealand Post Mr Jim Bolger appeared before it accompanied by the acting chief executive officer. As the report states at page 5 “The Chairperson of New Zealand Post Rt Hon Jim Bolger reiterated the sentiments expressed by the past Chief Executive and apologised on behalf of New Zealand Post if there was a perception that the company had misled Parliament.” Furthermore it states: “New Zealand Post agreed that a memorandum would be circulated to senior management to reinforce the importance of the parliamentary scrutiny role.” That is in the Privileges Committee’s report as Appendix F. 
On the evidence before it and after consideration by all members of the Privileges Committee the committee found that our recommendation to this Parliament would be that we accept New Zealand Post’s apologies. Technically the company did not give false answers to any questions from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. However we believe that New Zealand Post should have been more forthcoming and helpful in answering the committee’s question. There is no excuse for being less than fully open and frank with the committee. Having found so and having found that technically on the evidence New Zealand Post had answered accurately our conclusion is that we recommend that no further action be taken on this question of privilege. But we stress the importance of all State-owned enterprises being open and frank with Parliament within the constraints of commercial sensitivity. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I have come to the House to speak on this report because of my concern about its findings and more particularly my concern about the culture of dishonesty that now suffuses public agencies in New Zealand—and it starts from the top of the Government. I believe that the Privileges Committee is likely to play a greater role in the next few years than it has— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The turn of phrase that has just been used “the culture of dishonesty” that “starts from the top of the Government” can have only one meaning in that context. Dr Mapp who was one of those who unanimously signed this report agrees with it. That phrase must refer to the Prime Minister. I suggest to you that that accusation is totally out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The accusation that a member of this Parliament is dishonest is out of order. I ask the member to assure me that he was making no reflection on any member of Parliament. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot give that reassurance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. The Privileges Committee is likely to find that it will become busier because we have a culture in the Government where half-truths evasions and straight-out lies have become acceptable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member please leave the Chamber. I have warned him once and he will now go. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop protecting the bloody Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will return to his seat or he will be named. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Debate interrupted. 
Naming and Suspension of Member 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the Hon Dr Nick Smith for defying the Chair. The question now is  
That the Hon Dr Nick Smith be suspended from the service of the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hon Dr Nick Smith be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 89 
Noes 27 
Question agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee 
New Zealand Post Limited 
Debate resumed. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may assist proceedings if we can perhaps get some direction from you. This report is essentially about the dishonesty of New Zealand Post when it came in front of a select committee. It will be difficult for the House to discuss that without reference to the larger context in which those events happened and I am keen to know just what can be said. This will be a very difficult debate if it is ruled out when I refer to a culture of dishonesty and if references to any general context of for instance half-truths and evasions are also ruled out as inappropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say quite specifically that in commenting about New Zealand Post a member can say whatsoever he or she likes provided that it is within the Standing Orders in terms of taste etc. but as far as members of Parliament are concerned there is a higher standard. This debate is about whether the House should receive the Privilege’s Committee’s report and in fact the actual motion is that the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee. I would suggest we stick to the report itself and to what is in it. The member has to be a lot more careful about comments that reflect on matters outside the report and comments involving members of Parliament. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe it is the obligation of the Privileges Committee to call things what they are. The chair of the committee has laid out the facts of the matter in quite a satisfactory manner. The fact is that New Zealand Post was not brief in its reply. It did not make some kind of technically correct statement that was actually wrong. New Zealand Post said to a select committee that it did not have a document that it had. New Zealand Post actually had the document and said it did not have it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And it knew it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And it knew it. Does that matter? Yes because that deprived Parliament of a document that at the time was of enormous political significance. It is very difficult to come to the conclusion that that action was not taken deliberately. 
We need to send a very clear signal to our public institutions—and New Zealand Post needs to hear this today too—that they should not take part in the Government’s efforts to cover its own mistakes. Any bureaucrat—and I have been one—has a duty to assist the Government but there is no obligation to compromise one’s integrity or one’s honesty in order to help one’s political masters. All those who have tried to help our Prime Minister have paid a price and this report shows that. Elmar Toime is not in the country; his position became untenable. The disgraced chairman of New Zealand Post has long gone because in any number of the opportunities that he had he did compromise his integrity in order to assist his political masters. I say to other civil servants that they should stop and think very carefully when they get requests from Ministers’ officers—the Prime Minister’s department the Minister of Finance the Minister of Education or any of those ministers who are part of a culture of deception when they get into any political trouble. 
The bit in this report that got me particularly irritated was the apology because we now have a new paradigm for regret. It is a “Helenism” and it goes like this. No one is to acknowledge that he or she did something wrong. Instead that person apologises for people thinking he or she did something wrong. Members should listen to this apology: “I had no intention of misleading the House and apologise if that was the effect of my answers.” No one owns up to the fact of doing something wrong. The fact that the House was misled and almost certainly deliberately misled has no bearing on this— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In referring in that quotation to an answer given by the Prime Minister the member cannot accuse another member of deliberately misleading the House. There are other mechanisms for doing that. He should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was not clear as to whether the member was referring to New Zealand Post’s answer or to a person in this House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I was referring to an apology read by the Prime Minister in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Which one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Any suggestion that she deliberately misled the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. There is a similarity in the report to that apology given in the House. This is the Hon Jim Bolger: “ … I apologise on behalf of New Zealand Post to the Committee if there was a perception that the Finance and Expenditure Committee and in turn Parliament and the New Zealand Public have been misled.” That is not an apology. That is not the standard that this House should accept from a public body that has lied to a select committee. 
New Zealand Post had the report but said that it did not and Parliament was deprived of the accountability that would have gone with the possession of that report. Even worse New Zealand Post is a publicly owned body. I believe that even if Parliament accepts this report the Privileges Committee is charged by Parliament to set a higher standard in the views it takes of people who mislead select committees and Parliament. Otherwise we are left with that standard. Mr Toime has apologised for any perception that he misled the committee. He apologised for the brevity of his reply. Does that not have echoes of “They weren’t conscious when they made the decision. I don’t recollect. I wasn’t there. It’s not my responsibility. The reply was brief”? The reply was a lie. Let us not call it anything else. 
We are spared that language in the House because we are not allowed to use it about MPs—and you Mr Speaker can feel the pressure that is building up in the House because we are not allowed to use that language about activities that very closely approximate it from people who are at the top of the Government and are setting the tone for the running of public life in New Zealand. Will the Government get up and argue that the actions of the Prime Minister and the way that she deals with questions of accountability and responsibility have no linkage to the events around New Zealand Post which involved her best friend who finally got caught out as the chair? Of course they do. Of course the tone set by those at the top of the Government influences the civil service and public bodies. On behalf of this Parliament if the Government is not willing to say this—and it is not—I say to the civil service and to public bodies that they should be honest. They should not take part in the spin and should have the integrity—as they have the experience—to know the difference between assisting the Government as they are obliged to do and compromising their honesty and integrity. To do the latter is a blot on any civil servant and any organisation that civil servants work for. 
At the time I guess the Kroll report did not seem very significant but in the light of the recent conduct of the Prime Minister and of the documents that regularly appear in this Parliament contradicting statements that have been made it is timely that we debate this report—and debate it thoroughly not just as a matter of form. I say to you Mr Speaker that members of Parliament do have the right of access to the Privileges Committee. We do not want to see that right compromised by the slowness of the process and the officers of this Parliament have the capacity to make that process fast or slow. I say that if it takes another 15 or 18 months to deal with this kind of complaint then the officers of this Parliament are letting down the members of Parliament and therefore the public. We want a better performance than that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 What a load of rubbish that was. Let us start off with a very few simple facts. This report is a unanimous report of the Privileges Committee. When the member suggested that somehow or other the committee was engaged in covering up the facts about this case he was accusing his own party’s senior whip— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no stage did I say that the committee was involved in covering up the facts. In fact I said that the chairman of the committee had laid out the facts in a way that we regarded as even-handed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the member did say was that the committee should have concluded presumably that Mr Toime had lied. But the committee did not conclude that. If the member had bothered to read the report he would have found that it unanimously concluded that that was not the case. Mr Toime was almost hounded out of this country by the Opposition and Mr Bolger the former leader of the National Party condemned the National Party for that action. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes he did and he did so in my hearing. Mr English cannot even read a simple report that states very clearly not that Mr Toime had lied but that the answers were less than full and frank. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The giggling from the member of the Opposition—I wonder who has been tickling her this time—shows a misunderstanding of how loosely the National Party uses the word “lie”. On that basis I can only assume that it must be the most frequently used word in its caucus. I suppose therefore that losing one’s pretzels in the election is a form of a lie if that is the way that one uses the word. So it is assumed that Mr Carter and Dr Mapp were part of an attempt to mislead this House because this report is unanimous and it does not state that Mr Toime had lied. That is not what this report states. 
Who else did Mr English then choose to attack? He chose to attack his former leader Jim Bolger and implied that Mr Bolger had not made an adequate apology to the Privileges Committee. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is right says Mr McCully. Well Mr McCully has a lot more to apologise to Mr Bolger for than Mr Bolger has to apologise to Mr McCully for. There is no knife sticking in Mr McCully’s back with Mr Bolger’s fingerprints on it but there sure was one in Jim Bolger’s back with Mr McCully’s fingerprints on it—just as there was in Jenny Shipley’s back and as he keeps lining up Mr English for. As we read weekly in the  
Listener 
 Mr McCully is involved in that. 
Then of course the other criminal is a former divisional chairman of the National Party Mr Ross Armstrong who did not put his integrity at question in the service of Ministers—he put the Ministers’ integrity at question in his own service. That is why Mr Armstrong had to leave—not because he was protecting our integrity but because he was impugning our integrity by his own actions. He had to go as a consequence of that. 
What has this enormous storm in a teacup been all about? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s a cover-up. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well why did Dr Mapp at the Privileges Committee not say that this was a cover-up? Why did Dr Mapp who is as brave as a lion in the House not raise with Mr Bolger at the select committee the question of why his predecessor and New Zealand Post’s former chief executive had covered up the facts? Dr Mapp did not raise that question in the select committee and nor did John Carter. They were satisfied with Mr Bolger’s apology and they were disappointed that Mr McCully and Mr Hide did not take up the invitation to meet with Mr Bolger to receive a personal apology from New Zealand Post delivered by Mr Bolger. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Absolute fiction. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes that is true as well. Recollections seem to fade amongst many people at times with regard to political issues. Or perhaps the member was not conscious at the time that he did those particular things. So we find out that the National Party is not perfect either. 
So what in fact is this issue all about? When asked whether he had a report Mr Toime said no. Did he have the Kroll report? No he did not. The Kroll report was never delivered to New Zealand Post. 
Hon Bill English 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well that is true. The select committee accepted that that was true. Dr Mapp John Carter and Mr Prebble accepted that that was true—all on the Privileges Committee at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: What did it have? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand Post had a preliminary draft of that report. So in giving that answer the Privileges Committee concluded that New Zealand Post was less than full and frank and that the Finance and Expenditure Committee could have drawn a forced conclusion from that answer—a perfectly reasonable conclusion for the select committee to draw and therefore misleading of the select committee in that respect. But that is not a lie. It is not a lie to have failed to give that information. If Mr McCully from the vast and lofty height of full-and-frankness that he has occupied throughout his political career tells us that that is a lie I suggest that that will be less than a full and frank statement to this House when he gets up and makes it as he no doubt will with the synthetic anger that the National Party is trained in day after day. 
Mr English has come here to the House to try to rescue his leadership through getting angry about whether a preliminary draft report is a report. That is the basis now on which the once-proud National Party lives and in order to try to survive and to do that it has to pour nasty stuff all over its former leader who I thought gave a very frank apology to the Privileges Committee. It was above and beyond what Mr Bolger had to do since he had no role to play in the original event at all. Mr Bolger was completely clean of any involvement in that respect. But even Mr Bolger had to be dragged in and attacked by Mr English in order to try to save himself. It is no wonder that so many former senior members of the National Party have given up hope on the National Party at this particular time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The debate before us is whether this House should receive this report the question of privileges— 
John Carter 
: It just notes it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: OK it is whether we note it. I was most impressed with the speech by the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Bill English. He raised some issues that ran in the general debate here today—the whole notion of veracity and truth and the very critical aspect of our democracy that unless we have truth openness and transparency democracy is in peril. We have just heard a comment from the Leader of the House the Deputy Prime Minister that “less than full and frank” is not telling lies. As we know our whole justice system is based on telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words one cannot be economical with the truth by not telling the whole truth and one cannot be expansive with the truth by telling other things that are beyond the truth. We know that we have problems with the Prime Minister but we now have a new definition of truth from the Deputy Prime Minister. If one is “less than full and frank” that is all right that is kosher that is acceptable. I am saying to this House that that is not acceptable in a democracy that I want to be part of. We need an executive that is accountable honest and transparent at all levels. 
I can understand Jim Bolger’s position. He was seeking closure and I think he was trying to use his political skills to bring closure. The issue was not of his making: Ross Armstrong was the chairman during this unhappy incident. I would like to commend my colleague Rodney Hide who together with Murray McCully through sheer doggedness and determination through thick and thin stuck with this issue. I remember that when they first raised it we had Government members saying that they were denigrating a fine upstanding State-owned enterprise and that New Zealand Post was the model of State-owned enterprises. The Minister for State Owned enterprises did all he could to protect it from accountability and scrutiny but my colleague Rodney Hide ably supported by Murray McCully—I think they support each other actually—hung in there doggedly and took the matter to the Privileges Committee. 
 We say that our Privileges Committee is the highest court in the land but others say it is really just a soap-opera forum that can slap people at best across the wrists with a wet bus ticket. Is this Parliament satisfied that the sanctions calling for an apology from this State-owned enterprise are adequate when it is clear that those people lied? They lied to the Privileges Committee of Parliament and they did that very deliberately. I say that is not good enough. 
But it raises a bigger issue with our executive wing of Government and that is the halfway house that we have with our State-owned enterprises generally. It really brings home to us all the dangers of maintaining State-owned enterprises. They were only intended to be halfway houses but by having State-owned enterprises with an ongoing life we politicise the process. We invite this sort of situation where they do the political bidding of the executive. That is a real worry to me. We have a danger with State-owned enterprises dominating the energy sector and I think privatisation is clearly the step forward. I merely flag that issue in the context of this debate because the whole State-owned enterprise model is under question because of the behaviour of New Zealand Post over this issue. 
I come back to the point that truth is vital from our officials our Government departments and our State agencies. The role of the Minister should be to set the standard. The Minister should not be sending the message out there that it is OK to be “less than full and frank”. I condemn Michael Cullen for what he just told us in this Chamber.He said it is OK to be less than full and frank. I say that is not acceptable. We want a high standard that is based on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth—not some economy of the truth or expansion of the truth. That is not good enough. This Parliament should take heed of this debate and reflect on whether we should receive this report because it is a classic example and could well become the slippery path. A slip becomes a slide when the executive starts setting unacceptable standards based on deceit and untruth. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It is very easy in a significant debate like this to get too embroiled in political tit for tat. There is a very large element of it in this case and there is a danger that that will obscure some of the critical points that are at issue and do need to be considered. I am a member of the Privileges Committee and at the time was also a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. During some of the hearings in question I was the acting chair so I have a range of views as to what was going on. 
I want to say at the outset that I do not regard the behaviour of New Zealand Post Ltd at that time as being in any way acceptable. During the period the chairman was away—and I was standing in for him when we were in the process of examining Dr Armstrong and his senior colleagues—I received a number of telephone calls from Dr Armstrong saying: “Look why do you want us back next week? We’ve got things to do; we’re busy. Can you give us an assurance that it won’t be for more than an hour or so? What sort of questions are we going to be asked anyway?” The point I am making is that at that time New Zealand Post clearly saw the select committee examination—regardless of whether it was the Kroll report or Transend or Spain or anything—as an interference with its normal commercial practice. We as a committee were thought of as a nuisance even taking time to ask them questions. As a consequence—I think as a sense of frustration over its part in this process—the plan of deception which has subsequently led New Zealand Post before the committee— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why didn’t you say that at the Privileges Committee? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I did actually. Maybe the member was as usual asleep. This is a serious debate and it is not helped by trivial comments of that type. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You never told us about it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member who interjects often proves his ineptitude and I am sorry that this is one of those occasions. 
What I am saying is that New Zealand Post did deceive the committee. Certainly the record shows that very clearly but I think the issue is actually a much wider one—[ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon? Is this more “insight” from the North Shore? No wonder they laugh at the member. What the record shows is that the issue we are debating is about how effective the State-owned enterprise model is and whether there are inherent flaws within it. Over the years that that model has been in place—long before that member was even a blot on the political landscape—we had issues in the early 1990s regarding the Airways Corporation issues regarding Television New Zealand and now issues regarding New Zealand Post. As the member who preceded me pointed out I suspect that very shortly we are going to have issues regarding the various energy generation companies as well. They all stem from what might well be an inherent flaw in the State-owned enterprise model. On the one hand we set these bodies up to be commercially independent; on the other every time they are challenged they claim commercial sensitivity when asked to respond to parliamentary select committees. When select committees start to probe and push we have things being fobbed off as non-events. 
The whole debate regarding the Kroll report was fascinating. It was actually a draft report but because it had not been formally adopted by the board of New Zealand Post the board seemed to think that it had no official status and could not be acknowledged—even though there was independent evidence before the Finance and Expenditure Committee that such a report was in existence. The attitude that appearing before select committees is merely a performance to be gone through is symptomatic of what has become a trend over the years with State-owned enterprises and similar bodies—and in that category I include the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit and some of the old monitoring agencies that were in place for the health sector. Some years ago when Mr Ryall was chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I well recall one gentleman taking his seat and saying: “I hope this is not going to take very long. I’ve got a plane to catch in three-quarters of an hour.” It is that sort of contempt that has ended up with this case before the Privileges Committee. 
The reason I was in favour of that case going to the Privileges Committee had less to do with the particulars of the New Zealand Post case and much more to do with the broader issues of how select committees can reasonably hold State-owned enterprises to account—without the excuse being made every time a difficult question is asked that that is “commercially sensitive and you are not entitled to that information”. We have had that experience on many occasions. Whether or not the committee was deceived and deliberately misled by a concerted plan within New Zealand Post or a fiction within the mind of the then chairman is of less relevance than what we do from here on. As has been indicated we already have a situation emerging where it would appear that a number of players in the energy sector have not been giving the full story about shortcomings from the middle of last year onwards and we are going to face that situation again in the future. We used to have a special select committee with accountability for State-owned enterprises. From memory it was abolished in the mid-1990s but maybe we ought to return to that because at the moment it is a little too easy for State-owned enterprises dealing with a specialist committee to flick it off and push it aside. 
One of the issues that arose during the New Zealand Post case was as much as anything about how much time we were dedicating to that organisation—about the fact that we called its officials back. I cannot recall how many times we did that—Mr McCully will know—but I think it was at least on three or four occasions. That became an issue in itself because the performance appraisal we were undertaking was traditionally seen to be perfunctory—“give them an hour or so ask them a few hard questions send them on their way.” That was certainly the culture within which this organisation was used to operating. 
Apart from the political machinations about who did what to whom and when the issue that arises from this report is much more about what are we going to do as a Parliament to ensure greater accountability from our State-owned enterprises in the future. Will we continue with a model that sees these things as owned by the Crown but essentially operating independently of the Crown and how do we draw the line between the two? Do we simply do what some have suggested—that is privatise the lot—or go the other way and bring them back under the Crown’s umbrella as Crown-owned companies? We need to face those issues and we also need to address the more vexed question of how we exact accountability. This is a small country and there is not a huge pool of people available to serve as senior executives or directors of those companies. The familiarity with which certain names keep cropping up indicates how tight that little circle might be and that is another issue that needs to be examined in the light of this case. 
I do not have a particular worry about accepting this report. This particular issue has gone as far as it can go but the broader issue of the relationship of this Parliament and its select committees to State-owned enterprises how that accountability is to be exercised and how those enterprises are to be held to account in these areas is one we all need to devote a great deal more time to. If we do not then the long litany we have had over the last 10 years that I referred to earlier will simply be added to and the New Zealand Post saga will become one more stopping-off point along the way. The real lesson of this report is to make sure we do not get a repetition in the future and that will require action by the Government and this Parliament to ensure that all State-owned enterprises get the message about the correct wayto operate. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I suppose as the member who laid the original complaint with you and saw this matter go to the Privileges Committee I should start by thanking yourself and the Privileges Committee for the thoroughness with which this matter seems to have been addressed given that it has taken over 15 months. I am sure Mr Speaker you will have spent 17 sleepless nights giving consideration to whether this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee in the first place. As I said the Privileges Committee has spent 15 months attempting to get this report back to the Parliament. 
Mr Dunne made a fair point that we should try to look at some of the important issues raised in the report in terms of the future rather than simply adopting a political take on this occasion. I am a member who over the years has not been seen as a show pony on the front bench but as one of those grafters in the select committee process. As I reflect on this report I have to say that I feel badly let down. I feel that this Parliament has been let down by this report. The select committee process has been let down by this report. Today I hope to persuade members who are listening to this debate that we can and should do better with the privileges process in the future. I will not try to criticise individuals involved in the process. This is a unanimous report as other members have said. Mr Robson inherited the chair of the committee very late in the process. Dr Armstrong and Mr Toime have long gone. There is a futility about trying to look at the specifics in a sense but it is terribly important for the future that we should ensure that the Parliament is able to hold these organisations to account. That means that the Privileges Committee must do a better job on our behalf than it has done on this occasion. 
I want to make a few references to the particular parts of the report that concern me. First there is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. I am not sure whether that is the analogy that should be used on this occasion but I do say that a report that comes back to this Parliament more than 15 months after the complaint was originally laid by a member is a report that is delivering no justice and will serve Parliament badly. Any hope of sending to State-owned enterprises Crown entities and Government departments the message that should have been sent to them was diminished when this matter was left to wait for so long by the previous chair of the committee Margaret Wilson. I say at the outset that the content of this report was always going to be inadequate because it comes too late to do any good. 
I move to the report itself and like the Leader of the Opposition I look at the finding which was that technically the company did not give false answers to any questions asked by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I have listened to the comments made by members in this debate. I have listened to the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter. I guess the best I can say with regard to that finding is that it is a most generous finding on the part of the Privileges Committee in respect of New Zealand Post’s behaviour. I profoundly disagree with it. I believe that the finding in that matter is wrong. 
I want to tell the House why. As Mr Dunne has told the House this afternoon New Zealand Post was under sustained questioning over many meetings. It had gone through a process that it felt aggrieved about and uncomfortable with. There was substantial media interest in the matters that were before the select committee and that were bedevilling New Zealand Post. It had been asked to give a series of explanations. New Zealand Post knew that Mr Hide and I were in receipt of material from persons within that organisation who believed that we were entitled to facts that were not being given to the committee or to the public. It was in that light—and I suppose New Zealand Post did feel somewhat under siege—that these matters arose. 
In the previous year New Zealand Post had had to deal with aspects of the South African contract that had caused some ructions in the board room and PricewaterhouseCoopers the auditors for New Zealand Post had been called in to give a report. These were all matters of context that signalled the nervousness and sensitivity of New Zealand Post on this matter. 
In the first discussion in the select committee when New Zealand Post was asked for the Kroll report it orally answered that it did not have that report. The reason it was asked for the Kroll report by myself and Mr Hide was that people inside New Zealand Post had identified this report to us as a damning report that we should know about so we asked for it. Knowing that our informants were giving us information that was contrary to that being retailed to the committee we formally asked the committee to request of New Zealand Post that it give us this document. The chairman of the committee correctly read to the House today the nature of the request. It was a broad request and New Zealand Post came back with the answer that he again has faithfully retailed to the House. Had it not been for the fact that Mr Hide received anonymously in the mail a few days later a copy of that report then New Zealand Post would have profited from what I believe to be deceit on its part. 
The important question that was before the Privileges Committee and that is before the House today is whether New Zealand Post in the circumstances I have outlined to the House intended to deceive. Having been asked formally by the select committee and in the 3 or 4 days that New Zealand Post had to deliberate on the written responses it would deliver which Dr Ross Armstrong finally signed off did it make a decision to deceive the committee knowing that it had a document which could be called the Kroll report or did it simply not think carefully enough about it? 
I am absolutely in no doubt in my mind of the intention of New Zealand Post to deceive the Finance and Expenditure Committee; of Ross Armstrong as the person who signed that document to deceive the committee; and of Mr Elmar Toime to deceive the committee as well. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind as someone who was intimately familiar with the proceedings and with the paperwork that it was the absolute intention of those persons and of New Zealand Post accordingly to deceive the select committee. I say these things having reflected very carefully on the history of those events. 
One of the reasons I am persuaded to that conclusion is that if we look at the internal paperwork of New Zealand Post around that time and I do not know whether the Privileges Committee did this but if it had it would have seen that New Zealand Post’s internal documentation its internal communications referred to this document as the “Kroll report” not the “draft Kroll report” or any other name. The document we asked for was the Kroll report because we were told by people in New Zealand Post that it was called the Kroll report. It was referred to in New Zealand Post’s documentation internally as the Kroll report and New Zealand Post knew that that was the document we were asking for but it told us that it did not have it. 
I believe that that is more than a technicality. That was an act of deceit on the part of New Zealand Post and the Privileges Committee should have held accordingly. 
I will talk about two other points just briefly. Firstly I take exception to the references in the Privileges Committee report to the tension between some select committee members and New Zealand Post and the rather lofty reference on page 5 where the Privileges Committee emphasises that members should take their scrutiny role seriously and follow appropriate lines of questioning. 
 I do not know what caused the committee to put that comment in the report but I can say that against the background of this 80-page report of the Controller and Auditor-General which found absolutely in favour of the allegations made by Mr Hide and myself and which was utterly damning of New Zealand Post I find these words in the report of the Privileges Committee to be gratuitous and insulting. I say to the chairman of the committee that he should think much more carefully about allowing those words to be imported into this sort of document in the future. 
Finally the apology that Jim Bolger gave to the Privileges Committee—and it has been rightly observed that he was not a person who had any personal culpability in this process—was a Clayton’s apology. It was an utterly meaningless apology for the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition has spelt out this afternoon. I say to my colleagues and particularly to those who were on the Privileges Committee that if they are prepared to accept that sort of apology as being full and sufficient in these circumstances then I believe they are inviting every State-owned enterprise and Crown entity to lie to select committees in the future. Yesterday in the media I called this a licence to lie. I repeat that statement today because I sincerely believe that. I hope that in future the Privileges Committee will serve the interests of this Parliament and its select committees better than it has done on this occasion. 
Motion agreed to. 
Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on three questions of privilege concerning disclosure of select committee proceedings 
. The House has been asked to consider the report of the Privileges Committee on questions of privilege relating to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of proceedings of three select committees. Those select committees were the Law and Order Committee the Primary Production Committee and the Commerce Committee. 
I turn first to the Law and Order Committee. The alleged disclosure was that an article in the  
Independent  
of 6 December 2000 disclosed—and this is from the report—that a vote had been taken by the Law and Order Committee against requiring the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to produce certain documents. The vote was taken in a closed committee meeting and had not at the time of the article been reported to the House. The Privileges Committee found that a breach of privilege had occurred as the matter of the vote had been confidential to the Law and Order Committee. 
The second matter relates to the Primary Production Committee. On 13 November 2002 the  
Independent 
 newspaper disclosed without authorisation from the select committee the draft terms of reference of an inquiry. The committee had not determined at that stage of publication the final terms of reference and the information was confidential to the committee at the time of the article’s publication. The Privileges Committee found that a breach of privilege in that case had occurred. 
The third matter relates to the Commerce Committee. On 13 November 2002 the  
Independent 
 published an article in the same edition as the Primary Production Committee matter that reported accurately on three options that the select committee was considering in confidence with regard to the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill before it. This too was determined to be a breach of privilege. 
I quote from the report: “Under Standing Order 237 all committee proceedings except the hearing of evidence in public are confidential to the committee until the committee reports the item of business to the House. The two exceptions to this rule are: the referral of a report on a confidential basis to a third party for comment and the committee agreeing to the chairperson informing the public about the nature of a committee’s consideration of a matter. Neither of these exceptions to Standing Order 237 applied to the questions of privilege described in this report. 
“Standing Order 397(m) recognises that it is a contempt to divulge the proceedings of a select committee contrary to Standing Orders.” 
The issue for the committee then having found that there had been breaches in all three matters was what if anything could be done about it. The first question that was before us was who disclosed the proceedings. No member of this House acted like George Washington and admitted chopping down the cherry tree. Nobody came and said: “I told a lie.” Further no members of the relevant select committees were identified as having provided the newspaper with the information in the three articles. We maintained in the Privileges Committee on behalf of this House that the breaches of privilege are a serious matter. However we appreciate that members of Parliament wish to debate more openly particularly via the media matters under select committee consideration. We believe that this should be allowed and we believe that the select committee’s decision-making processes would be enhanced if they were able to be more open and transparent about the consideration of a matter. 
The Privileges Committee in the previous Parliament after considering the question of privilege relating to the disclosure of the proceedings of the Law and Order Committee wrote to the Standing Orders Committee urging it to consider easing the restriction on the disclosure of select committee proceedings. This Privileges Committee of this Parliament endorses the views of the Privilege Committee in the 46th Parliament. We held that “members should be able to discuss outside select committee meetings a committee’s consideration and advice and to participate in public debates on those matters without breaching Standing Order 237.” 
The Privileges Committee asked that the Standing Orders Committee meet to progress its review of the Standing Orders. The view of the Privileges Committee is that the rules on disclosing select committee proceedings do require further consideration. For this reason while we accepted that there were unauthorised disclosures of select committee proceedings we recommended that no further action be taken on those three questions of privilege and that the Standing Orders Committee consider amendments to Standing Order 237 to enable members of select committees to engage in more open discussion of select committee proceedings. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I just wish to endorse the point that has been made by the chairman of the Privileges Committee and in particular these statements on page 5 of the report: “We prompt the Standing Orders Committee to meet soon to progress its review of Standing Orders.” The reason we have specifically said this and put a degree of urgency on it is that it is perfectly foreseeable that this kind of breach of privilege will occur in the future. 
I think that everyone in this Parliament knows that members of select committees talk to the press. They like to have a dialogue about what is occurring in the committees they are members of and often the line between what is confidential and still under consideration by the committee and what is public knowledge is difficult to draw. 
I pick up on the reference in the  
Independent 
to “Duynhoven’s law”. It was not some sort of exposé article; it was simply a report to the readers of the  
Independent 
 of the kinds of issues that the select committee was considering. As I said it was not an exposé article that some might think could raise a question of privilege. One has to ask oneself why it would not be reasonable for the public to have some sense of what a committee is considering. Those are matters of legitimate public interest. Particularly in that situation it would not lead to the curtailment of the dialogue between the executive and members of Parliament. It would be part of the process of developing public policy. 
I want to stress to the House and to the Standing Orders Committee in particular that unless they deal with this issue with a reasonable degree of expedition we can expect further issues of privilege to arise. Of course the Speaker really has no choice but to apply the existing Standing Orders. If someone is clearly in breach even if well intentioned then clearly the matter has to be referred to the Privileges Committee. But the kind of report that will come out of the Privileges Committee is precisely the sort we are presenting today which is to say yes a breach has occurred but in fact our Standing Orders are wrong and we urge the Standing Orders to be changed to enable the progress of our democracy. 
It does perturb me that we have endorsed the views of the Privileges Committee from the 46th Parliament. I would like to think we are not going to have to issue another report like this urging further progress. So I make this submission to you Mr Speaker in your role as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and ask you to deal with the issue with expedition because in doing so you will be enhancing the quality of our democracy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I did not expect to be spurred into addressing this report. However I have heard two things that do so spur me as a relatively junior member with 4½ years in the House. As I look at the seniority of the members of the Privileges Committee I do this with a little bit of trepidation. I believe that this committee has completely dropped the ball. I do not know whether “noting a report” means that anything is done about it. I suspect that it is probably at the low end of the actions that may be taken in relation to a report. But this report is almost incapable of any action. 
I was on the Law and Order Committee when the first complaint was laid. I helped draft the request to the Speaker. We all had a very clear idea of where the leak had come from. I believe that if we had been asked we would have been happy to say. Mr Robson chairman of the committee said that no George Washington had emerged. I think that George was actually asked. I think that in the story he was asked whether he had cut down the cherry tree. In this case as far as I am aware no member of that committee was asked who they thought might have done it. 
By pure chance I was at a meeting of the Privileges Committee when this matter was being considered as to how to deal with it. I have to say that I saw senior members in a very desultory manner searching for a way of doing nothing. They were fumbling around and trying to find some outsiders to bully—someone to write a fierce threatening letter to and make it look as though breaches of privilege were taken seriously. They were trying to think of those threats. There was no consciousness in the committee that the only rules that matter are the rules that people believe are enforced; that the only rules that matter are those that say what they mean and are made to mean what they say; and that they mean the same thing to everyone irrespective of status. 
A law even in this House should be no respecter of persons. I saw at the Privileges Committee members fumbling around after 3 years of inaction trying to find a way of burying this without embarrassment. It seemed to me that if the Privileges Committee is going to work like that it is not a good idea to allow newer members to come along. They might get too cynical because once upon a time the Privileges Committee was described as the most fearsome court in the land. It was seen as the committee that gave Parliament the underpinning to its culture and as a committee that embodied the respect that Parliament should have for process and its own rules. 
I believe that this report is an absolute embarrassment. I recognise that the senior members are very busy and that the Privileges Committee is the only committee—maybe the Standing Orders Committee too—that has so many very busy and very experienced members on it and they probably leave much of the mechanical stuff to the chairman and the staff. The chairman should be very embarrassed to come forward with a purported report without any indication that they had even asked anyone or even asked among members who might have leaked information. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Your leader was on it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes my leader was on it. They are all busy and in fact a number of the leaders were not there the day I turned up. I think they usually delegate. The position is that Parliament in my opinion is being let down by the Privileges Committee not actually acting. 
I turn now to the recommendations: “We endorse the views of the Privileges Committee in the 46th Parliament. We believe members should be able to discuss outside select committee meetings a committee’s consideration and advice and to participate in public debates on those matters without breaching Standing Order 237.” Why did the committee not offer any sort of guidance as to the conditions of that? We all know that as soon as the processes are completely transparent the select committees would be transformed into the charade that is often the process in this House—that is members searching for the sound bite and posturing for the media instead of genuinely exchanging the views that the current select committee process enables them to exchange without fear of a sentence or a phrase being dragged out of context and used purely for political embarrassment. 
The current confidentiality basis has a good sound reason. It does not need a great deal of change. It probably needed only some elaboration to suggest that members can at least talk to the media about their own position without disclosing the position of other members. In other words the confidentiality that should not be breached is the confidentiality that attaches to the committee itself not to a member’s own views. Instead we get the Privileges Committee just uttering cant—this little statement here that makes them look as though they are all in favour of absolute transparency and accountability without taking any account of the actual reason that confidentiality has been so important. 
I am also concerned that no credit has been given to the  
Independent 
 which has been the most diligent searcher-out of some of these stories. The Privileges Committee should have been saying that no fault ought to be levelled. If parliamentarians do not get their house in order and do not obey the rules the first target for Parliament should be the parliamentarians not news media like the  
Independent 
 who at least take these proceedings seriously enough to want to report them and who want to inform New Zealanders of the detail the often boring detail that lies behind what is going on. I think that in this case we have a feeble report. The motion is that the report be noted. If that is the lowest category of recognition that a report should get then it is appropriate that we do that but it is an embarrassment to this House. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill and the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill to proceeddirectly from their second reading to their third reading today. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is not. 
Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (NZ Labour—Ikaroa Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust and its beneficiaries. The bill proposes to dissolve the Waerenga-a-hika Trust and constitute the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust in order to modernise the administration of the trust and remove existing impediments to its effective operation. 
The Waerenga-a-hika Trust Act 1947 provided for the incorporation of the new board to hold property then held by the Waerenga-a-hika Trust Board. The Act has not been amended since 1947. The present trustees consider that it is now timely that new arrangements be made to provide for the future needs and objectives of the trust. 
The bill was introduced on 21 December 2001 and was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration. The committee received and considered only two submissions on the bill. The submissions identified the challenges for the trust the key one being the need to modernise its administration. After thorough examination of the bill the select committee has unanimously proposed a number of amendments that clarify certain matters contained in the bill and modify to some extent the provisions in the trust deed. I wish to acknowledge and thank the members of the Maori Affairs Committee for their thorough examination of the bill. 
In conclusion I urge that this bill proceed without delay. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 Very briefly the National Party is happy to support this sensible bill. It reorganises a historical structure and we want to see it modernised. That is entirely what this bill will do and the National Party will support its progress in both the second and third readings. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill. The bill seeks to dissolve the Waerenga-a-hika Trust and constitute the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust in order to modernise administration and remove existing impediments to its effective operation. All assets of the board are to be vested in the trust. 
Submissions received from the board and Te Whanau-a-Taupara mentioned the need to modernise the administration of the board; the restrictions imposed by the ties to the Anglican Church; the constraints on self-governance; and the problems caused by perpetual leases. Te Whanau-a-Taupara represents a section of Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki iwi who hold mana whenua over Waerenga-a-hika lands. These comprise approximately 245 hectares of predominantly pastoral land with an estimated value of $6.048 million that are currently held by the board. 
A quick historical review clarifies that the land was given to the Crown in 1857 by the Tauparawhanau which then gave the land to the Bishop of New Zealand. The land was later returned to the whanau in 1862 to become a charitable and educational trust to provide a school for Maori who had connections with the Anglican Church. After the enactment of the Waerenga-a-hika Trust Act in 1947 the object of the trust was designed and defined as being for the provision of scholarships for the post-primary education of children of the Mahaki tribe especially those of Te Whanau-a-Taupara. 
Submitters consider the requirement of the 1947 Act that the trust board be accountable to the Anglican Church is too restrictive but also recognise their cordial and harmonious relationship for many years. Concern about appointments to the board has been a factor and furthermore the requirement that the education grants be for attendance at Anglican schools only is difficult and becoming more expensive to fulfil. Furthermore there is creeping in a reluctance of non-Anglican whanau to send their children to Anglican schools. It has been noted that the Anglican Church is in agreement with the Waerenga-a-hika Trust Board about the non-necessity for it to maintain close ties with the church. 
The fact that the beneficiaries under the trust deed are related by blood does not prevent the purposes of the trust as declared by the trust deed from complying with the public benefit requirement of the law relating to charitable trusts. Unlike the Ngati Rarua-Atiawa Iwi Trust Empowering Act the bill does not require the trust to keep an official list identifying the beneficiaries. The board does have records of families who meet the criteria and plans to keep that list under review so that accuracy at all times is maintained. 
Clause 10E allows for the trust’s annual accounts and auditor’s report to be made available for inspection by any beneficiary at the trust office at any suitable time. The deed allows and widens the powers of the trustees to adapt and make changes in land use and also gives provision for board members to exercise business-orientated powers allowing them to invest trust moneys and assets in enterprises that will return a profit to the trust and giving them greater control of the use of the funds. 
New Zealand First supports the bill and encourages the trust to be accountable to the beneficiaries with integrity and honesty. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support this bill. It is quite interesting to learn a little bit about the background. It appears that the land was originally donated to the Crown for the purpose of training young Maori to enter the ministry of the Anglican Church. A church school was erected under the auspices of the Anglican Church to facilitate that process. It is quite interesting to see that history as part of the Christian involvement with Maori in the mid-19th century. We all know as we have seen in the bill that the school was subsequently burnt down. It appears that there were a number of impediments to erecting a new school including not only the cost of materials but also the difficulty in getting planning consent to put up a new school. 
It has been quite interesting for me to read the debate in the House in 1947 at the time that the original trust was set up to take care of the money that had become available because the school would not be rebuilt. It went to the Anglican Church largely because the original intention for the land had been to foster the close link that Maori had with the Anglican Church. Part of the reason for not rebuilding the school was that the training of Maori and indeed any New Zealanders for the Anglican priesthood had moved away from local areas—in particular from Gisborne—and was concentrated in St John’s College where it is still largely concentrated today. So the idea of having a local school in Gisborne in order to provide training for the Maori priesthood had ceased to be an important consideration. 
We have now progressed to the stage where I am very pleased that we as a society see that Maori are quite capable of looking after their own resources and we do not need institutions—albeit the Anglican Church—to look after resources on behalf of Maori and to invest them. We can actually entrust that to the people. Of course it is totally appropriate that the entrustment of those assets goes back to the whanau who originally donated the land and whom—in a broader sense—the money and the benefits were meant to be allocated to. 
However there are a few things in the bill that I think are worth commenting on. Not having been on the select committee but having been a trust lawyer I have to draw attention to a few things. The first of those—and I will finish by teatime—is the whole argument of our giving the trust special charitable trust status. The way in which the Inland Revenue Department operates is that there is a requirement for sufficiency of public benefit and that means that effectively in order to make the trust a charitable trust there was a need to ensure that a special provision was put into the Act to say that it was a charitable trust notwithstanding the fact that there was some suggestion that the Inland Revenue Department would have considered that because of the blood ties of the beneficiaries there was an insufficiency of public benefit. It is a little undesirable to make exceptions in that regard when other trusts cannot do that and I would prefer that the situation was dealt with by the Inland Revenue Department reviewing its policy rather than by the necessity of our putting in a special clause but nevertheless the clause is there and in the meantime I do not see any objection to it. I do not think that when blood ties are so extensive as to include an extensive whanau with a huge number of people the simple fact that there are blood ties means that the trust should be taken out of the category of sufficiency of public benefit. Surely the number of beneficiaries potentially able to benefit from this trust is large enough for the grouping to meet that test. 
The second thing is in terms of the alterations or additions to the trust deed. It is quite appropriate that the whanau themselves and the trustees by a majority of 75 percent can make the changes that are necessary rather than their having to come back to this House with more legislation every time they want to make a change in order to keep the trust deed compliant with modern moves in trust law. It is good that they can make those changes themselves and I welcome that. 
The one that does concern me however and that I cannot understand is the provision that clause 17.1 of the trust deed be taken out which inhibits the power to terminate the trust. In terms of trust law it is a normal provision that is put in trust deeds to provide a backstop measure in case the trust ceases to function. It is pretty easy to see a situation where the trust might have divested itself of both its capital and income and be in a position where it really was no longer functioning for some reason or another and ought to be wound up. I can see no real reason why effectively that clause could not have continued in there simply as a backstop measure so that there might not be an empty trust a hollow shell that had no money or anything in it and that could not be wound up simply because that clause had been taken out. I have difficulties with that and I also have difficulties about there not being an ability to appoint a liquidator for the same reason. There may well be a situation where the trust should not continue because it has no financial resources. It seems a bit strange to me that those things are taken out. 
Those are relatively minor points. Obviously there are cross-party benefits so we will support the bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party is not represented on the Maori Affairs Committee and therefore we come to the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill cold. I hope that someone is prepared to take the call to reassure us after I have put a few questions. At the moment it is very difficult for us to know whether this is simply a minor matter—the sort of private bill matter that goes through so that Parliament can facilitate arrangements that everyone should be happy about and that are without any public interest implications—or whether instead there are things that the public should be concerned about. So as I put these questions I do rather hope that there is someone listening who can speak to this bill to answer them and reassure me. 
The first issue is the purpose clause. I do not have the advantage of having the original trust deed but the purpose clause of this new trust deed is rather extraordinary for anything that purports to be charitable or benevolent in purpose. I shall refer to clauses 3 4 and 5 of the trust deed in schedule 2. 
The first one clause 3 “Creation of Trust” is quite unexceptional. There is an obvious charitable purpose: “… to promote the educational and vocational training of beneficiaries residential care of beneficiaries in relation to their educational and vocational training spiritual welfare (including Tauparatanga) and the relief of poverty …”. There is something in there called Tauparatanga and it relates to spiritual welfare. I can only assume that because this deed relates to Te Whanau-a-Taupara somehow there is a view that the fostering of hapu or iwi consciousness has now become a facet of spiritual welfare. If so that is a rather peculiar thing for Parliament to be blessing. The notion that a clan consciousness if we were Scottish or any kind of simple family consciousness is now spiritual is indeed peculiar. I would certainly like to know whether that is the correct reading of it. 
But then we come to the supplementary “Purposes and Powers” clause. We find that as long as the trustees have decided that satisfactory provision has been made to meet the primary purpose of the trust which is educational they may “Establish maintain and develop marae …” and they may “Advance the cultural activities needs or aspirations of any of the beneficiaries:”. That appears to cover any aspiration. Who knows what a cultural aspiration is? Is it to have the biggest CD collection in Gisborne? What is a cultural aspiration? The trustees are also able we see here separately to “Advance Tauparatanga amongst the beneficiaries:”—whatever that is—and they may provide donations to any beneficiary. That is not a charitable purpose. It simply means that they can hand out the trust assets to any beneficiary with no restriction as to purpose. 
The purposes come perhaps within the bounds of charitable purpose where they state the trustees may “Relieve poverty and make loans or grants towards the relief of indigence or distress …”. That is fine but here is Parliament creating a trust with $7 million or $8 million of assets that no longer even has to list its beneficiaries or keep a roll. There is a concession in this bill against that requirement. So it is not a normal iwi or rununga. This trust will now be in the hands of trustees who no longer have the Anglican Church looking over their shoulder. It will now be left to the beneficiaries to incur the cost of challenging anything that the trustees do because simple ordinary charitable trust law will apply. Yet these trustees are now free to “Establish maintain and develop marae …”; to “Advance the cultural activities needs”—it may not even be cultural needs; from the way that this provision is drafted it may just be any need or aspiration of any beneficiary because this drafting is very unclear—and to provide donations. 
It could just be a case of if the trust blows this $7 million it is one family’s loss and why should Parliament worry? Well Parliament should worry because this trust is also getting a tax concession that no one else gets. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Tell us about the Pipi Trust. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about you? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Is that the Labour whip interjecting there? Is it of no concern at all that Parliament is changing a trust that for 100 years has advanced education; is putting the money into the hands of trustees who can hand it out in donations to anyone they like; and is giving them a tax concession and telling this trust that it can do what any wealthy family anywhere in the country would love to do—put its assets into a trust that the Inland Revenue Department cannot tax then use that money for anything it likes? Who in this House would try to defend that? Who would defend the Inland Revenue Department being obliged to stand clear of taxing a trust for an unknown but small number of beneficiaries with $7 million to $8 million in it that can be used for any purpose that the trustees like that has no connection with any traditional charity? That is either a great boondoggle or this is another instance of the Labour Government considering that when it comes to pork-barrelling racism and handing out largesse it will even allow its mates the full freedom to prey on trust assets that should be going to beneficiaries and that should be going to advance education. 
I had hoped that someone would be saying: “Oh that seems to be an oversight; there’s a simple explanation.” I had thought that someone would undertake to take a call and explain this. Instead I get a series of insults from Ministers on the Labour benches saying the equivalent of the old chant “What about you?”. Why has no one thought that this is serious? Why has the Maori Affairs Committee made an acknowledgment that these are concessions without acknowledging the full scope of them? This trust does not have a roll of beneficiaries and now no one will be empowered to look into this. Why is this trust being exposed to the depredations of its trustees with no effective constraint on where that money can go? It would have been a very small thing for the select committee to say that there are a whole lot of useful things in the trust deed and to have said that it would approve it only if the power to “Advance the … needs or aspirations of any of the beneficiaries:” were struck out. 
What sort of trust purpose is that? What lawyer could have put hand on heart or pen to paper and certified that that was an appropriate purpose for a charitable trust? What lawyer or even parliamentary select committee could have said that it is charitable to meet the costs of research and establishment or support of whanau claims? Claims to what? To a swimming pool? Claims to what for the whanau? Claims to avoid the noise of air traffic overhead? Who knows what that means? There is no restriction of it to any kind of charitable claim. This Government is providing another tax concession and this time not just the 19 percent concession that ordinary Maori organisations have been given because of the argument that most of the beneficiaries are taxed at 19 percent; this is complete tax avoidance. There is complete exemption because of the charitable status of this trust. 
I will be very disappointed indeed given that there appears to be no prospect of an answer on these questions if the National Party or New Zealand First decides that this bill should go through. It should be returned to the select committee for answers on these matters. 
My questions are genuine questions. If someone had looked as though he or she were going to answer them we would have voted in favour because people do vote to facilitate the modernisation of a trust that clearly has outdated terms. Parekura Horomia may have an explanation—he is in the House. The Minister of Social Services and Employment who is in the House should be looking at the precedent being set here that a trust can give its money to anything instead of education. The Hon Steve Maharey also has responsibility for education and he might have a view on why $7 million which should be spent on education can be tax-free and can be given to anyone. I doubt whether John Tamihere’s Waipareira Trust would have objects as broad as this and maintain charitable status. I ask Mr Tamihere whether they are broader. Can money be donated to any beneficiary for any purpose? 
Dail Jones 
: What is the charitable trust clause? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The charitable trust clause— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A number of very serious questions have been raised and we should give the Government an opportunity for a response. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Well no response! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
Noes 7 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Third Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Ikaroa Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a third time 
. The passage of this bill through to enactment will finally allow the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust to operate within the realities of the 21st century in a manner that takes account of the needs of Te Whanau-a-Taupara. 
I will briefly canvass the issues that have given rise to the need for this bill. The Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust represents a section of Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki who hold mana whenua over the Waerenga-a-hika lands. Those lands comprise approximately 245 hectares of predominantly pastoral land. The land is currently held by the Waerenga-a-hika Trust. In 1857 the land was gifted to the Crown for the purpose of establishing an education trust. The Crown gifted the land to the Bishop of New Zealand who in 1862 by deed of conveyance passed the Waerenga-a-hika lands upon trust to the Bishop of Waiapu and certain others for a school for Maori in connection with the Anglican Church. I commend this bill to the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I had just resumed my seat and there is not an awful lot to add to what I said in the previous phase of this bill which is being raced through. At this stage essentially I shall ask the members of this House who may not have had an opportunity to consider the questions that were raised earlier just what they are doing in treating so lightly a bill of this kind. 
This bill is a private bill and was reported from the Maori Affairs Committee. It relates to land that was donated by Maori to the Crown for the purpose of getting for themselves and their neighbours presumably the benefits of education. The Crown for convenience because compulsory secular education did not come into New Zealand I think for about another 15 years then gave the land back to the church which at that time was providing most education. The church at least in respect of this land—unlike so much of the land given for education purposes—vested it again in a trust which meant that it was kept for the education of the beneficiaries. So this land has an honourable history. 
It is fair to look at the source of the trust and to recognise that it should be of benefit to Te Whanau-a-Taupara. But that does not mean that we should then ignore the public interest in integrity in our tax law and our trust law and in seeing that the beneficiaries of a trust that has been going for 130 years do not find that that trust evaporates over the next few years. Unless I am very sorely mistaken—and I would be very surprised if I were—this trust does not have any of the protections that the previous trust had. This trust is now by clause 5 made a charitable trust which could be a veritable beehive for the wasps—a target for those who would love to access the tax capacity that this trust has. 
In my former years as a practising commercial lawyer if my associates and I could have found an entity like this that could parcel out private benefits that could send out benefits almost without any reflection of restricted purposes that could give donations on grounds that are so wide that there is no effective restraint and that at the same time could hold assets without paying tax on them we would have thought Christmas had arrived. It would be very surprising if for example this trust did not end up in a position where people in the Gisborne region vest assets in it on the understanding with the trustees that they will be among the discretionary beneficiaries so that they can take advantage of the fact that instead of paying tax of 39c in the dollar on the income they will pay nothing on the income. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no shame in the Maori Affairs Committee. There is a very good reason why concessions like that should be governed by the same law across the entire country. 
This concession is not justified on the grounds of culture which is usually the euphemism for some form of racism. In this case the racist clause—clause 5 which says that no matter what the trust does it is deemed to be charitable—is called “Blood ties”. There is nothing that could get closer to the early notion of race being some sort of blood connection. Race is a discredited concept in most research and in most respectable scholarship. In this bill the select committee has managed to reinstate it in its most raw form. In clause 5 this charitable trust with the justification being only what are called blood ties does not have to comply with “the public benefit requirement of the law relating to charitable trusts.” It does not have to comply with the law that every other New Zealander is subject to. If one has the right blood ties this Government says one does not pay tax. 
That is not to anyone’s advantage. It is not even ultimately to the advantage of the people in this trust because as I said it will be a honeypot or a beehive to attract the wasps. Unless something is done about this trust it will be the cutest tax avoidance device in Poverty Bay. [ 
Interruption 
] What is happening? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Come up to the marae for the weekend Stephen for a bit of culture. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am getting incoherent interjections from the Minister of Maori Affairs but no answer no explanation and no reason why this provision will not become a precedent. What will the Minister say when the next whanau or hapu comes before him and says: “Why can’t we share the benefits of a tax-free trust?” What will be the answer from the Hon John Tamihere when urban Maori front up and ask why a small bunch of Gisborne Maori should benefit from a tax-free trust that does not have to confine itself to charity? What will happen? If Mr Tamihere looks at the prospect he will see that; of course a precedent is established. 
 Is this what the trustees of the Anglican Church thought would happen when they consented to the extinguishment of the existing trust and to it being vested in a new trust deed? Did they think that the rights of the trustees would include “to be paid an emolument for their services as may be fair and reasonable having regard to his or her duties and responsibilities”? Did they think that this $7 million or $8 million trust would end up with trustees who would be paid like that? It is not just reimbursement of expenses; it is emolument. Did they think that the trust for education that they had carefully guarded for 130 years would now be able to enter into any business it liked for the purpose of handing out to any beneficiary any amount that it liked for any purpose? That is the effect of this bill. Is that what we thought would happen? There is no answer now; there are interjections only when it does not matter only when they think they can get away with it in the hubbub. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They don’t actually understand it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Maybe they do not understand it. Well it is fairly clearly explained. The beneficiaries can have grants for developing their marae advancing their cultural activities and advancing their needs or aspirations. I wonder what sorts of aspirations they would be. Given the bill that we are looking at later tonight it might be an aspiration to pay for commercial sex; that could come into this provision. It is not confined. It does not say that that would not be a purpose within clause 4.3 of the deed. 
As for the advancement of Tauparatanga is anyone here able to tell us what Tauparatanga is? Does anyone here have the slightest idea what advancing it will mean? The sponsor of the bill might be able to say. Is there anyone here who can say what kinds of donations might be contemplated by clause 4.3.4 of the trust deed which says they need only relate to “any of the beneficiaries or in a representative capacity on behalf of the beneficiaries:”? This gets worse the closer I look at it. The donations do not even have to go to the beneficiaries; they can go to self-appointed representatives of the beneficiaries. They are donations not investments. They are not as many trust deeds would say for the betterment or advancement of the beneficiaries; they are outright grants or donations. 
Then in case we missed the first subclause 4.3.2 which states “Establish maintain and develop marae as stipulated by the Trustees in the exercise of their sole discretion:” we have another subclause that states: “Assist in meeting the costs of whanau development research and establishment or support of whanau claims:”. Then we have the making of grants or loans towards the provisions of marae. Whatever is in the minds of the Maori Affairs Committee members in recommending that this bill proceed? They must know that other whanau would give their eye teeth to have a trust like this—untaxed and able to do anything it likes. It will be a disgrace for this House to pass this bill through without giving any messages in reply. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As a matter of interest New Zealand First was not at the meeting at 4.30 on Tuesday but still apologises for having to take this call. I draw members’ attention to clause 5 in the original version of the bill which stated that “The trusts declared in the trust deed are declared to be charitable trusts for all purposes at law.” That was deleted because the Maori Affairs Committee realised that it was far too wide-ranging. 
I was not at the select committee either but I have taken the trouble to read the report. The select committee then took the advice of the Inland Revenue Department—which is the body that is most concerned to protect New Zealanders from breaches of charitable trusts—Treasury Te Puni Kokiri and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That is set out on page 4 of the commentary on the bill. As a result of that advice the new clause 5 was inserted. There is a recommendation to ensure that for the period specified in the clause the fact that the beneficiaries under the trust deed are related by blood does not prevent the purposes of the trust declared by the trust deed from complying with the public benefit requirement of the law relating to charitable trusts. Anyone who had taken a few moments to read the bill would have worked that one out. 
Also as a lawyer familiar with trusts and charitable trusts I looked to see what happens when the trust is liquidated. This bill has special provisions for the liquidation of the charitable trust and restrictions on liquidation under the Charitable Trusts Act. So that aspect of it is covered as well. Looking at the creation of the trust and the matters that the trustees have to promote it seems to me that they come within the broad range of the Statute of Elizabeth of 1601 and I am perfectly happy to support the bill on behalf of New Zealand First. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Noes 7 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (NZ Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill amends the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act. It deals with a piece of land that the council wishes to sell to the local girls high school. It needs this legislation because it is not empowered to sell the land and that is why we are here. Everybody is in agreement on the bill. It has been through the Local Government and Environment Committee where there was unanimity between the members. It has therefore returned to the House with the committee’s full support. I commend it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I will speak very quickly and make just one political point. Here we have a Government that has two standards—one for the West Coast where it will not allow reserve land to be used for other purposes and another here where it is to allow reserve land to be used for education purposes. There are two standards. Nevertheless we support the reason for this bill going ahead and will support the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (NZ Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I think the bill now has complete unanimity despite the small political point that has been made. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (NZ Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am promoting this local bill on behalf of Wellington City Council. It repeals an old statutory restriction applying to methods by which the council can sell certain inner city land. That restriction is in the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. Under that Act the council may sell or lease the reclaimed land in an area known as reserve K but the sale or lease must only be by way of public auction with at least 2 months’ public notice of the auction. The Act also restricts all leases to a maximum period of 42 years. Additionally it requires that the proceeds of any sale are paid into a sinking fund to be used to repay money borrowed to undertake the reclamation. It is those restrictions that the council wants removed. The other thing this bill does is to change the name of the Act to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Act. 
 The practical effect of this legislation will primarily be on land leased to commercial building owners in downtown Wellington. However I understand that the Sir John Ilott green and the site of the old Circa theatre are part of the so-called reserve K. Understandably some people are concerned that once this bill is passed the council will sell that land which they consider to have important public value. While I do not want to express a specific opinion about that today I do want to note the Council’s obligation to engage in a robust community debate before it sells any land that people consider publicly important. 
Finally I repeat what I have said when I have sponsored other local bills through the House which is that historically it may have been appropriate for central Government to place restrictions on what local government can do with its property but in 2003 local government should be able to deal with its land free of central Government restrictions that limit the process by which properties can be sold. I support the council being able to make local decisions about its own property free from the arbitrary restrictions of outdated laws. I look forward to this bill being referred to the appropriate committee and I commend it to the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am concerned that the Minister is taking a rather cavalier approach to this bill. I have taken the trouble to read the Te Aro Reclamation Act passed in 1879 which I have in my hand— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You were here then! 
DAIL JONES 
: It seems like that sometimes. I have taken the trouble to read this bill and the important point that the Minister has raised in her speech is as I understand it that the land is leasehold land. I and New Zealand First want to make sure we protect the rights of the people who bought the lease of that land understanding it to be owned by the Wellington City Council in terms of the 1879 legislation and whose lawyers would—like me as a lawyer—have taken the trouble to check the ownership and history of the land and the rights of the tenants with regard to that land. I am sure some of those lawyers would now be concerned at the thought that the leases are being changed by Parliament. That is virtually a breach of the indefeasibility principles of the Land Transfer Act. Parliament is changing the contract between the tenants the lessees and the landowner and it is being done in a fairly casual way by the Minister. 
I make it clear to the people in Wellington who are on those properties and to any other people who may be affected by similar Wellington City Council legislation that New Zealand First will be ensuring on behalf of any particular tenants who may be involved in acquiring the freehold—and I would expect that this legislation will make sure that the first person who can acquire the freehold is the tenant—that the select committee takes all that into account and protects the tenants’ rights to buy that land. We will be ensuring that any prospective owner of the land—who might not be the tenant if the tenant cannot afford to buy the land—buys it subject to what must be clearly the registered lease in the land titles office. New Zealand First will be ensuring that all the tenant’s rights are protected in the future. That is the only point I wish to make at this stage. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill going to the select committee. We can see no reason that Wellington City Council should not be able to sell or let land other than by having to do so through a public auction. That seems a bit old-fashioned. But like the member from New Zealand First we have some concerns about the bill and we will want to address those concerns at the select committee. 
There is a little paragraph in the explanatory note of this rather technical bill that raises concerns with us. That paragraph states: “In addition the Council will be able to sell or lease the reclaimed land without being constrained by other enactments such as the Reserves Act 1977 which would otherwise apply as a result of the original grant of land as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act 1854.”I have spent a considerable amount of time today trying to figure out why that piece of land should be exempt from the Reserves Act. I have even had a couple of letters sent to me about it. Clearly it is a very technical issue but the letters and the other documents that I have received ultimately do not seem to answer the question. Indeed they seem to increase the mystery surrounding why that particular land should be exempt from the Reserves Act. 
We would be very happy to let this bill proceed expeditiously. There may very well be a good reason for that provision. The people in the council that I spoke to today mostly did not realise that the land would be exempt from the Reserves Act. They were a little perplexed at that as well so I have not been able to get to the bottom of that issue. But I will take a great interest in the bill when it goes to the select committee and unless there is a very good reason for it I will seek to remove that exemption from the Reserves Act. I think the land should be subject to that Act as is any other land that is public reserve. I give notice that the Green Party has some real concerns about that particular provision. We have not had any good explanation for it and we will pursue that vigorously in the select committee. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I absolutely positively support the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill and say United Future will vote accordingly. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand proposes to support this bill. In fact it makes a good deal of sense and we are in favour of good common sense. Far be it for me to stand in the way of common sense or indeed of what may the jewel in the crown of the member for Wellington Central: allowing the Wellington City Council to sell or lease land from the Te Aro reclamation. 
I find the history of that land very interesting. The history of reclamation in Wellington is very interesting indeed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s very interesting! 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is. It is a very interesting subject and I became more acquainted with it recently when my son was given a school project on the 1855 earthquake. That is the way of things; parents often learn a lot more from school projects than their children. Land was scarce in Wellington when the settlers first came. In 1840 1100 town acre lots were pegged out. There was little land for public buildings or indeed for parks. Small reclamations were carried out in the early years of settlement and those were mostly private concerns. 
It is interesting to note that the early settlers were good hard-working folk who were prepared to set about and do things themselves. Reclaiming the land was time-consuming and very hard work though the settlers had patience and a strong work ethic. Reclamation did not happen overnight as we know. Today that attitude is something that is not nearly as common as it was then. Too many New Zealanders now expect that sort of public good to be done for them for nothing and they expect it instantly. It is a constant source of disappointment to the ACT party that this Government is only too willing to oblige them. 
The Historic Places Trust has placed 14 plaques around the city—they have the words “Shoreline 1840” on them for those who have noticed them on the footpaths along Lambton Quay—which trace the original shoreline of Lambton Harbour. The closest plaque to Parliament is outside the main entrance to Bowen House for those members who want to go and have a look. I did so myself this afternoon with one of my media staff. Those plaques give us an idea of the amount of land that has been reclaimed over the years and of how much development Wellington City owes to the reclamation carried out over the past 150 years. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I love these backbenchers who do school projects. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It was a very interesting project I say to Mr Cullen. Around 1880 the Te Aro area was extended seaward and the Te Aro reclamations were carried out by the city council. 
In 1840 the Te Aro flat along with Thorndon was the only area of flat land in Wellington. It was however swampy and therefore less attractive for housing. It became quite industrialised and in fact there is still quite a lot of industry based in that area. In 1853 the Te Aro swamp burst the narrow bank that at that time divided it from the sea and flooded the town acres on the waterfront. The huge 1855 earthquake left Wellington looking much the same as it does now. The benefit for Te Aro was that the earthquake raised the land and drained the swamp. There was room for development at Te Aro but as it was not the city centre reclamation occurred after that at Lambton Harbour. The first reclamations did not take place until the 1880s and were completed in 1886 by which time 9 hectares had been added to the Te Aro foreshore. 
It seems now that the Wellington City Council is keen to sell some of that reclaimed land. Part of it is affected by the Te Aro Reclamation Act while other parts are unaffected and without the need for a notified public auction. This legislation will remove the requirement for the council to sell or lease the land only by way of a notified public auction. In other words the bill is about removing red tape. ACT New Zealand has always been in favour of removing unnecessary red tape. The Wellington City Council as the rightful owner of that land should not be required to jump through hoops in order to sell it. 
It is not often—in fact this is the first for me since coming to Parliament—that I have had the pleasure of supporting a bill for the reasons of acknowledging property rights and cutting the aforesaid red tape. Unfortunately I fear it may be quite some time before another occasion like this arises again for me but it gives me great pleasure to support this bill on behalf of the ACT party. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Prostitution Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 30 April. 
Parts 1 to 3 and schedule  
(continued) 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 A number of members may not have been advised of some of the discussion that took place in the Business Committee. I wonder whether members would bear with me so I can advise them of its thoughts on how the Committee on this bill might progress tonight. First the Business Committee was hopeful that we might get to the stage of starting to vote tonight in which case the Committee needs to understand that provided there is no closure motion we can pause at 9.55 p.m. and continue the voting on the next members’ day. So nobody needs to fear that we will be here until midnight if we commence the voting close to 10 p.m. That is the first point. 
The second point is that some discussion took place and the member in charge of the bill with the assistance of the Clerks and one or two members such as Stephen Franks has put around a schedule of the voting procedure. The Business Committee recommended that be done. That recommendation has been followed its purpose being to get some sequence in the voting; otherwise we would be putting the question on all the Supplementary Order Papers then going back and voting on the bill and that did not make any sense. So there is still an opportunity for members who are interested to comment on it if they want to between now and when we vote. I have had a glance through the sequence and it is common sense. It will follow an order and some groupings have been done. 
Finally there was a suggestion that part of the problem we are having with the debate given that we have 5-minute speaking slots is that after members have spoken for 5 minutes someone else takes the call and then a member who has previously spoken and who does not feel that he or she has made a big enough contribution wants to make a further call and seeks another 5 minutes. So progress is not being made and it was suggested that it might be useful if members were able to take more than one 5-minute call so they could make their contribution without feeling bound to get up and make another speech. It was suggested that that might also facilitate the progress of the bill. I indicated last time that even though it would be in 5-minute slots and members would have to call the Chair again to get the call—and of course it is in the hands of the Chair as to whether they do—it may well be to the advantage of the Committee to let members who are speaking add on to their 5 minutes so they do not have to repeat what they said previously because of getting on to a new Part. 
I therefore seek the leave of the Committee to give itself the authority that if a member on his or her feet seeks another 5-minute call at the end of his or her 5-minute speech then the Chair has the right to allow that member to have a further 5 minutes— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A second call? 
JOHN CARTER 
: A second call and if necessary a third. I do not think the Committee would want to go much beyond that quite honestly. I am seeking that at the discretion of the Chair a member can have one 5-minute call followed immediately by a second which would be a 10-minute contribution and then if the member felt it necessary and the Chair decided there could be a third call added on to that speaking slot. But the maximum time should be no more than 15 minutes. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before the member seeks leave for that I wish to advise the Committee from the Chair that some members have already had three calls. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification because this is a contentious bill and I just want to be assured that if members take only 5-minute calls and sit down at the bell they will not lose their second third or fourth calls. Some of my members want to refute what is being said here from time to time. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 There is no intention to limit the right that anybody already has. The aim is to try to maximise. If a member wanted to have a 5-minute call and then seek another call later that is of course in the Standing Orders and that is not to be affected in any way. 
Peter Brown 
: Are there four calls? 
JOHN CARTER 
: At the moment I think we are still limited to the four 5-minute calls but from memory we took the limit off the number of calls did we not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that was right. No the limit did not come off. Just to help the situation in the Committee could I suggest that the right course of action might be that some honourable member seek the leave of the Committee to have more than four calls. Is that what the member is saying? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is what I am saying. Are you saying to have more than four calls as well? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just thinking of the concerns being expressed by New Zealand First and trying to accommodate the Committee. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No can we just do the first thing first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reason I do that is that some members have already had three calls so it means they will at least get one more call. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes but they can have four calls now can they not as of right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the leave of the Committee is given. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No they can as of right under the Standing Orders have up to four calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes they can have up to four calls but some of them have already had three. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I know. I do not know that the Committee is that keen to give anyone more than four 5-minute calls. A 20-minute contribution on a bill like this is probably sufficient. We could seek leave but I suspect it might be turned down. So could we just put the leave that I have asked for first which will not interfere with the concern Mr Brown has expressed? That is not a problem; so if we could have multiple calls up to three calls— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest then that we might like to seek leave to have more than one call in a row? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is what I am seeking leave for yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. What is the limit per member? Is it four calls? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under the Standing Orders the limit is four calls per member. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. It was my understanding that when we were last in Committee we removed the limit on the number of calls in this debate. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I have a feeling that that is so. Perhaps we could continue on and we could come back to this after taking some advice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We will continue on and we will check that out. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak today about the women working as prostitutes in New Zealand. Clause 3 outlines its purpose as safeguarding the human rights of prostitutes and protecting them from exploitation whilst promoting their welfare and occupational health and safety. It is not that I wish anything less than that for prostitutes; rather my problem is that I want much more than that for them. When I speak of women prostitutes I thinking not just of those who are already employed and represented say by the Prostitutes Collective but also of the young women who will should this bill become law be enticed by financial inducements into becoming prostitutes in the future. Also I think it would be helpful if we were to focus on these women as individuals bearing in mind that as Nanaia Mahuta has pointed out to us many of them perhaps 50 percent will be our beloved Maori women. 
Women are created in the image and likeness of God. They are endowed with the dignity genius and feminine mystique that rightly belong to women. They are rational and free beings called together with men to live in a communion of love. They are coequal with but complementary to men. In marriage they along with men are called into a unity of the two so that side by side and together they exist mutually one for the other. It is in fact through a sincere gift of themselves to that other special one that both men and women frequently move towards their self-realisation and their self-discovery. Sadly however the human race has for thousands of years battled against the tendency of men to dominate women. This domination which is also negative for men has particularly severe and unfavourable ramifications for women. 
Emancipation for both men and women finally means freedom from all forms of domination exploitation and violence. That is why in Sweden prostitution is officially recognised as a form of male sexual violence against women. In that nation it has been concluded that prostitution is a serious problem harmful not only to the women and men involved in the activity but also to society at large. I am prepared to predict here tonight in the New Zealand Parliament—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I heard a cellphone ring. There is a Speaker’s ruling that cellphones are not permitted in the Chamber when they are turned on. The member will stand and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I apologise. It was in my pocket. It was turned off but it must have bumped on. It is now turned off again. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I am prepared to predict here tonight in the New Zealand Parliament that Sweden is on the right side of history in this matter. The Swedish example seems likely to be followed by Finland Norway France and even the Netherlands which is presently known as the sex capital of Europe. By contrast the bill we have before us tonight can in no sense be regarded as forward-looking; rather it attempts to wind back the clock to a past dark Victorian-style age in which society in general was prepared to permit and approve the sexual domination of women by men. 
There is nothing in this bill that can be described as progressive or liberal. Indeed when we focus on the reality of the exploitation and domination that is involved in brothel-keeping procuring and pimping it can not even be described as libertarian but simply as libertine. Therefore the essential question before Parliament tonight is whether we want to move New Zealand forward into a new age of healthy male-female relationships or whether we want to take it back into the dark ages of male domination and sexual exploitation. In this regard I must in particular appeal to all the women in this Parliament but I also appeal to the men. I ask each person to examine his or her own conscience regardless of whether that person is or is not a member of the executive or like myself simply a first-term novice MP. 
I am as a male daring to raise these issues in the Chamber tonight because I have received moving submissions along these lines from the following organisations: the Women’s Health Action Trust; the New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women; the international Coalition Against Trafficking in Women; the Maxim Institute; the Commissioner of the Salvation Army—and I would like to mention that we are approaching the 120th anniversary of the Salvation Army. There is no organisation in modern times that has a more distinguished track record in terms of helping women adjust their lives and to leave the prostitution industry to enjoy that God-given dignity and femininity to which they were originally called. The list continues: Cardinal Thomas Williams Archbishop of Wellington and the Metropolitan of the Catholic Church in New Zealand the Christchurch City Council the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards the Catholic Women’s League the Association of Catholic Women the Catholic Help Group and ECPAT New Zealand which is the global network to protect children against commercial sexual exploitation. 
I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention an article written by Debbie Hager and Anna Pickering of the Prostitutes Collective which is a vested-interest group that supports rather than opposes this bill; yet its article contains the following: “This bill retains the provisions about brothel-keeping and living off the earnings of others.” However the bill of course does no such thing. It does exactly the opposite. I quote further: “This legislation provides access to massage parlours and other premises by health and safety personnel.” Again that is wrong. The present bill in fact repeals the Massage Parlours Act. Accordingly it would appear that the Prostitutes Collective which as I do supports the general purposes of this bill as per clause 3 does not understand that it actually repeals the crimes of brothel-keeping pimping and procuring and the Massage Parlours Act. This is understandable since these very important repeals which are at the heart of this bill are buried away in clause 10 in just a couple of lines. I find that confusion about the purpose of the bill to be common right across New Zealand. 
As I have said previously and repeat now I think it is wrong for Parliament to be repealing brothel-keeping pimping and procuring and indeed the Massage Parlours Act by the stealth of the progressive-sounding purposes of clause 3 when the decriminalisation of those highly exploitative activities is regressive. The predominant purpose of this bill as set out in clause 3 namely to “safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation” is in direct contradiction to the provisions of clause 10 which repeals brothel-keeping soliciting and procuring. 
For that reason alone this bill cannot be allowed to stand because not only is it internally inconsistent; it is indeed contradictory. I therefore find it difficult to believe that anyone on the basis of reason and common sense could support the bill as it has been presented to the House. 
I want to suggest a way forward in this matter that the Committee might be prepared to consider. Two options are open to us: either we can vote to defend this bill on its third reading or we can attempt to clean it up through the Supplementary Order Paper process by eliminating at least its great evils. If members are of that mind I suggest they vote in favour of the following Supplementary Order Papers—firstly that of Dr Wayne Mapp which puts in place some common-sense limitations surrounding soliciting but retains brothel-keeping procuring and pimping as crimes under the Crimes Act; my Supplementary Order Paper which reinstates the Massage Parlours Act and the same would be true of Larry Baldock’s recent Supplementary Order Paper; my Supplementary Order Paper that bans the advertising of commercial sexual services; and Lianne Dalziel’s Supplementary Order Paper which revokes the visas of international students who work in the prostitution industry. 
Since the Committee last convened on this bill I and my colleague Larry Baldock have undertaken a poll through UMR Insight of 500 representative New Zealand voters and I would like to spend a moment if I may in announcing to the Committee the result of that poll. The poll asked New Zealanders three distinct questions: “Did you know that under the current law prostitution itself is legal?”. Sixty-one percent of New Zealanders responded “No”. They did not know that prostitution in New Zealand was already legal—in fact it has never been illegal in this country. That illustrates very strongly the proposition I have put to the Committee tonight—that there is a tremendous confusion in this country about what this bill is about and only gradually are people waking up to the fact that the bill legalises brothel-keeping. The second question was: “Brothel-keeping and bringing customers to prostitutes for payment are presently illegal. Do you think these activities should become legal as proposed by the Prostitution Reform Bill?”. The responses were very interesting. The “Yes” number was 43 percent. The “No” number was 42 percent. So we can say in statistical terms that it was a fifty-fifty outcome. 
However when we look at the detailed breakdown of that question—about whether brothel-keeping should become legal—by gender and by age we have some startling results. The females of this country are against legalising brothels by a margin of 46 percent to 38 percent—the others being “unsure” and so on; whereas the men of this nation by a directly opposite amount—49 percent to 37 percent—are in favour of that course of action. That proves exactly the point I made earlier in my speech—which by the way I wrote before we got the poll results. When we look at the breakdown by sex the first point to make is that the females are against and the males are basically for. However this is something that is much more interesting than that: the females in the 18 to 30 age group—that is the young women who will be affected most by the bill if it is passed—by a margin of three to one are against the legalisation of brothel keeping pimping and procuring. That is an extremely important statistic. It says to me again that my prediction is exactly right and that Sweden is on the right side of history and we are on the wrong side of history. The young women of this country are saying to each person in this Committee tonight whether male or female and to the executive outside it: “Do not legalise brothel-keeping pimping and procuring in this country because it will exploit us and it will be bad for us.” This is the most self-realised group of young women in the history of this country. 
I want to say one more thing. If we look at our $10 bill we will see the face of Kate Sheppard one of the most heroic women in the history of this country. She fought to give women the vote and to see women treated with equal dignity along with men. I believe she would turn over in her grave if she were here tonight to see us even contemplating the legalisation of these highly exploitative matters. I have to go right back almost to slavery to think of anything more exploitative than what we are proposing to do in this bill in terms of brothel keeping pimping and procuring. It is wrong and we should put a stop to it here and now. 
I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the article from Debbie Hager and Anna Pickering of the Prostitutes Collective. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: The second is a document from Gunilla Ekberg of Sweden setting out the Swedish Government’s policy in relation to this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: The third is the poll I mentioned but I should also have mentioned that 75 percent of New Zealanders are against the advertising of commercial sexual services. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 As I understand it New Zealand First members of Parliament to a person are against the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Who is that man? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The senior whip on the Government side wants to know who I am. My name is Doug Woolerton and I am about to speak on this bill this evening—I hope without too many interruptions from him. However we in New Zealand First will vote against this bill to a person. We believe it is naive in the extreme. The bill states that its purpose is to ensure that prostitutes are looked after better and to make their lives safer more acceptable and so on—I am not quoting it word perfect. But it will do nothing of the kind and every person with any sense at all knows it. It is bills like this that make people outside of this place wonder whether the lunatics have taken over the asylum. 
There is no sense to this bill whatsoever. Everywhere in the world where prostitution has been legalised prostitution increases. More often than not prostitution uses young women. Wherever prostitution is legalised the use of young women increases and as the previous speaker said they are almost sold into slavery. This bill legalises pimps it legalises brothel owners and it does nothing at all for prostitutes or for the general public of New Zealand. It would be an interesting situation if our forefathers could come back to see what we have come to in this country in proposing bills like this one—bills that attempt to make the unacceptable acceptable that try to make the unsavoury savoury. We cannot do that by the passing of a bill of this nature. 
If indeed this bill were to make society better then we would be for it. If it were to increase productivity in New Zealand then we would be for it. If it were to help our children we would be for it. If it were to help our mothers fathers sisters and brothers we would be for it. But it will not do any of those things and it is a blasphemy on this nation. What has happened to societal rules? What has happened to those things that take us away from the animals of this world? What has happened to the nice things in society? What has happened to the things about which we politely do not speak? What has happened to those places we pass quietly by with our children and say: “These things happen my dear but we don’t talk about them.’’ and take our children on down the road? That is what society does. That is what hundreds of years of teaching and refining our society has done. We do not need bills like this that take us closer to the jungle that we have come away from. This bill is a blasphemy and I will vote against it with pride. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to speak particularly about the amendments to the bill because that is where we are at at this particular stage. I am promoting a Supplementary Order Paper that is based on the Swedish law which prosecutes the client rather than the prostitute. I remind the Committee that there are basically two views around this: one that views prostitution as a job that could and should be regulated; and the other which regards it as exploitation of men and women. 
New Zealand has obligations under the United Nations in particular the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women where we have said we would aim to get rid of prostitution. People say to me that I am naive that it will go underground and so on. Prostitution will always be underground because the clients are underground. We have heard from other speakers that about 80 percent of the clients are married men who do not go around boasting that they are using prostitutes. 
I believe that many of the amendments have confused many members in this Committee and that members may vote without being very clear what they are voting for when we get to that particular stage. I know that some members have certain misgivings about this whole issue. I want to speak about the amendments in the name of Phil Goff Sue Kedgley and Gordon Copeland many of which are what I call Nimby amendments. Members should remember what has already been said tonight: prostitution is not illegal; it is the soliciting that is illegal. Many of these amendments are basically reintroducing into the bill some regulations around soliciting. They either say that people cannot advertise here or that they cannot advertise there. They are what I basically say are not-in-my-backyard restrictions—that is: “I do not mind prostitution as long as there is not a sign in my street and as long as it is not where I can see it or where my kids can see it. 
 These amendments I believe are really very much not-in-my-back-yard amendments. They mean: “Prostitution is OK as long as it is nobody I know and I do not have to see it.” which I think is really ignoring prostitutes as a whole. I was tempted to put in an amendment that says: “OK if we’re really thinking of equality for men and women under prostitution why don’t we license the clients and have health checks on them?” When I say that most people laugh and snigger. But if people are laughing and sniggering it just shows—as has been mentioned already tonight—the inequalities in the whole law dealing with prostitution. 
Lianne Dalziel also has an amendment which I think borders somewhat on racism and protectionism. It says it is OK for New Zealanders born here to work as prostitutes but it is not OK for someone to come here on a work permit and work as a prostitute. That is a very strange amendment and it is inconsistent if we are thinking that prostitution is a valid job which I understand it would become under this bill. Then there is Marc Alexander’s amendment which is a little like mine. However it also says we should prosecute both the prostitute and the client and I have problems with that. In most other contracts we say: “Let the buyer beware.” Marc Alexander’s amendment says to put the onus on the prostitute so I will be voting against that one as well. 
As has already been mentioned tonight the questions are about equality. It is not only about gender equality; it is about an imbalance of power between prostitutes and their clients and I think an amendment in the Swedish mode would be the best way to deal with it. I am also concerned that not many members of the public have really looked at the issues. I know that heads of organisations particularly some women’s organisations have made statements. Very few members of local clubs whom I have talked to have actually discussed this matter. Very few of them have given their opinions or have had the opportunity to give their opinions to their head office and they are only just coming to terms with some of the issues in the bill. I feel we should do as was done in Sweden: carry out proper research and look at independent research. 
We have some very divided views at this Committee stage of the bill. Members will be casting a conscience vote with most not having looked at the ramifications of the bill and the full implications involved. I would also like to comment that some people who are voting for the bill say that they do not agree with prostitution but are voting for the health measures. One could drive a bus through some of the health measures in this bill. They say that people who own brothels should take all reasonable health measures. I do not have faith that those people would take all reasonable measures—what is reasonable will be what appeals to the man on the Clapham omnibus I suppose heading towards a brothel. I do not believe that the health measures in this bill will actually protect prostitutes and I believe that many who would work in brothels will be thrown out if they have a health problem. I do not see that that would protect many of the people we are trying to protect. 
So I am urging people to vote for my amendment and to look very seriously at the papers and documents I have supplied on the theory and evidence around the actions taken in Sweden. Sweden has some very good laws—good laws that New Zealand has looked to in the past. The main reason it brought in its prostitution law was to have greater equality between men and women and to reduce the inequalities of power. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I support this bill and many of the amendments that have been proposed some of which better protect prostitutes against crime violence ill-treatment and super-exploitation. I do not think that this is a pro-prostitution bill. Decriminalising prostitution will make it easier for people including social workers to talk to prostitutes openly about better life options because prostitutes will not have to worry about the people they talk to dobbing them in to the police. I do not believe that anyone would prefer to be a prostitute. I do not believe that people prefer to have sex with people they do not know or do not like and who treat them with disrespect. But the work of finding alternatives for individual prostitutes is much better done in a decriminalised environment. 
As a society we have to deal with why there is a supply of prostitutes. Most prostitutes do this degrading work because of poverty or economic need often combined with the need to finance a drug habit. I am pretty sure that there were not as many prostitutes in New Zealand when I grew up which was in a climate of full employment and much lower drug dependency. 
I agree with Deborah Coddington’s objection to prostitution. In her words: “It reduces the most private and personal exchange to a commercial transaction.” But unlike ACT members I think the problem has been made worse by the extension of the market’s commercial transactions into more and more areas of human relations. Everything is up for purchase including sex sometimes in the form of prostitution and at other times in the form of wealthy men effectively buying their wives. I do not think that super-rich 70-year-olds like Rupert Murdoch have attractive young wives just because of their sex appeal. In this highly commercial society one unfortunately becomes what one can buy. A rich person collecting valuable art becomes an art connoisseur even if he or she knows nothing about art. Real human and community values become subverted and are continually under challenge—as we have seen in this House for example with the efforts to commercialise the few remaining public holidays when shops are shut. In summary prostitution prospers in a new-right environment which is another reason for driving back the commercialise-everything agenda. 
The other underpinning of prostitution is moral conservatism which is ironic in view of the United Future party’s opposition to this bill. We have just heard a speech by Gordon Copeland in which he tried to differentiate males from females almost defining women as a separate species with some special feminine characteristics. It is that attitude that creates sexism towards women and creates more prostitution. In terms of his and his colleagues’ definition of male sexuality I would like to quote one of Paul Adams’ earlier speeches. He said: “There is a moral code to protect us from ourselves in our own fleshly desires which I know can be very very strong. The sex drive in men is one of the strongest desires we have to fight against.” 
In my opinion that is a very negative attitude towards sexuality and the sex drive. It is a very repressive attitude that actually increases the number of males going to prostitutes. Paul Adams said in his speech that 60 percent of the male clients of prostitutes are married which may be true butthe answer is not to lecture men about controlling their sex drive. That Victorian approach produces only the opposite—more prostitution. That puritanical attitude often carries with it a lot of hypocrisy. I am not talking here about United Future members but we have seen it time and time again with all sorts of television evangelists British so-called family-friendly Tory politicians and priests. The reality is that we live in a pretty sexually dysfunctional society and there are no easy solutions. However being able to talk more openly about the issues is important. As I was saying there are no easy solutions but to be able to talk about issues of sexuality and act more openly is important and I think the bill will help us in that. 
It was good to see a large article inthe 
 Dominion Post 
 this morning trying to do some educational work in respect of the sexual problems of couples. We have to recognise that sexuality is expressed in a glorious variety of ways and we should not put up moralistic barriers or put people into boxes. If people feel too constrained they will escape and seek the solace of secret anonymous commercial sex which means increased prostitution. That is one of the reasons that we should not extend censorship to try to cover nudity and other things—the way the Government Administration Committee wants to with the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. We should not in any way limit the various legitimate forms of sexual expression and appreciation that do not have victims because that only pushes people into undesirable forms of sex like prostitution. This is all related to what we are trying to do with this bill because if we do not get a more sexually functional society we will continue to have a lot of prostitution. 
I support this bill because it is one way of starting to deal with the problem. It will be out in the open and we can deal directly with what prostitution is about and the issues behind it. We can deal with the problems of trying to change our society to one that is less sexist because a sexist societytends to favour demeaning acts towards women like prostitution. We can change our society to one that is more socially just where women are not forced into prostitution. We can change our society to one that is less moralistic and more libertarian so that we can openly discuss the questions and reduce the prevalence of prostitution in our society. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to speak only very briefly in this debate and on the Supplementary Order Paper in my name. It relates to amendments in respect of the Immigration Act to ensure that our obligation under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its protocols on the smuggling of migrants and trafficking of persons can be fully engaged in respect of prostitution and commercial sexual services. That is to ensure that in decriminalising the laws on prostitution we do not unwittingly allow people to be brought into the country for the purposes of prostitution. That matter was brought to my attention by the office of the Minister of Justice and also by United Future which brought it to my attention through a question in the House. I undertook to do some work on the provisions of the Immigration Act to see whether the concerns that had been raised could be addressed. 
The provisions set out on the Supplementary Order Paper include in new clause 8B: “(1) No permit may be granted under the Immigration Act 1987 to a person on the basis that the person—(a) has provided or intends to provide commercial sexual services”. Concern has been expressed that the expression “has provided” would prevent people who have reformed from a previous life in prostitution and are wanting to settle in New Zealand. That is not the case. The basis of the application is that they have provided commercial sexual services so it is not intended to cover somebody simply because he or she has in the past provided commercial sexual services. 
I quote further from the provision: “(b) has acted or intends to act as an operator of a business of prostitution; or (c) has invested or intends to invest in a business of prostitution.” That basically covers temporary entry to New Zealand under a student permit work permit visitor’s permit limited purpose permit and the long-term business visa provisions which are work permits as well. That measure will ensure for example that the provision of commercial sexual services and the operation of a business of prostitution will be out of the question in respect of people who come here as students and get a permit to allow them to undertake work while they are studying. Indeed if people undertake that form of work their permits will be revoked. I know that members opposite take a different view on the substance of this bill and that is why they are making somewhat unnecessary interjections but I remind them that the whole purpose of work permit policy relates to skills shortages in New Zealand and that the long-term business visa policy is aimed at developing New Zealand’s economic position. Therefore in neither case does this particular area apply. 
The last thing I want to say is simply that I was asked by a United Future member whether this measure would pick up the middlemen—and they are almost always men—and the answer to that question is yes. Somebody who brought somebody into New Zealand with the intention of breaching this provision—and indeed any other provision of the Immigration Act—would be guilty of a very serious offence under the Immigration Act and would face those consequences. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Whilst I respect the aims of the member who has just resumed her seat and what she is trying to do I do not know how she is going to police it. I do not know how she is going to stop it. We cannot stop “homers”—for want of a better term—on the black market right now. How will she stop students who are determined to earn money being prostitutes from doing that? She did not once refer to that; she just referred to the Opposition asking questions but did not even attempt to answer them. 
When this bill was first introduced 2 years or so ago its stated aim was to decriminalise prostitution on the pretext of improving the health of sex workers and reducing violence against them. Those of us on the Justice and Electoral Committee know that when we visited the Prostitutes Collective in various parts of the country they knew all about the safe-sex regime that is now in place; we do not have to educate them in any way. Indeed when we met the Christchurch Prostitutes Collective they said: “You can only stay and talk to us for an hour because we’ve got health workers coming in to give us guidance on this that and everything.” The first thing they showed us was cupboard full of condoms and goodness knows what. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that will change that for the better. If the situation needs to be changed it can be changed now. 
This bill is all about—and I challenge Tim Barnett to take a call and refute this—expanding this industry. He wants to expand the prostitution industry for both men and women. I understand that the Prostitutes Collective once employed him in some sort of public relations-marketing role. Maybe he can stand and tell us whether that is true or false but I understand that that is what he wants to do. There are umpteen amendments to this bill. I will list just the names of the people who are putting forward amendments: Dr Paul Hutchison Dianne Yates Marc Alexander Stephen Franks Larry Baldock Sue Bradford Gordon Copeland Wayne Mapp Phil Goff and Lianne Dalziel. This bill has been with the select committee for 2 years and we are getting that number of amendments trying to change it—all different and from all over the show. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That all happened after I left! 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member over there was muttering something but if this bill is coming through with all these amendments he clearly did not do his job as chairman of the select committee. This bill will do nothing to improve the health of prostitutes or reduce violence towards prostitutes. What it will do is totally decriminalise prostitution and that is its stated aim. A non-stated aim is to decriminalise pimps—people who make money largely out of selling young women’s bodies. Like car salesmen sell cars pimps sell young women’s bodies. Is that what we want to do? Is that the incentive we want to give to those people—that is they can do it and now become a respectable businessman in that line of business? 
In this country right now—and I had the pleasure of speaking to her yesterday—is Dr Melissa Farley a lady with some considerable knowledge of this industry on a worldwide basis. The time I was talking to her went by very quickly and I had time to take a limited amount of notes. Because I saw it as a chief officer on a ship I have always contended that prostitution has expanded in all the countries where it has been liberalised. I have seen that at first hand and I have seen how prostitution expanded in this country when the police took their foot off the accelerator. In Thailand for example approximately 14 percent of the gross domestic product—US$27 billion a year—is derived from sex work. Is that what we want? 
Jill Pettis 
: This bill is not going to stop that. 
PETER BROWN 
: This bill makes Thailand look like a bunch of pussycats. The member over there thinks that this bill is out of line with Thailand. I can tell her that the Minister of Immigration will have her work absolutely cut out. People will be coming to this country not only to sell their services as pimps but also to bring in young women under false pretences. The Minister has now seen fit to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper and a sex tourist industry will come into this country like nobody’s business. [ 
Interruption 
] Let them shout; I am not worried about them in the least. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Supporting it! 
PETER BROWN 
: Dover Samuels should keep shouting. In all honesty if this bill is passed tonight or in the near future this industry will expand considerably. There will be more drug abuse and that industry will be a front for it. There will be more child prostitution and that industry will be a front for it. There will be more sexual activity leading to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases and there will be trafficking of women. Damien O’Connor seems to think that this is a light-hearted speech. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Oh no I think it is a serious one. 
PETER BROWN 
: He should take it very seriously because this bill is selling young women in New Zealand short. 
Judith Collins 
: And boys. 
PETER BROWN 
: And boys but young women in particular. There will be more violence against prostitutes and there will be more blatant advertising. Sue Bradford wants to bring in an amendment to look at advertising. On the select committee she pooh-poohed that sort of idea. A disproportionate number of Maori people will be involved in this industry. If anybody refutes that Dr Farley has met— 
Jill Pettis 
: Do you think that might have something to do with poverty? 
PETER BROWN 
: It might well have something to do with poverty but you will encourage them. Yes you will! Not only will you encourage women to get into the industry you will encourage the men to get the women in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Chairperson into the debate. Also what I want in this House is what everyone wants and that is order. Let us have a bit of respectful chatter. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Chairperson I do know that you would not encourage them. I have watched you try to encourage a football team and without much success at that. I was referring to the member over there. That was a little light-hearted bit. However if prostitution in this country becomes subject to the free market—as this bill will basically allow it to become—not only will women be committing degrading acts but they will be competing with other women to do those degrading acts. I have seen women in countries where prostitution has been liberalised actually fighting over a client. That is what this bill will do. 
I shall return to the statistics produced by Dr Farley. She has interviewed 46 prostitutes in the short time she has been here. Of the 46 22 were Maori. I challenge the Maori members over there to stand up and support this bill. If they do my colleagues and I will be rubbing it into them very hard in the fullness of time. The only way to go in this country is to adopt laws similar to the Swedish model. In her wisdom Dianne Yates has put in a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines but it is not comprehensive enough. New Zealand First has done much research on this issue and my colleague Brent Catchpole has a well-researched and constructed member’s bill in the ballot that follows the Swedish model. If we really want to do something about prostitution in this country we should be going along those lines. 
France Finland Norway and Denmark are looking at tightening up their legislation. We are looking at liberalising it. We should be taking a leaf out of the Swedish book and copying the Swedish model. With due respect to Dianne Yates and I know she means well— 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 This debate has been very interesting. I know that a lot of members have honourable intentions insofar as this bill is concerned. Certainly the member who is in charge of the bill may have good intentions but I want to make it clear from the outset that I oppose every provision of this legislation. Firstly I come from a background of Christian people and people who have been missionaries. I say that not because I want to appear righteous but I would like to explain my background as a Christian. I am proud of that and I stand for Christian values. I know that the Pacific community I represent is very much a Christian community and it opposes this bill. 
I make it clear that despite the member’s good intentions about the protection of sex workers and so on I am particularly concerned about what I see in Manukau and some of my colleagues from Auckland are concerned too. We see 13 and 14-year-olds walking the streets of Manukau selling themselves because they cannot afford to support themselves. It is absolutely outrageous that in a well-off country like this some of those girls and other young people—no doubt young boys in due course—will begin to sell themselves because they do not have the means to support themselves and their children. Some of them are no more than babies themselves—babies having babies. I oppose this bill because this Parliament’s message to the community is important. If we begin to send the wrong message then despite the good intentions behind the bill we will be abdicating our responsibility to this nation. 
Despite the good intentions of the member the statistics and facts show that decriminalisation of prostitution leads to an increase in activity and an expansion of the industry. That is precisely the experience overseas and I state clearly that members should seriously consider those facts before they decide to vote in favour of this legislation. 
I make it quite clear that communities with a lot of low-income families are experiencing not only social and economic problems but some of the young people are facing drug problems. Prostitution is an easy option to get money to pay for their addictions and I am particularly concerned about that. If we decriminalise prostitution that will send a message out there that prostitution is OK. I believe more of those young people will use prostitution as a way of funding their addictions. That is a big concern in a community where there is a lot of truancy burglaries and drug taking by young people. 
 If we want to start solving those sorts of issues confronting young people then we have to face the reality of what is happening in low-income communities such as mine. I want to speak out strongly in opposition to this bill. I know that a very high percentage of young Maori children are homeless in the city and that fact was mentioned by the previous speaker. They are displaced because of high unemployment and displaced from rural areas. They are actually living under bridges. My colleague Dover Samuels can vouch for this. He visited Auckland City on a Friday night and found homeless children living under bridges all over the city. They were looking at how to survive and prostitution is an easy way to survive on the streets of Auckland. 
I am not a puritan. I heard somebody earlier quote from the Bible about Jesus confronting a crowd that was about to stone a prostitute. Jesus said: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” He did not condemn. None of us are so righteous that we can condemn or point the finger at anybody. Christ did not condemn the woman but had mercy on her and then told her to sin no more. What I am trying to say is that nobody can claim to be righteous in this House. We have a responsibility as members of Parliament and as a Parliament to send the right message to our communities and to our nation. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 This is the first call I have taken on this bill. I did vote for it when it was introduced to the Parliament and I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last Parliament that was dealing with this proposed legislation. I voted for the bill when it came in because it said that it dealt with the health and safety of prostitutes. I have no problem with that—I do not think that anyone in this Parliament would have a problem with addressing those issues. This bill does not do that. In the course of that bill being worked through the select committee it changed quite dramatically. It changed to a point where it was no longer focused on meeting the health and safety needs of women who are engaged in this industry but rather sought to seek some sort of normalisation. I have heard people in this Chamber and there have been some good speeches. I think those members who have taken the time to put up amendments should be commended. It is an important issue but I do not think that this Parliament has even scratched the surface. 
This bill now says that normalisation of prostitution is OK. I have a problem with that. I am not coming at it from a religious point of view. I am not coming at it from a moralistic point of view. I am simply coming at it from the point of view of the type of society that I want to live in and that I want to leave for my children. It is a society that does not engage or condone the trafficking of women. Although we have had some passionate arguments I have also had correspondence—and I am sure other members have too—from a large number of women’s organisations that say that the bottom line of this is that it is OK. I too disagree with that and I will not support the bill. 
I have heard a large number of arguments in the House saying that this legislation is not seeking to normalise. Well when this Parliament has to look at accompanying this legislation with a Supplementary Order Paper that says that Work and Income New Zealand will not be able to direct women to advertised positions for prostitutes then tell me what we have done if not normalise? We have normalised it. When we are asking councils to look at zoning matters and when we are asking the court to take responsibility for deeming that a person who runs a brothel and profiteers off women’s bodies must be a right and proper person to do that then we are normalising. That is not the sort of society that I want to live in. I would like to live in a society where women are treated with respect. I am afraid that I am old-fashioned enough to believe that where sex is not accompanied with familiarity with respect—God willing even love—then I am afraid it is not an act that I want to be party to normalising. 
I had the privilege of speaking with a number of Norwegian women at the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. They were full of forebodings and warnings for this Parliament about the course of action that we are taking. Their experience has not been good. It is a bit like selling off the electricity companies. How does one go backwards? That is the position that they are in now. That is what they are trying to deal with. 
I think that it is very trendy and there is something very progressive about being liberal a freethinker a free spirit and all the rest but members really need to ask themselves whether they actually accept that this is a viable career for young women whether this is a valuable option available to them. If members do not think that then they should bite the bullet and hold their head up and not be ashamed to vote against this legislation. 
I look forward to the day when this Parliament brings forward a piece of legislation that does really deal with health and safety issues for prostitutes. This legislation does not and I will not be supporting it. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That was a very good speech from the previous speaker and I agreed with every word that she said except that I did not ever vote for this bill. I read this bill and it is not about the health and safety of women and men who are prostitutes. It is about normalisation of prostitution. Prostitution should not be a normalised activity. It is not something that should be on a CV. It is not something for which there should be a career choice. It is not something that should ever be a career’s day activity with work experience in our schools. That is what this bill is all about. This bill is all about normalising an activity that is not something that should ever be normalised. It is not right. That is it. 
It does not worry me one scrap that there are people who wish to be prostitutes. They currently work in massage parlours or else they work on Hunter’s Corner in Papatoetoe. A few weeks ago I was with the police emergency response unit. We popped in to see the prostitutes on Hunter’s corner. I had been told that the police constantly harass those people. What a load of rubbish! We turned up. They came over and said: “Hi how are you tonight? Oh is that the lady off TV?”. Well of course it was; that was me! Then they said to the police: “How’s your night going?”. The police replied: “How’s your night going?”. Well the answer was—and these are the prostitutes who are victimised by the police as we are constantly told by the people who want to normalise prostitution—“There’s a guy up the road who’s been hassling us. Can you go and sort him out?”. So off we went looking for the guy who had been hassling the prostitutes. What sort of hassling is that? 
We came back and found a prostitute sitting sniffing glue from a glue bag. Well frankly if one is doing that sort of job one probably needs to sniff glue. The police officer said: “Now look I’ve told you that you can’t go around sniffing glue out of your glue bag.” He took the glue bag off the prostitute and threw it away. I say: “Good on him for doing that.” The prostitute’s reaction was: “Oh OK.”. That was it. There was no hassle. It is a load of rubbish to say there was. 
If this bill was about stopping people from being prosecuted for soliciting then I would probably support it because all we would have to do is simply amend the current law to remove the offence of soliciting—which currently I am told carries a $200 fine. That is all we would need to do. But this bill goes so much further than that. It is really saying: “Let’s have pimps. Pimps would be fine.” These pimps will have strings of women and men working for them selling their services feeding them with drugs and beating them up if they do not go to work. That is what this Parliament will be legalising if this bill goes through. 
It is a very very sad day when we are spending yet another day of this Parliament’s time debating the sort of nonsense that this bill puts forward. We have far more important issues in this country yet this Parliament spends so much time on this nonsense. It has spent 2 years of select committee hearings and deliberations on this. The people of this country are saying to us to get on with something that is serious yet this Parliament is constantly talking about prostitution. We should not have this bill. 
This bill does not look after the health of prostitutes. If it did the first thing we would do is get prostitutes into a situation where they are no longer prostitutes. As for that member over there—that Government junior whip Jill Pettis who has always got something to say but never stands up and takes a call—I ask why she does not stop her screeching get up make a sensible speech as other members have tonight and actually be a contributor to this Parliament. I know that Mr Brown says that is not possible but I like to live in hope. Please let us live in hope. 
This bill is a very bad bill. It is sending a signal to our young people that this is in fact an occupation that they can go along with. It is an occupation where we are going to say if this Parliament goes through with this bill: “It is OK. You don’t have to keep trying at school. You don’t have to go out and do a job like truck driving or whatever. You can go and be a prostitute—and guess what? It is not really that bad.” Well it is that bad. It is an absolute denigration of people and of everything for families. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill and I am very sad at what I have witnessed and heard in the speeches tabled in this House. This bill has done something to this House that I have not seen in the 4 years I have been at Parliament. It has pitted women against women it has pitted the church against the humanists among us and it has treated women who choose the profession of prostitution as if they are the lowest of the low and the scum of the earth. I am appalled at it. 
This bill has brought out homophobic responses that have simply disgusted me. I received a group of marchers in Rotorua—200 came to me. They were all people whom I know and respect and I think that their church probably does more for their well-being as church members than the State does. But they also cast aspersions on women who choose prostitution as a profession and did not mention the men. That did not happen at all. The men are fine. They can go and use the services of a prostitute but those marchers denigrated the women and did not awhi them in to their lives and show them there is another way. 
I have experience in this profession in that I ran a women’s health service. I do not think that many members understand what happens in the real world. Do members know that for those people who use the mental health service we engaged the services of a prostitute through State health services. We did that to stop peeping toms perverts and people who had problems with their own sexual health and identification? We actually pay for them to use the services of a prostitute and it keeps the community safe. 
The other thing we do in public health services in this country is encourage and fund the Prostitutes Collective to go in work alongside the industry to help women who might choose to get out of the industry and also to help women to check their health and safety needs so that they keep themselves safe and do not get into the dangers of unsafe sex practices—which clients are prepared to pay more for. They encourage those women to protect their bodies from sexually transmitted infections. 
This bill aims to take away the criminalised aspect of that and it de-penalises the aspect of having evidence of safe sex on the premises—that is condoms sheaths diaphragms and lubricants. If those things are found on the premises who gets the criminal charge? The prostitute does and that is unfair. There is no talk of the men at all. In fact 13 women were arrested in Auckland just in December. That is evidence that this is going on right now. Clause 6 provides for those health and safety in employment practices. 
I admire the Prostitutes Collective. It has done a wonderful job with us in public health and in working with women. Its members are not the lowest of the low; they are married women and women who have chosen to go into this industry. It is certainly not where I want my child to go. I have heard ridiculous aspersions made in this House that this bill normalises prostitution. What absolute rubbish! Prostitution is part of society and has been for years and years. We will not change that. We will not change that with a legal status but we will decriminalise it so that the prostitute does not commit an offence— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Prostitution is already legal. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right. We will decriminalise the evidence of safe sex practices—that is all. I think that that is very safe and very sound legislation. 
I am also really tired of hearing the allegation that we are going to destroy the very fibre of families. I have looked at people who have stood up and said that and they believe that their way of life is better than a more humanist approach. I do not accept the argument that we will break down the value and the fibre of the family at all. We are a Government that has supported the Families Commission. We are looking at those aspects that drive women into making a lot of money out of prostitution and that is dealing with the root cause of prostitution which is poverty. We all accept that. We are a Government that has taken that responsibility seriously. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
Tenei kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. Kei te mihi hoki ki ngamatua ki ngawhaea o nga tamariki e whakarongo mai ana ki eneiwhakawhitiwhitikoreroi roto i te Whare Paremataiteneipo. 
Mr Chairman I just acknowledged you as the chairman of the proceedings tonight and I also acknowledged the many Maori parents mothers and fathers who have children and who are listening to this debate tonight. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to radio listeners. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I am talking from the perspective of a father of two teenage children. Last year I was invited by the Maori Wardens Association to go to Auckland particularly south Auckland for two nights running. There I witnessed with my own eyes and saw a degradation of our mokopuna and our young babies. When I say that I mean I took the time out overnight until about 3 o’clock in the morning to traverse the streets of Auckland with the Maori wardens. They are totally opposed to this bill. They are the people who are at the coalface irrespective of all the academic arguments that relate to something that is more fundamental than this—that is the exploitation of our young mokopuna and our young children. If they are determined to grow up to become adult prostitutes that is their business. But from a father’s perspective I am saying that I was outraged by the people I met and very saddened by the young girls I met at Hunter’s Corner. Some of them were 13 years old and some of them were my own relations my nieces—unknown to me. When I mentioned what I saw to their parents they were outraged that their children were on the streets at 3 o’clock in the morning acting as prostitutes—prostituting themselves for so many dollars. 
I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I did not denigrate anybody in terms of this debate because this is a conscience debate. I respect everybody who has stood to make a contribution and I will continue to do so. But I expect that other colleagues who differ in their opinion will also respect my position. I come from a different perspective—one that values women. In this country we have a Prime Minister who is a woman. Our Governor-General is a woman as is our Chief Justice. They did not achieve those positions without struggle. 
The struggle of women over many years right around this world has been highlighted by the evolution of women specifically in its cultural aspects. We see the exploitation of women right around the world for some sort of cultural reason and cultural analysis. Right around this world we have seen women being degraded from birth until the time they die. I am proud to say that I am a New Zealander who has seen the evolution of women and the rights of women integrated into our modern society in New Zealand and I will not stand by and see women degraded. 
 I will give an analysis of that. If a male walks into a brothel—or whatever it is—and has sex with a woman without her consent that would contravene the criminal code and that person would probably be liable to 7 years’ imprisonment. Think about this: the act and the sequence of events is exactly the same. If a male walks into a brothel and has sex with a woman without her consent he would be charged with rape and could possibly end up in jail for a number of years. I ask members to think about this. If the same person goes through the same sequence of events and pays $100 then the principle all of a sudden disappears. The degradation of women all of a sudden disappears. Where is the principle? What happened to it? What happened to the values that we hold dear to our hearts in terms of equality for women? What happened? Has it been paid off by $100? That is total and utter hypocrisy—think about it. Think about the underlying principles of what we are talking about. Simply because a woman has accepted $100 does it mean that the event is no longer illegal and that we as a society and as a people accept it? 
I want members to think about our mokopuna and about the comparison I made in regard to mokopuna. What type of message is this Parliament giving to them when a person can front up with $100 and everything is OK? The principle of the equality of women no longer applies. Where is the principle? This House should think about whether we can buy women’s values simply because we make an exchange of money. Is that what we are talking about? Is that the honesty of the principle we are talking about? Let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us get to the truth of it: we are saying that women have no value. The only value a woman has is determined by how much money we pay—is that what it is all about? 
I want members to think deeply and very consciously about the principles of what we are trying to apply here if we support this bill irrespective of all the amendments that go along with it to enable it to get through. I am asking members of this House to think deeply about the principle of the message we are trying to give our young mokopuna and our children who right now tonight are on the streets. As a father as a parent I ask members to think about what they are doing—would they do it to their own daughters? I would not do it to my daughter—would other members? I ask male and female members of the House—both my own Labour colleagues and colleagues across the other side of the Chamber—whether they would do this; whether would they take the risk? Members should stand up and be counted. 
I come back to what I said before. Are we all about the exchange of values for money? Is that what we are all about? Can we buy everything? Can we buy the principles that we live by and believe in in this House? I ask every member of this House to examine his or her conscience about what we are doing tonight. No reira kei te mihi atu ki a tatou katoa. Kei te mihi aroha ki nga—and I acknowledge the parents both Maori and Pakeha who are listening to this debate tonight hoi anototatou Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai anotatou katoa. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 This is the first time I have risen to speak in the debates on this bill. I accept that all who are speaking in the House tonight have sincerely held beliefs and I want to declare my support for this bill. It is interesting that many members have got up and said that prostitution increases whenever it is decriminalised. There are absolutely no statistics to support that point of view. The reality is that before decriminalisation most of the activity was underground outside the law and not counted. Therefore all that happens is that there is an increase in visibility but not necessarily an increase in the activity. 
It is interesting how many people have stood up in this House and talked about the degradation that attaches to the act of prostitution. That is their opinion but according to what they have said in this Chamber they are not people who have engaged in that act. I have talked to a number of prostitutes and people from the Prostitutes Collective who do not see what they do as degrading to them. If it is an activity that they are indulging in through free choice then there is nothing degrading about it. Some of us have done jobs that we have found pretty degrading over the years. I find cleaning other people’s toilets rather degrading but when I was short of money as a student I did that. So whether it is degrading is the decision of the person who is engaging in the activity. 
It is interesting too that members over there do not take into account some of the very moving submissions that have been made by people with disabilities about their use of prostitutes. They did not find the activity degrading and I am sure that those sex workers who helped those people out and who provided that service did not find it a degrading activity. Much is made about the fact that prostitution is not currently illegal but if the act of soliciting is illegal then that effectively makes the act of prostitution illegal because one cannot get any clients for one’s work if one cannot solicit. I say to members of this Committee that if there is a willing buyer and a willing seller there is no crime. I do not believe that the State has any need to take any interest in what consenting adults do in private. 
I do believe that some of the amendments that have been put before the Committee will be useful. I do not wish to see the activity of prostitution advertised in picture theatres in movies on television or on the front pages of our newspapers any more than I support the advertising of alcohol or cigarettes in that way. I do not support prostitution being advertised but that does not mean that I wish to prohibit the activity. I think it is somewhat arrogant for members of this House to decide that they know what is right and what is wrong. Everyone has his or her own deeply held moral code but what I think is immoral—for example taking excess profits treating workers badly or paying them less than a living wage—is not necessarily a view shared by a number of people in this House. Members are entitled to their point of view but I do not find the activity of prostitution immoral. Members should think very carefully before they make judgments that are based on their deeply held beliefs. They are entitled to live their lives as they wish to live them and to hold fast to their own moral code—and I expect that they would and should because we find self-fulfilment in life by holding on to those things that we believe in deeply. However members should not impose their beliefs on other people. Other people have a right to their own beliefs and moral code and they should have the right to practise their own moral code as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. 
This bill does provide protection for young people—prostitution is only legal over the age of 18. If the activity is legal it will be easier to police and therefore easier to protect young people. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I will start by saying that reform is desirable if we are to eliminate a double standard. Currently the demand is legal and the supply is illegal. Changes are essential in the sex industry and I am sure a lot of people agree with me on that. But this bill is not the answer. The proposed bill does little to restrict entry into the profession to minimise the activity or to encourage prostitutes to leave the industry. The law plays a major part in determining behaviour; that which is unpunishable by the law becomes increasingly accepted by society. Prostitution is a trade that has always been around. We all know that. None of us are naive enough not to think that. But so have burglary and drug trafficking. Does the logic that we might as well decriminalise the activity to protect those involved thus follow? I remember some members near me interjecting on a previous speaker and asking whether arresting these women is respecting them. I say to those members who were coming out with that argument that if they really meant what they were saying they would support a bill making it illegal to buy sex. If they really wanted true reform they would support Brent Catchpole’s bill which is modelled on similar lines to Swedish law. 
I also acknowledge the speeches made by a few members in the Chamber tonight. They were passionate speeches that really got to the heart of the matter and the issue. I acknowledge Taito Phillip Field’s speech. Taito Phillip Field had a very good point. He said that those of us who are against this bill are not puritans. I claim to be a Christian—everyone in this Chamber knows that—and I am proud of it but that is not the sole reason that we are both against this bill. Janet Mackey made a very good argument for that. She did not come from any moral point of view; she came from a solely practical point of view asking what would be good for the nation and good for the young people of this country. 
I have been in Parliament for 9 months now. Walking through the corridors of power one is able to see photos of this country’s Parliaments both past and recent. I am sure there are certain MPs and former Prime Ministers like Holyoake Holland and Nash who have passed away and would be turning in their graves tonight if they knew what was occurring here. But there was a photo of one former member of Parliament who left only a few years ago in 1996—the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan. I have not talked to her about this—I have not talked to her in years—but I ask what she would think of this bill. She is a former member who is respected and honoured by many members of this House. Every member likes her I am sure. I would ask what she thinks of this bill. I would almost put money on the fact that she would be against it for the reasons the Hon Dover Samuels advanced in talking about the exploitation of young Maori women. 
The bill treats commercial transactions for sex like the purchasing any other product or service. The reality is that prostitution is destructive for those who offer the service for those who use the service and for their families. Despite such terms as the “business of prostitution” which means any person who carries on a business of providing commercial sexual services— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I support the bill and in doing so I do what a number of other members have done—I acknowledge that this is a bill on which people have very deeply held beliefs. I do not challenge those but I recognise that there is that difference of viewpoints in the Chamber. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee so I share the view that was stated in the report. I neither condemn nor condone prostitution but I do acknowledge its long existence and the enduring nature of that existence. Even members who are opposed to this bill have said that as well. So I approach the current debate with the view that at the moment in our law we have a double standard. 
As Dr Mapp noted prostitution in itself is not illegal but the other laws we have mean that it is almost impossible to work as a sex worker without infringing some law. One of the laws that is on the books however does actually criminalise a woman—it is normally a woman—selling sex but does not criminalise a man—and it is normally a man—purchasing sex. I do not believe that that is fair. 
 At the moment the law is making a moral judgment. The law is saying that it is OK to buy sex but that it is not OK to sell it and that is why I believe this bill asks how we can address that situation. Some people say we should go for the Swedish model and criminalise everybody. I do not believe that going for that model and criminalising everybody would do anything to address the concerns that opponents of the bill have—that prostitution is a bad thing that exploits people. I do not believe we would abolish or eliminate prostitution if both parties were being criminalised. 
So we come then to the next step and ask what the legal framework should be for prostitution. There are I think a number of important points that have not necessarily come out in the debate. The bill is being held up as being one of the most immoral pieces of legislation to come into the Chamber yet it does not endorse or morally sanction prostitution in any way. That is an important statement. We are not with this bill trying to normalise prostitution. We are also saying that no one should be induced or compelled into prostitution. When Judith Collins was speaking earlier she said we would be encouraging young people to work in this industry. The bill states that it is illegal to force somebody to work as a prostitute. At the moment on streets around our cities people are being coerced and forced into prostitution and all the people who have concerns about that cannot do anything about it. This bill gives us the chance to make it illegal for people to be coerced into prostitution and it gives us the chance to give the police the weight of the law to stop it and I think that that is actually a very good thing. 
I think it is a very good thing that the bill states that prostitution should not be promoted by schools or by the Accident Compensation Corporation or by Work and Income and that people are not encouraged to work in that field. Judith Collins has said there will be career days advertising prostitution. Nobody who reads this bill could say that that was the case. We are not going to try to force people into that profession at all. 
The most important provision that I as a younger member argued for at the select committee is that no one under the age of 18 be allowed to work as a sex worker. Everybody in this Chamber knows that at the present time there are sex workers under the age of 18 and that is wrong. The provisions in this bill mean that we will be able to make that illegal and we will be able to fight it. Bringing the issue of age into a legal framework bringing it out from underneath the underground as it currently is will mean that people who work in the industry and are participating in it will be able to self-police and say “Hey I know the brothel down the road is actually encouraging people who are under the age of 18 to work in the sex industry.” For the first time we can actually combat child prostitution—because we are setting out in the law the fact that no one under the age of 18 can work in that area. I think that is very important. 
People have spoken about exploitation and the fact that they feel there is exploitation of people who work in this sector. As in many areas of employment in this country there is exploitation but I believe that simply hearing no evil seeing no evil and speaking no evil and saying that the current law is working will not end exploitation at all. This bill does give us the tools to fight the very concerns that all members share and most important it does not pass moral judgment. It recognises the situation we have. I will be voting for this bill. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I want to tautoko our kaumatua the Hon Dover Samuels and Taito Phillip Field for their presentations and say that I totally agree with them. I want to speak about the title. I believe that the title should be “The Five Ds”: disgusting disgraceful demeaning disastrous and degrading—and degrading for Maoridom. This bill I believe will create havoc amongst our young Maori women. Already our young Maori women are children pushing children. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs to come out and tell Maoridom whether this is his proposal for closing the gaps or for development. Quite frankly I want him now to get those Maori MPs to cross the floor. Where are they? We look deeply into there and we see that the only one here tonight to represent Maoridom is the Hon Dover Samuels. I applaud Nanaia Mahuta for her stand in respect of where Maoridom will go. 
I will touch a wee bit too on Maori women who are currently in the prostitution business. While I was in South Australia I met a number of Maori women who belong to a Maori club and who were participating in the prostitution game there. The thing was that they were in it for the money so that they could fund their drug habits. That is what will happen here. Already 2 or 3 months ago we heard of 13-year old Maori girls involved in the trade. I hear here tonight that that will not happen. Well I do not know where some members have been living but I have been around all those sorts of people in shearing gangs and in the low life where these people do live. They are waiting for this bill to happen. They will move into this area and earn an income from being a prostitute. 
 We have seen among Maori the effects in terms of the domestic purposes benefit. It is used in a negative way as a tool or means of earning an income—have a child earn some income; have another child earn some more income. This bill is just another tool to drive the wedge between our young people. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs to convince his Maori members to change their votes. I am telling Parekura Horomia that Maoridom is listening and watching to see what he does but we cannot hear him. This is my first speech on this bill. The prostitution industry—[ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis who is trying to interject can go on as much as she likes but I am coming from the point of view of where Maoridom sits. It has been said that this bill will not lead to more gangs being involved in the industry. I am telling the Committee that the gangs will front with a cleanskinned person and he will purchase a parlour. They will then front up with the dough and they will run it. They will run the pimps and they will trade in prostitution. The member will not even know— 
Government Member 
: And drugs. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: And drugs. Last night in the House we heard about the use of methamphetamine. Brothels are the places where they will be selling it in bulk not only to the prostitutes but to everybody who goes in there because the brothel will become a “tinny house” for drug dealing. 
I want to talk about the abuse of women. We have heard tonight from some of the speakers about this. To abuse women is the lowest thing one can do. I love women. To abuse them in any way is degrading as I said in my introduction when I mentioned the Ds. It is degrading to treat women like that. Physically they will be abused. Mentally they will be abused. They will become drug addicts in the throes of being involved in this industry. We will see more children left at home alone. Already the country is flooded with programmes showing violence against women. I am telling members that that will increase. 
Jill Pettis 
: Where is the evidence? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: The member probably has not even been there. She would not realise. Her Government is promoting anti-violence programmes yet this bill will only increase violence. I want to talk about what happens in New South Wales. New South Wales has nearly 6 million people. Our country has only reached 4 million—if one wants to believe it is 4 million. It is probably a lot more. But we have gradually reached 4 million. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I have spoken before in support of this bill and I stand to do so again today. I had the privilege of sitting alongside many colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I believe that I stand in support of this bill with more knowledge and more experience than many others—or more than many others would care to admit. The sex industry is about power. It is about the power of the police who choose whether to decide to enforce the law and prosecute those in the industry. It is about the power of clients who use a potentially illegal activity and are in no way liable or responsible. It is about the power of crime of pimps and of drug dealers who feed off this industry and who can unfettered exploit every worker within the industry. It is about the power of society which sits in judgment of an industry that exists—but it wants to deny it. It is about the power of those who vent their moral spleen against prostitution but will not examine their own lives their own morals or their own values. That is bad but it gets worse because the sex industry is about powerlessness. It is about young women under 18 years of age who are exploited and who cannot speak out about the abuse or exploitation that they experience. It is about workers who cannot talk about their health and safety and cannot complain. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.