Volume 671 Week 71 - Tuesday 12 April 2011(continued on Wednesday 13 April 2011) 
Volume 671 Week 71 - Tuesday 12 April 2011(continued on Wednesday 13 April 2011) 
[Volume:671;Page:17963] 
Tuesday 12 April 2011 
( 
continued on Wednesday 13 April 2011 
) 
Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. We have a superb police force and corrections service in our country and it is very important and imperative that as a Government we back up those men and women who on a daily basis put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of our society. We ought not to be negligent in these matters. This bill is to include an offence against a police or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That means it will be taken into account at sentencing that this is a more serious crime. 
We have in the past seen many situations over the last 4 or 5 years where such situations of risk have occurred and where men and women who serve our country have been injured. Some have sadly lost their lives. Between 2005 and 2009 the total number of assaults on police increased by a third from 1869 to 2481. Serious assaults increased by 38 percent from 298 to 304. These are significant numbers. I think it is also interesting to note at this point in time that we are very thankful that crime has decreased in this last year—there has been a 6.7 percent decrease across the whole country. However at the same time we are finding that assaults against police have increased. 
It would seem to me that we have a very effective police force which is our thin blue line that is standing as the buffer between lawbreakers and law-abiding citizens. Therefore it is our imperative that we strengthen their stance and back them up with legislation and laws that will protect them. The Opposition has made the claim that putting this law in place and making it a mandatory consideration in sentencing will not change the situation. I totally disagree with that. I believe that it is incredibly important we back up our men and women in blue with such laws. 
The term “thin blue line” is very interesting. Where did it come from? It came from the “thin red line”. It is interesting is it not: back in the Crimean War the British and Turks were standing against a Russian cavalry but the British and Turks had very depleted numbers; instead of having four lines in rank they had only two lines. When the Russian cavalry charged them they saw such a thin red line that they thought it was a ploy—in fact they thought it was a diversion and a trick! Behind the thin red line stood what they perceived to be huge ranks of reinforcements and because of that the Russian cavalry turned back. 
Our thin blue line needs to have reinforcements not figments of imagination or a case of “This is what the courts may do if they want to.” We need to have solid reinforcement behind the men and women who stand on that thin blue line in our nation and that will be a bill that will protect them and indeed send the message to those who find it an easy thing to consider disrespecting authority and attacking those people who uphold the law that we as a country will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. 
Police and corrections staff play a vital role in keeping us safe in our communities and it is important that we continue to support that role. We have heard of many tragic situations that have taken the breath away from the people of New Zealand as we have seen pictures of these fine men and women who have been assaulted. I went out with the New Plymouth police one Friday evening not so long ago. We went around all the different places where perhaps infringement of the law and breaking of the law take place and I was incredibly impressed with the calibre of the New Zealand Police. 
We need to realise that at the end of their day these men and women go home and are ordinary citizens. We need to have laws in place that protect them and laws that state that an assault against a police officer or a corrections officer is a serious factor that will be taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing. I am very happy to support this legislation as it proceeds through the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 That presentation from Jonathan Young deserves and requires a response. Firstly I think the underlying assumption behind the explanatory note of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is that the current sentencing regime does not take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. One could make that assumption by reading this legislation and I want to say that it is completely wrong—completely wrong. If we go out and talk to anybody on the street and ask them whether they are more likely to get into trouble if they assault a police officer or corrections officer the answer will unanimously be yes. 
The second thing I think is wrong with this legislation is the implication that the judiciary have not been taking into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer when they are making their decisions. I think that is completely wrong as well. In some ways this bill could be interpreted as a slur on the integrity and the decision making of our judiciary. It could be taken that way because by implication it says that an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer is not being taken into account now and that Parliament is so concerned about it not being taken into account it will pass a law requiring the judiciary to take assault on a police officer or corrections officer as an aggravating factor because they have not been doing it to date. I say to the Government that that is not correct—that is not correct. Any simple analysis of the decisions of the judiciary will show that in fact judges have been doing that to date. 
So if the judges have been doing it to date and it is an aggravating factor what is the motivation for this legislation? Many things come to mind. It could be that it is simply about politics. Jonathan Young gives us the clue to this. Jonathan Young asserts in this House that this legislation is necessary to protect police officers and corrections officers from assault. That is a very powerful assertion but he does not then say how this legislation will do that. There is nothing there at all. There is no analysis no logic and no process to show that this legislation will fulfil his assertion that it will protect police officers and corrections officers. Anybody reading the legislation will see that it does not. 
This is not defensive legislation; this legislation will take effect after the prospective assault on either a police officer or a corrections officer. For Jonathan Young’s proposition to have any effect a person who is contemplating assaulting a police officer or a corrections officer must think in a logical way like this: “I am about to assault a police officer. This is different from assaulting another member of the public as Parliament has passed legislation saying that this will be an aggravating factor when I am up on the charge if I am detected prosecuted and convicted.” They will then have to work out what the cost or tariff is likely to be for an ordinary assault plus the aggravating circumstances now that Parliament has passed this bill and decide that maybe this is not a good idea. I say to National and Jonathan Young that no one goes through that calculation when they are about to embark upon a crime. An assault on a police officer or a murder is an irrational act. It is not an act of a rational person so a rational calculation is simply unthinkable. 
When National claims that Labour does not support the bill and does not care I disagree with that absolutely. That is a slur on the Labour Party. We are as offended as anybody else by assaults on the police. We are as offended as anybody else about assaults on our corrections staff. To imply that we are not is simply wrong and it is simply playing politics to do so. Like the rest of our community we value the role that our police play in protecting our communities. In fact our record shows that we had a record increase in the number of police staff and in investment in police to make our communities safer—any analysis will show that. The Labour Party does not tolerate violence in our community. 
Having said that I will make another observation. An important process is happening here. Parliament is passing more and more legislation that puts an obligation on judicial decisions. I think in some way that that is a reflection of parliamentarians really wanting to be court judges. They say they are unhappy with a situation and will fix it by passing laws to require the judges to make decisions. I say to National that that is getting closer and closer to impinging upon the freedom of judges to make decisions. Our democracy is based on the separation of powers. One of those powers is the power of Parliament to legislate and the second is the power of the judiciary to make independent decisions. In passing this bill in conjunction with the “three strikes” legislation and other legislation we are now in danger of getting closer and closer to having judicial decisions made by simply filling in an equation box. In doing that we are restricting in some ways the independence of the judiciary to make independent decisions. If parliamentarians want to become judges and want to impose sentences I suggest that they get a law degree serve in the legal profession for a while then apply to become a court judge. If those people do not want to be judges and want to pass statutes they should join a political party and come here and pass laws. Those are two separate things. Parliament is not here to restrict the independence of judicial decision-making. 
I will come back to summarise the points I have made. It is our contention and everything on the public record will show that judges today take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. They do that today. The implication made by this legislation is that the judges do not and I reject that. The implication from National is that this bill will make people safer and I do not agree with that because no analysis has been shown particularly by Jonathan Young whom I listened to very carefully and who is usually a thoughtful contributor to this House. In making the assertion that the bill will protect police officers he offered no analysis and no logic to show that that would be the case. 
The value of this legislation is that it makes a statement of intent and for that purpose and because it is about a statement of intent in many ways the Labour Party will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy I think I have said enough and it is a welcome sight to see you here on this fine Wednesday morning. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging the Hon Rick Barker in his new role as the senior whip for Labour. I look forward to working with him as we progress through the rest of the year. The Hon Rick Barker will stand in just a few short minutes to vote in favour of this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour but if we had listened to his speech with the exception of the closing 10 to 20 seconds we would have thought that Labour was opposed to this legislation. 
David Shearer 
: Keep you guessing Chris—keep you guessing. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes I guess it did keep me guessing right to the end. It is good that we have wide-ranging support around the House for this legislation. The public would be forgiven for thinking that every piece of legislation in this House is opposed but up to 70 percent of legislation—certainly at its first reading—is supported by at least the main parties. In many cases there is wide-ranging support. 
In regard to this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill I rise to say how important it is to me that this legislation goes through the House. As a local MP the MP for Napier and Wairoa—and the same could be said for any member of Parliament who is out there in the wider New Zealand—I have got to know many members of the public. Members of the police force are members of the community whom MPs get to know very well. I have got to know many of the local police. Our families interact in many situations—on the sports field in ballet classes. We are part of the community together. The point I want to make is that when one of our local police officers is assaulted it hits home pretty loud and clear. When I get up in the morning and go to work for the day as a member of Parliament the last thing I expect is to be assaulted in my job. However for the local constabulary that is often part of their job. We get situations like the one that occurred in July of 2010 in Clive. A constable I know Senior Constable Alan Daly who was out doing his normal job for the citizens of Hawke’s Bay had to chase down a car that happened to have two P-riddled druggies in it. He approached them and the male in the car came round the back of the car and king-hit him in the back of the head knocking him to the ground. His partner got out of her side of the car and started smacking the officer in the head and bashing him with his radio. That was from a simple arrest—no he was not even looking to arrest them at first. These situations arise unfortunately on a nearly daily basis for our police constables. 
We as a Parliament need to be looking for solutions that reduce the level of assaults. I accept that this bill is not the only solution. The Minister of Police has taken steps in regard to giving the police access to Tasers—which I might say the Greens opposed throughout the process—and giving them access to weapons in police vehicles. The Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice have introduced a range of laws and they all create a package that is helping our police force members to be better protected when they are out there in the community looking after us as citizens and going about their job to the best of their abilities. The last thing that we should expect of them is to be thinking they will be assaulted when they go out in their daily role. 
I am proud to support this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. It is great that despite some of the rhetoric from the other side of the House Labour is supporting this bill as well. I think it sends a message to our community that we are 110 percent behind our police force and the outstanding job it does in our communities around New Zealand. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I realise that all of the slots have been taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Would the member like to determine the time—is it a 10-minute call the member is seeking? 
RAHUI KATENE 
: It is about 6 minutes. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the member needs to seek leave because I do not believe that all the slots are gone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No all the slots are gone. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Oh are they? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes they are. If the member wants a call she has to seek leave so I will put leave for her to speak for 6 minutes. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is opposed. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] No any single member can oppose the leave. Leave was opposed. I am now putting the question. I think members lost track of what I was doing. I will restate the question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party (Sharples) 1; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party (Flavell Katene Turia) 3; Independent: Harawira. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Law and Order Committeeconsider the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill builds on earlier changes that the Government has made to improve jury services by increasing privacy and security for jurors enhancing operational efficiency and restricting people who are sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury. This Government takes the safety of jurors seriously. 
Last year a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This bill amends the Juries Act 1981 to restrict access to juror address details. Juror address details will be available to the prosecution and counsel for the accused in order to ensure that they have the information necessary to make jury challenges. If an accused is self-represented a registrar may appoint a lawyer to represent and assist the accused during the jury formation process. These court-appointed lawyers will also be entitled to access juror addresses. However this bill will prohibit those entitled to access the juror address information from showing the addresses to the accused or any unauthorised person thereby enhancing the safety of the jurors. 
The bill makes other amendments that will enhance the jury system including a provision for registrars to grant a permanent exclusion from jury service for persons so disabled or chronically ill that they are never going to be able to discharge their duties as jurors and persons aged 65 and over who no longer wish to serve or are unable to serve on juries. Currently people in these categories need to apply for an excusal each time they are summonsed to jury service because there is no power under the Juries Act to grant a permanent excusal. The Juries Act and the changes proposed in this bill continue to allow persons aged 65 and over to be available for jury service if they so wish. There will also be some cost savings for the Ministry of Justice because ongoing applications for excusal for some of these people will be unnecessary in future. 
The bill also restricts the eligibility of those sentenced to home detention to serve on a jury which places home detention on the same footing as an equivalent prison sentence. This recognises that people serving a sentence of home detention have committed serious crimes and should be restricted in their ability to determine another person’s guilt or innocence. A further amendment removes an anomaly in the Juries Act by repealing references to corrective training which was abolished over 5 years ago. This bill will improve the jury system’s administration and integrity and help maintain jurors’ safety privacy and security. I commend this bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy and to colleagues across the House at the start of a long day here. I rise to speak on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting it initially so I am speaking in support of its first reading. 
Obviously the bill is not what we would call an urgent matter and I want to raise that point. We are in urgency and once again we find ourselves dealing with a whole lot of very non-urgent legislation. If we are going to deal with matters in urgency it would be worth looking at some of the matters that are more urgent. The domestic violence legislation that has been languishing on the Order Paper might be a little bit more significant than this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill—gee that is a long title. There are more urgent matters that we could be dealing with while we are sitting in urgency. I want to put on record my concern about the cuts in funding in the domestic violence area. I think it is an absolute disgrace that we are cutting funding for Te Rito and for child advocates in the domestic violence area. 
The purpose of this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is as the Minister of Police said to prevent offenders sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury and protects the addresses of juries—though they could be accessed through other means potentially. It provides the ability to excuse people over 65 and people with chronic ill health or permanent disability from jury service. Labour members certainly agree that defendants having access to jury addresses is problematic. However we think this bill has limited ability to protect that situation as defendants who want to find addresses will still be able to do so albeit they will have to take an extra step to do so. 
In terms of the bill itself it is quite a short bill. It is in two parts. It has been determined that there will be no regulatory impact analysis of this bill because the proposals set out are expected to have “no or only minor impacts on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities.” 
Labour members’ concern is that again we are seeing legislation in the justice area that is part of a very piecemeal approach by this Government. We seem to constantly have very small bills dealing with particular issues that have come up rather than our looking at the real issues of the justice system and issues to do with crime. We would certainly support a much more comprehensive approach towards dealing with things rather than the Government reacting to whatever is at the top of its head whatever comes up publicly whatever it thinks will get it some brownie points. We have concerns about that and I raised those same concerns last night when I spoke on the bill we have just dealt with. 
Under this bill defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. However defendants will still be able to see and hear the name in court so arguably they could look up the address in the white pages or on the electoral roll. Therefore as I say the bill will not exactly fix the problem; it will put in an additional step between the two things. 
The issue of juries is one I am dealing with in another forum as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a select committee that I have to admit is well chaired by Chester Borrows the member opposite. He does a very good job and is well respected across this House. I keep saying to him that he should worry about his reputation because Labour MPs are always saying good things about Chester. But he does a very good job in chairing that select committee which is dealing with the issue of juries in relation to the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In that bill we are dealing with issues like the threshold for jury trials. It is a fundamentally important issue. We will have to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the bill deals with a fundamental right and that is the right to a jury trial. It will lift the threshold from the current 3 months to 3 years and many many submitters have raised concerns about that. At its essence a jury trial is one element of our system that is about democracy. In the end the people get to decide whether someone is guilty. It is direct democracy. So issues in relation to juries are really important. 
As all of us in this House will know either from our own personal experience or from dealing with the people we see in the course of our job the issues around people serving on juries are complex. For many it is in the end an issue of time and money and if we are going to start to look at juries I think we should look at that issue. In these tough economic times when New Zealanders are struggling in the face of ever-rising prices and static or declining incomes—in other words when people are really struggling to make ends meet—going on jury service in return for a paltry sum is something people cannot afford to do. There are people now who are excluded from their right as a citizen to serve on a jury. So there are far more important issues in relation to juries. We are dealing with some of those issues here and some of them in a significant piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. Frankly why are we not dealing with this issue as part of that bill? 
Some other matters in this bill are of value and Labour members will be interested to see the submissions on them. The bill allows for permanent exemptions from jury service which seems to make sense if people’s situation will not be changing and it will be equally impossible for them to be on a jury in 2 years’ time as it is now. There is probably some sense in that. Likewise the bill deals with a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 which created home detention as a sentence in its own right but failed to amend the Juries Act—it was obviously overlooked. At the moment people convicted of a custodial sentence of more than 3 years are barred for life from sitting on a jury. This bill bars people from serving on a jury if they have in the previous 5 years been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more. It deals with a loophole. Clearly it is important to deal with matters such as that as they become apparent. 
Part 1 deals with the issues of jury service and the point I have just made about disqualifying certain offenders from serving on juries. It gives registrars more powers to excuse people from jury service and includes the ability to excuse somebody permanently as I have said. Part 2 is the part of the bill that provides the ability to limit access to the address lists of jurors in order to try to protect them although as we have said we think it will have limited benefit. 
I go back to the question of piecemeal reform. Clearly people such as Simon Power Chris Finlayson and others have talked about the need for drastic reform of our justice system yet we are seeing another bill dealing with a particular issue. Often as in the case of the bill last night it will arguably make very little real difference. As my colleague the Hon Rick Barker said earlier this morning the bill implied that the courts were not taking account of whether the person who had been assaulted was a police officer or prison officer whereas in fact they are. Government members are dealing with things in a piecemeal manner to try to get stripes or brownie points for being able to say to the public that they are tough on law and order and are dealing with all of those issues of crime when what is required is a comprehensive look. People who submitted on the other bill I was talking about before which lifts the threshold in relation to jury trials have said that our Crimes Act in total is very outdated and that we should be looking at a comprehensive review of that legislation rather than dealing with the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill without looking at that base document the Crimes Act. 
I leave the House with the thought that although Labour will support this bill and will consider it and although there are some sensible elements in it we believe that reform is being undertaken by the Government in a very piecemeal manner. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. I guess it is always to be expected that when an Opposition party votes with the Government there will always be a whole lot of sentences that start off with “We support this bill but” and ending with “it does not go far enough.” “it should not be done now.” “there are greater problems we should be dealing with.” or “we should not be dealing with this within urgency.”—but but but! The problem with that approach is that those members fail to recognise that there are times when changes need to be made to reflect changes in public sentiment and also to reflect changes in the public’s assumption of responsibility on behalf of the community. 
The last bill that we debated which I did not get the opportunity to speak to really recognised that in the past the community has taken a strong interest in the way their police for instance and their prison officers have been dealt with by criminal elements within the community and the community has taken a more interventionist and more active role in protecting those people. The fact is that these days the community does not do that. These days communities are far more open to putting up their hands and saying “We pay our taxes; we allow them to get on with their jobs; leave us alone.” and that is exactly what is reflected here in this bill. We need to accept that juries have actually been treated quite badly over the years in terms of what is expected of them in this modern age when taking part in jury trials and in terms of the information that they are given with which to do their jobs. 
The point raised by Carol Beaumont earlier was about remuneration. The fact is that within our justice system we expect the public to take part in jury service. We expect them to be available for that and we expect them to do that out of a sense of duty. What price do we put on community obligations in this day and age? What remuneration should jury members expect to be given for taking their role as society’s representatives in jury trials? Is it right for them to expect anything? I guess the converse question is whether it is right for society to expect somebody to do something free of charge when there is a real cost associated with the attendance of that jury member at the court. 
As somebody who has sat through many many jury trials over the years I can say it has been a farce to see the way in which our juries have been selected. People have been chosen or rejected on the basis of for instance their clothing. If people really do not want to be on a jury they should wear a three-piece suit and carry a briefcase. The reason given is that defence counsel’s arguments are so ludicrous that anyone who shows an ounce of intellect would see right through them. So someone who really wants to get on to a jury should wander along to the jury selection process wearing jeans and a T-shirt because in a very prejudiced and biased way solicitors expect that people who have the time to wander along to a jury trial and treat it as lightly as that may not give it the attention they should in terms of the way that they sit and deliberate on the issues before the court. 
I think it is right and proper that the Government moves at this time to protect juries even more as we are asking them to do significantly more for less. The fact that as a result of this bill we will be withholding the addresses and occupations of people on jury lists from the people who appear before the court is right and proper given the added advancements of technology and the ability of defendants to be able to locate and to take retribution either themselves directly or via their mates against people who they can easily identify as having been on the jury. I believe that it is time for this Parliament to look at what we require of juries at how we assist them in making their decisions and at the job that we ask them to do on our behalf in the same way that we are looking at the protections that we offer to juries and at the sanctions that we provide when defendants move against the people from across our society who act on behalf of our community as a whole. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its passage through the select committee process but sadly I note it will not be put before the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thought that was a very interesting presentation to the House by the honourable member Chester Borrows who is a thoughtful and considered member. I was intrigued I must say by his advice on how to escape jury service by turning up in a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase. 
Paul Quinn 
: You’d be an expert. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I say to Paul Quinn that I have never been asked to be on a jury and it is to my regret. I would like to serve on a jury but have never had the privilege. Chester Borrows has put out this plan for exempting oneself from jury service which is to turn up wearing a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase and therefore it sends a message to defence counsel that the person might take an interest in the case. I say to Chester Borrows that that says more about the legal profession than it does about jury service. If people are to be judged simply on the basis of what they wear—and presumably according to Chester Borrows’ analysis the person who is wearing jeans and a T-shirt will be less critical of the evidence placed before them than a person wearing a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase—then I think that says more about the quality of the legal profession and defence counsel than it does about the jury system itself. 
But I do agree with Chester Borrows that the jury system is critical to our justice system; there is no question about that. One of the fundamentals of our jury system is that we are tried by our peers and everybody thinks that that is fair enough. We have the utmost respect for the judiciary and the wisdom they bring but people feel comfortable with the fact that 12 ordinary New Zealanders are sitting on a jury hearing the arguments backwards and forwards and making their judgment. It is part of one’s civic duty to serve on a jury and I say that one of the things this House should concern itself with is that the importance of this civic duty is somewhat lost in our society today. People see it not as a duty but as an obligation and something to be dodged and avoided. 
In part we have brought this about by our own actions. Juries in the past have not been treated particularly well they have not been rewarded very well and we have put them in some very very difficult circumstances. I will give members one example. Historically in Greymouth the conditions for jurors were dreadful. There was no meeting room for jurors to be herded into and await selection. They had to stand outside. On the West Coast it rains a lot so traditionally jurors at the old courthouse on the West Coast used to wait across the road under the awning of Blanchfield’s pie shop. Blanchfield is a name that should ring a bell in this House because Paddy Blanchfield was a former member of Parliament for the West Coast. People would wait under the awning of Blanchfield’s pie shop because the southerly and the rain would be coming through and it was the only dry place to stand. In the teeth of the southerly the door of the courthouse would open the registrar would put his head out and shriek a bunch of names into the wind and people would flick their cigarette butts into the streaming gutters splash their way across the road sprint up the steps and go inside to be either told “Yes” or told “No” and they were out of there. But when the jury was empanelled there was no room for it to retire to. There were no coffee-making facilities. The best that could be done was that the registrar would move some files out of a room—which could be done only on a fine day because one could not put the files in the car park and there was no other space—or people would have to troop their way down to Revingtons Hotel nearby through the rain to have a cup of tea and then troop their way back again. 
This was by any measure mickey mouse. It was only barely tolerated on the West Coast because the West Coast did not expect Wellington to do much for it anyway. I am pleased to say that Greymouth now has a new courthouse and that those conditions have improved somewhat. But by and large the conditions we put our jurors under were pathetic. They were cramped conditions and we did not look after them. That is the first thing and we have to do much better than that. 
The second thing that we have failed to do is to properly reward jurors for the loss of time and for their service. This is one area that I think the Government needs to pay attention to. I am sure it will say that we have a no-bid Budget and that we have all these other pressures but the fact of the matter is that people do give up their time. They do that at quite a considerable amount of expense and cost to themselves and the community should protect them from that. 
The other thing that this bill seeks to address is a very disturbing trend that has occurred whereby defendants have attempted to interfere with jurors on jury service. They have been able to do so because as Kiwis we have been very open about information. Defendants have been able to easily access the information on jury lists and so on to obtain the names of jurors and their addresses and this has created a very disturbing trend. This bill seeks to address that issue and I agree with that part of the bill 100 percent. We need to protect jurors. I accept that there are some things that we cannot do by way of this legislation but we need to protect our jurors from undue influence being exerted by an unscrupulous number. 
I am not sure why this was not done in a previous justice bill. It could have been done in one that has already gone through the system but the fact that it is here now is a good thing. Parliament is going to pass two pieces of legislation where in my opinion one could have done but if the Government wants to make work for itself more difficult then that is its problem. 
I am pleased that this bill will be coming to the Law and Order Committee. The honourable member Paul Quinn enjoys the Law and Order Committee. It is a place of good debate and we have some very interesting discussions. 
Paul Quinn 
: Visionary foresight. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well the committee on occasions has some members who have vision and foresight. Unfortunately some of the bills it gets from the Government and individual members lack vision and foresight and we try to give legislation that when we can. 
Labour will support this bill’s referral to the select committee we will look forward to the representations being made on it and we will do everything we can to improve the quality of our jury system. As I have said the jury system is critical to our justice system. We need to protect it but we need to go further. That is beyond the scope of this bill and it is beyond the scope of the select committee but I would impress upon the Government that it needs to take a lead in promoting jury service as a greatly rewarding and important part of our civic duty as citizens. The jury service can work only if good and competent people put their names forward and are prepared to undertake jury service. If we construct a system where we have so many loopholes and where people feel that the job is so onerous that they use those loopholes to escape from it then the legal system is the poorer for it. We want to make sure that we have a jury system that encourages and supports people to undertake jury service so that we have the best of people sitting on the jury whenever defendants are facing a charge so that they are tried by their peers. 
I am sure that everybody in this House should anyone ever be in the unfortunate situation of being a defendant in a case would want to have the finest jury possible. We would all expect that for ourselves. It is our responsibility to ensure that we put in place not only a legal framework but other supports to encourage the best of New Zealanders to put forward their names and to undertake this civic duty. New Zealanders should see it not as an obligation or something they have to do because they are compelled to do it but that New Zealanders take up this responsibility because they want to do it as part of their civic duty in making this a much better country so that it is their contribution towards the goodness and the well-being of New Zealand. 
This legislation does that in part. But there are many other elements that need to be taken into account—not just the housing and accommodation for jurors when they undertake this service. It has to also be a matter of the support services we put in place for them: looking after their cars helping them with baby sitting and reimbursing them against the costs of undertaking jury service. It cannot be solely at the expense of the individual undertaking jury service. If people undertake jury service on behalf of the community then we have an obligation to support them in carrying out that duty. Just as the community supports members of Parliament and the judiciary in carrying out their roles on behalf of the community we should do the same for jurors as well. We need a much sounder more robust and better system for supporting jurors in undertaking this duty. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill being referred to the Law and Order Committee. The bill tidies up some of the issues about disability and questions like that. I think the question of excusing a juror who has a disability that would prevent them from properly fulfilling their jury service is a fair enough provision. Up until now I think it has been applied but it is good to put it in law. I think the bit in clause 10 about it being on written application for the purpose made by or on behalf of a person is quite important because it has to be on the initiative of the person with a disability. Sometimes people who are not disabled underestimate the capacities of people who are disabled. That is a constant problem in society. I think that if a disabled person in various respects feels that they can conduct jury duty they should be given a chance to do so. I think the select committee will have a look at that provision and make sure that it serves both purposes—that is not to hinder a jury by having somebody whose disability is to an extent that prevents them from properly operating as a juror and on the other hand not forcing a disabled person off a jury when they think they have the capabilities to perform that duty. 
There is another question on protecting the details of jurors protecting the privacy of jurors. That is one that I would like to hear some legal expertise on in the select committee. I can understand the need for privacy of jurors’ details and jurors not being subject to undue pressure from the prosecution from the defence or from people after a trial. We want people to give a fair decision in a jury trial unhindered by any outside pressures they might face before during or after the event. 
The only question I raise—and I would be interested in legal representations on it at the select committee—is whether it in any way offers a balance in terms of jury selection. I do not know whether it gets into that area. Jury selection is very important. The prosecution scans jury lists to see where potential jurors might fit in terms of its case whether they might be disposed in favour of its case and the defence tends to do the same. It looks for people on the jury who might be sympathetic to the case that it is proposing. The tension between the prosecution and the defence sometimes leads to a broad jury where both the prosecution and the defence get their way a bit in terms of the type of jurors they want to see on that particular jury for that particular case. 
I think it is important for the jury system to operate correctly and Rick Barker talked about this a little bit in his contribution. We do not need to have all people wearing suits and ties and carrying briefcases nor all people wearing jeans and T-shirts; we need a cross-section of society on juries so that on the jury—which in my experience and I have been on a jury tends to take its task pretty seriously—there is a feed-in from different life experiences and different sectors of society into the consideration of the case before the jury. Particularly as we move along and become more multicultural as a society it is good to have multicultural representation as well as broad gender representation etc. 
That is something I think we should jealously guard. We should create an atmosphere in society and in the prosecution and the defence that we really need a broadly based jury. Hopefully this provision will not in any way hinder that process. With those few words I say that the Green Party looks forward to this bill going to the Law and Order Committee and hearing particularly the experience of coalface lawyers from the prosecution and the defence and from the Law Society etc. on this particular bill and its provisions. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is happy to support the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We see these reforms as part of a wider context in terms of the Government making it easier for people to carry out jury service. I was interested to hear from Mr Barker when he said that he has never had the opportunity to be on a jury. I think that could be for a number of reasons. One reason could be that he is not on the electoral role—I hope that is not the reason. The other reason could be that on the electoral role he has listed his profession and that would automatically disqualify him. The other reason could actually be that he is just unlucky in which case I would say to him to please not take out any tickets in Lotto. 
We all know that many people who are called up for jury service do not actually attend when asked to take part in this civic duty. I think the statistics are fairly conclusive on this point. In 2009 some 62 percent or close to 200000 people summoned for jury service were excused and a further 21 percent or 67938 failed to attend. It seems to me pretty straightforward that something needs to be done to ensure that a representative and inclusive jury service can be maintained. If we want to have a service that is about being judged by our peers then we really do need to have it right across all our peers whether they turn up in suits with briefcases or in jeans and T-shirts. We really do need to have people from right across the spectrum to serve on juries. 
This bill is intended to achieve a range of outcomes. It looks to improve privacy for potential jurors from the accused or the defendant; to strike the right balance between a juror’s right to privacy safety and security and a defendant’s right to a fair trail; and to improve administration of the jury system. 
The legislation is generally consistent with the Maori Party view to empower victims of crime. In this context it prevents the accused from gaining access to potential juror addresses. It creates a safer balance between jurors and the accused. The Maori Party also promotes a just and durable legal system and its efficient administration—as anticipated through the changes in this bill—is part of that. The Maori Party recognises that those who participate in jury service must be competent. We agree with the rationale that those who have offended in the previous 5 years and have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more should not be asked to serve on a jury for the specified period of time. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to take part in this important civic duty and for all New Zealanders to be judged by juries that represent the broadest range of our people. 
Finally I emphasise our strong support for the legislative change to prevent the accused from ever seeing potential jurors’ addresses. We cannot tolerate any possibility of a justice system that leaves people more vulnerable. We welcome the move to prohibit the defence lawyer or court-appointed adviser from showing the addresses to the accused. We also support the proposed change to section 14A(6) of the Juries Act which makes it clear that misconduct in relation to jury lists may be treated as contempt of court. We are happy to support this bill at this its first reading. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have been involved in the selection of many many juries. The way it works is that the Crown or the defence gets to challenge without cause six potential jurors. This is Chester Borrows’ reference to what they are wearing. It is true that to some extent one will make an assessment of the person as they walk up to the jury box; once they have sat down that is it. As a prosecutor one will also have some reference to perhaps their previous convictions. If it is a sexual charge and the potential juror has offending of that pedigree one would think about that and probably challenge them. Lawyers have six challenges; in multi-accused trials they have 12—whether one is defence or Crown. 
I will tell members the one rule that all Crown and defence lawyers know; Steve Chadwick’s husband knows this. I will bring this secret out into the open today in this House. It is a rule that all counsel in all jury trials follow: never ever—ever—have a teacher on a jury. Never ever have a teacher on a jury. If one thinks of Trevor Mallard or maybe Kelvin Davis one might have some sense of why that is the case. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Too busy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: No it is because they think they know it all. They have been used to lecturing and talking down to children for a very long time. Their minds are not malleable they will not listen to decent arguments and they jump to conclusions. I have just exposed that secret in relation to the selection of jurors. It is something that the Crown and the defence follow. 
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill which will protect more stringently jurors’ addresses and particulars and will help maintain privacy safety and security. I thought about this bill when I saw this headline in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this week: “$10m drug kingpin guilty”. That was a jury trial. One can understand quite quickly in a case like that why people would have very strong and reasonable reservations about their addresses being known by an accused. In a case like that so much is up for grabs. Underworlds can be involved in terms of the witnesses and certainly the accused who will stop at literally nothing to get off the charge. So we are doing something here to strongly protect jurors. 
Jurors do get squeamish. There can be issues understandably with the serious cases. It takes only one or two to feel those pressures acutely for a trial to have to be stopped and started again and for there to be delays—at a huge cost to the taxpayer if one is doing that sort of thing. This bill gets around that. If for that reason alone this is an excellent bill. I hear the comments made by other members about things that could be in it but what it does is sufficient to justify it as a good bill before this House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I think my colleagues have made some really good general statements about the context in which we should look at this bill and the role of juries more broadly. Everyone in this House I know will acknowledge that jury service and the role of jurors are critical to our criminal justice system. Unless we have a robust system that allows our peers to stand in judgment of one another then everything falls down. But underpinning that system again is the need to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of jurors who are willing and able to serve on our juries and that we remove as many inhibitors to their serving as possible. Time is a massive issue as is the ability to travel to court; for a lot of people it is very costly. We should be mindful of these things in terms of ensuring that we always have a representative cross-section of people standing on our juries. 
I would be very interested in knowing whether the select committee is able to do a bit of analysis of those who are currently listed as having sought and received exemptions over and above those that are listed in this bill. Do we for instance see a particular profession very rarely represented at jury level because its members are consistently exempted from service? Do we see certain age groups cultural groups or ethnicities seeking exclusion from jury service and receiving it? Let us look at the reasons why that might be. Is it because of people’s occupation or family commitments or because of the cost? I would be really pleased if the select committee spent a bit of time looking at those issues. I do not feel we have a true sense of whether we currently have truly representative juries and I would like to see that addressed. 
The other general point I want to make before talking about some of the detail of this bill is that as a former member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I know that we have seen an extraordinary number of justice bills go before that committee. I have made a comparison having moved from that committee to the Social Services Committee which is an excellent committee and has a lot more time to consider the systemic issues in the area that we sit across because we are not constantly inundated with what I perceive to be generally reactionary bills. By that I mean for instance the bill we have just finished considering the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill which increases the specific penalties on those who assault police officers. Of course I want to see those who assault police officers be dealt with using the full force of the law but the idea that we need to have a specific provision setting that out in the Sentencing Act when we already see it taken into consideration in sentencing causes me to feel that there is a piecemeal approach to our criminal justice system particularly in sentencing. We have seen that approach on a number of occasions. 
Personally I would rather see us as a Parliament and as members of select committees consider the wider systemic issues in the criminal justice system. Why do we have the second-highest imprisonment rate in the world second only I believe to that of South Africa or the United States? Either way that is an indictment. Why are we not discussing that issue along with the fact that our rate of criminal offending is not really increasing yet our imprisonment rate is increasing dramatically? 
Moving on to the specifics of this particular bill we have already talked about the fact that some elements of the bill are simply common sense. I think it makes sense that there is no regulatory impact statement for this bill because it affects only a very narrow pool of people and they tend to be those who are eligible for jury service and those who might seek exemptions from it. 
I will just run through three specific areas of the bill. One is the issue of ensuring that jurors’ personal details are not revealed so as to keep them safe in the event that they serve on a jury and someone seeks them out. I would like to see the select committee consider that one in a little more detail because as we have already said there are opportunities in court for jurors’ personal matters to be raised. If we are to be comprehensive about the safety of jurors we would be wise to look at that perhaps in the same way that we do for witnesses and victims. 
On that particular issue I think now might be the time to raise the question of the role that court and victim advocates have been playing in our court system. I have heard recently that we have people of varying degrees of competency in those roles but they have the potential to play a really critical role for people who are navigating their way through our criminal justice system which can be daunting. A court for most people is a very alienating and intimidating thing and having someone who is able to talk them in layman’s terms through the process they will go through is an incredibly helpful thing particularly if someone is a witness or a victim. Again in the guise of looking at the role that jurors play and at their experience it might be interesting to talk about whether we have people who are performing that role adequately for jurors. 
The second issue I will touch on is the one of allowing for exemptions from jury duty. Currently if we are called up to be a juror we are able to seek an exemption on the grounds of occupation business state of health physical disability family commitments or other personal circumstances. I have used that provision of the law. I was called for jury service if my memory serves me correctly when I was working for the then Minister of Justice and it was not at all correct or proper in my view to serve on a jury whilst I had that role. I did that in the same way that I believe police officers and their families and specifically the spouses of police officers I think do not serve on juries. My mum for instance has not served on a jury. I believe that provision is contained in legislation somewhere. Those are all legitimate circumstances under which someone might seek an exemption as is I believe the idea of seeking an exemption for a long-term disability or health reason. 
I would like the select committee to consider whether when someone is seeking an exemption on health grounds which will be a permanent exemption under the provisions of this legislation a distinction will be made between those seeking exemptions because of a temporary health issue versus a longer-term health issue. Will we still be able to make that distinction in terms of applications sought on health grounds or will it be the case that generally if we seek an exemption for a health reason it will be a permanent one? I would not mind hearing a little more about that from the select committee after it considers the issue. 
I also note that new section 15A(2) inserted by clause 10 of the bill imposes a duty on the registrar to excuse a person permanently if the registrar is satisfied that the person is of or over the age of 65 years. I have to be honest and say I find it slightly archaic that we would suggest that simply because someone is of the age of 65 or more and writes a letter stating that to be the case suddenly they could be permanently exempt from serving on a jury. I think that is a bit ageist. I see members opposite who may be entering into those golden years themselves and who agree with me that this provision is ageist. If someone is 65 years of age in my mind that does not speak at all about whether they are competent to serve on a jury. In fact if nothing else at that time in people’s life often they have more time available to contribute to their community or community service so why have we set an age of 65? Surely if there are grounds and if a person who is a senior citizen does not believe that for physical or health reasons they have the capacity to serve on a jury they would be able to seek an exemption based on that criterion rather than just their age. 
I would not mind hearing the select committee’s view on that and I look forward to hearing members of the select committee such as Paul Quinn perhaps coming back to this House and telling us what the committee has decided on those issues. I know he was not listening to what I thought was the very good point I have just made. I would be very happy to repeat it later if he would like or he could read the  
Hansard 
 because I know he is a studious reader of 
 Hansard 
. 
Paul Quinn 
: What’s the clause? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The question is why someone of 65 years or more should not serve on a jury. We will come back to that issue and I look forward to hearing more on that from the member. 
Generally the provisions about people on home detention not doing jury duty are simply a result of that matter not having been addressed in the original legislation. Otherwise I look forward to discussing this bill again with Mr Quinn at the second reading. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I will start my contribution with the point raised by the Hon Rick Barker that jury service should be taken as a civic duty and not an obligation. In my opinion it should be taken as an opportunity to participate in the judicial system without one having to be a lawyer. I know someone who once served as a juror and since then she has been encouraging others to go and participate. Participation gives us the opportunity to know about the judicial system and it is very interesting. 
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill gives protection to members of a jury. The bill includes amendments whose purpose is to improve the jury system’s integrity or to help to maintain jurors’ privacy safety and security. These amendments prevent certain people from serving as jurors if at any time within the preceding 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention. 
The bill empowers the registrar to excuse permanently from jury service people with chronic ill health and permanent disability. The most important aspect of this bill is to protect more rigorously the safety of jurors. Their addresses particularly should be protected. The George Baker case has highlighted the need to further contain access to information. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I look forward to participating in the select committee process. 
Since National has taken over it has introduced many pieces of legislation to ensure that law and order can be improved. Latest statistics are telling us that there has been a huge decrease in the crime rate all over New Zealand. If we talk in percentages the crime rate has fallen by 6.5 percent and if we talk about Counties-Manukau the crime rate has been reduced by more than 9 percent. It is important that we protect our front-line police and prison officers from any harm being done to them. 
This Government is working hard to ensure that law and order is maintained at the utmost level. I commend the bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill which is a very long title and a great headline. I should say that the Government’s intention is good too. The Government wants to make life easier for jurors by ensuring that defendants do not have access to jury members’ addresses and to exempt certain people from serving on juries due to their difficult personal circumstances. The Government also wants to ensure and preserve the integrity of the jury system. 
This bill is designed to improve the jury system’s administration and integrity to help maintain jurors’ privacy safety and security etc. Labour agrees that for defendants to have access to jury addresses is problematic. This bill is designed to prevent offenders sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury to protect the addresses of jurors and to excuse people over 65 and people with chronic ill health or permanent disability from jury service. But the problem is that the addresses could still be accessed through other means. We do not think this bill will make any difference as defendants who want to find the addresses will still be able to do so. 
There was a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act that created home detention as a sentence in its own right. It failed to amend the Juries Act. This meant that those who had served or were serving a sentence of home detention could sit on a jury panel. People convicted of a custodial sentence of more than 3 years are barred for life from sitting on a jury. This bill bars people from serving on a jury if in the previous 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more. It puts them in the same category as those sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. On the other hand defendants need to have certain information available in order to challenge the persons selected as jurors. This bill ensures that a defendant has a right to a fair trial which is a fundamental right. 
Overall there are four issues I wish to deliberate on in the bill’s first reading. The first one is that there will be no regulatory impact analysis or regulatory impact statement on this bill because we were told the proposals as set out are expected to have no or minor impact on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities. 
Secondly according to Cabinet papers last year there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons on the jury panel for his trial for whom he had names and addresses. This raised concern about the safety of jurors and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. So this bill is a great example—Mr Paul Quinn may wish to know this—of the Government’s “reactionary” approach to the justice system. 
Thirdly defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. But in reality defendants will still be able to see and hear the names in court so arguably they could still look up the addresses in the White Pages or more conveniently in the electoral rolls. 
Fourthly currently the Juries Act allows people to be exempt from jury duty on the grounds of occupation business state of health physical disability family commitments or other personal circumstances. They have to satisfy the registrar that they or some other people would be caused undue hardship or serious inconvenience if they were not excused. Further the registrar must excuse people if they are 65 or over if their religious beliefs are incompatible with jury service or if they have attended jury service or served as a juror in the last 2 years. This bill allows that exemption to be used—if it works—basically permanently. 
I had the great pleasure of listening to the Hon Rick Barker who made a great speech earlier on this bill and also last night on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I totally agree that both bills offer great headlines but they will have little or no real impact on the real issues. 
Paul Quinn 
: What his speech? 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to Mr Paul Quinn that we are looking at two pictures. On one hand we are looking at headlines headlines headlines and on the other hand the real issues sustain and persist. I have a huge problem regarding this bill— 
Paul Quinn 
: Raymond you’ve lost me. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to Mr Paul Quinn that it is an abuse of parliamentary processes to use urgency to introduce a bill that makes very little material difference. That is a question for Mr Paul Quinn to answer as well. I wish he would take a call. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to the invitation that has been extended to me from the Opposition by numerous speakers. We just heard Raymond challenging me and Jacinda of course is looking forward to my contribution on a couple of specific issues that she brought to the table. I am pleased that she has shown the courtesy to stay and listen to my responses. But I thought I might start with Carol Beaumont who seemed to complain and Raymond did sort of pick up on the theory about this whole urgency thing. Carol young Carol— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member must use the full name. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am sorry. So is it young middle or old Carol Beaumont? I am not quite sure. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s none of those actually. It’s Carol Beaumont to you. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Oh Carol Beaumont; OK. But Carol Beaumont sort of attacked the bill. Notwithstanding that she said the Opposition would support the bill she did attack it because she said it was a small bill and by inference it was an unimportant bill. I really need to take this down to the rugby field and start teaching her some of the simple things in life like the “kiss” principle—keep it simple—[ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members have great difficulty with that issue. They seem to think that the bigger the more voluminous the more airy something is the greater the content. 
I agree that this bill is a small bill. Let me just check; it has 12 pages. But it is a very important bill and as the saying goes we should not judge a book by its cover. The same applies to this bill. This is a very important bill and although small it is another step forward in the commitment that this Government has made to improve law and order and justice in this society. 
I want to canvass a couple of things in the bill. The first part of the bill is around the jury lists. With this bill the Government intends to ensure that incidents like the George Baker incident can never happen again. That convict had in excess of 70 police convictions—[ 
Interruption 
] Ms Chadwick may well laugh but I think it is a serious issue. George Baker while in the back of a prison van was able to attack Liam Ashley. That is the case we are talking about here. George Baker defended himself and therefore was entitled to look at the jury list. He then went about ringing up one of the jurors and threatened that person. [ 
Interruption 
] The sad reality of life and Kelvin Davis will know this is that most of the people who do that sort of thing have gang affiliations. They get all their mates in Black Power the Mongrel Mob or whoever to go out and threaten jurors. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Are those your mates? 
Grant Robertson 
: Other branches of the National Party? 
PAUL QUINN 
: For Grant’s information I do have relations in Black Power. In fact I have a brother-in-law in Black Power and he is a nice chap. So I do not shy away from that. But the fact of the matter is that these are the sorts of people who use those intimidating tactics. This bill is aimed at ensuring that this never happens again. 
As an additional protection under this bill the only people who will be allowed to sight the jury list will be the prosecutor the defence lawyer or the court-appointed adviser to the accused but not the accused. If any of those people who have access to that jury list pass on information that will lead to someone contacting a juror then that person commits the serious offence of contempt of court. I know that Raymond is finally on the same wavelength. We are talking the same language and this is great. 
I now turn to the issue of age that Jacinda Ardern—Miss Jacinda Ardern the list member for Hamilton I think—challenged me on. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Keep it stupid simple! 
PAUL QUINN 
: I did not actually want to call Carol stupid so I am glad the member has. Thank you for that. In new section 15A(2) set out in clause 10 the operative words are “if that person chooses”. The actual prerogative is on the person. It provides an out. 
Let me tell members that I have twice had the privilege of being summoned to do jury service. It has been a great sadness to me that unfortunately on both occasions I was not able to do my civic duty. I had to opt out because I think on both occasions I was travelling overseas so I had to get a dispensation. In the same way if a person of 65 years or more wishes to opt out then I believe that is a very good clause. With those few comments I look forward to the Law and Order Committee considering this bill and reporting it back to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Law and Order Committeeconsider the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Government Administration Committee and that the committee present its final report on the bill on or before 1 July 2011. 
As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is an annual legislative vehicle that makes minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament. 
The bill as introduced amends 20 Acts administered by eight different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references. I will give members a few examples. The amendment to the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area Act 1991 replaces the misspelled “Saddlebank Island” with “Saddleback Island”. The amendment of the definition of “lawyer” in section 5(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 replaces an incorrect cross-reference to the now-repealed Law Practitioners Act 1982. 
Others make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions including an amendment to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 to allow up to nine directors to be appointed by the Minister as comprising the New Zealand Railways Corporation. Under the current wording only seven directors can be appointed. The corporation needs additional directors to manage the increased workload associated with the 10-year turn-round plan which involves the corporation investing $4.6 billion in its assets. 
There are a number of amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. For example one amendment redefines a state of emergency as lasting 168 hours which is obviously 7 days times 24 hours a day unless it is stated to expire earlier is terminated earlier or indeed is extended. The September earthquake in Canterbury highlighted that when acting under pressure the current wording of the Act is difficult to understand and apply for some members in the civil defence emergency management sector. This amendment will help people more clearly calculate the duration of a state of emergency. 
I want to mention two amendments that I expect the committee will wish to have a closer look at. The amendments to the Wills Act make it clear that the Act does not change the law about the formalities for making a will set out in its predecessor. The Wills Act 2007 modernised and updated the law relating to wills which was previously contained in the Wills Act 1837 (UK). The intention was to carry over the law about the formalities for making a will into the new Act with updated language. Following the passage of the 2007 Act concerns were raised by legal practitioners academics and the judiciary that the 2007 Act had unintentionally changed the formal requirements for executing a will. If that were the case the 2007 Act might have unintentionally invalidated some wills that were valid when they were made. I have received correspondence from beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. This amendment was originally included in the Statutes Amendment Bill for 2009 but was removed at the Committee of the whole House stage because of an objection to it. Opposition to the amendment as it appeared in the Statutes Amendment Bill 2009 arose from public commentary that was not available to the Government Administration Committee during its deliberations on the bill. I am satisfied that the objection to the amendment was based on a concern that the matters raised be given proper select committee scrutiny which will be afforded by the inclusion of the amendment in this bill. 
The amendments to the Charities Act 2005 include a proposed change to the definition of “charitable purpose” to clarify the circumstances in which amateur sports purposes are indeed charitable. This amendment is meant to address uncertainty amongst sports groups funders and the legal community about the charitable status of amateur sports and the consequent confusion about funding eligibility. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on this matter. 
In conclusion the examples of amendments I have mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I look forward to the passage of this bill and to working constructively with parties across the House on bills that we put together in the near future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 If ever listeners to Parliament needed to have it reinforced in their mind that this Government is full of bureaucrats rather then people who are going to grow the economy and get us out of an economic malaise this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) would do it. The delivery of that last speech by Nathan Guy fine as it was in content hardly excited anyone. In fact I think if there were 100 people listening on the radio to the start of that speech by the end of it most of them would have fallen asleep. Of course this really does show up National. If we look along the front bench of National and are honest about it we see that the majority of the National front bench are long-term bureaucrats; they have spent most of their life in this place. 
Grant Robertson 
: Institutionalised! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Institutionalised by too many years in Parliament! John Carter is shaking his head but he knows the error of his ways and he is off to the Pacific Islands. He is not going to be put out to pasture; he is going for a little sojourn to the Pacific Islands. I wish him well in that appointment and I am sure he will do it well. 
Here we are again sitting under urgency at a time when we have a $16 billion Government deficit; when we are into a second recession or we are very close to it; when we are suffering an economic malaise that seems to be longer in duration than is the case in just about any other Western country; and when the Government seems to have given up on its objective to close the wage gap with Australia. Yet here we are in urgency in the third year of this Government not discussing its grand vision for the economy—because it does not have one—and not discussing how it will close the wage gap with Australia. Even in terms of the Government’s mantra about—what is it making front-line services— 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh yes moving services to the front line. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well the closest we get to moving services to the front line is the amendment to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act to increase the number of directors from seven to nine. This is in the same week as the State is taking over legal services. I am disappointed that this bill is not of more substance. I know that Statutes Amendment bills are meant to deal with issues that are not controversial and to tidy up little pieces of legislation that need to be tidied up. But can it be said in respect of most of the things that are being done here that they are more important than other Government business? How can it be important to pursue this when we have rising unemployment and huge problems in the economy? What is the number of young Pacific Islanders and Maori who are now leaving school and going into unemployment? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One in five. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: One in five. 
Grant Robertson 
: One in five one in four. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is between one in four and one in five. Between one in four and one in five of our young Maori and Pacific Island peoples an increasing proportion of our population in New Zealand have nowhere to go but on to the dole queue. They are not going into training. They are not going into further education so as to improve their capability and to improve the future productivity of the New Zealand economy. It is little wonder then that more and more of them are leaving every week to go to Australia—so much so that as we were embarrassed to find out when Julia Gillard was here recently Australia views New Zealand as a source of well-trained well-educated civil people who fit well into their society who go across to Australia settle there and make Australia’s economy thrive rather than ours. As a consequence we are in the doldrums from economic mismanagement under a Government that does not have a plan. 
In fact not only has the Government stopped talking about closing the wage gap with Australia it now seems to be promoting it. Last weekend on  
Q+A 
 when Bill English was asked questions by Guyon Espiner in what I thought was a very good interview he said: “Oh well we are so far behind Australia in wages now—30 percent—we’ll give it up and we will promote ourselves as being a source of low-cost labour to Australia for when it wants to outsource things.” That will have an impact upon the Public Finance Act 1989 because as a consequence public finances will be much more affected by that than this amendment to the Public Finance Act. Clauses 78 to 81 of this bill amend the Public Finance Act but not in any way that materially affects the performance of the economy. 
Another change made by this bill is to the Wills Act. From memory I was on the select committee that considered this amendment at the time of the last Statutes Amendment Bill—I was involved in some part of the process anyway—and I can recall that what the Minister says is correct and that an attempt was made to tidy up this matter in the last Statutes Amendment Bill. There is a tradition that the Statutes Amendment Bill does not take anyone by surprise and the provisions relating to wills were very important—we need to make sure that wills are appropriately witnessed because they control the disposition of people’s assets upon their death. The change proposed was not controversial but it was of significant effect and because it was introduced late in the process it was thought to be inappropriate by some of the interested parties including from memory the Law Society to include it in the previous bill. It was thought that if there was going to be a change of substance like that made it ought to have a full select committee process and people should have the opportunity to make submission on it. So it was withdrawn from the earlier Statutes Amendment Bill and it is now found in this bill in a way that enables the Law Society and other interested parties to fully submit on it in an open way to the select committee. The Labour Party supports that provision and the other provisions being referred to a select committee. 
But having said that and having dealt with how this bill does not do anything to advance the need for an economic plan to get our economy going forward rather than backwards I repeat my earlier criticism that I think it is because National is bereft of vision. National pretends that it is full of business people but it is not it is full of long-term politicians who have been here too long. There is the occasional person in National who does not meet that prescription but we have more movers and shakers on this side of the House than there are in National. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: They’ve got gaggles over there. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Nathan Guy is giggling away on the other side of the Chamber. I think I heard him admit that he is giggling although I might have got the pronunciation a little wrong. 
Another provision in this bill relates to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. I have no objection to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act being amended in the way that is being proposed—but in urgency? We are in the third year of a Government during a time when we have an economic malaise and increasing unemployment. Criticisms are being made of the Government that it has no credible economic plan to get us out of this hole. More and more people are going to Australia. Why are we discussing the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act? How will that help people pay their bills? How much has the price of butter cheese and other staples gone up in the last year? Is it 30 percent or 50 percent? The cost of living is going up in part because the Government has put up GST on those items yet here we are dealing with these matters. It shows just how out of touch the Government is with ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to make ends meet. The Government is fixated on these bureaucratic steps that make no difference to the lives of ordinary New Zealanders who look to their Government to improve their lot and if the Government is not doing that they are rightly critical of it. 
Again the amendment to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act might be technically correct but it does not meet the duty of the Government which is to work for New Zealanders and the future of their families rather than to work for the narrow interests of the few that this Government so plainly governs for with its income tax. 
We support this bill being referred to a select committee but we are disappointed that more vision has not been shown for the growth of our economy. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the Associate Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House. 
In all the work we do the housekeeping has to go on; the previous speaker the Hon David Parker clearly does not understand that. I am disappointed that he said that this bill has no substance then followed that statement up by saying how good it was that the amendments to the Wills Act was going ahead; it had been previously unable to when introduced in an earlier Statutes Amendment Bill. He was quite hypocritical in saying there was no substance then saying there was some substance— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member used a word directed to a member on this side of the House that was unparliamentary. She accused the member of being hypocritical. I think the member should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes; the member cannot use those phrases. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
As I said the previous speaker talked about the bill having no substance and then said that he was pleased to see that the amendments to the Wills Act were taking place. I was quite intrigued by that contradiction of terms and sentiment. 
I am delighted that we are making these amendments to these Acts because we have to do the housekeeping required for legislation. That is why I support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow Sandra Goudie. I will pick up on a couple of things. Firstly being in Government is about choices. It is about making choices about where money is spent about how parliamentary time is used and about strategic direction. We were told by Sandra Goudie that now is the ideal time to choose to do housekeeping. She said that the most important thing we need to do now is housekeeping. As Sandra Goudie was speaking a phrase came into my head a saying my grandmother had handed to me: “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” 
As we are sitting in this House allegedly on Tuesday hundreds of young New Zealanders going out into the workforce are facing the bleak prospect of being placed on the unemployment scrap heap. In South Auckland two or three families are living in the same house. Twenty people are living in one house. People are living in garages. They are shacked up in bunks all around the garage. People in Christchurch are facing a grim prospect of living in a broken house with winter coming. In the middle of all these major decisions the Government as a matter of urgency is considering the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The bill has some really fabulous pieces of important strategic thinking! For example Part 17 is about a protected conservation area. We are changing “Saddlebank Island” to “Saddleback Island”. Well I am sure the poor people of South Auckland will go to bed happier tonight! They will feel warm and comfortable as they pull the blanket up to their neck and cuddle their teddy bear knowing that this Government’s got their interests at heart! It is going to correct the name of the island to “Saddleback”. They will be even further buoyed up they will wake up in the morning full of hope and optimism for a new dawn when they see we are changing the Wild Animal Control Act! We are amending the word “thar” to “tahr”. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Oh it’s big! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This is big! This is really big! When we come to the House and see this we understand the vision of this Government. It is standing up on the bridge scanning the horizon looking to ensure that the good ship  
“New Zealand” 
 is navigated past those swirling whirlpools past the rocks that would consume the ship  
“New Zealand” 
. It is navigating us past all of those stormy seas because we will now amend the Wild Animal Control Act to correct the spelling of “thar” to “tahr”. Yes it is important to do some housekeeping but we have to ask ourselves the question whether this is in fact the appropriate time to do it. 
There are some other interesting things in this bill. I am really intrigued by a number of them. I made some notes. I see we are going to make amendments to the Marriage Act. Is it to promote more marriages or to make them more difficult? I am not sure. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s about offshore marriages. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Is it about offshore marriages? There is something about people who are foreign nationals coming here who do not need a certificate to be labelled a New Zealand citizen. I wonder what is promoting National’s concern about this. Maybe those members should explain it to us. 
There are parts about social security retirement limited partnerships and so on. I ask myself what the importance or the value of those parts is when we have a major economic crisis on our hands. We have had a sequence of major financial crashes—South Canterbury Finance AMI—and here we are making tinkering changes to the legislation. What is the Government doing to ensure that the place is well run and tighter apart from putting more and more taxpayers’ money at risk? I ask the drafter of this legislation where the strategic vision is. What is it that we are trying to do to improve the well-being of New Zealanders? 
We will also be making changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I think those changes are probably a good thing but thinking about the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act why is this House not consumed with not just the passing of legislation but the very important issues that underpin it? A major construction boom is going to happen and what are we doing in this House to find the workforce to undertake that work? Where is the discussion about training young New Zealanders—those on the unemployment scrap heap—to get the skills to have the opportunity to undertake the work? We all know we should be doing this work now. Young people should be taken on today to be given basic training. They should be given their education today or it should even have started last week but no activity is being undertaken. Yet we are worried sick about having our sequence of plans in order and in the right process. Well this is another example of Nero fiddling while the House burns. 
Other changes in the bill are to justice legislation—to the Judicature Act. I am really intrigued as to why they are appearing in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and not in the justice bills that have come before the House. We finished debating a justice bill some weeks ago. We just debated the first reading of a justice bill. These provisions could have been incorporated into that legislation but we have this piecemeal process. Instead of having one justice bill we now have three. I have to ask what is happening within the organisation of the National Government that it cannot tidy up its legislative programme. Why are we debating three bills when there could have been simply one? Why are select committees considering three bills when there could have been one? Why are the public being asked to put in submissions on three bills when there could have been one and why if they wish to speak to their submissions do they have to come to the House of Representatives three times attend three select committees and make three presentations when there could have been one? 
The doozy of all of the amendments is the change to the Railways Corporation board. We are going to increase the number of board members by a Statutes Amendment Bill because they have an increased workload over the next 10 years. What is the message that Bill English has been sending to State servants in the last few months? He has been telling them they have to do more with less—more with less! But when it comes to the management class they will get more for less! It is exactly the reverse. It is like Bill English’s tax cuts: when one has more one gets more; when one has less one gets less. I think this reflects National’s attitude. If the Government were serious about expecting more for less out of public servants it should have said to the board of directors that no it would not give them more directors that those guys are paid a very very good salary and that it expects them to step up to the mark. As the Hon Paula Bennett says: “Step up! Step up! Do the job! Step up! And if you can’t do it move on.” The board of directors has obviously complained about being overworked. They have said it is too hard there are too many reports and by the way they do not have enough people in the boardroom to have a very enjoyable morning tea so they want to be given a few more mates. I think that is a very poor signal. If we are genuinely talking about difficult and constrained times if we are talking about the rest of New Zealand having to work harder to make ends meet then what is wrong with a board of directors doing more work with the same number of people? 
And what is so difficult about a 10-year plan? That has not been explained by the Hon Nathan Guy. I want to know what justifies such a significant increase in the number of board members when the rest of the Public Service and the New Zealand public in general are working harder for less. That is the message this Government has given but for its own people for directors—who support it no doubt—it will make sure they not only have more directors but receive more directors’ fees at greater cost. Well I think every group of cleaners in New Zealand would like two extra cleaners on the job for the same reason—because they have a big 10-year plan. I think every group of carpenters on building sites would like a few more carpenters to lighten the load. 
Grant Robertson 
: A bit more work. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: A little bit more work. I think every other industry would like to— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 As other speakers have noted the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) consists entirely of amendments to Acts. All of the amendments are simply technical which lend themselves to non-controversial changes to give effect to Parliament’s intent for each piece of legislation. 
Contrary to Mr Barker speaking for 10 minutes—more actually—on the bill and making points that seemed to oppose the points that are being dealt with in the bill Labour is not opposed to any of these changes because otherwise they would not have come to the House. In order to be included amendments must be minor technical and non-controversial. If any party objects to any of these amendments the statute requiring amendment must be removed from the bill before it is tabled. None of these amendments have been removed so obviously Labour does not object to them. We have just spent 10 minutes listening to a member who is not actually objecting to any of the changes that are being made. To this end the substance of the debate would probably be more interesting if we were debating the changes that the Maori Party have not agreed to. 
There are just a few points that I want to make in this debate. The first is around the proposal that section 26A(6)(b) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act be amended to require the writ for postal referenda to be returned within 60 days rather than 50 days to allow sufficient time for the Chief Electoral Officer to complete the final count of votes endorse the writ and return it to the Clerk of the House. Ten days is neither here nor there but in the interests of due access to justice we are of course keen to support this to ensure a full and comprehensive referenda process can be undertaken. 
But I would just like to raise an issue in the debate regarding the possibility of electronic voting also known as e-voting. Electronic voting technology can speed the counting of ballots and can provide improved accessibility for disabled voters. Polling place electronic voting or Internet voting examples have taken place in Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Estonia the European Union France Germany India Ireland Italy the Netherlands Norway Romania Switzerland the United Kingdom Venezuela and the Philippines. Unfortunately New Zealand is not on that long list. I wonder why we cannot add New Zealand into that list to trial both electronic means of casting a vote and electronic means of counting votes. If we already have the facility for online enrolment then it would seem to me an ideal opportunity for citizens initiated referenda to serve as a pilot for e-voting. 
As the member for Te Tai Tonga the amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 are also worthy of a brief comment. In essence this reform will amend the Act to clarify that there may be only one state of local emergency in force in the same location at any one time. If Parliament were sitting in Tokyo the fact that we have just experienced earthquakes a tidal wave and a nuclear meltdown would mean only that there was one national state of emergency. If we were sitting in Christchurch we would have gone through two earthquakes but there would be only one national state of emergency. The events as they have unfolded in Canterbury have certainly informed the importance of maintaining consistency of communication and the need for a coordinated comprehensive approach. Obviously we support this change. 
Consistency is also a concept that we considered when looking at the amendments to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. The bill amends section 24(2) of the Act so as to provide that “every tangata whenua appointee shall continue in office until the appointee’s successor comes into office notwithstanding that the term for which the appointee was appointed may have expired.” This is a pragmatic response to issues that occur from time to time between retirements resignations and new appointments. The Maori Party is aware that unless we set up procedures such as this amendment there might be serious consequences for the work programme and issues involved in the management of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park if indeed tangata whenua representation were missing from the table. 
I want also to focus on issues around the Domestic Violence Act. I want to correct the gross misinformation put to the House this morning by Carol Beaumont about domestic violence prevention funding. Ms Beaumont suggested that there should be great concern about the nature of the funding cuts to family violence prevention funding. Actually she could not be more wrong. In actual fact not only has funding for family violence prevention been maintained at $11.035 million as part of the 2011-12 funding plan but in actual fact the announcements by my colleague Tariana Turia included mention of $2.8 million for a period of 1 year to support innovation and joined-up approaches to the coordination of responses to family violence. This may include responses such as community networks and case collaboration. So the funding for family violence prevention has not only been maintained but it has grown. 
What is different about the approach is that we now see far more emphasis on front-line services. In particular the Family-Centred Services Fund will enable family violence prevention service providers and provider collectives to work more flexibly to restore family safety and family well-being where violence has occurred and to help create the longer-term changes needed to prevent violence from recurring. The Maori Party welcomes this refocus on families and believes it is the right emphasis for our future. 
The amendments in this bill to the Domestic Violence Act will make it clear that a person may be taken into custody only for refusing or failing to comply with a police safety order if after issue the order has been served on the person. They also enable community magistrates justices of the peace and court registrars as well as District Court judges to issue warrants of arrest under sections. We welcome the move for transparency and note also that it reflects the widespread ownership of the prevention of family violence right across Government. 
Finally we support the changes to the Charities Act to clarify the definition of “officer” and to amend the definition of “serious wrongdoing” to include: grossly negligent record-keeping gross mismanagement destruction and misrepresentation of records. It is all good to have such specificity written into the law. There is an amendment made to section 5 of the Act so that the meaning of “charitable purpose” is defined as it applies to amateur sport. This will be in line with current case law which provides that amateur sport is not a charitable purpose for its own sake but it can be charitable if it is a means to achieving charitable purposes such as promoting health or education. We support all these changes and we believe it is consistent with the wider context about ensuring the Charities Commission is more aligned with New Zealand communities. We note in the commission’s statement of intent its commitment to enhance its responsiveness to Maori Pasifika and ethnic communities and we obviously welcome this wider direction of change. 
There are many other amendments made within the bill. So many of them are technical and should not have to be made but they were made because of spelling mistakes because of commas or full stops being in the wrong place or simple typos which should not have slipped through and in fact would not have slipped through if we had a better process in this Parliament. To this end I am really looking forward to the constitutional review and to submissions that the public will make on whether this Parliament needs a second House to review what is going on so that we do not have to pass through things under urgency so that we do not pass through things that should not be passed through such as a simple spelling mistake or a typo. The Maori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading recognising that further points of detail can be raised at successive stages. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. First of all I congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. 
It is my privilege to speak on the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is an omnibus bill that amends a number of different Acts. It amends 20 different statutes including the Wills Act which relates to the signing of wills witnesses and the validity of the documents. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also amends the Charities Act 2005 the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act the Companies Act the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act. The bill also includes updates and definitions will be clarified and simplified for most aspects of these bills. I commend this bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson and as it is the first occasion on which I have spoken since you have moved to your new elevated status I will just acknowledge that. There is some confusion around the House about whether we are in fact blood relatives and I see that today you are wearing the clan tartan tie. But just for the record once and for all I say that we are not related although I do hold you in the greatest of respect. I thought I would just clarify that. 
I stand to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and following just one speaker on from Rahui Katene who spoke before I have to take up some of the issues that she raised. Standing here in urgency I question whether this is the best that the National Government can do and the question that I would have thought the Maori Party would be asking is whether this bill is the best that the Government can do for Maori. I ask whether it should not actually be bringing to this House something that will address the appalling rate of unemployment among young Maori. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Highest since the Second World War. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Unemployment among Maori is now the highest since the Second World War. Where is the plan to grow opportunities for Maori youth? Where is the plan for training? We have had $55 million taken out of training by this Government. Where is the plan to have young Maori in training? Where is the plan to support young Maori into university so that they can be the leaders of tomorrow? Where is the plan for Maori growth in business and for entrepreneurship for Maori—where is the plan for that? That is the question that I believe the Maori Party should be asking of the Government as we are here in urgency today debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The other matter I will take up from Rahui Katene is a serious one and that is the question of funding for anti-violence measures in this country. I was the recipient of a letter as were many others in this House from Women’s Refuge. That letter told us that it was concerned that $380000 had been taken out of its budget—$380000. That is a cut. That is a cut to an organisation that I think every single member of this House would have respect for. The women’s refuge down in Christchurch at the moment is having to deal with more and more women coming to see it. I have had Women’s Refuge come into my office during the last year saying that it is full up and cannot take any more people—$380000 has been taken from that organisation’s budget. It is the end of the Te Rito programme a programme that Minister Turia used to champion but not now. I am sorry to say that it is not correct for Rahui Katene to stand up and tell us that there have not been cuts. Women’s Refuge wrote to this House. Annette King raised the issue with Paula Bennett and tabled that letter in this House. That is an issue the Maori Party and others need to answer. In this bill we have a provision about the Domestic Violence Act but it is not the kind of provision we should be seeing from this Government. It is not a plan to address the reduction of domestic violence; it is a tinkering change just as the rest of this bill is. 
We are here in urgency and I raise the issue yet again that the National Government has decided that amendments like those being made to the Wild Animal Control Act and the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area Act are the urgent business of this House. There is one thing I can say for the Government on this: at least this bill is going to a select committee. In this term of Government 17 bills have come into this House and have not been referred to a select committee—17. That number compares in the last three terms of the Labour Government with one bill in one term four bills in another term and five bills in another term. Doing that with 17 bills is to corrupt the democratic process. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What does that tell us? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It tells us that this Government does not want to hear from the public I say to Mr Horomia. That is what it tells us. It does not want to hear from the public. 
One of the first bills I debated when I became a member of Parliament was the bill that rammed through Anne Tolley’s national standards. That bill did not go to a select committee. I ask what could be more important to send to a select committee and get expert opinion and public opinion on than a fundamental change to the way our children are assessed and the way that children’s reports are given to parents. That is a major issue and this Government rammed that bill through under urgency. It did not send that bill to a select committee. But today we sit here under urgency debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This is meant to be a tidy-up kind of bill. It is as Sandra Goudie said earlier some housekeeping. Well as my colleague Steve Chadwick said that is right; Sandra Goudie is doing the housekeeping. She is polishing up the family silver before the National Government sells it off. That is what it is doing. That is the kind of housekeeping this Government has indulged in because this bill does not give us any kind of direction or any kind of plan for New Zealand. This bill is the priority. The choice that the National Government has made today is to bring this bill before the House. It does not provide any kind of economic plan. It does not help people who are struggling in New Zealand to pay their food bills to pay their rent to pay their power or to put petrol in the car. It does not help them at all. Here we have the National Government fiddling while Rome burns. 
If we look at one of the clauses perhaps we can see an inkling of a plan for the National Government. It is the clause that amends the Marriage Act. What this clause does is to allow a New Zealander who intends to marry outside New Zealand to apply to the registrar-general for a certificate that states that there is no lawful impediment to the marriage. This is another part of National’s strategy of running up the white flag because it knows that so many New Zealanders are going to go overseas and will need to get married overseas that it had better change the law to make it easier for them. That is it: run up the white flag on the economy. Bill English has given away catching up with Australia and now he will make it easier for all the people who have gone to Australia to get married over there. 
Hon Member 
: Low-hanging fruit. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right—pick it off. This is the first step in giving up on catching up with Australia: New Zealanders can get married overseas far more easily. Well that is fantastic! On this side of the House we think that we should be working hard to keep people in New Zealand. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And then they’re going to bring foreign businesses here because the workers are cheap. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Horomia is absolutely right. Because there is no plan for the economy only foreign capital will be in New Zealand and only foreign-owned businesses will be able to do that. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealanders should own their own future. We believe we should keep assets in New Zealanders’ control and build an economy that works for all New Zealanders not the economy that this Government is trying to build at the moment. 
There are a couple of interesting changes that I think the select committee will want to focus on. One has already been mentioned which is the amendment to the definition of a charitable purpose in the Charities Act so that it can include an entity that promotes sport if that purpose is expressed to be and is in fact the means by which a charitable purpose will be achieved. I say in this House that the Charities Act is an area where the last Government perhaps did not get all of the details right and a number of other changes to the Charities Act might be considered. But again we have a piecemeal approach to pick this one out. And why just sport? I can absolutely see why organisations whose prime purpose relates to sport would want to be included in a charitable purpose but I have been on the board of charitable organisations that have struggled with the Charities Act and have struggled to be able to get their exact purpose to fit. There should be a wider amendment here but it is a piecemeal picked-off one thing. 
There is also another reasonably significant change and that is an amendment to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. What it does is to make provision for the writ for an indicative referendum to be conducted by postal voting. That is probably quite a sensible amendment but it is a significant amendment. It is something that will merit debate in the select committee. I will pick up another one of Rahui Katene’s points in that regard. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the last Statutes Amendment Bill. Although there are no objections to these clauses being put before the House what happens in the select committee process is that we have witnesses coming in we have evidence in front of the committee and decisions might be made that perhaps we should not carry on with a bill. Although we are supporting this bill on its first reading as we do with any bill that comes to this House when this bill comes to the select committee—if the National Government lets it go there—we will listen to the submissions and make our decision then on whether we support every single aspect of this bill. 
As others have mentioned there are some very small minor matters of tidying things up. I know my colleague Ruth Dyson will be delighted to see that the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act will now correctly spell Lyttelton which it has not previously done until now. So that is a change that I know she will be happy with. 
Overall there is very little in this bill at all that will give New Zealanders comfort that there is a Government in place that has a plan to make their lives better. It is quite the opposite in fact. We have a Government that has run up the white flag on its plan to catch up with Australia. The best it can do as my colleague Rick Barker said is increase the number of directors on the New Zealand Railways Corporation board from seven to nine. Increasing bureaucracy doing the opposite of what it says it will do—that is the mantra of this Government and that is what this bill shows us. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I again add the Green Party’s congratulations to you Mr Robertson on your promotion to the role of Assistant Speaker. I thank you very much for the work that you have done in this House and will do in your new role. The Green Party supports this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a tidy-up bill as has been said by other speakers. It has a consensus. The Green Party has a little bit of a complaint: why is this bill being discussed under urgency? Surely urgency is for discussing the urgent business of the House. It does not appear to us that the tidy-up amendments in this bill are urgent. They could be dealt with during the normal business of the House. Statutes revision bills go through the House pretty quickly anyway. 
There is a misuse of urgency in general that we are involved in at the present time. It would have been quite easy for the Government which has called urgency mainly to progress the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill to just extend the state of emergency which gives it all kinds of powers in the Canterbury area for a few weeks more. If it had done that then that would have allowed proper select committee consideration to be given to that bill so that we could get the legislation right if that is possible. Of course the Green Party has opposed that bill. 
To get back to this particular bill and to follow on from Grant Robertson’s speech I say the domestic violence issue comes up in Part 8 of the bill in some small technical amendments. The issue of domestic violence is also related to other problems in society. The more problems and tensions that there are in society—the more poverty there is—the more likely it is that the frustrations within a family will come out in the form of domestic violence which has to be handled by social workers and by the courts. 
I think that is another reason why to get back to the Canterbury situation—I have friends and relations there and I have visited Christchurch since the 22 February earthquake—we notice greater tensions within families there. People face uncertainty regarding their futures. They do not know where their jobs are going or where their businesses are going. They are in financial hardship. Maybe the insurance people have not come around to give a proper quote on their house in order to assess whether it can be repaired how much it will cost and how much cover they have etc. etc. All of those things are up in the air let alone the provision of adequate water sewerage and all of the other things. That situation is ripe for the creation of more domestic tensions and potentially domestic violence. 
I think that is very relevant to the Government’s policy because at the moment a lot of workers and businesses that have been affected by the earthquake are not sure how long the Government will continue the income support system. It is due to run out in a week or two and there is uncertainty and nervousness amongst people in Christchurch who are affected in that way as to whether the Government will continue the support until they really get back on their feet in terms of full-time fully paid employment or in terms of their business operating properly on the level that it did before the earthquake. 
Grant Robertson also talked about the charities issue and the inclusion of organisations dedicated to sport under the Charities Act. I think one of the problems with regard to the Charities Act now is the prohibition in effect on advocacy by a number of charities. One sees that issue in organisation after organisation. The Government has never properly recognised that charitable organisations are often at the coalface delivering social services often with money they have got voluntarily from the community. They are at the coalface dealing with poor people dealing with disadvantaged people and dealing with people who are suffering from all sorts of problems. They are in the best position of any organisations in our community to offer advice to the Government to offer advice to the community and to engage in informed advocacy. Under the Act as I said if an organisation is involved in too much advocacy then it is not really deemed to be a charitable organisation. It is considered to have a political bias and therefore it is knocked off the list of organisations entitled to charitable status. I think that issue really needs to be looked at and corrected. We want to have real democracy in our society which involves all the voluntary organisations contributing to the maximum in the debate on the way forward to overcome some of the social problems that we face. With those few comments I say the Green Party will support this bill. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am delighted to take this call which I know has been eagerly awaited by members opposite. I am delighted that they have stayed around in such great numbers to hear this contribution. But before I speak in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I will say this: I was on my feet speaking on another measure when the dinner break interrupted me yesterday. Mr Assistant Speaker you were not in the Chair at that time but you were when we returned after the dinner break. So I was remiss at that time in not congratulating you on your elevation to the role of Assistant Speaker—in fact your return to that role—so may I congratulate you now. I say that it is particularly good to note that a fine member of Scottish descent will be proudly wearing a tartan tie—albeit the wrong tartan—in the Speaker’s Chair. I look forward to seeing it. I have to say that being a sept of the Buchannan clan we probably have the most bilious tartan in existence which is why I bring mine out only on very special occasions. I will do so on St Andrew’s Day. 
I will return if I may to the contribution that was made by the Assistant Speaker’s namesake Mr Robertson the member for Wellington Central. He spoke at some length and lamented what he described as a lack of direction and a lack of a plan in this bill. In particular there were some comments directed at the member for Te Tai Tonga. I have to say that the only thing really that was lacking in direction and a plan was Mr Robertson’s contribution. It was very hard to see how on earth he reached some of the conclusions he did about a measure such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) which has the support of all parties in the House. I make the comment in reply to him that the picture he was talking about in relation to women’s refuges in this country is not as he described. In fact when there was some concern a year or so ago I took the opportunity to go and visit the women’s refuge in my electorate. It was made very clear to me that of course there are always challenges in operating women’s refuges and of course it is essential by the very nature of the sensitive work they do that they operate below the radar but nevertheless they are doing a very good job. They would simply refute some of the criticisms that have been made about them. I acknowledge the contribution that Rahui Katene made on this matter earlier this morning. 
It is good to see that there is cooperation in the House on this bill. Those who are listening or watching this debate at the moment may not be aware of the long history of Statutes Amendment bills in New Zealand. They are in fact a very efficient and effective way for Parliament to operate. I was intrigued when Mr Locke spoke earlier that he lamented the fact that we are discussing this bill under urgency. I simply make the point that of course the primary focus of our urgency at this moment is to enact the very important measures for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. The Local Government and Environment Committee is beavering away today in Christchurch as we speak. It is hearing from all interested parties down in Christchurch. I know that they appreciate that opportunity. They are grateful to the select committee for going down there. It is appropriate that we are in a position to continue with the work from the second reading right through the Committee stage to the third reading when the bill returns to the House tomorrow. 
Today is an opportunity for us to make significant progress on a broad range of measures. It behoves us all in this House to remember that when we are inclined at times to waste the time of the House as members opposite frequently do then there will be consequences. Today is our opportunity to ensure that Parliament makes good progress. We did so yesterday and we will continue to do so today. 
We should not be demeaning of this particular Statutes Amendment Bill because as I mentioned these measures have long been used to very good effect in this Parliament and here we have a bill that actually amends 20 different statutes. Those who are listening to the debate might wonder how one does that and why it is necessary and the answer is that it is inevitable that mistakes are occasionally made. They are usually minor drafting errors—sometimes as minor as a spelling error—but it is important that when they are detected they are corrected and this is an efficient way of enabling the House to do so. As has already been mentioned today we are looking at minor amendments to the Wills Act the Charities Act 2005 the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act the Companies Act the Judicature Act the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act and so on. They are all important measures that have huge implications particularly for professions and for the not-for-profit sector in our community and there are many others as well. 
I want to ensure that we keep on track. If Mr Robertson believes that in undertaking a measure of this type we are somehow lacking in a plan or lacking in direction I invite him to look again at what we are actually doing here. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of this House who would take issue with any of the amendments or any of the changes that are being planned and I therefore take great pleasure in endorsing them and I commend this measure to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I also add my congratulations to you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker. I will say this: it is wonderful to see a person in a job like yours enjoying himself so much. Every time you are in the Chair or in the Chair at the Table—either of the two Chairs—your face gives the sense of a person really enjoying what he is doing. I commend you for that spirit but I also sincerely as a friend and colleague congratulate you on your appointment. It was well made. 
It was interesting that my dear friend Tim Macindoe took time to tell us how to save time on something inconsequential but did not point to the consequential parts of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) which we are debating today. My friend could have saved a bit of time. I say to him that the priceless moment that would be difficult to capture again was when the Green member Keith Locke got the call ahead of him. The look on his face—I would pay money to see that again! But it was good to see him speak. 
A Statutes Amendment Bill is an important bill. It is supposed to be non-controversial. It is supposed to collect technical parts of legislation that need to be brought to the House to be tidied up. As others have said generally they tend to be non-controversial items that most sides agree on. I notice Mr Bakshi took a call earlier and in classical Bakshi fashion it was brief— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the member’s full name. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am sorry—the honourable member Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. In typical fashion his speech was brief. It is interesting that the House has taken— 
Tim Macindoe 
: But very lucid and informative. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: —Mr Macindoe might like to take note of this point—a lot of time on his member’s bill the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. That provision belonged in this bill—one short paragraph that we would have agreed on. An omnibus bill of this nature should address that type of provision. 
There are clearly many good provisions in this bill and I will talk about a couple of them. There is the series of changes to the Charities Commission. We all know that the commission has in the past 5 or 6 years carefully established itself and is now a key part of the non-governmental organisation sector the charities sector. It has made huge strides in how it operates and how it regulates if you like many of the charities. Its work is quite important. We have a number of amendments in this bill and most of them are fine and non-controversial. However some measures require the close scrutiny of the Government Administration Committee and it is in the Charities Commission area that that case can be made. The amendment to section 40(1) in clause 11 requires the entity—the non-governmental organisation that is applying to be a charity—to inform the Charities Commission if an officer subsequently becomes disqualified under the Act. It seems reasonable and on the face of it it is innocuous. But little amendments of this nature place quite a huge burden on charities. They will need to watch out to set up a system so that whoever it is who falls foul and becomes disqualified under the Act is reported. As to how far it goes and into what areas there is no guidance on that at all. Labour believes that this requirement could place a considerable burden on small entities. They may not be aware of it; well that can be easily fixed. But if this amendment is to be supported it needs to be accompanied by an awareness-raising and training programme for smaller entities. The second point is about the implications. If an entity fails to meet the requirements of the proposed amendment what then? What is to happen to that entity? That also is something the select committee needs to follow up. A number of points like that need to be made about some of the provisions. 
But there is another point about the amendments to the Charities Act. Sometimes an amendment under a Statutes Amendment Bill takes attention away from addressing more fundamental questions. This bill makes three or four or five minor amendments to that Act but there clearly is a need to look at the definition of advocacy in the Charities Act. I agree with my colleague from the Greens Keith Locke who raised this point as well. It is a problem because the National Council of Women and a number of other major charities have been unable to be registered as charities yet who would argue in this House that the work they do is not charitable? Therefore they ought to be caught by the Charities Act. That is a major area that the Associate Minister of Justice has not taken up and he is not likely to do so until the 2015 review of that particular Act but its implications are serious now. The opportunity to address more fundamental questions has not been taken up. By making minor amendments of the type that are being made here we lose that opportunity and it will be some time before we get it back. In any case even the changes that are being made here to the Charities Act have some implications and the select committee will need to examine them as well. 
There are many other minor changes in this bill that my colleagues have referred to. I am interested in one change to do with the Marriage Act. It really says that one does not need to be a New Zealander to get a licence to marry. It makes a minor change and I am glad that that kind of change is there. It reflects the diversification of New Zealand society. Many many cultural and ethnic groups living in our society do not meet the present provisions. It is good to see a bill like this making that small change which will be important to those applying for a licence. It also gives quite an important symbolic message to New Zealand—and to this House I guess—that going forward our bills need to take into account the diversification of our society. 
There are some changes to the Domestic Violence Act. Again they are minor changes and nothing to quibble about. But the area of domestic violence in itself requires a lot more of the attention of this House than it has received so far. Although programmes out there are under way to begin to address domestic violence in our society we need to do a lot more and these changes cannot be all that we will do. The debate is going on about whether our funding is in the right place and whether it is the right amount of funding. We tend to be very shy of actually committing to a programme of action that we know will need to go for about 10 years before it begins to make a dent in our rather abysmal domestic violence rates. We tend after 2 or 3 years to play around with the resourcing of those programmes. Some of the rules around that that need to be strengthened are not being strengthened—yet some others are. That is another example of an area that demands much greater attention from this House not receiving that attention. 
There are a number of areas in this particular bill to be taken up. They appear to be non-controversial but their implications are quite serious. I have spoken on one or two of those areas and I trust that the select committee will take them up. I look forward to seeing that when the bill comes back to the House. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I first of all congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your reappointment to the position. I must admit that you are one of those people in this House whom everybody finds very easy to get along with and you are a tremendous servant for this country and for the people of your electorate. Well done on your recognition in that role. I think it shows the esteem that you are held in by all members of this House as somebody they can get along with and enjoy the company of. Congratulations. 
Jonathan Young 
: That’s enough. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is enough is it? But he is a good guy. We are discussing the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) this morning. A number of members have talked about it and said that it covers a lot of minor changes and technical amendments that are necessary in certain bills. One part of it that I will focus on this morning is in regard to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981. The change in this bill enables nine directors to be appointed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation board instead of the current number of seven. The number of directors of a board is an issue that has been debated a lot in recent years as people look at having boards that are more effective and not too large but that represent a variation of views skills and experience. That number of nine directors is seen as about right for a large-scale board with a large budget such as this one. Its budget basically involves the corporation investing $4.6 billion in assets in its 10-year turn-round plan in which this Government has invested heavily in rail—$750 million investment in rail—to make sure that we get this corporation running effectively and delivering to all New Zealanders. That change is important in the sense that it will give that board extra strength so that we can deliver on that investment—that vital infrastructure investment in our rail network—going forward. This Government has invested in that to the future benefit of all New Zealanders. We look forward to that board achieving its goals in the very near future. 
I support this bill which covers a variety of amendments to a variety of Acts. Some of those amendments are minor and technical and some of them are very important like the Railways Corporation amendment which delivers real benefits to New Zealand. I once again congratulate you Ross on your appointment. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Before I start I congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your elevation. It is nice to have you back in the Chair. I move  
That the Government Administration Committeeconsider the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 July 2011. 
Motion agreed to. 
Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill be now read a second time 
. 
The bill proposes two major changes. First it will consolidate all financial reporting and auditing and assurance standards setting within a single Crown entity to be called the External Reporting Board. The board will replace the Accounting Standards Review Board from 1 July 2011. In consideration of the bill the Commerce Committee has not recommended any major changes to the Accounting Standards Review Board and the External Reporting Board - related provisions. 
Second the bill will introduce auditor licensing for issuer audits. Specifically the bill recognises that audits of companies that manage substantial public investments or otherwise obtain large amounts of money from the public must be performed by the top members of the auditing profession. The need for this change has been highlighted by finance company audit failures. In 2009 the Registrar of Companies expressed concerns about the capability of some of the auditors and audit firms to carry out finance company audits to the required standard. In the last 6 months the disciplinary tribunal of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants has made orders against four members who between them led five failed finance company audits. The tribunal found that those audits were not carried out in accordance with the institute’s ethical professional and auditing standards. 
The bill provides that the licensing of auditors will be carried out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and by any other professional accounting body that may be accredited by the Financial Markets Authority. The Financial Markets Authority will set the minimum licensing standards oversee the professional accounting bodies and be responsible for practice reviews. This reform represents another important part of the Government’s ongoing work programme to restore investor confidence in the financial sector which also includes amongst other things the establishment of the Financial Markets Authority and the review of securities law. 
The Commerce Committee recommended a number of amendments to strengthen the bill the most significant of which is to provide for auditing firms to be registered. Firm registration will be permitted if the firm includes at least one licensed auditor and meets any other requirements imposed by the Financial Markets Authority. This change reflects the fact that audit quality is reliant on two matters: the competence of the practitioner and the quality of the auditing firm’s systems processes and procedures. 
Equivalent changes have been made to the bill in relation to overseas auditors which will operate in accordance with the principles of mutual recognition. The overseas regulatory system will not have to be the same as New Zealand’s but the Financial Markets Authority must be satisfied that the overseas requirements are equivalent to or as satisfactory as the requirements applying to New Zealand firms. 
The committee has also recommended changes in relation to the application of the bill to the Auditor-General. It is recognised internationally that Auditors-General in democratic societies must be free from direction or interference from the executive branch of Government in carrying out their core audit responsibilities. On the other hand the New Zealand Auditor-General is responsible for carrying out several major issuer audits including the Crown Kiwibank Air New Zealand and the Port of Tauranga. 
The regime may not be fully credible if the application of the bill to the Auditor-General is seen to be ineffective so the committee has recommended that it be strengthened in two ways. First the Auditor-General would need to be satisfied that persons appointed to carry out those audits either meet the minimum licensing standards set by the Financial Markets Authority or have the competence qualifications and experience that are equivalent to or as satisfactory as those minimum standards. Second the committee has recommended the inclusion of a provision that would allow the Auditor-General to invite the Financial Markets Authority to carry out practice reviews and require him or her to take reasonable steps to ensure that the period between reviews does not exceed 4 years. 
The final change to the bill I wish to comment on is the removal of a clause that would have made it an offence for auditors to not comply with auditing and assurance standards. That clause is not needed because it is unlikely to contribute to audit quality. Auditors already have strong incentives to comply with ethical professional and auditing and assurance standards; they can be sued for negligence or face disciplinary action. The threat of substantial damages awards and losing one’s livelihood and the resultant harm to firms’ and practitioners’ reputations should be enough to focus the mind. 
In short this bill will reserve issuer audits to experts and will substantially reduce the future risk of issuer audit failure. I conclude by thanking members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering the bill and acknowledging the contributions of those who provided submissions on the bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I also congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your reappointment to your role as a presiding officer. It is not quite the same role but it is similar to the role you had in the last Parliament and I congratulate you. 
I will refer to the issue of compliance costs in respect of audits. The Labour Party supports the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill but I still harbour a concern which I discussed the other day in relation to some of the securities legislation about the cost of raising money for new ventures. This bill applies amongst other things in situations where the entity that is being audited is an issuer. An issuer is at law someone who is issuing securities to the public. They might be raising money through selling shares or they might be issuing debenture stock. Those are important things that we need in order to expand our economy. 
In particular the issue that vexes me in New Zealand is the cost of raising private capital for equity ventures. Small businesses in New Zealand face very large costs relative to their size when they take the step of expanding beyond the shores of New Zealand into overseas markets. That step is often taken at a time when those New Zealand organisations are quite small by international standards. The specialised good or service that they are selling might be quite small in market terms in a little place such as New Zealand. 
If the company was based in a country such as Australia the United States or an Asian country where there are many more millions of people they could expand gradually in their home market before having to expand offshore. In New Zealand companies that want to take their businesses further have to expand into export markets at an early stage and that is an expensive and risky thing to do. In order for them to achieve that expansion and not put all of their own personal assets at risk they normally have to get more money into their company. In order to do that they have to comply with our securities legislation which includes compliance with the rules relating to audits. 
The financial reporting standards in New Zealand and around the world have become hideously complex in recent years. 
Katrina Shanks 
: So you keep telling us. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. I hope that Ms Shanks will be convinced. I look forward to her acknowledging this issue because I know she is expert in those matters being a qualified accountant and auditor I expect. The cost of audits has grown very very significantly in the last two decades. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Rip-off. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not think it is a rip-off; I think it just a matter of compliance with the increasingly complex requirements of accounting standards and audit standards. I question whether all of those complexities are justified. I do not think they are. I think we are now making the same mistake in respect of accounting standards that we in the legal fraternity have made in respect of legal court rules and processes which have become so hideously complex that the compliance cost is becoming disproportionate to the benefit that accrues from the additional complexity. 
There is no doubt that we need to have standardised accounting rules and there is no doubt that we need to have standardised audit rules just as there is no doubt that we need to have standardised rules relating to the conduct of legal proceedings or to the sorts of things that have to be disclosed to people when they are borrowing money. I am not arguing against standardisation of rules; I am arguing against overly complex rules. We have now reached the point where accounting standards have become so technical that most people cannot understand a set of financial statements when they read them because they are no longer simple. 
Clare Curran 
: Financial literacy issues. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are financial literacy issues but they are made more difficult by the rules being too complex for most people to understand. We used to be able to read a set of accounts and find a profit and loss statement and a balance sheet as they were then called. They were not perfect but most people could understand them. Now reading a set of financial statements requires one to flick backwards and forwards to notes in the accounts and it seems that we even have to report on things that are completely irrelevant to the state of affairs that is being reported upon. We see in accounts notes such as: “We have no exposure to foreign exchange risk.” If there is no exposure to foreign exchange risk why do we have to report on it? It is a nonsense. It is just an additional complexity that people have to fight their way through to read. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: It’s one line. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is true but there are many many examples of that. Financial statements are now very difficult for people to read and understand. Those people are put to the cost of having to use an intermediary whom they have to pay when they ought to be able to read these things themselves. 
In addition the company that has to comply with those rules has to use accountants when it would otherwise be able to do a lot of it internally. When the company uses an accountant the time spent by that accountant on the job is much much longer than used to be the case. Of course they have to charge for that time and therefore the cost to the enterprise is higher. That is true in respect of both the accounting standards which then have to be audited and the audit. The audit of the financial statements which are themselves more complex than they need to be is more complex than it needs to be and therefore more costly. It really is a muddle. 
Clare Curran 
: It hurts your head. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right: it starts to hurt one’s head. 
Clause 88 states that the functions of the external reporting board include the setting of standards. Clause 88 substitutes a new Part 3 in which the functions of the external reporting board which has some control over how audits are carried out are set out. New section 24 as inserted by clause 88 states: “The Board has the following functions: (a) to prepare and if it thinks fit issue financial reporting standards for the purposes of …” the Act. We need to make sure that the people who are on the External Reporting Board will be practical rather than writing new and ever more complex rules. 
We have this problem in regulation throughout the economy. The regulators want perfection. Perfection costs too much. We need practical protections rather than perfection and therefore we need to make sure that the people who are on the External Reporting Board are not trying to eliminate risk. We cannot eliminate risk; we can only prudently minimise risk by giving prudent levels of information to people. We in the Labour Party are into alliteration this week and I am quite happy to talk about the “P”s. I really think that the functioning of this legislation relies upon how technical the standards become and it will be very important for the External Reporting Board to have an eye on minimising the complexity. 
I will say something else about the limitation of liability; I know that another member will develop this issue. I think it is time we actually considered—and it is a difficult issue—whether we need to have joint and several unlimited liability in respect of auditors and audit firms. We have similar issues in some other practices like law where we still have joint and several liability for most partnerships. I think we need to consider whether that is right. In practice it forces upon audit firms very big insurance premiums which are passed on to the person buying the audit service and on to the people we are actually trying to protect—the people who are investing in companies and the companies that are raising money. 
We need to keep those costs moderate. This is another area where costs are getting out of control. Insurance premiums are getting too high because the level of risk that auditors are facing is too high in part because of the complexity of the things they are required to audit against and in part because of joint and several unlimited liability. I think we need to consider that. It is not an easy issue because there is a need to have some proper levels of accountability and risk for auditors to hold them accountable for when they do not do their jobs properly. I will not pretend it is an easy job to get right but we need to consider it. In any event there are ways around it at the moment through trusts and things to protect assets so to a certain extent the joint and several liability in respect of all assets is illusory. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this second reading of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. I note that the presiding officer has changed in appearance in the last 5 minutes but I also congratulate Assistant Speaker H V Ross Robertson on his appointment. He is a good man from South Auckland he has worked hard in this House over 24 years and he has served his local community. I wish to acknowledge his ascendance to the role of Assistant Speaker a prestigious role. 
I will talk quickly about this bill. Minister Tolley quite clearly in her representations this morning talked about the nature of the bill. The bill is overdue. It is overdue because we have had a period when the non-regulation or self-regulation of auditors for financial issues has not worked and it has not worked for several reasons. This bill will address some issues around the licensing of auditors and the registration of audit firms in order to get quality people behind audits. After all it is really not about the regulation; it is about the people who are involved in auditing financial accounts. I take the point also of the previous speaker Mr Parker who talked about compliance costs. But I say that the cost of finance company failures over the last 7 to 10 years has been great and that cost needs to be mitigated through oversight and through the regulation of this industry. This bill comes at a vital time to restore confidence in our financial markets and to restore confidence in capital markets in order for firms to raise capital easily and to build on the economic growth that this country certainly deserves. 
This bill brings about two things. It is about establishing a licensing regime but it also establishes and consolidates the accounting and auditing standards setting set by the Accounting Standards Review Board which will of course become the external reporting board. All I ask is that when these rules are set in place the relevant regulators do their job and are well-resourced and they enforce the laws that we as a Parliament set out. I think that is the critical part of this legislation. There is no point in having laws around regulating financial markets if those laws are then not enforced and the resources not put in place. 
This legislation may I say is part of a wider broader scheme of laws we have brought to the House which have had multiparty support in relation to the set-up of the Financial Markets Authority and the regulations of securities trustees. This is just another building block in securities regulations that we as a National Government have brought to this House. We are very proud of this bill and of the work that members on all sides of our Commerce Committee have put into it. 
I will make just a final point about the limitation of auditors’ liability; I think the last speaker actually summed it up quite well. It is a complex issue and it does add to compliance costs which we as parliamentarians are aware that we want to avoid and reduce. But at some point we need to do this. I look forward to the Securities Act review—which will certainly be proceeded with later this year—in addressing that matter; members of our committee found it to be a little bit of an issue. I support this bill and commend it to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Much as it is a great honour to speak in front of you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy in the House today I was looking forward to the opportunity to add my congratulations to the new Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson. I will hold those congratulations because I have a particularly important message to pass on to him in his role as the new Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Don’t feel constrained! 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I would like to put on record that it is an honour to speak before all of the Speakers in this House today and I am looking forward to speaking before the new Assistant Speaker as well. 
In speaking to the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill in its second reading I say that there is one thing about the Commerce Committee: we do a pretty good job we have robust discussions we thrash through the issues and ultimately I believe we are all committed to good law. 
The bill is supported by Labour and one of the core reasons why it is supported by Labour is that it is part of that important financial markets reform process that was begun under the previous Labour Government. I need to put that on the record because although it is important also to acknowledge the good work being done by Minister Power in this area in relation to the whole package of financial reforms those reforms really do flow from the important work that was done under the Labour Government and largely under the auspices of the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel who happens to be the chair of the Commerce Committee. I think the point is that ultimately we are seeing a commitment on both sides of the House to good law being made in this area. 
As my colleague David Parker pointed out Labour does however retain some concerns about the bill and about the way in which this package of bills is being introduced. I will touch on one of those matters in a minute which has been mentioned by both of the previous speakers—that is the limitations on liability. I also endorse what my colleague David Parker said about the systemic issues of the complexity of financial accounting issues which emerge right throughout these reforms. They underline these reforms and underline some of the reasons for the need for the reforms. The areas are so complex and so dense that the ordinary person out there particularly an investor has great difficulty in understanding them. 
The issues about financial literacy—and this has been brought to the attention of the Minister on a number of occasions—are critical. They need to be addressed but they are not being addressed by this Government as we see it. 
The bill strengthens the regulation of practitioners who carry out audits of issuers reconstitutes the Accounting Standards Review Board as the External Reporting Board and requires the Institute of Chartered Accountants to regulate auditors as a specialist profession rather than as chartered accountants. Minister Tolley in her speech pointed out that the bill really is about the registration of auditing firms and that it will really strengthen the regulatory and legislative remedies for that whole area. 
We support the bill ultimately because we want to see confidence restored to New Zealand’s financial markets. The bill has been through a wide consultation period. There were a number of submissions to the select committee and I will touch quickly on a couple of areas about liability. 
Initially I will talk about the liability of partners issue. In the select committee process we touched on two areas and they are covered in the commentary on the bill. Under the bill as introduced all partners of an audit firm would be liable if a firm breached the relevant restriction. The amendment proposed by the select committee meant that a partner would commit an offence only if the relevant breach took place with his or her authority permission or consent if he or she could reasonably have known that the breach was going to be committed and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it. Under clause 8(5) of the bill as introduced every partner of an audit firm would have been committing an offence if the firm breached the relevant restriction. The select committee considered that larger firms particularly would be disproportionately sanctioned by such a provision. That is why that change was brought in during the select committee consideration. 
The second issue was about limitations on liability. Both David Parker and my colleague on the select committee Sam Lotu-Iiga have referred to that issue. We considered carefully whether the bill should be expanded to introduce measures to limit auditors’ liability but we recommended no amendments to that effect. That was ultimately because our conclusion was and the advice provided to us stated that we had no scope for that under the bill. However the commentary on the bill refers to the issue because we recognised that some form of liability limitation would harmonise the New Zealand system with international practice. We asked the officials for quite comprehensive advice on the issue. We considered it quite carefully in light of jurisdictions that have adopted alternative liability systems and some of the approaches that have been adopted elsewhere. I know that the relevant Minister Simon Power is not in the House but I am keen for a response from him about his views if he has any. 
I will quickly touch on the alternative approaches that have been adopted elsewhere. There are four of them. The first approach is incorporation. In many jurisdictions companies and/or limited liability partnerships are able to carry out audits and those limited liability partnerships are an alternative corporate business vehicle that give the benefits of limited liability but allow their members the flexibility to organise their internal structure as a traditional partnership. The second approach is proportionate liability—that is the court determines liability among the negligent parties according to their share of the blame. That approach includes allowing the courts to have regard to the comparative responsibility of any wrongdoer who is not a party to the proceedings. The third approach is liability caps which provide for the amount of liability to be capped at a multiple of the fee and/or a fixed dollar amount in relation to any one course of action. The fourth is contractual restrictions on liability. Under that approach the auditor or the preparer may contractually agree to a restriction in liability. 
We looked at a number of jurisdictions including Australia the United Kingdom Singapore and Hong Kong where auditor liability reform has been considered and still is being considered internationally. Some jurisdictions such as Australia have settled policies and laws and we would do well to look carefully at them. That is why the select committee considered harmonisation. Other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom have implemented reforms and are now evaluating their performance. Still others such as Singapore and Hong Kong are identifying issues with their current regimes and are still beginning to consider possible reforms. In the commentary on the bill we stated that although we concluded that such an amendment would be outside the scope of the bill we asked to see this issue addressed in the broader review of securities law. The previous speaker from across the House Sam Lotu-Iiga referred to that issue. In particular the select committee believed that consideration should be given to amending the Securities Act and replacing auditors’ current exposure to joint and several liability with alternative systems such as proportionate liability or capped liability. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a short call on the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. We will indeed be continuing to support this bill as we have supported related bills in large part because they seek to remedy the damage done by many years of the wholly inadequate regulation of our economy. The lack of regulation has caused considerable harm to individuals to companies and indeed to the reputation of New Zealand as a safe and good place to do business. 
It is clear that the wholly excessive deregulation of our financial markets our business sector and so much else in the late 1980s and 1990s is a failed experiment. It has done serious harm and few people in the House would not have a personal or family relationship or a friendship with someone who has suffered the consequences of this lack of regulation or some sort of financial misadventure caused by the inadequate oversight of the financial and business sector generally. Deregulation and the abandonment of adequate and appropriate oversight of the sector caused serious harm. It opened up the opportunities for greed. The whole mantra “Greed is good” suddenly became a good thing. It created opportunities for people to be exploited by the unscrupulous. It made those who were trusting vulnerable to being exploited and often unfortunately such things as celebrity endorsements led people astray. There was a general lack of financial literacy which has been referred to by previous speakers even on the part of those who were active participants in the market. So it is good to see that some serious attention and efforts are being made to put back into place some appropriate regulation. 
In the bigger picture clearly New Zealand is not alone in this. There is an international acknowledgment that lack of regulation or an unregulated free market is actually a recipe for financial social and environmental disaster and steps are being taken to remedy that. There will not be a substantial return of confidence in the financial markets until such time as people see a sensible and coherent regulatory framework in place to ensure there is transparency and a degree of comfort in investing and being in business. Although I am not denying there will always be risk and that that is simply a matter of business reality I believe that unregulated markets put the risk beyond what is acceptable or normal or reasonable. 
We acknowledge that this bill is one of a series of interrelated bills that are making their journey through the House in a series of fits and starts. It is to the credit of this Government in fact that it is engaging positively with this issue and indeed it is also a credit to the previous Government who initiated some of these measures that are now coming towards some fruition. 
A particular example of one amendment in this bill recommended by the select committee is the amendment to strike more of a balance between the responsibility of individual practitioners and that of firms within which they work and this was commented on by the previous speaker. Clearly financial competency and integrity of the individual is critical and there is a personal responsibility—an absolute responsibility—on practitioners to operate and exercise competence and integrity in an ethical approach. It is equally important that the policies and more critically indeed the practices of firms are equally in line with establishing regulation and transparency because not only the policies but the embedded practice affect behaviours in the market and that is as important as policy and legislation. The step to achieve that better balance is important and it is a useful element of this bill. 
Clearly progress is being made but we are still a long way short of exploiting and capturing a much broader opportunity to invest in change to get beyond short-term and quite limited thinking about how to make our economic prospects better to look for means and practices where we can survive and flourish economically and at the same time to reduce any adverse social and environmental effect of business and practice in business. What is really required here and what is actually emerging internationally—an area that I think we are a little slow in following—is a debate starting from first principles on the purpose and form of our economy and on some of the base assumptions underpinning it. That debate needs to occur here and as a matter of urgency if we are not soon to discover that the remedial measures we are seeing in this and other bills as beneficial as they are are really inadequate. They are far from sufficient other than as interim provisions. 
There is a very real and very positive opportunity for the Government to show some leadership: to take the opportunity to encourage and over time even oblige practitioners to adopt what is emerging as best practice internationally; to bring together alongside and as part of financial reporting the reporting on environmental and social information; and to bring those into accounting standards and practice. Globally a major thrust in accounting standards and practice is to bring those financial environmental social and governance strands of good management into one integrated reporting system. Although I acknowledge Mr Parker’s commentary about complexity in reporting this system does not need to add layers of complexity. It is about adding integrity; it is about a more integrated and much more rational approach to the financial and more expansive reporting of business activity. 
The accounting and auditing profession has always measured and continues to measure and to report upon the flow of money through a business an organisation or an economy. The New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants among others over time has also looked at expanding the role of financial reporting. It has looked at and had some hand in developing various mechanisms and models for extending accounting and auditing practice to report on the whole of a business’s activity and the effect of that activity when looking at environmental and social cost and benefit alongside the purely financial matters generated by business. That gives us a much clearer and a more complete picture of the real value the real influence and the impact of the business sector. 
There is indeed an International Integrated Reporting Committee that is leading the work globally headed by one Sir Michael Peat a former partner in KPMG and it counts among its members one Sir David Tweedie who is chair of the International Accounting Standards Board. Tweedie was quoted late last year as saying: “The case for globally consistent financial reporting standards is well understood and accepted. It is appropriate to apply the same global approach to other aspects of corporate reporting. This initiative represents an important step on that journey.” He is referencing there the inclusion of social impact and environmental impact information within regular financial reporting mechanisms. In some instances internationally it is becoming a legal requirement to incorporate social and environmental reporting. Incentives are being provided. It is probably too early for this House to legislate for a broader more comprehensive integrated form of accounting and reporting but certainly there is an opportunity to recognise the value of that approach and to facilitate to provide some leadership and encouragement to the industry and the business sector. Already some of our major companies like Zespri are doing this and so are some unexpected companies. Some of the major roading contractors like Fulton Hogan and Downer EDI are now building that sort of reporting into their financial cycle of reporting and it is to their credit that they are doing that in advance of any requirement. They understand they are being driven in part by the market but also by an understanding of the ethical and indeed the practical value of doing so. 
In summary these financial regulatory bills are useful. They are helpful in repairing some of the shortcomings of the non-regulated approach to finance and the economy. They are enabling us to become more reliable and to improve the integrity of financial reporting. But we need to take bolder moves and I believe that it would be to the Government’s credit and that it would gain value from making some moves to improve the understanding of the social and environmental impacts of business as well as the financial impacts and consequences of business. We could very easily improve our performance across all of those spheres of influence. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity to speak at the second reading of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. This bill strengthens the regulation of practitioners who carry out audits of issuers. It will require the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants to regulate auditors as a specialist profession rather than as chartered accountants. It also provides for the Financial Markets Authority to be responsible for auditor oversight in monitoring and reporting on the adequacy and effectiveness of the institute’s regulatory systems. This should assist to promote in respect of issuer audits quality expertise and integrity in the profession of auditors and to promote the recognition of the professional status of New Zealand auditors in overseas jurisdictions. 
We note that a report by the Registrar of Companies identified that audit failure was a contributing factor in the finance company collapses. Without putting too fine a point on it this whole issue of financial company collapse is of particular concern to us in the south—and to my constituents of Te Tai Tonga. I have spoken out about the concerns we in the Maori Party have with South Canterbury Finance falling into such a position to result in a massive Government bailout funding that could have been much better spent on reducing poverty. I have challenged the board and management of the company—the people who caused the mess—to take ownership and work towards creating solutions. But I am also ready to note the widespread issues of ownership and responsibility that we must consider around the finance company collapses—including as this legislation highlights the role of the auditor. 
Auditor quality is a core element of financial market confidence and by logical association a core element in restoring investor confidence. It is essential that the practitioners who carry out financial sector audits have the necessary skills and experience to carry out the work to a high standard. So we are of course supportive of the need to have the means by which to report on the adequacy and effectiveness of those systems and to take action in respect of those systems that are inadequate or ineffective. The bill is consistent with the party’s emphasis on improving the performance of Government bodies and professional bodies. It also assists to restore the confidence of New Zealand investors in securities. We will support this bill at its second reading. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. It was interesting to sit on the Commerce Committee which dealt with this bill. I am a chartered accountant by trade. Also I came up through the Audit Office. That was where I started in my profession. So I had a good understanding of the implications of this bill and what people were talking about. 
We talked about capital markets. This bill will influence capital markets because it is addressed to audits of public issuers. It has a very narrow focus. We have a problem with confidence in our capital markets especially among our mum and dad investors. I know that in the Ohariu electorate a lot of mum and dad investors come into my office and tell me stories about how they lost their money. They are concerned about what they can do in the future. They want to know what the Government can do to help them find somewhere to invest that gives slightly higher returns than a bank does. But of course we know that when we get into that situation we take on additional risk. In effect this measure has been partly brought about by the finance company failures. It is acknowledgment that the role of auditors did play a small part in terms of validating accounts and financial information to people who most probably did not quite understand what they were reading. 
It is interesting that the Greens have raised the issue of social reporting and financial reporting. The more reporting that is put in the more complex it gets because for every report that is produced there is an opinion on it especially if we are talking about a public issuer. If we want to have social reporting and all the other tiers of reporting which are really great to have we should consider that someone has to give an opinion on it on whether it is true and fair. That is where it gets more complex. That is where the accounting standards get more complex. I know that Mr David “Perfect” Parker which is what we call him in our select committee asked why it is getting so complex. It is getting so complex because there are more requirements in relation to those accounts and the more requirements there are the more standards and procedures we need in place to ensure that the reporting is correct. It is never-ending. It gets more and more complex. As the financial vehicles out there get more complex we need more rules in place more standards and procedures to understand what is happening when we invest in financial vehicles that have never been in place before. 
I would like to touch on two areas of this bill during this second reading. One is the liability of partners. There was concern that under the bill as introduced every partner of an audit firm would commit an offence if there was a breach of any restriction or standard. The committee thought that was far too wide so we narrowed it down to say that a partner was liable only if he or she had given his or her authority permission or consent or could reasonably have known that the breach was going to be committed and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. We narrowed that provision down significantly; otherwise I think we would find that there were no auditors out there to audit anything at all. 
The other thing I was really passionate about in our committee was the issue of limitations on liability. Currently in New Zealand we have what is known as joint and several liability for auditors. I think it is time we addressed the whole issue of liability and limitations on liability. I pushed very hard at our select committee for this issue to be addressed. We got advice on several occasions—because we kept on pushing it—only to be told it was out of scope. The committee has stated in the bill’s commentary that we would like this matter to be addressed later on and that a broader review of the securities law should be looked at especially in relation to exposure to joint and several liability and the alternative systems of proportionate or capped liability that other countries are using very successfully. 
I am taking just a short call on this bill and I look forward to debating it further in the House. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is with interest that I hear Government members say that these bills are so important for our capital markets and our financial markets yet they have very little to say on them. I should have thought that if this bill was such an important bill which I personally think it is then Government members would stand up and put forward the case for why this legislation should go through and would be selling it etc. But they do not seem to be doing that and I wonder why. I wonder whether it is because Government members do not understand what the legislation is about or how it impacts on New Zealanders the economy or the financial market. There does not seem to be any coordinated plan at all. But I stand in support of this bill the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. 
I note that it is another bill sponsored by the Hon Simon Power. As Simon Bridges informed us a week or so ago Simon Power is the hardest-working National Minister. In fact I think Simon Bridges told us that 40 percent of all legislation before the House this term has been brought forward by Simon Power. I had a look at the Order Paper today and five of the bills on the Order Paper are in the name of Simon Power. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is in the name of Nathan Guy. I assume that Simon Power handed that bill over to Nathan because Nathan Guy actually has not done anything while he has been a Minister. But it is with concern that I note— 
Hon Member 
: He did order the BMWs. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes there was the BMWs. I suspect that Government members must be incredibly worried that Simon Power is leaving. I do not know why he is leaving but I suspect it is because he is sick and tired of carrying the Government on his shoulders. He does 40 percent of the legislation in this House and he is leaving. He is a very hard-working Minister. Of course there have been rumours about a clash between Simon Power and Steven Joyce. I could not possibly comment even though National members have confirmed it. It is not for me to comment. 
Even though we have a very hard-working Minister in Simon Power the surprising thing is that when he came out with a plan do members know what it was? To sell State assets. The only plan of even the hardest-working Minister on the Cabinet benches was to sell State assets. When is a plan not a plan? When it involves selling State assets; when it harks back to philosophies long discounted and long disproven. Actually I think that is why Simon Power is leaving. It is a hospital pass: “Power you’re leaving. You’ll be the Minister responsible for selling State assets to the public.” He did not want to do that because he knows he cannot do it so he is gone. If Mr Power’s legacy will be selling State assets then that is a bad legacy with which to leave Parliament. 
I come back to the bill. I would like to ask why regulation of auditors needs to be reformed. It is a good question and I will try to answer it. Financial reporting is hugely important to investors. Regulators and other financial market participants need to know that the decisions made by experts are the right ones. There needs to be confidence that general purpose financial reports provide unbiased transparent and relevant information about the economic performance and position of businesses. As has been outlined Labour fully supports this bill. Labour will always support good strong legislation that improves the confidence of investors in our financial and capital markets. 
I have spoken about this issue before in this House many times. I cannot hammer it enough. Investors really need to have confidence in those who profess expertise in certain areas whether they be trustees directors financial advisers or auditors. We all know that investment implies risk. The higher the return the higher the risk—that is how it should work. Most investors tend to understand that. However the risk of incompetence and the risk of negligence are almost impossible to quantify and therefore they are not risks that investors can plan for—nor should they have to and certainly not in a First World country such as New Zealand. If we want to have a great reputation in the global market and if we want to bring foreign direct investment into this country then all investors in this country need to have confidence that our financial regulations are up to scratch that they meet world standards. In fact that is a given. It is not something we can go out and parade and hawk. It is a given because if they are not up to scratch then we will not even be looked at. 
In New Zealand there has been a strong indication that the auditors of some failed finance companies lacked the necessary competence to carry out the audits or did not have a sufficient degree of independence. The results of that have been nothing short of catastrophic for our financial markets. We know that over 60 finance companies have collapsed. Before that I do not think anyone could have named 10 finance companies let alone the 60 that have collapsed. I do not want to say that every single auditor who was responsible for auditing a finance company was negligent incompetent or had a conflict of interest but there is very very clear evidence that many did. That is what we have to prevent. 
As I said the collapses have been catastrophic for our financial markets but not only that; they have been catastrophic for our citizens. Over $4 billion has been wiped from the savings of good hard-working Kiwis. These are Kiwis who put away money for their retirement put away money for their children’s education for their grandchildren’s education. These are New Zealanders who are near the end of their lives. When I say near the end of their lives it is all relative; they have another 20 or 30 years to go. But that money was their nest egg. It was how they were going to be able to retire with dignity and it is gone. I cannot think of anything more heartbreaking or gut-wrenching than knowing that $50000 $100000 or $200000 that people had put away for their retirement was gone. After working and paying taxes for 40 years it was gutted by people ordinary New Zealanders trusted. People such as Richard Long stood up and hawked one of these companies. Colin Meads said one was as safe as houses. Unfortunately Colin Meads was a great All Black but he does not know much about finance companies. The health costs and the costs to our economy have been huge. There have been cases of suicide and depression and I suspect that they are the tip of the iceberg. I suspect we will never know the health effects that this experience has had on a whole lot of people out there. 
Before this bill—and this is why the bill is so important—New Zealand’s self-regulatory model was no longer within the range of acceptable auditor regulation systems. New Zealand needs to change in order to obtain the right to practise in Australasia and other jurisdictions such as the European Union. In the United States a classic case is Arthur Andersen. People used to talk about the “Big Five” accounting companies; now they talk about the “Big Four” or the “Big Three”. Arthur Andersen was the auditor for Enron. When Enron collapsed it brought down one of the largest accountancy companies in the world. At that time the US undertook a complete review of the relationship between auditors and those they audited. We probably should have done that when Enron collapsed. As we all know that work was started under Lianne Dalziel and it has been continued by the Commerce Committee. I am not on that select committee but it has been continued by that committee and it is long overdue. 
As has been mentioned the bill is a complex and detailed piece of legislation. It is over 100 pages. Who would have believed that a bill governing what auditors do would be over 100 pages? There are nearly 100 clauses in the bill. It is very complex legislation. It shows how complex the role of auditing is. It proves how defunct our law is in terms of governing that area. To round up Labour supports any legislation that will improve the confidence of investors in our capital and financial markets. Labour will support any legislation that means foreigners will look at our financial and capital markets and invest with a high degree of confidence. But one thing I would like to say is that the Hon Simon Power the Minister who brought this bill to the House is a very hard-working Minister but he is also the Minister who has introduced the concept of selling State assets. I ask what sort of plan that is—to sell State assets. It is a shame. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill and I am pleased to hear members on the other side of the House likewise doing so. I must admit that Mr Nash’s speech improved until he came to the last couple of sentences. The first half of his speech of course was full of what is now becoming a predictable knocking of some of our hard-working Ministers. 
The reason this bill is very important is simply that trading which is what this is all about requires an accurate quantifying of weights and measures and our auditors are our measurers. It is incredibly important that what they do is accurate transparent robust and independent and this bill will ensure that. As the previous speaker and other speakers have alluded to I think that the numbers of financial companies who have experienced demise at the tremendous expense of New Zealand investors were not strongly serviced by a robust auditing regime. This bill will ensure that in terms of our future we are robust. 
It is very important to understand that the $4 billion to $6 billion that has been lost out of our economy has been lost by people who tremendously relied upon it such as the many people who have entered retirement. It is very important to understand that in this nation in the next 20 years more of those people will be in retirement. In fact our retirement numbers will double. It is imperative that we have financial systems in place that will never ever allow what has happened to happen again. Our future depends on a robustness of transparency and accountability and it depends upon the ability to have internationalisation of standards because so many of our opportunities are global. It is important to realise that currently six people are supporting one elderly person but in a very short time there will be just three people providing that support. Therefore having a robust financial system and having strong capital markets will be incredibly important. It is not just a matter of increasing taxation to care for our increasing ageing population. We need to have an incredibly robust economy that is growing strongly and this Government is focusing strongly on that in order to have the wealth in our nation to enable young and old to experience the lifestyle they aspire to. 
I am very happy to support this bill as are other members of the House. The Commerce Committee has worked incredibly hard over this last year. We have worked through a whole suite of legislation that will bring stronger and more robust support to our economy. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 What the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill does for somebody like me whose field this is not is make me ask why the regulation of auditors needs to be reformed. Indeed just a quick reflection on what has happened over the past few years in relation to the failure of large firms and the loss by so many people of so much money has led to this piece of the framework which really ought to avoid those kinds of failures in the future. Financial reporting is hugely important to investors to regulators and to other financial market participants in their resource allocation decisions. 
So how are people to make their investments etc. and how are regulators to operate? There needs to be confidence that the general purpose financial reports the GPFR provide unbiased transparent and relevant information about the economic performance and position of businesses. This bill is an important piece of the framework that provides that kind of information and we would expect that to be the case. But in New Zealand over some period of time there have been strong indications that the auditors of some failed finance companies have lacked the necessary competence to carry out those audits or have not had a sufficient degree of independence. Whatever the reasons have been there clearly was a problem with our auditors that needed to be fixed. New Zealanders have relied so far on a self-regulatory model and in many areas that works quite well but in something as important as this where the effects of things going wrong are so devastating on a large sector of our communities something as important as this cannot be left to self-regulation. This bill has begun to address that issue. 
New Zealand needs to change in order to obtain the right to practise in Australia as well and in other jurisdictions such as the European Union so in a sense we have to make our rules and regulations consistent with best practice elsewhere. The purpose of an audit is to provide assurance to investors regulators and other market participants that a set of financial statements is free from material error because business decisions are made on the basis of those statements. With that being the background and with that being the case then what are we doing? 
This bill which has been to a select committee and come back strengthens the regulation of practitioners who carry out audits of issuers. It also reconstitutes the Accounting Standards Review Board as the external reporting board and requires the Institute of Chartered Accountants to regulate auditors as a specialist profession rather than as chartered accountants; this is a major move. Labour clearly supports the bill and has been involved in the reform of this area for some time. We started the financial markets reform process so we are pleased that this Government is continuing that good work and that this piece of it is coming back and we are about to go into the Committee of the whole House stage on it. 
The recurring theme that we hear in this particular area is the need to strengthen investor protection and that is an important aspect of what this bill is designed to do. The bill creates an independent oversight system for issuer audits with the aim of promoting the quality and expertise of the auditing profession and of ensuring that New Zealand and overseas laws are aligned. That is very clear. Once it is passed the bill ought to restore confidence in New Zealand’s financial markets. As others have said this is a complex bill. This is a detailed bill; I will not pretend to understand every aspect of it but I do understand what it is designed to do and what some of its key elements are which have not worked in the past. When I myself ran commissions we relied on our auditors to tell us that everything was indeed in the right place. At least that guarantee is strengthened by the provisions of this particular bill. 
The select committee has clearly taken a very good look at this bill and has made quite a number of changes as well. In relation to one change auditors were formerly regulated as chartered accountants but this bill requires the Institute of Chartered Accountants to regulate auditors as a specialist profession. The Financial Markets Authority will be responsible for auditor oversight in monitoring and reporting on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Financial Markets Authority is given oversight of auditors because with regard to the current self-regulatory system which places the onus on chartered accountants to assess their own competence to carry out issuer audits the finance company experience indicates that some practitioners did not make sound decisions. We are moving from the quite liberal position we had in the past in terms of self-audit to a firmly regulated one. Further self-regulation is no longer acceptable in other jurisdictions so I am told; we need therefore to move away from that particular model to match best practice. We need to move away from this model for reasons of international recognition and international credibility as well. Financial markets now operate in the globalised world and therefore those guarantees need to be given. Again the legislation also aligns New Zealand and Australia. 
This new regime will apply to only major audits. It will not impact on small and medium sized companies and non-profit entities and that is appropriate as well. Issuer audits are targeted because investors in those entities are most at risk of losing large amounts of money in the event of an audit failure. In a 2009 report the Registrar of Companies criticised a number of parties including auditors for their role in the finance company meltdown. This bill takes a good look at the system it realigns the system and it changes the model quite radically from a self-audit to a regulated audit. 
The select committee has made a number of changes that further strengthen those moves. One concerned the proposal I think as the bill went to the select committee for all partners in an audit firm to be liable if the firm breached the relevant restrictions. The amendment I think is a sensible one in the sense that it really says that that proposal was going too far. Coming back from the committee the amendment means that only those people who had authority and gave permission or consent will be the ones who will be caught. That is a good change of the select committee as well. 
The Opposition supports the bill. It looks forward to the detailed discussion about some of the changes that have been made and it appreciates the sensible amendments the select committee has made. The bill ought to give quite a bit of confidence to investors in the future that at least the audit leg of the bill the leg that looks after investments has now been strengthened—once this process goes through—and that there will be a set of rules and regulations an authority and a process by which those who carry out audits will meet the standards we expect them to meet. On that note I thank you very much. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I commend the member opposite my dear friend Rajen for his considered contribution to this debate. Considering that he does not sit on the Commerce Committee I like to think that either he studied the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill or he had really good speaking notes. That is unlike the speech his colleague Stuart Nash delivered for the Opposition. Until his last sentence it looked like Labour had a fan club for the Hon Simon Power. He did so well until the last sentence. I commend him for his positive contribution recognising the wonderful work that our Ministers are doing. 
This bill is about licensing regimes for major audits of the likes of banks insurance companies and companies listed on the stock exchange. I will give an example that is non - accounting-related. One of the reasons the Auckland councils amalgamated was to provide standards across the whole city and to have a vision for the whole region rather than those things being replicated over so many councils across the Auckland region. This bill provides that standard for accounting just like the Auckland Council is doing for the city. 
This bill recognises the fact that with the advent of the financial market failures audits of companies that manage substantial investments from the public must be performed by people who are the best at what they do meaning the top echelons of people. It is to protect the moneys of the public. It is to restore confidence in finance companies—confidence that was lost by the mums and pas of New Zealand who had invested a lot of money. With the advent of the financial market failures they lost a lot of money. This bill is part of what the Government is doing to restore that confidence. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 When people reflect on the progress of human history and look at the important elements of it they usually start with philosophers like Plato and Socrates. They look at the great mathematicians like Archimedes and Euclid and also they think about the great physicists poets and composers. No one puts on their list an accountant. But the fact is that the Dutchman who devised double entry accounting probably has had more influence on our lives than any of the others who went before. 
We are all subject to having sets of accounts and the tyranny of accrual accounting. This place is run on accrual accounting and every Government establishment is run on accrual accounting. 
Jonathan Young 
: Did you say “cruel”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It can be cruel accounting. One of the great reforms of the 1980s was putting the Government books on to accrual accounting. Reforms have flowed from that. People did it at the time to ensure that the Government’s books were accurate. People need to be able to rely upon the figures and to make judgments from them. 
We have seen some terrible examples around the world of where figures have sadly proven inaccurate. I draw members’ attention to for example WorldCom a massive company that collapsed into a shower of nothing and Enron. Other major accountancy companies have suffered as a consequence such as Arthur Andersen LLP. We have seen the global financial crisis where banks have melted down and people have lost millions and we have seen finance companies in New Zealand going crash—all because the accounting systems were inadequate. The numbers that they represented proved not to be the reality. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Questions to Ministers 
Public Service—Reports 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the performance of the Public Service? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today Treasury released a report benchmarking the back-office costs of 33 State sector agencies which showed that in many instances the costs of functions like property management human resources financial management and information and communications technology are higher than international benchmarks or higher than those of other agencies. The report concludes that Government departments could save more than $230 million a year through greater sharing standardisation and automation of administrative functions. These are savings that we would be keen to see Government departments get on and make so that we can improve front-line public services. 
David Bennett 
: How will the report change the way that the Public Service operates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it will change it in a couple of ways. One is just transparency. The Government is not taking particular action as a result of this exercise but is simply publishing the results so that everyone can see agency by agency what the costs are. Secondly it will be the responsibility of chief executives to implement any changes that they see fit. It is important that they own the savings they make and move those savings to front-line services. 
David Bennett 
: Why is it necessary to find these savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the reason that there is potential for up to a quarter of a billion dollars of savings is that between 2005 and 2009 Government spending increased by about 50 percent which is twice the rate of economic growth. There is a lot of scope in the public sector to bring those costs back in line after a decade of extravagance. 
David Bennett 
: What progress has the Government made in improving front-line services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are so many ways we can improve front-line services that it is hard to know where to start. One way that is published regularly in the newspapers is the quarterly reports on district health board performance across a range of health services from emergency department waiting-times through to cancer treatment waiting-times. In addition to that the Government has for instance lifted the number of front-line police and that seems to be having some impact on the crime rate. There are a number of other ways that the Government is improving front-line services. We are not giving up; even if money is tight we will continue to improve front-line services. 
Cost of Living—Prime Minister’s Statement 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “this Government is working on two fronts to lower the cost of living for New Zealanders and their families”; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because it is true. On the first front the Government continues to support monetary policy that is focused on maintaining a low level of inflation. I might add that this is a point of difference between us and the Labour Party. On the second front the Government is working to build a stronger economy that delivers rising income. Actually that is also a point of different for this Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister talked last week about this being a “monster year for dairy” was he referring to the fact that butter has gone up a massive 65 percent in the last 2 years and cheese 22 percent with both due to go up by 10 percent and 12 percent respectively next week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I was simply referring to the fact that high commodity prices actually support the New Zealand economy overall in terms of better jobs. Funnily enough I am not alone in my thinking in that area. I read a very interesting speech given on 30 September 2008 and I quote: “As a net exporter of food products New Zealand is a beneficiary of high international food prices.” That speech was given by Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in this House that New Zealanders “cannot afford to fill up their car or go to the supermarket checkout and that they are going without and why does the Prime Minister not do something about those people” and why was it the Prime Minister’s responsibility for dairy prices and petrol prices then but it is not his responsibility now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because back then we had very poor levels of rising after-tax wages. That is because the Prime Minister of the day did nothing about it. I do note that on 8 March that very question of petrol prices was asked not just of me but of Phil Goff. The question from Corin Dann was “But is there anything you could do for petrol?”. Phil said “No”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister claims that people are better off can he explain this: how is a person earning $40000 a year who got a tax cut last October of $22 a week better off when that person now spends that entire amount each week just filling up their petrol tank and has nothing left to pay for other rising costs like lamb chops vegetables cheese and butter—all up by over 10 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing that that person would want to do is vote National because under Labour’s emissions trading scheme it will be a hell of a lot more expensive. That is the first thing. The second thing is that I am glad that the member raised the issue of someone on $40000. Over the last 12 months these are the facts when it comes to after-tax wages: the average wage in New Zealand has risen from $39518 to $42214 a rise of 6.8 percent or in real terms a rise of 2.7 percent. The last Labour Government achieved 4 percent in 9 years—what a disgrace for New Zealand consumers! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister still denying that the rise in the cost of living in the December quarter of last year was the highest in 20 years as he did a couple of weeks ago in this House or have his staff put him right by now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As we know that included GST and was compensated for for all consumers. But while we are on numbers let us just look at the rise in food prices for all of last year. According to Statistics New Zealand the rise is 5.5 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is very interesting but it does not answer my question. The question was straightforward as you will recall: it was whether he was denying that the last quarter had the highest price rise in 20 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s wording was “Does the Prime Minister still deny”—from memory—“that the CPI rise in the last quarter was the highest for 20 years?”. That gives the Prime Minister or any Minister a fair bit of licence in answering that type of question— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is seeking an opinion about the CPI. The question asked whether the Prime Minister denies that the CPI was the highest in the last quarter. That leaves a fair bit of latitude and it would be wrong of me as Speaker to unfairly clip the wings of a Minister too much. However I would not want the Prime Minister to go on for too long. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I will not go on for too long. If one looks at the rise in all food prices over the last 12 months one sees that it was 5.5 percent and that included the 2 percent increase for GST. In the last year of a Labour Government food went up by 10.8 percent on average and there was no increase in GST then. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister in February talked about delivering faster-rising incomes for New Zealanders and their families why was it that in 2010 all he delivered according to Statistics New Zealand was a fall in the median income? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I go back to the rise in incomes over the last 12 months—which was 2010—which based on statistics from Statistics New Zealand went from $39518 to $42214. That was a rise of 6.8 percent in nominal terms or 2.7 percent in real terms. In other words we delivered 2.7 percent in real terms when Labour delivered 4 percent over 9 years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that he is skating on thin ice. He made that interjection well after the point of order was called. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was I think according to all of your instructions a very narrow question about the median income. The Prime Minister did not answer with regard to the median income; he used average income. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. I invite the member to compare the language used in the question with his own language in questions. He will observe that his own language is very precise when he asks questions. I accept that his colleague’s language referred to the median income—I absolutely accept that. But the Prime Minister in answering the question is disputing the information contained in it. The Prime Minister obviously in answering the question is saying that average after-tax incomes may be in his view more important than median before-tax incomes. In asking that kind of question in the way it was worded it is my view that that is not unreasonable. I think it would be pedantic of the Speaker to try to constrain Ministers. 
Moreover yesterday the member saw me stop the Prime Minister in full flight. When he was asked a straight question he went on to make a comment about the Opposition. Where I hear straight questions without implied criticism of the Government I will insist on answers. 
Where members can help themselves is to take out of questions the language that gives Ministers the chance to get off the hook. Today we have heard too many questions that have language that lets Ministers off the hook. I listen very carefully and I will do my best; where the question is a straight question and a fair question I will do my best to make sure it is answered. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the rising cost of living and the fact that New Zealand workers are earning a third less than their counterparts in Australia the reason why every day in February of this year 139 New Zealanders left permanently for Australia—1000 more for the month of February this year than February last year according to the figures just released? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I dispute those numbers. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can it be in order to dispute numbers that I have just quoted from Statistics New Zealand released today and available to the Prime Minister and to you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is absolutely in order to dispute figures. When Ministers do dispute figures of course they place themselves at risk as future questions can be put down on the Order Paper to ask for specific answers in relation to those matters. Ministers are entitled to dispute the content of questions but they face further questioning when they do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well a point of order should be called. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: OK. I seek the leave of the House to table the statistics just released proving the point that I have just stated which was disputed by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not table recently released statistics because they are available to all members. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it in order to avoid answering a question by disputing figures that are available to the Prime Minister publicly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is question time in case the honourable Leader of the Opposition had forgotten that. It happens every day and when Ministers dispute figures that the honourable member believes are proper figures they open themselves to tighter questioning on that issue. It is a risk Ministers run. The sanction is in the tough questions—the member should not be interjecting. The sanction is in tough questions. Questions that insert or seek opinions are not tough questions. I accept that the final question from the Leader of the Opposition was a fairly precise question. But the Minister is entitled to dispute the information contained in it. I as Speaker cannot judge that but Ministers leave themselves open to further tight questioning when they do that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you not now to review your response to this and especially the reflection that is made on the Government Statistician by the Prime Minister disputing his figures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was doing perfectly fine with his point of order until that point. He is now debating the issue. The matter is very simple: I cannot judge the accuracy of a Minister’s answer. Ministers are absolutely entitled to dispute figures but if they get them wrong they leave themselves vulnerable. There are further supplementary questions today there is another question time tomorrow and members have the chance to pursue these matters. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You started your answer in the House saying it is question time. It is also answer time. It was a straight question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. He will not dispute my ruling. The Minister gave a straight answer. He disagreed with the information. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He avoided— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Leader of the Opposition will cease that or he will leave the House; he has the choice. I have ruled on the matter and Ministers are absolutely entitled to dispute information contained in supplementary questions. They are even entitled to dispute information contained in primary questions. Even though it is validated it may not be in the—the Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful. I do not wish to evict him from the House but I will not hesitate if he carries on down this line. 
Police Powers—Petrobras Protest 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Labour front bench—[ 
Interruption 
] That just let them off the hook. [ 
Interruption 
] Senior members should know better than that. I heard two members use totally unparliamentary language. I will not do anything about it on this occasion because of the responses from the other side. But the House will come to order. It may not have liked my rulings but I am satisfied that I have ruled appropriately. 
3. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What powers do the New Zealand Police have to protect the economic interests of New Zealanders in our exclusive economic zone? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The police who are operationally independent under section 16 of the Policing Act deal with operational matters on a case by case basis and exercise their discretion as appropriate. The police’s ability to act is found in a variety of legislation. In particular the Policing Act 2008 outlines the roles and functions of police and they include keeping the peace maintaining public safety law enforcement and crime prevention. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What powers do the police have in respect of the protesters who at the weekend threw themselves in front of the Petrobras exploration vessel forcing it to veer off course to avoid endangering them? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In a general sense it is understood that enforcement jurisdiction on the sea is covered by customary international law the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and New Zealand domestic law. Applicable New Zealand legislation includes the Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act the Maritime Transport Act the Maritime Crimes Act the Maritime Security Act the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act and the Continental Shelf Act. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What is the point of the police serving notices on the protesters to stay at least 250 metres from the bow and the stern of the Petrobras exploration vessel if the police are not prepared to enforce that order? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Commissioner of Police and the police act independently of the Government as they should do. I believe that they have full powers under the Acts I have just listed to take action should they wish to. 
Finance Minister—Statements 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his statements on  
Q+A 
 on 10 April 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes particularly the comment about the Government having a long-term plan to lift economic performance and get higher incomes and more jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If he thinks that the wage gap with Australia is such an advantage as he told  
Q+A 
 why did he not campaign on widening it at the 2008 election instead of campaigning on the need to catch up with Australia which is what he said he would do but not what he has achieved? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I was just stating the obvious: today there are New Zealanders whose jobs depend on businesses that are successfully competing with Australian ones. I know competition is a dirty word in the Labour Party but out in the real world it is how one gets ahead. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with Bernard Hickey who said Mr English’s tax switch is simply “not working” the GST increase “has hurt a swathe of society that could least afford it.” and “The tax cuts for those on higher salaries has not been saved and invested in job-creating export industries.”; if not where are the rising wages and the new jobs to prove that Mr Hickey is wrong? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with Mr Bernard Hickey. If the Labour Party does then it will reverse the tax changes—that is it will put income taxes up and cut GST. Labour is quite free to campaign on that if it agrees with him. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What do recent figures on New Zealand’s real after-tax wages show? 
Hon Member 
: That’s a good question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a good question because recently the Government has adjusted national superannuation which includes a formula based on our real after-tax wages. Over the period since September 2008 real after-tax wages in New Zealand have grown by 10 percent. Over the comparable period in Australia they have grown by 6.2 percent. That means we have done better than Australia on real after-tax wages. But it is only a small step and we will not get too excited about it because there is a long way to go. 
Darien Fenton 
: Was increasing New Zealand’s minimum wage by a tiny 25 cents an hour from 1 April part of his strategy to attract foreign capital by having cheaper wages? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The increase in the minimum wage—which was I think the second one under this Government—strikes a reasonable balance between recognising the effects of the cost of living on people who are on the minimum wage and on the other hand ensuring that a lot of people still have an opportunity to get a job for which an employer can afford to pay them. 
Darien Fenton 
: In light of his statement that New Zealand’s low wages are an advantage and a way of competing does he also view the Government’s industrial relations reforms which remove workers’ rights as an advantage because they further drive down wages and labour rates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All our policy is focused on achieving more jobs and higher incomes. Changes in labour market reform—for instance the 90-day trial period—are allowing people who were otherwise shut out of the workforce and living on benefits better opportunities to get jobs and therefore higher incomes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following does he consider to be his greatest contribution to improving New Zealand’s fiscal performance: widening the wage gap with Australia overshooting the Crown liability on South Canterbury Finance by $700 million signing a blank cheque for AMI Insurance before doing due diligence on the company granting a $43 million loan to MediaWorks in an election year paying $2 million for a “Tupperwaka” to float Pita Sharples’ boat with Ngati Whatua or finessing his family trust in order to get double the normal housing allowance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: None of those assertions are true. 
Legal Aid—Funding Gap 
5. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What has caused the $402 million legal aid funding gap? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Two-thirds of the $402 million gap which will emerge over 5 years from 2010-11 stems from decisions made in 2006 to extend eligibility for legal aid and in 2008 to increase lawyer remuneration. To be blunt those changes were completely unaffordable and unsustainable then and they are even more so now. 
Chester Borrows 
: What steps is the Government taking to close this gap? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Among other measures we are changing legal aid eligibility purchasing approaches revenue collection and court-ordered lawyer for the child services. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of these changes will affect cases involving vulnerable parties the care and protection of children or serious criminal matters. The changes will be implemented in 2011-12 and are expected to reduce legal aid expenditure by $138 million over 4 years. The changes are necessary to bring the legal aid growth curve back under control while preserving access to justice for those who need it the most. 
MediaWorks Payment Arrangement—Confidence in Ministers Involved 
6. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all Ministers involved in the MediaWorks frequency payment arrangement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes as I do with regard to the other eight transactions that were entered into on the deferred payment schedule. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his answer yesterday that he had not read Deloitte’s report is it his practice to grant $43 million loans without reading the paperwork? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was not the Minister responsible for the loan. I make the point that the paperwork from Deloitte that the member is talking about was issued in May 2009. Cabinet considered the matter in October. The proposition we considered then was vastly different from the proposition that Deloitte reported on in May. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who approved his answers to parliamentary written questions No. 2043 (2011) and No. 2044 (2011) in which he denied discussing the issue with any MediaWorks senior manager when in fact he had discussed it with Brent Impey the chief executive? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I did and I corrected the answer as soon as I became aware of the issue. I would not describe our conversation as a meeting which was the basis of most of the questions. Very brief informal discussions took place as Brent Impey said yesterday. The conversation was a couple of quick sentences. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Following that discussion which he forgot when answering the questions did he refer the matter to Mr Steven Joyce? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot remember the exact details but there were discussions in Cabinet as the position worsened for all of the companies. 
Petrobras Petroleum Exploration Permit—Emergency Response Plan 
7. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Did Petrobras provide an emergency response plan outlining how they would stop a catastrophic oil leak or spill before the Government issued them a permit to explore for oil and drill off the East Cape? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Government awarded Petrobras a 5-year exploration permit that allows Petrobras to acquire and interpret 2-D and 3-D seismic data and to drill one exploratory well. If Petrobras decides to proceed to drilling an exploratory well before any drilling operation can go ahead it will have to develop a discharge of management plan which must be approved by the Director of Maritime New Zealand. 
David Clendon 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was on notice and was quite a simple straightforward question: was a response plan provided by Petrobras before the Government issued a permit? I do not believe that the Minister answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is a fair one. The question was on notice and the answer did not advise the House as to whether any emergency response plan had been provided prior to the issue of the permit. It may well be that the Minister thinks such a plan was not necessary but as the question was on notice the House deserves an answer as to whether a plan was provided. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: If I could clarify by explaining the staged nature of the permit that has been made available to Petrobras: different steps are required at different stages. The 2-D and 3-D seismic mapping has to occur before an exploratory well can be drilled. If it were to be drilled then at that point a discharge plan would be required. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My apologies but again the question was not answered. It asked whether Petrobras had provided that report before the permit was issued. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe on this occasion she provided an answer. As I heard her answer she said that for the initial seismic mapping work that is being done no such plan was required. Therefore obviously no such plan was provided. That is quite clear from what she said. The members can question her further about that but that was my understanding of what she said. So the answer is clearly no. The Minister explained to the House that the permit provided for only certain things to happen. If I am wrong on that I invite the Minister to correct that understanding. I think it was a fair question on notice and it deserved an answer but I believe that it has now been answered. 
David Clendon 
: Interpreting the Minister’s answer to the previous question as no could she tell us why the Government is permitting any foreign oil company to explore and drill for oil in deep water without first providing an emergency response plan to be followed in the event of a leak or a spill? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I reject the premise of that question actually. As I explained in my primary answer there is a staged process within the permit. At each stage different steps are required. Since we have not reached the stage at which an exploratory well might be drilled the particular response necessary for it has yet to be considered. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are now in a difficult situation. You interpreted if you like the answer the Minister gave as no which we accepted and therefore our point of order did not carry the day—she had answered the question. The Minister is now saying she did not say no. Therefore she did not answer the question in the way that you interpreted. So she never answered the question at all. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A serious primary question was asked and I am taking these points of order seriously. Forgive me but as I understood what the Minister said the second time round—and this may not be correct—I heard her say that because the staged permit does not at this stage provide for drilling no emergency response plan was considered necessary. As I heard the Minister’s answer she indicated that no such plan was required. None has been given because the staged permit that has been issued does not at this stage provide for exploratory drilling. If I have got that wrong let us hear the correction. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The permit does provide for an exploratory well to be drilled but only after the 2-D mapping and then the 3-D mapping stages have been completed. If the data is sufficient for the company then it can go to the next stage at which point further requirements would be triggered. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was that a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I consider it it was actually the Minister giving a fuller answer. That was my interpretation of what happened there. Does that answer assist the members? 
David Clendon 
: Recognising that the Minister may not be aware that a discharge permit is not an emergency response plan does she agree with Dr Nick Smith Minister for the Environment who said this morning that there are deficiencies in environmental protection in the exclusive economic zone where the Petrobras permit allows it to drill? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: If I could reply to the first part of the question in fact my answer referred to a discharge management plan not to a discharge permit as the member suggested. 
David Clendon 
: Can the Minister tell us how a new piece of legislation will plug an oil leak in the event of an accident on a deep-water drilling rig? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was such noise around the House that I could not hear the question. I ask the member to repeat it please. 
David Clendon 
: Can the Minister tell us how a new piece of legislation will plug an oil leak in the event of an accident on a deep-water drilling rig? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I do not know which new piece of legislation the member is talking about I cannot answer the question. 
David Clendon 
: Does the Minister expect that a team of 400 New Zealanders will be able to cope with a catastrophic oil leak or spill when 7000 US Coast Guard personnel and over 40000 other emergency personnel were not able to contain the Deepwater Horizon leak for some 86 days? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Maritime New Zealand is responsible for ensuring New Zealand is prepared for and able to respond to marine oil spills. The Marine Pollution Response Service consists of internationally respected experts who manage and train a team of around 400 local government and Maritime New Zealand responders. New Zealand has equipment and other stores strategically located around New Zealand. In addition the Marine Pollution Response Service assists regional councils with exercise and oil spill equipment. The plan is responsive and is regularly evaluated to ensure it meets changing risk profiles. Should the pattern of oil exploration— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an extensive answer to clearly a different question. Can I suggest that the member just table it? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to raise a point of order. The answer that was being given did not focus exactly on the question asked and that was the dilemma. The question asked whether the Minister believed that New Zealand’s 400 people involved in some kind of response team in the situation described could achieve more success than thousands of people in the United States of America did during the recent Gulf of Mexico spill. It was just an opinion being sought from the Minister. Admittedly we got an interesting answer about how currently New Zealand responds to such an emergency but that was not the question asked. The question asked was whether the Minister believed that our 400 people could do better than the US thousands. It is just an opinion being sought. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I was giving a rather long answer to the hyperbole that was in the question in order to reassure members that the plan is responsive and regularly evaluated— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Far be it from me to be your protector but I think that if there had been hyperbole in the question you would have ruled it out. Therefore that statement was a reflection on you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I am trying to get us through this particular question and to get members some satisfaction on answers they are seeking. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To help the Green MP could he rephrase his question to suggest that the Minister’s  
Hansard 
 be used as an alternative to the bill to plug the hole? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us be reasonable and go back. The question was an opinion question. It was within the Standing Orders. An opinion was being sought. The Minister does not have to give any particular opinion but the question should be addressed one way or another as it was asked. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The point I was getting to was that the plan is responsive and regularly evaluated to ensure it meets changing risk profiles. So should the pattern of oil exploration or production change Maritime New Zealand would change its response accordingly specific to New Zealand’s situation. Thank you. 
David Clendon 
: Given that the Gulf of Mexico disaster was stopped only when a second rig drilled a relief well does she expect Petrobras to provide a second rig in case there is a catastrophic leak in the exploratory well? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: This is asking me to—well I am asking you Mr Speaker for a point of clarification. This is a hypothesis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will be silent. Members are entitled to ask hypothetical questions but obviously there is no precise answer to a hypothetical question. Whether a second rig would be provided to drill a second hole if anything went wrong with the first is a hypothetical question and the Minister is perfectly at liberty to say—it is a hypothetical question seeking a view and there is no precise answer to it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Speaker. The response would be appropriate to the circumstances. 
David Clendon 
: In interpreting that as the Minister not expecting Petrobras to provide a second rig does she have an estimate of the length of time it would take for a second rig to arrive in New Zealand to drill a relief well in the event of an accident? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Does she agree with Dr Apirana Mahuika that it was not Petrobras that was the genesis of the problems on the East Coast but rather the Crown; if so what process improvements will she consider for future applications in order to ensure comprehensive and timely consultation with iwi? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am very open to suggestions on improvements and I look forward to discussing these with Dr Mahuika and with others. 
David Clendon 
: Given the significant environmental risks associated with deep-water drilling and noting that the Gulf of Mexico incident involved over 50000 emergency personnel and the spending of some US$39 billion what resources are available in New Zealand to cope with a major oil spill that were not available to the US Government? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Maritime New Zealand is responsible for ensuring that New Zealand is prepared and it does so through the Marine Pollution Response Service. 
Ministerial Vehicles—Replacement 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with his Minister for Ministerial Services’ answer to a supplementary question on Question No. 11 yesterday regarding whether he is in charge of processes in Ministerial Services: “It depends. It depends on the circumstances. I was not responsible for this particular instance because it was not brought to my attention and there was no reason for it to be.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. I was not responsible for the decision made by the department as it was an operational matter for the chief executive. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well members should read the  
Cabinet Manual 
. Section 3.5 of the Cabinet Manual states that Ministers “should not be involved in their department’s day-to-day operations.” However I acknowledge that I am responsible for answering questions in the House on operational matters. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it his expectation that Ministers in his Government will read papers before signing them particularly documents relating to the overall direction of their portfolios such as statements of intent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. Yesterday in the House the member was making the claim that I had made the decision on the purchase of new BMWs. Let us actually quote from the statement of intent— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not what I did and I take offence at that remark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are entitled to raise points of order. I expected to hear a different point of order from the member. 
Grant Robertson 
: I will give you another one if you like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not very sympathetic with the point of order that the member has made but to me he would have had a legitimate grievance given that he asked a very simple question: whether that is the Prime Minister’s expectation. The Prime Minister answered that; therefore the rest of the answer was really superfluous to requirements. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he expect Ministers in his— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let us go to the  
Hansard 
 of yesterday where the question from Mr Robertson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—no! We cannot litigate matters in that way. I have not supported the member’s point of order; I have simply pointed out that the member asked a very simple question about whether the Prime Minister expected Ministers to read important documents such as statements of intent prior to signing them I think. The Prime Minister answered that; he said yes he did. Going on further given the simplicity of that question was unnecessary I think and that is why I invited a supplementary question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he expect Ministers in his Government to be aware of a major capital purchase within their portfolios particularly one with some political risk attached to it; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do. That is why I have changed the procedures with Ministerial Services. I am not actually responsible for the capital budget; that goes somewhere else. But I have changed the procedures and I have made it quite clear to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs that I expect there to be an improved performance when it comes to the no-surprises policy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has he received any advice of any inconsistencies in  
Hansard  
yesterday about what was in the statement of intent for Ministerial Services as compared with what the member claimed was in it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I will quote from yesterday’s  
Hansard  
a question from Grant Robertson: “Is it correct that the decision to replace the VIP transport fleet was put to him as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services four times through March and April 2009 as part of the statement of intent process and that as Minister responsible he signed off those documents … ?”. Let us quote from the statement of intent which says: “The ‘Property plant and equipment’ category includes expenditure on computer hardware associated with infrastructural asset projects office fit-outs and associated furnishings and cyclical replacement of the VIP transport fleet.” That is not a decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Grant Robertson. [ 
Interruption 
] The House is getting pretty excited over this matter. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is acceptable for the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I cannot hear the question that is being asked. The House will come to order. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is acceptable for his Minister responsible for Ministerial Services not to have read a briefing on a major capital issue in his department until 2 months after he received it and then to have read it only because to quote the Minister: “I saw an item on the news concerning the replacement of BMWs.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That Minister reads a lot of very large documents and when he sees a one-line reference to “cyclical replacement” it does not present a proposal to the Government. If a proposal had been put to the Minister I am sure he would have remembered that. It never was. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Department of Internal Affairs briefing sent to the Prime Minister on 17 December 2010 which goes into some detail about the proposal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: Would he deem it appropriate for a Minister to take responsibility for an issue in his or her portfolio such as the replacement of the vehicle fleet when it is mentioned in four different briefings to him when a driver tells him it is happening and when his chief of staff is briefed on it by the department? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am responsible for answering questions in the House. As the  
Cabinet Manual 
 says I am not responsible for purchase decisions because those are within the delegation to the chief executive. As I said I was disappointed with the decision made by the chief executive in that he did not inform me of it under the no-surprises policy. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he agree with John Armstrong that the key doctrine of ministerial accountability is weak and boils down to two words: “it depends”; or would he prefer the description “see no detail hear no detail speak no detail”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I respectfully do not agree with Mr Armstrong on that occasion. But I agree with the stuff he has been writing recently in which he has essentially been saying the Leader of the Opposition is making statements recently that are at risk of making Charlie Sheen look coherent. 
Job Ops Scheme—Numbers 
9. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many young people have benefited from the Government’s job opportunities programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Thanks to the vision of this Government and the support of around 7000 New Zealand businesses over 10000 young people have been given work through Job Ops. When we introduced Job Ops we were facing the worst recession since the 1930s and this has made a real difference for those young people. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What do we know about these young people who have completed a Job Ops placement? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We know that of the 4577 young people who have completed their Job Ops placement so far about 90 percent are not on a benefit. That is about 4153 young people. Although it is not a requirement to record where they go we know that 70 percent of those young people or 3190 have secured full-time or part-time employment. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that there are currently 58000 young people not in employment education or training; and if not how many are there? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: According to the latest household labour force survey for the group aged 15 to 24 years the unemployment rate is at 16.8 percent. In the December 2011 quarter there were 6200 fewer 15 to 24-year-olds on the unemployment benefit. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the Minister might have some advantages I think that quoting December 2011 figures is probably not amongst them and maybe she might like to correct her figures. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a further point of order? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It is. I also wish to clarify that my question was about what is titled the “neets” which is young people not in employment education or training as opposed to the household labour force survey. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will deal with the point of order that is perhaps of more substance although I appreciate the member’s point. The question was commendably direct and contained no implied criticism whatsoever. It asked whether the Minister could confirm a certain figure in relation to a group of young people and if not what the actual figure was. Maybe the Minister does not have that particular figure in the House although the primary question would have alerted the Minister to this kind of likely supplementary question. I believe that the Minister should attempt to answer that question although if she does not have the information that is fine but it was a very simple question about the number of young people. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: First may I correct my answer. It was indeed in the December 2010 quarter that 6200 fewer 15 to 24-year-olds were unemployed. I do not have the actual number; I have the percentage in front of me which is what I was giving in response to the member’s question. I do not have the “neet” number but I have the percentage which is considerably lower at 16.8 percent. 
Transport Minister—Confidence 
10. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Transport? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Absolutely. 
Clare Curran 
: What account has he seen of the economic benefit to New Zealand of increasing skilled employment and reducing unemployment in relation to the tender process for deciding which company will win the $500 million bid for the fleet of 38 electric multiple units for Auckland? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen that report. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that a KiwiRail board decision is imminent on deciding the successful bidder for Auckland’s electric multiple units? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am not and that would be an operational matter for KiwiRail’s board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he been informed of or received any report on Sammy Wong’s 6-year relationship with Chinese rail companies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he received any reports formal or informal that make him aware that Sammy Wong is the subject of an ongoing Audit Office investigation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess that in so far as the Prime Minister has seen any reports he can answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was informally advised some weeks ago that the Audit Office was going to have a look at Sammy Wong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he prepared to work with the Minister of Transport to instruct the KiwiRail board not to proceed with the letting of any tender to a Chinese company until the Audit Office investigation of Sammy Wong is concluded? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would be an operational matter for the KiwiRail board—whom it purchases trains from. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter to the office of the Auditor-General from my colleague Pete Hodgson that was sent to the Auditor-General on the invitation of the Prime Minister on 15 December last year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the reply of the Assistant Auditor-General Legal to that letter. It refers to a meeting that was held on it and indicates that an inquiry is under way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Youth Guarantee—Progress 
11. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made on implementing the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Heaps—heaps! We have done a number of things including extending the number of wider Youth Guarantee places to 4000 well beyond what was announced in the last Budget. Recently I announced the next step in the Youth Guarantee which is to develop vocational pathways which will allow students who are at risk of dropping out of the school system clear career and learning options. Those vocational pathways will cover five broad industry sectors: manufacturing and technology construction and infrastructure primary industries social and community services and service industries. Schools tertiary providers and trades academies will be able to offer those pathways from next year providing clear ways to further tertiary education apprenticeship and work for young people. 
Paul Quinn 
: What feedback has she had on the vocational pathways? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The support has been very positive. The Industry Training Federation has said: “By developing a broad range of vocational pathways young people will not be pigeon-holed into a future job but gain skills that usefully lead to a career in particular industries. It is a brilliant use of the NCEA that does not require major change to the system but redefines how that system can be used more successfully.” Business New Zealand has said: “It is essential that the business community tertiary providers and schools work together to define these pathways to achieve the most productive results.” Delegates at the recent Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand conference were also very responsive. 
Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a further call on this very important bill the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. As I was saying prior to the lunch break auditing is not a matter people would rate very highly as having influenced greatly the lives of us ordinary human beings. But I think we underestimate the importance of auditing and the nature of accounts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I ask members leaving the Chamber to please cease their conversations as they leave. I thank members. It is discourteous to have members standing with their backs to the Speaker conversations going on and people on their feet being rowdy. It is discourteous to this place. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I started with one Antonio Mancini a Florentine of the 13th century. He is the man attributed with having devised double entry accounting procedures. It flowed on to the Medici bank in the 14th century and was codified and spread further from there. The device has transformed the way in which we look at the world. Max Weber once said capital did not exist before double entry accounting. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Max Weber—that’s highbrow. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Hon Simon Power smiles and laughs but it is true. When one thinks about it one sees that capital did not exist before double entry accounting. 
The fact is that the whole of our world today is built around complex financial systems that are based on double entry accounting. We have money in money received assets liabilities and equities and we have much more sophisticated forms of financial instruments that have been developed from those systems. 
All of this is little known to many ordinary people who simply rely on the numbers that are given to them by the financial markets and by their auditors. It is on the basis of these numbers that people make important decisions such as to invest in companies like Enron and WorldCom and trust accounting firms that once existed like Arthur Andersen LLP. The world has seen a number of massive collapses and the loss of huge amounts of capital and we have watched the financial crisis sweep across the globe. It has eroded huge sums of money and caused huge losses of capital. All of this has been felt in New Zealand by the collapse of a number of finance companies. Millions of hard-earned dollars have gone—vaporised. People’s lifetime savings have gone and their ambitions for a life in retirement have all disappeared. 
People need to trust the financial system and they need to have confidence in the financial system. Recent events I would say have severely shaken the confidence of the ordinary public. This Parliament therefore must do everything it can to ensure that people have confidence in the financial system. 
The Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill is not particularly exciting legislation to read. It does not read like a Stephen King novel. For most people it would be a great piece of work to read when trying to sleep at night if they could penetrate its dense language. Nevertheless it is an important advance in ensuring that our accounting systems are strong and stable that our financial institutions can be relied upon and that the figures that they produce have rigidity and value and will stand the test of time. 
My own experience of auditors is rather limited but it has been very illuminating. I started by having a set of accounts prepared and every year the accountant came along with an additional requirement in order to get my accounts approved. As these extra requirements went up I found that the auditor’s waiver of responsibility became longer deeper and more expensive. In the end I asked the auditors what I was paying for because it seemed to me that they were not guaranteeing anything in particular. 
One of the issues that arose was the liabilities that they faced. This is a complex legal question that is dealt with in part by the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. We want auditors to be able to give opinions that are of value. This bill will shift the emphasis to that and give us a better and more robust system. I support that shift. 
This is particularly arcane legislation and not many people would be interested in it but for those who are interested in auditing and financial reporting it will be a very important step forward. I see that the bill has been the subject of extensive submissions. It has been well considered by the Commerce Committee and deserves a thorough and detailed consideration in this House. I recommend the bill to members as a good piece of reading. They should make sure they get up to speed so that when they are confronted in the future with an audit and have to sign off on their audit requirements they do so with full knowledge of all of the standards and the rigour in the regime that stands behind them. They will be able to assure themselves that the numbers are well represented are accurate and will stand the test of time. That should happen not only with their own accounts; when they look at the accounts of another company an enterprise or a bank they should feel the same confidence about the figures. This bill will take a significant step forward in producing that confidence. 
Bill read a second time. 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I need to inform the Committee that I am withdrawing the amendment to clause 12 on Supplementary Order Paper 226 and the items relating to the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 to allow these same provisions proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 229 to proceed. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe. I am uncharacteristically using a modest voice. I shall correct that deficiency. 
As has been intimated to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport in broad terms Labour supports the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Two particular areas have caused us considerable angst and I will talk about the first one. It relates to the blood-alcohol limit. The Minister in the chair made reference to the fact that as a consequence of his history and his physiology he was more than capable of absorbing the equivalent of three handsome glasses of vino without it impairing his ability to drive and without offending the regulations pertaining to people driving whilst having had a bit to drink. Quite apart from the lack of wisdom of a Cabinet Minister making such a statement when one believes one walks on water one can say virtually anything until such time as the forces of nature otherwise known as the electorate correct that misapprehension. 
The reason we were hoping we could find some common ground with the Government on this issue is that we felt that a lowering of the limit would send a message that would amplify throughout the spectrum of drinkers. As I have said earlier we know that there is an element of awkwardness in people making a transition. There would be hardly a member in the Chamber who has not been to a rugby game or to some other spot had a drink or three and then chanced his or her arm and driven home believing that he or she was not over the limit. 
We are very concerned about the young impressionable drinkers. They absorbed a new set of cultural standards and they realised that society—as reflected through their submissions and interaction with the Law Commission and as was evidenced through the media reports over the last dare I say 12 months—is repulsed by the notion that more and more of our young people are suffering as a consequence of not being able to handle their alcohol and of getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and creating havoc. All we have been saying is that had we taken that particular stance it would reinforce the message that New Zealand needs to hear. 
We heard from a whole host of parents and advocacy groups. We have only to read about such prestigious institutions as King’s College to see that there is an endemic culture. If we as parliamentarians feel disinclined to challenge that prevailing youth binge drinking culture then I think that is a very serious indictment. I do not personally believe that the current Minister of Transport wants to let that binge drinking youth culture go unimpeded. However I think he has missed a very good opportunity by not lowering the blood-alcohol limit. 
There are a variety of other things that we agree with though; I do not want to be too churlish. But I do not think that there is anything petty or unreasonable in challenging the Minister to suffer a road to Damascus experience have a change of heart and agree with my colleagues and me and with the work done by my predecessor Mr Darren Hughes who hopefully has the time to listen into these contributions. We are carrying on from work that he initiated. If we want to attack the element of our societal culture that either celebrates or remains indifferent to binge drinking then a good way to do it is to pass a regulation and cause young people or their parents or other role models to suffer as a consequence of not being prepared to change their ways. It sounds brutal but it tends to work in other spheres of life. 
It would be good to hear the Minister give the Committee an account as to why he has not taken on board the public’s concerns. I know that he lives by the polls. Of course he will die by the polls but that is another matter. I know that National members poll on a tediously regular basis. He has obviously taken a poll outside the Titirangi Golf Club up at the Auckland Bridge Club in Remuera down at the Waitemata sailing club and at the various other pursuits that this Minister who is unfortunately known in the north as the “Minister of Dead Ends” is up to. But I ask Minister Joyce to please tell us why. We will not attack him on his profligate approach to roads of national significance in this context—well not in this speech anyhow. We just want to know why he has not taken on board the concerns of and the appeals for leadership from mothers brothers sisters and schoolteachers. 
He should not hide behind the media and he should not hide behind the usual smug somewhat supercilious garb. He should come out and tell New Zealand why he is leaving this limit the way that he is proposing to leave it and why he is relying on goodness knows what kind of research which he has lumbered the police and various other agencies with. The majority of the anti - drink-driving advocates and garden-variety parents—and as I said vocational guidance counsellors ministers of religion doctors and people who operate our hospitals and the actual emergency wards—have all told us that we need to take every proactive step to stop the suffering of more young people their families and indeed innocent people. 
Not long ago not far from where I hail from a person in his middle age was so drunk that he wiped out a beautiful young woman and child and injured other people. People expect the courts to deliver a decision but the courts will deliver a decision only when the highest court in the land the sovereign court—Parliament—has spoken. The party on this side of the Chamber is making a very sensible plea to Minister Joyce to please change his stance to not hide behind more reports to trust in the instincts of the people who are at the front line dealing with this carnage and on these issues of life and death to not hide behind polls. 
This is the kind of thing that we would expect a senior Minister of the Crown to embrace and race towards exercising some leadership on. This is not some sort of shady commercial transaction that we have recently tried to pin on him—no. This is about simple God-fearing Kiwis being afraid that this culture of binge drinking is going unimpeded. No one has more power in this area than the Minister of Transport so I think it is right that we amplify the fact that he has remained impotent on the issue. 
It is not unreasonable for us to have a go. I know that advocates from sports clubs and from entities such as the Automobile Association will have a go at whichever Government might be in power over whether this is too heavy-handed but we cannot trade on the language of strategies such as Safer Journeys or in our case See You There—Safe As. The rhetoric is fine but unless we are proactive on changing the elements that make for safer driving and a safer culture I have serious concerns. 
An additional area that has concerned me is the disproportionately high level of negative statistics that come from our young people—by that I mean rangatahi Maori young Maori drivers. I have a fear that if we put up the age of licensed driving it will have a disproportionately negative impact on our young people. As the Automobile Association has said there seems to already be a different culture governing the decisions of many of our young Maori drivers. Te Puni Kokiri has long since stopped doing anything proactive in that stance as befits the approach of the current Minister of Maori Affairs and his party. 
This Minister has an opportunity to deal with the elements in society that disproportionately need leadership. They do not want to change their ways until such time as some State fiat forces them to change their ways. It could affect the pockets of our community and dare I say our people—te rangatahi Maori—who seem to be operating to a different set of cultural principles when they hop behind the wheel of a vehicle. I am not seeking to countenance that and I certainly do not want to give anyone that impression but I have seen it myself. 
If one indiscriminately changes the way that licences are to be obtained; if one does not take into account how the most vulnerable group who need the ability to travel safely and legally on the road in order to get a job or better training whilst they are young will be affected; and if one makes it more difficult for them then one is actually making it difficult for them to escape from the poverty trap that many of them find themselves in. 
A whole host of attack lines are coming out of the New Zealand media. We do not need to repeat them so early in the debate; the Minister knows what they are. We will amplify them during the course of this year. I come back again to this: a simple demonstration of leadership from this person who prides himself of being the unseen force behind the current senior Ministers— 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the guts of the bill. It has the majority of the various provisions in the bill so I imagine that we will have a fairly long and lengthy debate on this part. I too want to address a couple of concerns upfront. I will start with the blood-alcohol limit. My colleague Shane Jones has started the debate in a very eloquent way. I advise the Minister of Transport that Labour is here to help. We have tabled an amendment that will allow him to save face by agreeing to decrease the blood-alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. The reason he needs to take this amendment seriously is that everybody supports a decrease. We have only to look at the variety of polls there have been; numerous polls have been conducted throughout the country. People are extremely puzzled about why the Minister and the National Government are not prepared to put this amendment into this bill or into another bill if it were the appropriate vehicle. 
I am not sure that the Minister has taken an awful lot of notice of the submissions on the bill. There were a lot of submitters who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were 81 submitters and we heard from 31 I think. Many of them were concerned about the lowering of the adult blood-alcohol content. We are saying very strongly—like the New Zealand public has been saying very strongly—that we think now is the time for us to do it. We do not agree that the Government should be kicking this to touch and using the excuse that it needs to have 2 years of research. The advice from officials is very very clear that a lower blood-alcohol limit will prevent between 15 and 33 deaths and from 320 to 688 serious injuries. That on its own is enough to take action rather than waiting for a couple of years. 
There have been 300 international studies—300 international studies—that have all shown the road-safety benefits from lowering the blood-alcohol concentration. We do not believe that collecting New Zealand - specific data is necessary because of those 300 international studies. What is so different about New Zealand? We do not understand why we have to go to the expense why we have to spend money when the country is struggling why we are wasting money on collecting research that we do not need and why we are not taking action right now. 
I want to refer to some of the submissions that came to the select committee. There were a range of groups. There were some very concerned groups. A group from Whangaparaoa and Rodney came down; 77 of them were involved in putting together a submission. The Seventh Day Adventist Church Grey Power Auckland area committee Active West Coast Christchurch City Council the Drug Foundation and the Cycling Advocates Network all said that we should be taking the opportunity to reduce the blood-alcohol content from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. Alcohol Healthwatch strongly supported that also. It should know—it has to deal with the consequences of people who have problems with alcohol. We know we have a culture of binge drinking. We know we have alcohol problems in our country at the moment. The Law Commission has highlighted that very clearly. Alcohol Healthwatch talked about how we need to change people’s drinking behaviour. That would not only stop crashes and people dying on the roads but also it would lead to better outcomes in other areas such as being less of a drain on the health sector. 
Some other really significant groups came to the select committee such as the Drink Driving Intervention Trust. Professor Doug Sellman from the National Addiction Centre was extremely interesting. He strongly recommended that we lower the blood-alcohol limit. He said that the current blood-alcohol limit amounts to legalised drink-driving. I think the Minister of Transport himself was very surprised when he found out that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still get behind the wheel and drive legally—[ 
Interruption 
]—and still run the Cabinet agenda; that is right. Professor Sellman went on to say that there is enough international evidence to show that lowering the blood-alcohol limit has positive effects on lowering the incidence of drink-driving—not just saving lives and stopping injuries but actually changing behaviour. That is one of the key measures the Government should be taking. 
The  
Herald on Sunday  
ran a campaign on lowering the blood-alcohol limit and some people signed up to it. I am not sure whether members of the Government were brave enough to put their names to it but I know some of them agree with what the  
Herald on Sunday  
said. It held a nationwide campaign to get New Zealanders to pledge to two drinks max. It also said that there is enough evidence to show that we would get real positive results from changing the blood-alcohol content. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council also recommended lowering the blood-alcohol limit. It talked about changing the drinking culture of New Zealand. The problem with the drinking culture in relation to our roads is that if people can drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine like the Minister did and be legally smashed but then get into a car and drive why would they change their behaviour? They think that is OK. They measure the number of glasses of wine they can have or the beers they can have. They say that as long as they have not had three-quarters of a bottle of wine they are OK. They do not think about how that impairs their driving they do not think about the impact that it has on their ability to drive safely and they do not think about the impact it has on other drivers as well. 
Members of Rural Women New Zealand were very interesting as well. I would have thought they are a good group and good friends of the Government but they said that the Government should be lowering the blood-alcohol limit across the board and most of their members actually support zero tolerance. We are not suggesting that; we are simply saying that we should use the international research that is available to us. Why does this Government not take a brave step that will save between 15 and 33 lives every year? We do not need to wait for 2 years for New Zealand - specific research. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation represents nurses and knows about the impacts of alcohol and drink-driving. It has said that judgment about the ability to drive safely is severely compromised at 0.08 grams. It also suggested a nationwide education programme. In addition to lowering the blood-alcohol concentration a nationwide education programme should ensure better understanding of alcohol-related harm and the associated costs of this harm because as I have said it is not just about people dying other road users being at risk and people being injured; it is the cost to the health system and to people’s lives. Losing someone in an instant on the roads has an enormous impact on people’s lives. If they are badly injured of course there is an ongoing cost both to the families and to our health system. 
So there were many submissions in support of lowering the blood-alcohol concentration and a number of polls and trials have been conducted throughout the country. A number of employees at media organisations including those from the  
Herald on Sunday 
 ran tests to see how much they could drink and still be legally below the limit. They found it quite frightening that they were able to get behind the wheel and drive their cars on the road. 
As my colleague Shane Jones has said we support quite a number of the features in Part 1. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers because that addresses the issue of drink-driving. We also support the zero limit for drivers under 20 years of age. The provision relating to alcohol interlock devices is a good thing; we really support that. We support doubling the minimum sentence time for drugged or reckless driving that causes death. People have to start taking this seriously. But unfortunately they will not take it seriously until this Government takes the brave step that it needs to supports the amendment that I have put forward and gets on and lowers the blood-alcohol limit instead of mucking around for another 2 years looking for New Zealand - specific research. It should not muck around with that; it should get on with it. Let us fix it up. Otherwise we think the Government has copped out on this. It is a cop-out. It has done some good things in this bill. There are some things that we disagree with but the Government could make it better by agreeing to lower the blood-alcohol concentration. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will make a couple of points if I can at this stage. I appreciate the support that the Opposition has given to a number of the measures in this bill but I am a bit concerned at the double standard it now appears to be taking with regard to young drivers versus the blood-alcohol level. Firstly if we look at the evidence and at what this bill is trying to achieve—I think it will make very strong inroads—we will see that the biggest problems on our roads sadly are our young drivers where we have a very tragic situation. We have a 60 percent worse fatality rate in this country than in Australia. It is a shocking statistic that we all need to take some responsibility for. High-risk drivers are sadly again dominated by people who are not just under or just over the legal blood-alcohol limit but are actually well over the blood-alcohol limit. 
I take the point that the Hon Shane Jones was making to a point when he told the Committee of the terrible story of the person who was blind drunk in Northland. We all have those stories. The point is that that person was obviously well over the current legal limit. In terms of the youngsters whom the Hon Shane Jones referred to I agree with him entirely which is why we have proposed a nil alcohol limit for young drivers. We have imposed that limit not because we want to punish young drivers but because we all know partly from our distant memories and partly from our own children in our lives that teenagers are not that good on making decisions about when to drink and when to drive. We have had a number of tragic cases in this country where the least drunk teenager has been picked to drive home with sadly horrible consequences. We have only a 0.03 grams limit now for young people. A nil limit for young people—having it as an infringement penalty between 0.0 and 0.03 grams and taking into account the tolerance for mouthwash and all those things—sends a very straightforward message to the under 20s and tells them that if they have a drink they should not drive. That is the deal and we are making it very straightforward and very black and white because we are all conscious that we are 10-foot high and bulletproof when we are young. 
The contradiction in the Opposition’s position is that on the one hand it says the polls state that everybody says we should lower the adult blood-alcohol limit despite the fact that there is no evidence of the actual harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration between 0.05 and 0.08 grams in this country; there is no evidence. On the other hand the Opposition says that it is not necessarily in favour of raising the driving age by a year which is actually a more popular initiative in this country—if we are going to be populist—right through rural and urban areas than the call to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. So that is a bit of a contradiction in terms particularly when we know the evidence of the difficulties for young drivers. Sadly we know that we have a 60 percent worse fatality rate in this country than the rates in other countries. 
People have raised the issue of mobility of young drivers and I completely understand that. But I ask why it is so different to give a 14-year-old a drive to the sports game but suddenly it is not possible to do that for a 15-year-old. I do not buy that. I think that someone can take a young person to events until they reach the driving age. That is not the excuse. 
The question we have to ask ourselves is: what is an appropriate age at which young people can drive? There is a chart which we have shown to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in answer to Darien Fenton’s concerns and it has also been shown to all the members who have shown an interest. This chart shows quite clearly that the younger someone is with the same level of experience the higher his or her accident rate will be. That is the reality. In fact there are many people who think the driving age in this country should be another year older again than what we have proposed in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
We have to consider that very very carefully because there is another chart which we have shown the select committee and it is in the high-risk drivers report. It is a very sad chart that shows the number of passengers in vehicles who die at the hand of their young driver friends when their driver friends are out on their restricted licence or learner licence late at night in places like the Bay of Plenty Waikato Auckland or out the back of Hawke’s Bay. There are young kids out there making bad driving decisions and unfortunately taking the lives of other kids with them. We have to make the call that we need a young driver package—it is not just one measure—that says that driving involves more responsibility than they think. We need to take that step so the Government has put together a young driver package that is about a zero permissible breath - blood-alcohol concentration for under-20-year-olds changes the minimum age for driver licensing to make it the same as in Australia toughens up the restricted licence provisions so that young drivers are encouraged to have 120 hours training and also looks at things like vehicle power restrictions which we will have a report on later this year. We are saying that here is a whole package because we do not want to have a fatality rate for our young people on the roads that is 60 percent worse than that in Australia. We do not want that. 
I will raise one other matter in terms of the adult blood-alcohol limit. It was addressed at the time that the UK was also looking into lowering its limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. The UK is an interesting place. It has half the road fatality rate as New Zealand when using the same population basis. It has one of the lowest rates in the world but it has a 0.08 grams blood-alcohol level. The UK looked at lowering its blood-alcohol limit too and said that maybe it should be dropped to 0.05 grams because a lot of countries have that limit but it said no. It has made a decision now. The decision is that it is high-risk drivers who are the problem and that it is high-risk drivers that they will focus on in the UK. We have made the same decision in this country because the evidence is clear. If we look at the two areas high-risk drivers and young drivers who have not already been classified as high-risk drivers together they comprise 53 percent of at-fault drivers in fatal crashes. More than half the at-fault drivers in fatal crashes are either high-risk drivers or young drivers. By high-risk drivers we mean people who are well over the blood-alcohol limit people who have had alcohol licence problems before and all those sorts of people. They actually have an alcohol problem which turns up the roads. That is the problem we are dealing with. It is an alcohol problem that unfortunately turns up on our roads. 
The other initiative that this bill allows for is alcohol interlocks. That is a big step forward for this Parliament: the ability to provide a technological solution that in many cases will separate the drinker from his or her driving. We have to try to do that. Unfortunately we cannot have someone in every driveway saying “You can go on the road” or “You cannot go on the road”. The road is a very democratic place; everybody has access to it. What we can say is that when someone is the sort of person who cannot make responsible decisions once he or she has had a couple of drinks then having an alcohol interlock in place will make that decision for him or her. As Darien Fenton has pointed out we will also have a nil alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers. 
I think this is a cohesive package. I ask the Committee to keep a real focus on young drivers; on the fatality rate that is 60 percent worse compared with that in Australia which I think is very sad for this country; and also on the real issues with adult drink-driving which are at the serious end of the spectrum. Once this bill has passed we will collect the actual data over the next 2 years on the harm caused by drivers who have a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams and then we will settle what has been an emotional and long-running debate in this country about whether moving the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams will actually make the difference to the road toll that its advocates say it will. 
I will say a final word on those advocates. I understand the Labour Party’s view is that sometimes to achieve social change the rules in other areas have to be changed because it likes to do a little bit of social engineering but I think we are talking about transport here. This issue is actually about transport and what it is safe to do on the road. To all those groups like Alcohol Healthwatch Alcohol Advisory Council and the rest who want to use the road as a means to achieve wider societal change I say good on them but this is actually a transport issue that we need to deal with and we need to deal with it on that basis. We do not punish people just in the hope that if we really come down hard on them then we will change the alcohol culture in this country. If we want to change the alcohol culture in this country that is fine but many people who are quite happy and law abiding will have a few drinks at home and not drive anywhere and those people will not respond well to the suggestion that this is all about social engineering. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I look forward to taking a few calls on this bill. I acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport. In general I agree with what he has said about road safety. We have a problem in New Zealand and we need to do something about it. It has been a longstanding problem. We have improved somewhat over the last several decades but we still need to do more. 
I agree with large chunks of this bill. When it comes to changes to the powers of parking wardens to alcohol interlocks and to procedural rules for the New Zealand Transport Agency I think that stuff is all great. Clearly the big issue the bill addresses is alcohol and when looking at the issue of alcohol this bill cannot be taken in isolation. We have a national cultural drinking problem. It is not just a problem of alcohol on the roads; New Zealand has a wider cultural problem. 
Unfortunately this bill is not doing the single most effective thing that could be done to deal with alcohol on the road. Likewise with the Alcohol Reform Bill we are simply targeting young drinkers with changes to the legal drinking age. We are not looking at the broader cultural problems. We are not addressing the massive amounts of alcohol advertising we have changes to hours or ready-to-drinks; we are simply looking at youth stereotyping. 
Likewise with the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the focus is on young drivers. I acknowledge the work that Miss Fenton has done with her amendments but the Green Party will not be voting for them. 
As the former youngest member of Parliament—I acknowledge Jami-Lee Ross who was just here—I wanted to oppose this bill. Getting my licence at 15 years old was an important part of my journey to adult life as I know it is for lots of young people. Because of the terrible state of our public transport in many our provincial and rural towns young people do not have options. We in this Committee may be surprised but many 15-year-olds provide income to their whanau. They are out working hard and they need to get to work somehow. 
This was a challenge for me and my caucus to discuss but we looked at the evidence and I think it is pretty compelling. Australia has a 60 percent lower accident rate for the same age bracket. We support the raising of the minimum driving age to 16 years old. We support further initiatives when it comes to driver training. I note that in Germany it costs around €2000 to €4000 I understand to get a driver’s licence. Although I do not advocate for that in this Chamber I think we should strengthen driver training. 
Clearly the main thing we need to do for young people between the ages of 15 and 16 who will not be able to drive is to give them better public transport. Unfortunately that is not happening under this Government. 
The Greens support the lowering of the blood-alcohol limit for under-20-year-olds but we think this should be done only in conjunction with the general lowering of the blood-alcohol limit for adults. There are two issues here. There is the transition: someone who is almost 20 can have only 0.03 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood yet a day later on their birthday they can go all the way up to 0.08 grams which is totally outside the bounds of the OECD average. New Zealand is an international outlier when it comes to this limit. There will be transition problems and I acknowledge that. 
There is also an issue of consistency: the blood-alcohol limit for young people should be the same as the limit for adults. We are sending the wrong message. We are sending young drivers the message that we do not trust them with alcohol when in fact the problem is a broader cultural problem. It is the same with the Alcohol Reform Bill. Ninety-two percent of our problem drinkers in New Zealand are over the age of 30. We cannot stereotype young drivers. We acknowledge that there is work to be done here; enough will be said about the 0.05 limit today. 
I challenge a couple of the comments made by the Minister. He said there is not enough evidence. I understand that 300 international reports show this evidence. The experts and the people who produce Safer Journeys were pretty compelling in their argument that we could save between 15 and 33 lives. I do not believe that the New Zealand Transport Agency plucked those numbers out of thin air. There is an evidential basis for lowering the blood-alcohol limit. We are simply moving into line. Lowering the limit is not going out on a limb; it is simply moving into the OECD average. It is simply listening to the World Health Organization which is the expert. 
The proposal to lower the blood-alcohol limit is clearly popular. We have had a public consciousness shift over the last couple of decades when it comes to the drinking level. We are missing the opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol limit. The bill is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have the public behind us we have the evidence behind us and we have the desire. I do not know why the Minister did not advocate in his Cabinet for lowering the blood-alcohol limit. I thought the Minister was going to advocate for lowering the blood-alcohol limit after the work he did in the media around his wine consumption and driving. What happened in Cabinet? I would love for the Minister to take a call. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
In large part the ACT Party supports the bill and agrees with most of its initiatives. Most of the initiatives make a good deal of sense particularly the provisions on education for young drivers. I take on board the points the Minister of Transport made when he took a call just before the Green member Gareth Hughes to talk about the initiatives he has put in place on education for young drivers. 
The Green member made a very pertinent point when he said that problem identification is very important. That is absolutely correct because unless you are able to identify the problem accurately there is no way you can get the solution right—except the odd time by good luck. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is for use of the word “you”. The member keeps bringing the Chair into the debate—twice. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: My apologies Mr Chair. 
One cannot get the solutions right if one has not identified the problem correctly. 
The Minister spoke about two particular initiatives in Part 1 that are relevant for the ACT Party because we will be having a split vote on Part 1. Two initiatives in particular concern two of our members—that is me and Sir Roger Douglas—first the initiative in clause 12 about raising the minimum age for driver licensing from 15 to 16; and second the initiative in clause 23 to lower the blood-alcohol limit for the under-20s to virtually nothing apart from a general fudge factor. Those two issues are important. We support in principle the reasoning the Minister gave for putting in place the package around young drivers but not those two particular details because I am not sure that the problem definition has been well identified and looked at as a whole. 
Why are we different from Australia in our road deaths rate? My understanding is that it is not just the younger drivers who are affected but everybody across the board. Three things seem to me to be very important when we look at why we have difficulty on our roads. I call them the three “E”s. The first is education the second is enforcement of the laws we already have in place and the third is engineering—the state of our roads. Many other countries have those three “E”s—for want of better terminology—better sorted that we have in New Zealand. 
Of late in the past decade the engineering of our roads has improved significantly. I know that the Minister has worked long and hard in that regard to improve the state of our roads. For many years we had roads that really were substandard. The camber was wrong and we had tight corners. We had difficulty largely because of our engineering. It has been improving but we still have some way to go yet. I applaud the Minister on his initiatives. In the ACT Party’s view he is doing absolutely the right thing in focusing on that part of the infrastructure for the nation. 
Education has also improved. I look back on when I got my driver’s licence. As many other members will remember getting one’s driver’s licence was about hopping in the car and having a spin around the corner or around the block with the local policeman. That is certainly how I got my licence. It gave one an enormous amount of confidence but did not necessarily make one a very good driver. Education is hugely important and although the ACT Party is rarely in favour of compulsion I am in favour—because I have seen it with my own children—of putting in place defensive driving courses. I think they significantly improve drivers’ skill and awareness and improve outcomes. I am all in favour of that sort of initiative. The education component of the bill is hugely important. 
The third thing is enforcement. We already have pretty sound laws in place. They are let down by the lack of enforcement. If there is one thing we should do it is focus hugely on enforcing the current laws we have before we change what is in place and put in new things. It seems to me that it would be better to concentrate our efforts on improving the enforcement of many of the things we already have—whether that be blood-alcohol levels or some of the initiatives for young drivers. Those sorts of things need to be focused on—engineering education and enforcement. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will start by saying that although Labour supports the bill we have already made it clear that there are a number of areas where we think it lacks teeth. Make no mistake; we will support the bill. We support measures such as the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. That is a no-brainer. We support having a zero limit for drivers under 20 as the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport pointed out to send a strong signal to those younger drivers to not drink at all if they are planning to get behind the wheel. We also support the interlocks. Using technology to make sure we can crack down on repeat drink-drivers is another good measure in the bill as is making sure we get tougher on recidivist drink-drivers by doubling the minimum prison time for drunk and drugged reckless driving causing death. 
As I mentioned earlier a number of my colleagues have already mentioned a couple of areas where we think the bill comes short of the mark. The obvious issue we have put attention on in the Committee today is the failure of the Government to recognise that there is a large amount of public support for reducing the blood-alcohol content level from 0.08 to 0.05. 
The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is an appropriate title for this bill. I went looking for a measure that would take strong action to lower the blood-alcohol level from 0.08 to 0.05. It was not in the road safety measures or in the other provisions and we believe that it should have been especially at a time when the Minister had the opportunity for cross-party support late last year with the member’s bill that Darren Hughes put forward. We would have got broad cross-party support to make sure we could take real measures to reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths on our roads. That was a lost opportunity. What did we get? We got another 2-year study to look at the effect on drivers who are found to have a blood-alcohol level of between 0.08 and 0.05. As Gareth Hughes mentioned before studies over a number of decades plainly show that if we send a signal to the public that we will not tolerate that level of alcohol in drivers’ systems then the number of deaths on our roads will reduce. What do we have? We have 2 more years of stalling. 
Before I hear a barrage of heckling that Labour did not do anything in the 9 years it was in Government I say that we are in the here and now. We have the opportunity to look forward. We had an opportunity for cross-party support. We have a bill before us that we support as I said but we also have a lost opportunity to take real action on the roads. Unfortunately instead of taking pragmatic action we have politics. From a Minister who cares about optics we have no action. 
The issue is really about what happens on our roads and the Minister has already talked about his own personal experience. He said that it is just ridiculous that he can drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still be able to legally get out there on the road. Most New Zealanders think that too. It is a shame the Minister does not have the courage of his personal convictions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot challenge a member’s courage; that is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I withdraw and apologise. It is a shame that the personal opinion of the Minister is not reflected in this bill. 
As we have said this is about a priority. We have an opportunity with the bill in front of us now. The priority is—and there is plenty of media coverage about this—that New Zealanders do want the blood-alcohol level to be reduced. Some research from UMR Research in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 19 May found that 70 percent of respondents supported lowering the allowable level of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. Again in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on 9 April 2010 a poll of 500 people found that 63 percent supported the lowering of the adult blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. That poll also found that 84 percent were in favour of having a zero blood-alcohol limit for drivers under 20. Here is another statistic that may be of interest to members from Hamilton: in a poll of 418 Hamilton people conducted by researchers for the  
Waikato Times 
 on 1 September— 
Sue Moroney 
: Very good city. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: —ha ha—68 percent of people said that they were in favour of lowering the blood-alcohol limit. Let us also go to the  
Timaru Herald 
 on 27 July last year— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 One of the prerogatives of the Minister of course is that he gets to take a call whenever he wants and when he did he probably stole about 95 percent of the things that I wanted to say on the two most important aspects of Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. But I will persevere nevertheless because I think there is plenty more to say about it and I am very happy to flesh out— 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh trying to upstage the Minister now. 
Hon David Parker 
: Obviously ministerial material. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —thank you; I appreciate the further endorsement from the members on the other side but not in transport I am sure—the issue of evidence. 
We are really talking about risk and harm reduction. We have heard from the Labour members that they are absolutely hell-bent on reducing the blood-alcohol concentration level to 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood because the current level is high-risk and because it is obvious that we should be doing more in that area. But in a strange kind of double backflip they are taking a very libertarian view about the age at which someone can get a driver’s licence in the face of the relative risks of serious injury or death in those two cohorts. I will quote the results— 
Darien Fenton 
: Why aren’t we doing a 2-year study on that? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well let us just look at the studies that have already been done because there is quite a bit of data about that. 
Firstly let us talk about the relative risk of a blood-alcohol concentration of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. I will quote the  
Safer Journeys 
 strategy which says we do not know the exact extent of the harm caused by drivers in that area. However between 2004 and 2008 it is estimated that adult drivers with a blood-alcohol content within that range were responsible for at least 7 deaths and 45 serious injuries. So we are talking about fewer than 2 deaths a year of people who have had alcohol in their systems within that range. The document does not say whether those blood-alcohol concentrations actually caused the fatal accidents. 
Let us turn then to young drivers because I think that young drivers are at far greater risk. Young New Zealanders aged between 15 and 24 are 14 percent of the population but they have 37 percent of the fatal crashes. They have killed more people than older drivers. For each young at-fault driver killed 1.3 other drivers have been killed. 
David Shearer 
: Are you going to set the legal age at 25 mate? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that is exactly my point. Mr Shearer asks that question. What would we do about that? The easiest way to solve that problem is to set a driver age of 25 or 30. But why stop there? We might make a driving age of 50. 
The point is that we accept a level of risk in everything we do. That is what life and living is about. The question is whether we accept the right risks and target the right harms. In focusing on our young we recognise that the fact of simply being young simply being aged from 15 to 19 will increase the risk of having a fatal accident by five times when alcohol has not— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Is that the same for males and females? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No. Actually males are at greater risk so gender is a factor. There are a number of contributing factors to risk on our roads but this bill targets one specific risk and increases the driving age. I mean I do not know how many studies there are about the development of the prefrontal cortex in young males. However the paradox to changing the driving age is that although we know that the younger we are the greater at risk we are the only way we can learn to drive is by doing it—by gaining that experience. So the Government has to accept that paradox. I think the Government has set a very very good balance in both increasing the driver age and increasing the number of supervised hours that are required before someone gets a full licence. I am absolutely amazed that Labour is opposing that—more dog-whistle politics I suspect. 
I will come back to the evidence regarding a drop to 0.05 grams because the Minister mentioned the United Kingdom which is a fascinating study. Our fatal injury rate due to accidents is 82 percent higher than the United Kingdom’s notwithstanding that that country also has a blood-alcohol content legal limit of 0.08 grams. So there are so many other factors at work. The United Kingdom is a country geographically about the same size as ours but it has a population that is about 15 times greater than ours. It has the infrastructure to create the sort of engineering that Heather Roy is talking about in respect of safer roads. But I think also in respect of the lowering of the blood-alcohol limit studies—and there are 300 of them and not a single one has been quoted yet by Labour—those studies show high levels of co-relation and often use language like “That strategy resulted in a reduction in the fatal accident rate.” But it is not actually true to say that one caused the other. The simple fact is that we just do not know. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I take a little bit of exception to what the member Michael Woodhouse was just talking about. Last week Sir Peter Gluckman came out with a very good report about basing legislation and policies on evidence. Evidence has been used in a rather ad hoc way in Parliament today. 
Let me look for example at the road age—the driving age. Our road death rate per 100000 in 2005 was 9.9 which was slightly above the OECD average of 9.5. We all agree in this House—there is no disagreement—that we need to improve our road death rate. But if we look at the US as well as the OECD we see that all those countries have a higher driving age yet in the US the road death rate is 14—about five deaths higher per 100000 than here in New Zealand—Poland’s rate is 14 Belgium’s is 10 Portugal’s 11 and Spain’s 10. If we go down the list of OECD countries we find that those countries even though they have a driving age that is higher than New Zealand’s have a greater rate of road deaths. We can selectively look at the UK and Australia and say that their road death rates are lower than New Zealand’s so we must be failing in some way. But I tell Mr Woodhouse that if he goes across to Australia and drives around there he will find that the roads are different. They are quite different from New Zealand’s roads. The weather conditions are very different. Some of the driving conditions are very very different. New Zealand has much more difficult driving conditions than Australia. I can tell members what else is different in Australia. It has a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams rather than 0.08 grams. Australians have been smart enough to bring down the limit. I think statistics and evidence are being used rather selectively in this debate. 
I come to one other point. I think we all are talking about the same things. We all want the same things from this legislation. We support the Minister’s zero limit for repeat drink-drivers and zero limit for drivers under 20. I think it is logical. We support the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders and the doubling of the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. We all agree with those so in that list why cannot we also agree on a reduction from 0.08 grams to 0.05? 
I say to Mr Woodhouse that the answer is not in the evidence but in the way the debate has been carried out in this House. What happened was the Prime Minister asked the Ministry of Transport for an opinion on whether people would be over the legal limit after one glass of wine. He was so concerned about what he thought the answer was that he decided we would not do that. It was all about polls; it was not about evidence at all. When Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill Mr Key was willing to have a conscience vote on it but he got rolled by his caucus—that is Steven Joyce who would have looked rather stupid having stood up in this House and said he did not want a conscience vote and did not agree with having one. Like Gareth Hughes I would have liked to be a member of that National caucus so that I could have found out what went on when the Prime Minister did the about-face on the conscience vote and agreed to a party vote. 
Here is a front-page article from the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
. It details how four  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 journalists each failed a breath test but only after consuming eight bottles of beer or five glasses of wine. One of their female reporters was rolling drunk on wine and amazingly she blew under the limit. Importantly all four thought they should not drive. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I really appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I am in the interesting position of having been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when it was considering this legislation and more recently on the Justice and Electoral Committee when it has been dealing with the Alcohol Reform Bill. So I have been dealing with a lot of people submitting on questions around alcohol harm and drink-driving for quite some time now. That has meant I feel very very strongly in support of the amendment that my colleague Darien Fenton has put up about reducing the blood-alcohol limit while driving. I want to go through the reasons for that because I find it unbelievable that in this day and age in light of all the evidence and practice in other countries all of the submissions and all of the views of the public the Government is putting its head in the sand on this issue. 
In fact I heard the Minister of Transport say earlier that this bill is not about social engineering; it is a transport matter. Well actually driving drunk is most certainly a transport matter. Driving drunk means people die. It means people get injured. Families lose family members and friends lose their friends. So this is a very serious matter and this bill is a huge opportunity. The reason it is a huge opportunity is that unlike many other pieces of law reform where the Government has to show leadership in this particular case the public are ahead of the Government on this matter. So it is not even a matter of having to show leadership and cop a few criticisms out there or many criticisms; the public want to see this change. I have heard thousands of submissions now. We heard 90 hours of oral submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill and just about everybody raised the issue of dropping the blood-alcohol level. Those people were told that the issue was out of scope for that bill but it was being dealt with elsewhere in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
The reality is that it is not being dealt with here. In fact this bill is the most pitiful response that one could possibly imagine. We are to do 2 years of research. How many people will die in that time? How many people will be injured in that time? It is an absolute disgrace. I say again it is unbelievable that the Government is not taking this opportunity when in fact the evidence is there and the public is willing to see the change. I feel confident that in their heart of hearts many National members opposite actually agree with dropping the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. I bet members that is the case; I would put money on it. I urge those members to stand up say something and do the right thing because this matter is critically important. 
We had many submissions both on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and currently on the Alcohol Reform Bill about why people feel that blood-alcohol levels should be dropped. There has also been the anecdotal kind of evidence and the rather public evidence created by journalists. I heard about one example of that when we were hearing submissions in Dunedin. It was a Christchurch  
Press  
stunt if you like. The Christchurch  
Press  
journalists did it off-road; they did it on a racetrack. They got four young people driving then they gave them alcohol and got them driving again. They watched and evidenced what happened and what changed in their driving. By the time those four people went over 0.08 grams they were absolutely unable to drive safely and later they were aware of that. In fact they made that comment themselves. 
I think we need to be really serious about this issue. Lowering the blood-alcohol level will save lives and it will prevent somewhere between 320 and 686 injuries every year. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we are discussing the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. First of all I want to acknowledge that we are fortunate to have a Minister of Transport who has a desire to progress road safety in New Zealand and who is making a difference to the roads of New Zealand not only by building good roads but also by establishing effective rules and regulations around how we use those roads. 
For a decade a Minister in this Parliament has not taken the opportunity to put some decent rules in place that make some difference. Labour members come to this Chamber here tonight and spout on about how we should be doing this that and the other thing but when they had their chance they never did it. What they are saying does not ring true because if we look at the fundamental policies of this legislation we will understand why this legislation is framed in the way that it is. 
The fundamental policy of this legislation is to look at at-risk drivers and then look at the youth who are part of that at-risk group. If we look at at-risk drivers in respect of alcohol we see that they are well above the blood-alcohol level of 0.08. Those are the real at-risk drivers because they put other drivers on our roads at risk and that is what the Minister talked about in relation to the British experience. The focus was on the real danger not on the political expediency that Labour is trying to promote here today. 
Young drivers are a big part of this policy as well. If members look at what we are doing they will see that it is a two-pronged approach. We are looking at the driving age and we are talking about how we can make young people safer on the roads. I congratulate the Green Party a party that promotes itself on supporting young people. It has seen that it is in the best interests of young people to have the minimum licensing age raised from 15 to 16 and the implementation of new rules on the drink-driving limit of young people as encapsulated in the legislation. 
This legislation has two parts to save young people on the roads. The first relates to the minimum licensing age. Moving the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16 gives young people a chance to survive on our roads. Second reducing the alcohol limit for young people to zero will save more young lives on New Zealand roads and that is the important part of this legislation. This will lead to saving young people’s lives on our roads in New Zealand and we should be very very mindful of that. 
Opposition members have talked about the Australian approach. They say that Australia dropped the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05. But we should look at the driving age there. People would not even be driving at 16 in Australia. In its graduated system people are probably 17½ or 18 before they actually drive. So to have that approach we have to look at the other tests done in Australia and compare apples with apples; we should not compare one part with another without taking into account the fullness of its system as one of the previous Labour speakers had done. 
This legislation is good legislation. It is there for road safety purposes. It is practical legislation that enables us to look at what other options there may be in the future. But it is legislation that will work. It is legislation that will make a big difference in saving our young people’s lives on the roads and it also looks at those high-risk drivers that we need to be taking into account in the future. This is good legislation. It is for road safety. It will save lives and I congratulate the Minister as it passes through the House. Thank you. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. It is my privilege to follow my colleagues and to speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I obviously have not been here to listen to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings but to begin I state my support for initiatives that make the journeys of all New Zealanders on our roads safer. 
Paul Quinn 
: Did Phil write this? 
LOUISA WALL 
: No I did actually. It is devastating when we lose those we love through road crashes and I support evidence-based initiatives that protect all of us when we are travelling on New Zealand roads that address the design of our roads that address the design and safety standards of our vehicles and that reflect the current behaviours and needs of all New Zealanders and the roles they play within their families and communities. 
I will specifically speak about the proposal to raise the minimum licensing age from 15 years to 16 years. I actually agree with some of the ACT members which is interesting. Our Labour team does not support the increase from 15 years to 16 years but we do support the extension in the learner-licensing period. We do not support this proposal because there is no evidence that raising the age will reduce accidents for 15-year-olds. One cannot attribute teenage crash rates to the age at which we or our young people start driving. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why not make it 12 or 11? 
LOUISA WALL 
: No 12 is ridiculous is it not? 
Hon Member 
: Make it 25. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Yes make it 25; that was that member’s answer. In essence Labour supports an extended learner-licensing period that allows young drivers from the age of 15 to safely garner driving experience and hopefully with a bit of maturity to obtain their full driving privileges. We agree that young people who have limited driving skills are more at risk of having an accident but this risk applies not only to 15-year-olds but to any person whatever their age when they start driving. It is about the act of driving learning to drive and the experience of driving as opposed to the age one starts to drive. 
I support the position of Federated Farmers which will probably shock some people over there the Automobile Association and Students Against Drunk Driving who totally oppose raising the minimum driving age because of the impact on their communities of interest and because it will not do much to increase road safety which is the primary intention of this bill. The Federated Farmers spokesperson Donald Aubrey supports Labour’s position that young people need to be supervised and that extending the learner-licensing period from 6 to 12 months would improve safety so that our young people would have greater opportunities to become good drivers. If one lives rurally the reality is that one has to travel to get to school work and sports. I actually got in my first senior team when I was 12 but I remember when I was 15—and that was a few years ago obviously—I had to learn to drive to get to my training. My parents actually encouraged me to get my licence early which enabled me to make my netball training. I then got into the South Waikato team and I eventually made it into the Silver Ferns. The reality is I could not have done that if I did not have the opportunity to drive. This proposal not only limits the opportunities of young people like me— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Somebody would have dropped you off. I used to get my brothers to drop me off all over the place. 
LOUISA WALL 
: —is that right; well I say “Good on you”—but also creates more pressure on parents and caregivers. We have to look at families within the wider context particularly those who live rurally. Actually John Carter will know. He would support the fact that we should not be increasing the driving age. 
I acknowledge that New Zealanders have a high teenage crash rate for 15 to 19-year-olds but again I highlight that no research can attribute the rates of crashes to the age at which those people started driving. I reiterate Labour’s position that an extended supervised period from 6 months to 12 months where young people have more supervised driving experience is what is needed. Why does the Government over there not put its hand in its pocket and make sure our kids are getting the education they need? It is focused on national standards; what about creating some standards in this area and ensuring our children can continue to participate as I said in sport and other activities? Why is the Government not doing that? I am here to support my colleagues and I thank them for providing me with the notes that have enabled me to participate in this debate. We will continue to advocate for 15-year-olds to continue to have an opportunity to be licensed. We put pressure on the Government to ensure 15-year-olds have the skills and the education to make them safe. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I acknowledge the debate we have had in the Committee on this important bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We have talked about the good: the alcohol interlocks and the common-sense changes. We have talked about the missing: the change to 0.5 in the blood-alcohol level. 
Missing from this debate and missing from the Safer Journeys document is the single most effective thing we could do to reduce the road toll in New Zealand: take cars off the road. It is simply to give motorists an alternative—a real alternative—to driving. I am talking about better buses better trains walking and safer cycling. With petrol at $2.19 a litre at the moment which is the most expensive it has been in New Zealand’s history I asked the Minister of Finance what the plan was. I asked whether the Government was even planning to start planning to reduce our dependency on oil. I got a no. The Minister said that Kiwis are smart they have alternatives and they will respond to those market signals and find the alternatives. 
I ask the Minister of Transport what Safer Journeys did and what his Government is doing to give Kiwi motorists realistic alternatives. I am seeing regional railways potentially closing across the country. I am seeing the railway station closing in Wellington. I am seeing $10.7 billion spent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind the member that this debate is not about railways; it is quite specific. When we are in the Committee stage we must focus on Part 1 and not extend beyond it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I guess I was bringing in the broader transport context because the most effective thing we could do is take cars off the road. 
I will read briefly from our submission to Safer Journeys which mentioned what we should be doing to make our roads safer—which is not in Part 1 of this bill. We endorsed the lowering of the speed limits. We would increase the adoption of lower speed limits in urban arterials and we would increase the effectiveness of speed limits. In our submission on Safer Journeys we talked about cycling and the need for the 1.5m To Survive campaign to support it. 
In a nutshell this bill has a whole bunch of common-sense parts to it but it misses in terms of the 0.5 blood-alcohol limit. It misses the whole point about the most effective thing we can do to save motorists’ lives to save the 400 to 600 people who potentially die every year in New Zealand as a result of air transport pollution and—as we read about in the  
Dominion Post  
last week pretty tragically—to help the impact on premature births from living near motorways. We need to be doing more. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will rise and take just a short call; there are a couple of things I omitted to do earlier. One was to thank and acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne who has had a bill on raising the driving age in this House for a couple of years now. He of course has indicated his support for these measures. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the majority of the ACT Party members. Surprisingly I found myself on the same side as the Greens at least until Mr Hughes gave his second speech and then things sort of diverted once again. 
I thought I would raise an issue of consistency for the Labour Opposition. On Thursday 15 April 2010 the Labour leader told the New Zealand Press Association that his party’s 43 MPs would back the law change to lift the driving age from 15 to 16. That is quite interesting. What we are seeing today is possibly a bit of a revolt against the leader’s direction in that regard. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Table the document! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Jones can check the New Zealand Press Association story by all means. I suppose my comment to Opposition members because they have been flipping and flopping around on this issue—at least some of them have; we are not sure what the leader still thinks—is that perhaps they might like to make up their minds and join the evidence-based solution before they get a chance to vote on this part. They have to be aware that their leader said he would support it so if they vote against it or vote in favour of their own Supplementary Order Paper then I suppose it has to qualify as a little bit of a slap in the face for the leader and a bit of a revolution. I suppose that is a judgment for the senior members of the House to make and it is fair enough that they should do that. I think they probably need to make a careful decision about this Supplementary Order Paper before they dive in. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill on Part 1. As some of my colleagues have mentioned previously drink-driving is a really big issue in the Waikato where I come from and in particular in Hamilton. 
I know that the local Government members have been trying to confuse the issue by telling people who are concerned about the lack of leadership from the Government on reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for drink-driving that it is not an issue for the Alcohol Reform Bill that it is a Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill issue and that we will deal with it in that bill. Mr Bennett is shaking his head but I have been at a meeting where Mr Macindoe said exactly that to submitters who wanted to submit on the issue of reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit in the consideration of the Alcohol Reform Bill. They were told by the Government MPs that the Alcohol Reform Bill was the wrong bill. Those MPs tried to look sympathetic about it and as if they agreed with the audience. They said people would get their chance when the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill came forward. 
Of course now that that bill is before us where are those Hamilton MPs on the issue of reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit? They are not pushing for that measure to be included in the bill. Nanaia Mahuta and I are the only Hamilton-based MPs who are pushing for a lowering of the blood-alcohol limit— 
David Bennett 
: You’re not Hamilton-based. Where do you live? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I live in Hamilton as Mr Bennett well knows but I thank him for allowing me to clarify that. 
David Bennett 
: You don’t live in Hamilton. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I can tell Mr Bennett that yes I do. He might want to look at the new register that has come out. I live in Hamilton and the member will have to swallow his words as he will many more times. 
I will come back to the issue which is about who in Hamilton is prepared to stand up for the view that was so clearly expressed in the survey from the  
Waikato Times 
 in which 68 percent of the people of Hamilton said they thought the blood-alcohol limit was not good enough. Only 19 percent of the people in that survey of 418 people in Hamilton said they agreed with the current limit. The Government is on the side of 19 percent of Hamiltonians. That is where the Government sits on the issue. 
The other 86 percent of Hamiltonians will be looking towards this side of the House to represent their views that the limit ought to be lower. That is what those Hamiltonians firmly believe. Why do they believe that? It is because they have had enough of the carnage on the roads. They have also had enough of how alcohol affects our entire community to the detriment of the community. They have had enough of that and they want leadership on the issue of the blood-alcohol limit. Sadly with this bill they are not getting leadership from the Government on that issue but they can look to the Labour benches for leadership because Labour is prepared to stand up and vote for a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit for drink-driving for over-20-year-olds. 
I know that the Chair ruled that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill perhaps has nothing to do with railways but I can say that the bill has everything to do with other forms of transport because they are a way that road safety can be improved. The Government is absolutely opposed to putting in a passenger train service for Hamilton and Auckland. That is another issue on which Hamiltonians will have to look to this side of the House to have addressed. Only Nanaia Mahuta and I are standing up and fighting for getting a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland— 
Paul Quinn 
: Relevancy! It’s got nothing to do with trains. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —which of course will improve road safety and I say to Mr Quinn that I believe that road safety is what we are debating. A passenger train service along with some of the measures in the bill will improve road safety. Is the Government interested in pursuing that train service? Not only is the Government not interested in pursuing the train service but also it is in outright opposition to getting that very logical sensible service between the fourth-largest city and the largest city in our country. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I like it when the Hon Shane Jones is in the Chamber because he brings some interesting questions to the debate. Time and time again he says that the bill in front of us—the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—is Labour policy. He said three or four times that it is Labour policy. I do not know whether he says it just to put people off or whether he seriously believes it. But if he seriously believes it then why do we not already have this measure? When Labour was in Government not so long ago why did it not implement any of this or is it a case of saying to Parliament and to the New Zealand public: “Oh well because they’re doing it we want it too and we want to say it’s our policy.”? 
The fact of the matter is that the people made a choice 3 years ago and that choice was to get some infrastructure going to get some benefit out of our own country to look after the lives of young people and not to kick them around to make sure that we put in place some things that will help— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Relevance! Talk about parking wardens. Tell us about parking wardens. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will tell Mr Jones what is relevant: we are here and he is there so that is enough. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Well do what’s right then. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Goodness gracious me! I can hear the cackle from Sherwood Forest. Sue Moroney asked who would speak on behalf of the people of Hamilton. I will give her two names and they are elected people. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Nanaia Mahuta. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No that is one name. The man cannot count; it is one name. In fact I could give three or four names but one of them is David Bennett and another one is Tim Macindoe. 
Sue Moroney 
: How is he voting on this? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If the member for wherever who lives in Matamata but decides to say that she lives in Hamilton wants to get up— 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The assertion that the member just made about where I reside is absolutely incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know where the member resides. This part of the debate has been light-hearted— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet ruling. That is not a point of order. It is a debating point and I am sure that if the member gets another call she might like to respond to it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Here is another name—another member who looks after the folks of Hamilton—that I want to throw into the hat: Lindsay Tisch. He looks after— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: One thing the member cannot do is bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson but you do a good job. This is all about making sure that young people are looked after and that they are not kicked around and used as an excuse by members opposite to drop this drop that and drop something else. [ 
Interruption 
] Well if one listened to the barmy left one might as well have a policy that nobody drinks and nobody drives—a zero limit—because that is where we are going if we listen to members opposite. This measure is not about hurting young people. It is about saving their lives and making sure that we are in the position— 
Sue Moroney 
: You had better read what you are voting for here Tau because you are voting for a zero rating. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
Sue Moroney 
: You’re voting for a zero blood-alcohol level in this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member should not be silly. 
Sue Moroney 
: You are. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member should not be silly. Of course we are not. We are with young people but not overall. On this side of the Chamber—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members will quieten down please. I would like to hear what the speaker is saying. This is meant to be a debate and I would actually like to hear something about the bill. The member has less than a minute to go. Could we just concentrate on what Part 1 says. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will try to fit it in Mr Chairman. Here is something: this is not about everybody. Of course it is about young people but it is not about young people alone. This bill is about safe driving. It is about making sure people do not die or injure themselves when they are drinking and driving. That is what the bill is about. It is not about some ragtag mess driving a car down to the local video saloon. It is not about that at all. 
Phil Twyford 
: Video saloon? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well that member had better go and ask Mr Jones about that. What we are here to do is make sure that young people are looked after. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 If there were ever an advertisement for reducing to a zero-alcohol intake that speech was it from the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One cannot say suggest or even imply that a member has been drinking. I want to go further. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I hear what the member says. I just remind members to be very careful about what one says. Let us have a debate on Part 1. Time is running out and I would like to think we could actually say something constructive about Part 1. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to make a personal statement to the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: About what? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About the accusation that has been made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I want to go on record as saying that I have never and will never take a drink or even look like I take a drink. Everybody I know who knows me knows that I actually hardly ever touch a drop of the devil’s water. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I would like to apologise. We all realised he was sober when he made that speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That does not add any value whatsoever. The member has made a personal statement. That is the end of the matter and let us keep it on those terms. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I apologise for the offence that was taken. I also take issue with what the Minister Steven Joyce said about the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill simply being a transport issue because it is not. It is about my uncle Tony who wrapped himself around one of the three bridges between Kawakawa and Moerewa some 30 years ago. It is about him the widow he left behind his seven kids and the impact that that accident has had on our whanau in those 30 years. It is about the young fellow I played rugby with 5 years ago. He did not actually have enough time to play enough games with us for me to get to know him properly and know his name. I played rugby with him one Saturday and the next morning at 7 o’clock he too wrapped himself around a bridge at Waipapakauri. It is about the young fellow whose tangi I attended in the valley across from where I come from who had an accident and when we looked at him in his casket we could see that his head had caved in. That is what it is about. It is about people’s lives and the impact of deaths on families. That is what it is about. It is not simply about just getting in the car or on a motorbike and travelling from point A to point B. It is about people’s lives. That is why we have to get it right. 
I agree with Gareth Hughes. We are talking about a land transport bill. As far as I am aware trains do travel on land. If we could reduce the amount of heavy trucks and heavy vehicles transporting goods on our main roads that would make things safer for us. In fact new section 16A talks about a restriction of heavy traffic on roads. Let us have a restriction; let us move the heavy traffic and transport heavy goods by rail so that there is more space on our roads for cars. Let us look at actually maintaining the rail line between Whangarei and Auckland so that we can remove the heavy vehicles from roads in that region. 
New section 16A states: “The Agency … or another road controlling authority … may by public notice direct that any heavy traffic or any specified kind of heavy traffic defined in the notice may not proceed between any 2 places by way of any road or roads specified in the notice.” I put in a plea for those of us who live in Kaitaia and the far north that one of those places that heavy traffic may not travel between is Victoria Valley and Mangamuka Bridge. In between those two locations there are 13 kilometres of windy Northland road and alluvial clay which just cannot handle that heavy traffic. When people are driving between Victoria Valley and Mangamuka Bridge and come up behind a logging truck there is nowhere to pass. When they can finally get past they speed off ahead and within 200 metres they come across another heavy logging truck. They overtake that one finally and then there is a third truck. These are the roading conditions we have to live with up in the far north on a daily basis. 
No section in this bill drops the blood-alcohol level from 80 milligrams down to 50 milligrams. What evidence do we need other than looking in the newspapers and on the news every day and seeing the accidents and the fatalities? If we need evidence why do we not just look at the news? That is the evidence we need. We do not need all those long reports to see what is happening to people. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Tell us what your uncle’s BAC was. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
:Who cares what Michael Woodhouse thinks? Who really cares what he thinks? Michael Woodhouse is so removed from reality like this National Government that he actually does not know what is going on. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill particularly on Part 1. This bill is all about improving road safety in New Zealand and it really complements the Safer Journeys policy which the Minister of Transport brought out earlier in the parliamentary term. It outlined the Government’s policy to 2020. It is a very impressive document and an excellent policy and I think the Minister has shown great leadership. Basically he is implementing that policy. 
This legislation and Part 1 in particular targets the two key types of drivers who are a problem for our roads: young drivers and at-risk drivers. I will give members the statistics on why young drivers are an issue and are overrepresented in the statistics. Young people aged between 15 and 24 which is the definition of a “youth” make up below 14 percent of our population. They represent 16 percent of all licensed drivers. Yet in 2008 they were involved in about 37 percent of all fatal crashes—37 percent of all fatal crashes—and 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. If that does not paint a picture nothing else will. Young drivers are a real problem on our roads. 
Of course there are also at-risk drivers. These are drivers who drink while driving or drink despite having committed previous offences and do not adhere to the rules. Neither of those groups is particularly new; we have known about them for some time. Though we have known about them little progress has been made so this bill is long overdue. The Minister mentioned a shocking statistic: we have a 60 percent worse fatality rate among our young drivers than does Australia. That means we are seriously behind Australia and we need to address that statistic immediately. 
The other thing is that 72 percent of all alcohol-related crashes resulting in death—there is a recent study from which data has been produced—were associated with high-risk drivers. They are those with a previous drink-driving conviction or a first-time offender who is 50 percent over the limit. 
Really Part 1 covers strategies to address those types of at-risk drivers. Those strategies include increasing the minimum driving age to 16 and I am absolutely supportive of that provision. I find it astonishing that the Labour Opposition wanted to retain the age of 15. Quite frankly when I learnt to drive some 30-odd years ago the roads were not as dangerous as they are now. There were about 1 million vehicles on the road; now there are over 3 million and the cars are considerably more powerful. Quite frankly to be a driver on our roads we need our wits about us and that extra year of maturity can help. 
During the consultation phase of the Safer Journeys documentation there was absolutely widespread support for increasing the age to 16. This is not a populist move; this is a move to help save lives particularly the lives of our young drivers who need more common sense. That extra year will give them that. I make no apology for that. 
The other measure is the zero blood-alcohol limit for those under 20. There are many other measures such as alcohol interlocks which bring technology solutions into this legislation. Importantly the alcohol interlocks are not paid for by the State; they have to be paid for by the person who volunteers or wishes to use alcohol interlocks. There is no cost to the State for that measure. 
Obviously for drink-driving offenders there is a zero blood-alcohol limit. It is not acceptable for them to drink then drive and it is not negotiable. Drink-driving offenders cannot drive at all with alcohol in their system. Of course strengthening the penalties for causing death is another measure. 
I take the opportunity to talk about our alcohol culture. We have a problem with youth drinking and binge drinking. I know that the Alcohol Reform Bill which is currently under consideration will go some way to addressing that problem. 
I take the opportunity to digress a little and talk about FebFast. When FebFast finished the Christchurch earthquake had occurred and it was not really the time to congratulate members who had taken part. FebFast was an initiative whereby people elected not to drink alcohol for the month of February and the money raised went to youth drink-driving prevention programmes. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am taking a very short call on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I was surprised to hear the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport say this bill is just a land transport road safety amendment bill. That completely ignores some of the evidence that came out in the Law Commission report on blood-alcohol levels. I was surprised to hear that from a Minister who I know in his heart believes he should take stronger measures on the blood-alcohol limit and change it to a limit we have always supported from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood. The Minister in the chair knows that he should do this but he says that this bill is only a transport issue. If it were then in this bill we would be looking only at technical solutions for safety on the roads like barriers getting big trucks off the roads freeing up road space and other technical roading issues. But it is not. 
Labour initially supported this bill because we thought it built on our own approach to roading in the See You There—Safe As policy statement we put out. It was picked up very responsibly by National with the Safer Journeys policy. We hoped this would be an all-embracing bill but sadly we cannot support it in its entirety because the Minister is not lowering the blood-alcohol limit and he is increasing the minimum driver age from 15 to 16. I do not want to hear members opposite saying Labour members are irresponsible in supporting a driver’s licence coming in at 15 without adding that we are very very strong on having a learner-licensing period in that time and are supporting education initiatives for teaching young people how to be responsible drivers. I was appalled when a drive safely programme in one of the high schools in the Rotorua electorate where I used to be the electorate MP was cut. That programme was to teach young women drivers how to be safe when they were driving. Those sorts of initiatives defensive driving education which Labour supports have now been cut. We support those initiatives plus extending the learner-licensing period to 16 plus a zero-alcohol limit for young drivers. 
I was surprised to hear Jackie Blue who is reasonable and had her statistics bang on about young drivers. I live in a region where young people want to come into town and work at McDonald’s play sport on a Saturday or go to clubs and they have to travel up to an hour to get there to partake in what I see as normal healthy young participation in community life. Will their parents now have to bring them into town? Labour saw it as only fundamentally correct to continue to support a minimum driving age of 15 for a licence with a restricted learner-licensing period until 16 for those rural kids to be able to live a normal life and participate in normal healthy activities that young city kids can undertake. 
Labour sees this as a very important issue. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. We support the zero limit for drivers under 20. We support the initiative to have alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. There is a lot in this bill that Labour supports. I think it is a pity the Minister did not do the brave thing MPs are elected to do and that is to make policy to protect the public good. There was an ideal opportunity in this bill and the Minister did not do the right thing or the responsible thing to lower the blood-alcohol level. The Minister knows it and I think it is an absolute cop-out when the Prime Minister has a Minister of Science and Innovation sitting beside him to advise him on what is the right thing to do and when the Law Commission stated emphatically in its wide-ranging report—it left no doubt in our mind—that alcohol limits must come down. That was in the Law Commission’s report. The Law Commission reports advise the Government of the day— 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Just following on from the last speaker I tell the Committee that the Green Party also supports much better access to good driving programmes. In some ways the younger people we are talking about here have more recent training have to study the road code etc. to get their licence have a learner-driver period and are able to develop skills at a young age compared with people who are a bit older like many of us here—me in particular. I got my driver’s licence 44 years ago and on no occasion in those 44 years have I been required to do any additional driving course to do a defensive driving course to look at the road code or to do any tests—absolutely nothing. 
We have provisions in Part 1—for instance in clause 52 “Compulsory attendance at driving improvement course or dangerous goods course” whereby the court may order compulsory driving tests and things like that. It is good that those provisions are in the bill because if people have committed offences then they clearly are not up to it in terms of safe driving. Sure they should be put through a course but what about the rest of the community? There should be courses available and encouragement for people to attend them. As the last speaker Steve Chadwick said the Government is cutting back on funding for courses—in this case for younger people. But there should be more financial provision for driving courses for the whole community and encouragement for people to attend them. At the moment these courses apply only to those at a very young age when getting their licence or to those at an older age whose sight might be going a bit and they can take a test as a lot of older people do. But in the many decades in between there is no requirement to do anything or any encouragement to do anything and I think that is pretty bad. 
There is a provision in this part about heavy traffic which states there can be a restriction on having heavy traffic on certain roads. Well it is also good that that provision is there but what is the Government doing and what has it done over the last little while? It has extended the allowable weights for trucks so that we have bigger trucks and longer trucks on roads. That provision has come in from the Government’s decisions. A very unsafe environment has been created where the longer and heavier the trucks are the more danger there is on the road. Obviously the longer the truck is the more difficult it is to overtake it and more cars will be taking the risk of overtaking a long truck and occasionally being caught up in a head-on collision with people dying which is what happens too frequently on our roads. No matter which braking system heavy trucks have on them the heavier a truck is the more difficult it will be to stop it. It will take that bit longer to stop it which creates more dangers. Often I have noticed unfortunately that one of the problems we have on our roads is that people drive too close including truck drivers. I often see trucks driving a very short distance behind much smaller cars and I think: “Oh God what happens if that car in front stops very suddenly?” which now and again happens. The heavier our trucks are the more we get into that problem of accidents. 
With those few comments I say that I really support having much more resource devoted to making driving courses available to members of the community. Hopefully the courses will be free to give them that encouragement. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call in this debate on Part 1. To me what we are looking at here particularly in terms of the clauses relating to the blood-alcohol limit is a triangle of intuition evidence and polling. On the first one we know that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport had the right intuition. He said it. He said that it was “just ridiculous” and that he was surprised to find that after he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine legally he could still get behind the wheel. The Minister’s first intuition was right. He is very worried though—and we know this from other issues—about the optics of the situation and that is where we come to the next thing: the evidence. He went looking and he asked what evidence there was. Interestingly in the regulatory impact statement for this bill we have some notion of the evidence from the Ministry of Transport. It went through the things that the Government could do: lower the adult drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 to 0.05 grams lower the youth drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 to zero and introduce infringement penalties for the proposed excess blood-alcohol offences. Then the ministry expected that these actions are estimated to save between 17 and 35 lives and to prevent between 363 and 729 injuries each year. That is the social cost of not making changes. 
That evidence was provided by the Minister’s own advisers in the Ministry of Transport. But I know that the Minister is a man who has a bit of the accountant in him. He has a bit of the accountant in him so he knows about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We can talk to him about the costs because the Ministry of Transport’s advice went on to state that “This equates to an annual social cost saving of between $127.5 million and $254.5 million” as at June 2009. 
Not only do we have the evidence of the social cost of not making these changes—of what the Minister has not put forward in front of the Committee—but also we have the economic cost. That is the evidence. The intuition was there the evidence was there but Mr Joyce has not gone ahead with that and we have to ask why that is. Well perhaps we can tell why from a recent newspaper story about what the Prime Minister was worried about. It was about the Prime Minister being concerned about whether one glass of wine could put a person over the limit. In reply he was told that “the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-drive limit—even though research and polls show most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced.” and that is where it all went wrong. That is where it all went wrong for the Minister. 
The intuition was there the evidence was there but his boss started to get nervous about the polling. If we know one thing it is that this Minister worries about the polling. The focus groups were done. I am sure that they were pulled in. Mr Joyce would have been there. He would have been there on the other side of the one-way glass looking in on the focus group and getting nervous that his intuition was not there; he was not going to back it. The evidence was telling him that he had to do it for the good of New Zealand—he had to lower that blood-alcohol limit—but he would not do it because the polling was not going to stand up because his boss started to get nervous. 
This is a situation I say to Mr Joyce when it is time to stand up and do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing that is based on evidence that will save lives that will save money in the economy and that will save money for the health system. That is just plain good for New Zealand. But Mr Joyce still has an opportunity. We have an amendment in Darien Fenton’s name on the Table that will make the change that the Minister’s officials have told him is the right thing to do. They told him that he will achieve the objectives of the Safer Journeys strategy if he goes ahead and makes this change. 
Mr Joyce has stood up in this Chamber and he has played a bit of politics. He asked why Labour has not made this change. Around this Chamber I believe there is a consensus that this is the right thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why didn’t you do it the last time that you were in Government? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the point I say to Mr Henare. Now is the time for Mr Joyce to show the leadership. There is a consensus around this Chamber. There is not even really a debate about this change. I ask Mr Henare whether it is the wrong thing to do. The member can tell me whether it is the wrong thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: 10 years and nothing. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is not an answer I tell Mr Henare. I asked whether it is the wrong thing to do. This is the problem with Tau Henare; this is the problem with Steven Joyce. We have the evidence that says this is the right thing to do. The opportunity is there to back Darien Fenton’s amendment and to make sure that the consensus that actually exists in this Committee can be brought into law. This is where the evidence is this is where the Minister’s intuition was and he should go ahead with it. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to question your acceptance of the closure motion but Part 1 is an enormous part in the bill and we had several members still standing to take a call. Part 2 is very small— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. The voting process has already started and I cannot change that. We have spent an hour and 52 minutes on Part 1 and everybody who was going for the call was given a call. The voting is now in process and we will continue with it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23ASection 11 amended 
Section 11 is repealed and the following section substituted: 
“11Drivers not to exceed specified alcohol limits 
“A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while— 
“(a)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath; or 
“(b)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23BSection 56 repealed 
“56Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit 
“(1)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. 
“(2)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments (with the exception of the amendment to clause 12) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Repeal revocations and consequential amendments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 3. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk about the provisions on zero-alcohol licences that are outlined in this part and the consequential changes that they require. Labour supports most of this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill including the provisions on having a zero blood-alcohol level for those who are repeat drink-drivers and for those who are under the age of 20. We think that those are positive moves that will make a real difference to alcohol harm and the cost it has in lives accidents injuries and families losing their loved ones. 
In that regard we are very supportive of these provisions and the required changes that will bring into place the zero-alcohol licences as outlined in this part. However the real concern is that this measure does not go far enough. In providing for zero-alcohol licences in these situations and retaining the 0.08 gram blood-alcohol limit in other situations—that is the non - zero-alcohol licences—we are well out of step with the research well out of step with what most of the public want and well out of step with what we need. My concern is that by failing to address that specific point the Government does not realise how seriously the public takes this matter. 
As somebody who has sat in on submissions on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and who is currently involved in the select committee considering the Alcohol Reform Bill I have heard many many submitters. On the Alcohol Reform Bill we have had thousands of submissions and approximately 1000 of those people have wanted to make oral submissions. Most of them have submitted that they want to see the blood-alcohol level reduced from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. What is really concerning is that when dealing with that issue in relation to the Alcohol Reform Bill the select committee was told that reducing the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams is out of its scope. It is out of scope for the Alcohol Reform Bill but in fact it was clearly within scope for this bill. We were told that it was out of scope for that bill because it was being dealt with as part of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Consequently we see that this bill has not made any change and that the Government has not been willing to do the right thing. 
Unlike a number of my colleagues I do not think this issue is about doing the brave thing. I think that on this issue the public’s mind is fairly clear: people want to see this change. They want to see it probably for the same reasons that my colleague Grant Robertson said: in their guts they know it is right. The public have seen the evidence of what it looks like when people have drunk enough alcohol to go over the limit at 0.08 grams and they know those people are drunk. Most people are drunk at that limit and should not be driving a vehicle. People know that. 
One of the perverse consequences of all the publicity and the media stunts on this issue that has probably shocked us all—I reckon most of the members in this Committee have probably been quite shocked as was the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport—is the fact that one can drink so much and have one’s blood-alcohol level remain at under 0.08 grams. One of the perverse consequences of this which has shocked people is that more people now know that they can probably drink more than they thought they could and still drive. I hope that there is not an irresponsible section of the public who now use that information to go out on the road when those people previously would not have done so. 
The important thing about setting the blood-alcohol limit is that it sends a very important signal of what we think is acceptable. In setting a zero-alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers and young drivers—which is provided for in this bill and which we wholeheartedly support—we are sending a very clear message as would be sent by dropping the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. That specific matter could have been dealt with as part of this bill as well and that would have made a huge difference. I raised it both in terms of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and in terms of the alcohol reform process. That opportunity is provided by— 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I appreciate your choice Mr Chairman Roy and it was a difficult choice because of the talent standing here waiting to be called. 
In referring to Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I would like to go to the consequential amendments which are in clause 97 and in particular to the part of schedule 1 under the first heading which is about the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999. I come back to some of the comments made earlier in the debate about the age of driver licensing. It may well be that the public out there overall is supportive of putting up the driving age. That is possibly because we have not adequately explained the issues around doing that and the inconvenience it will cause to young people particularly young people going to sports practice as Louisa Wall explained in her contribution earlier. She talked of what it meant for her to be able to do that. Also I do not think we have explained sufficiently the point about the evidence. The gut reaction is to quietly up the age and to expect that upping the age will somehow bring about a lower death toll. Actually there is no evidence to support that at all. 
Labour finds itself on the same side as Federated Farmers which is rare. National is on the other side of the fence from Federated Farmers. I completely understand Federated Farmers’ point of view. Overwhelmingly and the Chair will appreciate this people in Southland support the age remaining at 15 and not being raised to 16. Here is some of the evidence behind that. In 1986 15 to 19-year-olds caused 16.9 percent of the deaths on our roads. In 2006 that figure had dropped by 5 percent down to just 11.7 percent. There is no doubt that young drivers on our roads now are better drivers. They are certainly not perfect by any means. As we heard before they are still in the higher percentile of those causing accidents. 
When I made a contribution earlier I said that even in countries where the age-limit is higher and the United States is one of those countries the death rate of young drivers is much much higher than it is in New Zealand. So simply raising the age will not be a cure-all that brings down the deal toll. In fact we know fairly conclusively that no matter what the death toll is the 2 years after drivers get their licence is the most dangerous time—certainly for those under the age of 25. Steve Chadwick in her contribution earlier on made a couple of very important points about our approach to this particular issue. If we have better driver education if we extend the learner period and if we drop the permitted blood-alcohol concentration for the under-20s down to zero then we have a much better chance of bringing that 11.7 percent down much further. 
In this short contribution I just wanted to come back to schedule 1 which outlines the raising of the age-limit from 15 to 16 and 6 months. There are some other details or complications around that as well. I want to point out that in no way does the evidence support it. In fact it will seriously disadvantage many youngsters who are very responsible and who are driving cars responsibly in the countryside. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to refer to schedule 4 “Offences against Act”. I do not think there has been any discussion in this debate so far about the provisions in the bill that deal with the issue of logbooks work-time regulations and so on and the issue of providing for search warrants for the police to gather evidence in terms of “chain of responsibility” offences. 
Part 1 of schedule 4 sets out the infringement fees for excess weight offences. Part 2 sets out the infringements for distance recorder offences and there are other things in Part 2 that deal with issues of heavy road transport. I support this measure. I congratulate the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport on putting that measure in. I acknowledge that an awful lot has been done in terms of truck driver safety over the years but whether or not we like it we still have a problem. Although I congratulate the Minister on doing something in this bill I think the opportunity to do more has been missed. 
Last year 57 people were killed in truck-related crashes—that is 15 percent of all road deaths—and 865 people were injured in truck-related crashes. That has cost New Zealand $358 million. Of course truck drivers are not always at fault. In fact often they are not. I accept that but when a car comes up against a truck the driver and passengers in the car come off second-best. That is why we often end up with very horrific instances of truck-related crashes. 
I am pleased that we are dealing with the work-time regulations and the logbooks and so on but I was quite perturbed to get the information that last year the number of heavy motor vehicle drivers issued with traffic infringement notices for breaching logbook requirements was 1690 people. Also there were 137 traffic offence notices issued for the same thing. It is good that we are catching truck drivers who are breaching those rules. 
Obviously the police are doing their job but the Labour Opposition is concerned about the fact that this is continuing to happen and the number of truck-related deaths is not coming down. I think the Government is failing to address the fundamental underlying issue of our road transport industry. I am talking about small businesses so Tau Henare might be interested. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Say it again with some feeling. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I thought that member’s Government was the party for small business but he is clearly not interested in hearing what it is like for owner-drivers who buy a truck mortgage the house spend a fortune on the truck and then have a contract imposed on them that means they are unable to make a living without breaching logbook rules without driving long hours and without scrimping on maintenance and all of the other sorts of things. So there is another solution that needs to be looked at here. I have called on the Minister before as he knows and I have called on National to look at this issue of the link between what truckies are paid and safety on the roads. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Make a call on your own party. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That member can keep his head in the sand; that is fine. I know that truckies out there are not very happy with the Government at the moment. At the moment our select committee is considering legislation about road-user charges. Truckies are not very happy; in fact they are threatening another strike. Last week they told us that they will be better organised than they were when Labour was in power. 
I want to tell listeners that Tau Henare is pulling faces to indicate that he does not really care and I am really interested that he does not care about truck drivers or the road safety of the travelling public. He does not care whether truck drivers are on the road driving unsafely and putting other road users at risk. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because I particularly want to make sure the member who just resumed his seat Tau Henare knows what he is voting for. When he made a contribution to the debate on Part 1 he referred to the loony left. He said the loony left would soon have us voting for zero blood-alcohol limits. I want to inform Mr Henare that he is voting for exactly that. I want to make sure that Mr Henare realises exactly what he is voting for because he seemed to be a bit confused. He was accusing this side of the Committee of daring to suggest that we might be voting in this Parliament for zero alcohol limits. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop your lying. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the unparliamentary language used by the interjector Mr Henare. He just accused me of lying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My attention was taken by the fact that I am trying to get some Supplementary Order Papers into shape so I understand them. I did not hear the comments. Offence has been taken so the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
SUE MORONEY 
: As I was saying regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Even in the short time that I have been in the House I know that when people withdraw and apologise it is meant to be the end of the matter. Mr Henare just said—and it was audible to me on this side of the Chamber—“I didn’t mean it.” after he sat down. I ask you to bring him back into line. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That is not what I said. I said to my colleague on my right: “I meant it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that was helpful. If the comment was an aside and was not directed to the House that is something I cannot determine because I did not hear it. But I caution the member; he should not make life more difficult for us all than it needs to be. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I hope the member Tau Henare takes your very sound advice on that point Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare is the member I am addressing in order to draw to his attention the fact that I expect he will vote in favour of regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2 which brings in zero alcohol licences. Zero alcohol licences are the very issue he accused the loony left of trying to drag Parliament towards voting for. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It is the loony left; everybody knows it. 
SUE MORONEY 
: There he goes again; Tau Henare is suggesting that the loony left will vote for zero alcohol licences which are an issue that his own Minister of Transport has brought before Parliament. Yes Labour will vote for the provision but it will be very interesting to see whether Tau Henare does. He claims he will not vote in favour of zero blood-alcohol licences but those licences are very much in schedule 2. I think he should read schedule 2 urgently to make sure his vote in favour is cast properly by the National whip. I would not want him to be under any false illusions. 
Mr Henare’s Government has missed the opportunity to respond to the call of the majority of fair-minded New Zealanders who want leadership on another issue to do with blood-alcohol. They do not want to keep the same blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres of blood for those over the age of 20 years. They want that limit to be reduced in line with the limit of other countries where it has been proven that lives are saved by dropping the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams which is currently what we have and will continue to have under the National Government to 0.05 grams which is the amendment to schedule 2 that Labour will put forward as it did for Part 1. 
Mr Henare has been very very noisy this afternoon. He seemed to spend most of his time wanting to know where I live. I will put it on the record in this debate. I will not give him my address because I do not really want him to turn up at strange hours of the night—or at any time actually. I will not give him the actual address but to put Mr Henare’s mind at rest I can tell him that I live in Melville which is a suburb of Hamilton—and very proudly so. In case the member is interested I first moved there in 1991. I have put that on the record because it seemed to be what took up most of his speech. He seemed to be consumed with the issue of where I live. I think he said I live in Matamata. It is very flattering but I have not lived there since I was 16 years old. It is very flattering for Mr Henare to think I may still be 16 years old but it is an awfully long time since I have lived in Matamata. It was a very flattering comment from him none the less. 
Labour will support Part 2 of the bill because it deals with zero alcohol licences and alcohol interlock licences which we think will be a big improvement but we wish the Government had had the courage to address the issue further. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I will refer to schedule 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the zero alcohol licence provisions. The tack I am about to take may raise the hackles of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and a lot of the people out there who are watching tonight but I have to agree with something Tau Henare said in the Committee today. 
Hon Member 
: Oh my goodness! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: It has raised hackles. In an earlier contribution during the debate on Part 1 of the bill—funnily enough in an interjection during Kelvin Davis’ speech—Mr Henare said: “If you don’t want to die don’t drink and drive.” He is 100 percent right. But unfortunately— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh here comes the “but”. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Of course there is a “but”; I am talking about Mr Henare. Unfortunately he is part of a Government that supports a bill without provisions to take serious action and send a signal to the New Zealand public that they should do what Mr Henare said. The Government and the Minister of Transport have failed to put serious provisions in the bill for lowering the blood-alcohol content limit for drivers. 
As I said earlier Mr Henare made that interjection during what was a personal story for Kelvin Davis. I have heard from Michael Woodhouse as well today; I have come to know him a bit better and I have respect for his views on the Health Committee. He wants evidence-based arguments. I am not an expert on the exact figures and research but I have a personal story on this issue like Kelvin Davis did. My name is Kristopher John Faafoi. Just before I was born a very close family friend John Sione was taken out by a drunk driver. Mr Bridges might think that is funny but it is not funny at all. He was a very close family friend and he was taken out. I never met him but I bear his name. 
Thirty-five years ago drink-driving was a problem. With this bill the Committee has an opportunity to take serious action on drink-driving. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So we didn’t do it 10 years ago. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: My argument in response to Mr Henare’s comment as he interjects again is that I do not want a history lesson. I am here as one of the newest members of the Committee and I want to make sure we are in the now and that in the future people like me can make sure—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is a sad tale. I say with the utmost respect that Mr Henare is 100 percent right but I am disappointed that the bill does not include provisions to seriously tackle the drink-driving problem in New Zealand. 
I have dealt with that cop-out: the bill not dealing with the problem. Let me deal with the minimum driving age and the cutting of corners on that issue. As I said before Michael Woodhouse has raised some interesting issues on the minimum driving age argument. He wants to ensure we have an evidence-based approach. I see a contradiction here. With the minimum driving age the evidence is that when someone is young swift action will be taken against him or her. But with the drink-driving prevention provisions if someone is intoxicated and does not think he or she can drive we will wait a couple of years figure out what is actually going on and then take action. I do not think that is right. 
Earlier Paul Quinn told members to look at the polls. I will tell the Committee what the polls say: 67 percent of respondents to a Television New Zealand poll said Parliament should take action to lower the blood-alcohol limit; one poll result from Research New Zealand went from 50 percent to 63 percent; and UMR Research had 70 percent of Kiwis wanting to ensure that Parliament lowered the blood-alcohol limit for drivers. 
I will go back to the minimum driving age and the impact it will have on rural communities in particular. In my electorate areas such as Paekakariki and Pauatahanui have large rural communities. They are concerned about what this change will mean for their young ones and the opportunities for social community and sporting events that are open to them. We should take that concern seriously. It is an argument that has been floating around for a long time. When I was a journalist I did a story on a mother and daughter in Kaiapoi in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate of Waimakariri who were concerned because the daughter potentially would not be able to get a licence to drive the 25 minutes to school. We also heard earlier from David Shearer around the Southland District Council. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will speak on Part 2 and the schedules of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will pick up where I left off in Part 1 because the same matters that I was discussing at that point are dealt with in the schedules. I was discussing exactly what stopped the Minister of Transport from going with his gut on the bill and from going with his intuition that lowering the blood-alcohol limit was the right thing to do. This issue is dealt with in the schedules in terms of the zero alcohol limit. There was an opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol limit. Not only was the intuition there for the Minister to lower the limit but also the evidence was there. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Read the evidence. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare is not very familiar with evidence. It is a difficult concept for him to grasp. It is what happens when people study things look at the situation in other countries and then come up with the evidence. The evidence certainly supports lowering the blood-alcohol limit. The question then is how we ended up in a situation where the Minister is not following through on what he wanted to do. The answer is that Mr Key clearly got nervous. Mr Key got nervous and decided he could not go ahead with it. He could not go ahead with backing the gut reaction of his Minister. That is incredibly disappointing. 
Labour will support Part 2 because there are things in this bill that are good. There is a recognition that we need to do more to protect New Zealanders from those people who drink and drive and to stop people from drinking and driving. That is important. Very few members of the House have not been affected in some way or other by people who have been drink-driving. We need to do more. The opportunity was on the Table for the Minister. Darien Fenton’s amendments to Part 1 were on the Table to do something about drink-driving and the Minister bottled. He just could not do it. He could not go ahead with it. We saw in an article in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 on 2 January of this year that when John Key got involved he got nervous. That is the problem with what has happened with this bill. There was a lack of courage and commitment to follow through on what the Minister knows is right what Mr Henare knows is right and what Mr Bridges knows is right. The right thing to do was here on the Table and it was not picked up. 
Over and over again we have seen from the Minister a transition from somebody who had a gut feeling that he was doing the right thing. His own experience told him that it was ridiculous—that was his word—that he could drink as much as he did and still be within the limit. His intuition was right and the evidence backed his intuition but he bottled it at the end because John Key got nervous. John Key’s office was writing directly to officials in the Ministry of Transport bypassing the Minister to see whether they were concerned about whether someone who had had one glass of wine could go over the limit. It was an issue that John Key was personally concerned about. That is what his adviser was telling the Ministry of Transport. In the end officials were put in a position even though the regulatory impact statement stated that lowering the blood-alcohol limit could improve New Zealand improve social outcomes and improve economic outcomes that the recommendation was bottled when the Prime Minister came on the scene. That is incredibly disappointing because the zero alcohol limits and the things coming in in the schedules will do good things. I tell Mr Henare that we are not the loony left; he is voting for the bill. He might fit one of those words but he does not fit the other. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That was funny. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you. The bill is something that everybody in the House can support but it is an opportunity lost. People right around New Zealand are looking for politicians to take a leadership role on the issue and this is an opportunity. They are looking for politicians who look at the evidence internationally and in New Zealand and say the evidence is there—and people actually want the limit to be lowered. For reasons that go against the intuition of the Minister the Government is going against the evidence on the Table. But because the Prime Minister got nervous and got spooked suddenly we do not have support for it. 
The worry that we on this side of the Committee have is that we have missed the opportunity now. I believe that everybody in the Committee wanted to lower the blood-alcohol limit. The opportunity has gone. Although we have a bill that will do some good things and therefore we can support it it misses out on the very very real possibility of making a major change that would improve the lives of all New Zealanders. I am sad that has happened. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair; kia ora tatou katoa. I te ra nei i whakarewahia ko te purongo kua puta i te paepae motuhake mo  
Te Reo Mauriora 
 e ki ana kia kaha tonu tatou ki te korero i te reo Maori ana koina e tu ake mo te wa poto kaua mo te wa roa ki te whakatakoto i etahi whakaaro mo te Pati Maori. Me ki kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori i te nuinga o nga korero i roto i tenei pire. E tika ana kia ata titiro ki tenei kaupapa na runga i te ahuatanga o nga korero o tena o tena mo te ahuatanga o-mate kua pa mai ki tena ki tena o tatou; ko te hunga rangatahi nei e taraiwa haurangi ana. Me ata titiro ki tetahi kaupapa hei karo i tera uauatanga e ngau nei i a tatou me ki te motu. Kaua i te iwi Maori i tona kotahi kaua i te iwi Pakeha i tona kotahi engari ko tatou katoa. Kua rongo tatou ki te ahuatanga o-mate na runga i te mahi taraiwa haurangi. 
Ko ta matou tino raru na te mea i ahua noho taupatupatu nei i waenganui i a matou o te Pati Maori ko te pikinga o te tau taraiwa mai i te 15 tau ki te 16. Ara ano matou e wananga ae ranei ka tino kite i tetahi painga o tera ara ko te pekenga o te tau taraiwa. Ki a matou kaore matou e tino kite i tera. Ko te mate ke ko te Honore Tariana Turia e mea nei kai Whanganui a ia e noho ana i runga i te pamu e mahi pamu ana i te taha o tana hoa rangatira a Hori. Ko te mahi nui ko te taraiwa o te hunga tamariki i a ratou ano ki nga papa takaro ki wahi ke atu penei i ta Steve Chadwick penei i ta Louisa Wall e korero nei mo te taraiwa i a ratou ano ki te papa takaro. Ahau tonu tokorima waku tamariki. Kai tawhiti ke toku kainga i Rotorua ki Ngongotaha wahi rongonui o te motu. Ka mutu tera pea tekau ma rima rua tekau meneti te taraiwa atu ki te taone nui a e tokorima nga tamariki ia ra pera tonu te ahuatanga ki nga mahi hakinakina. Ka tipu nga tamariki ki te tau e tika ana a ka ki atu ka pai kai a koe te tikanga. Hoko koe i tou ake waka kai a koe te tikanga. No reira tera tera korero. Kei te ata whakaaro ake mo te hunga e pera ano te noho a kai tuawhenua kei nga pamu kai tawhiti nga taone nui. 
Ka mutu ko te tino take i whakatakotohia e matou ki waenganui i a matou ano mena e tika ana kia ki te pakeke ki te tamariki anei matou kei te pai te unu waipiro ki tetahi taumata engari koutou kao kao. He rereke nga ture ki a koutou tamariki ma rangatahi ma taiohi ma. Ko ta matou e ki nei ko nga korero e pa ana ki te pakeke me pera ano hoki ki te ahuatanga o te tamariki. Mena ka ki atu tatou kare tatou e whakaae kia paku unu kia paku unu tetahi pakeke i tetahi paku karahe waina pia ranei. Kaore e whakaaetia ki te tamariki me pera ano hoki ki te pakeke. He aha te pai mo te ki atu ki te tamariki a me penei koutou engari kua rereke te ahuatanga ki a matou. 
No reira koinei ta matou e korero nei he paku whakaaro no matou. Kei te whakahe i era wahanga engari ko te whanuitanga o te korero kei te whakaae atu i te mea me titiro tonu ki tenei o nga ahuatanga a nga ra kei mua i te aroaro. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Chair and to all of us. It was stated in the independent panel review report Te Reo Mauriora that we must make an earnest effort to use the Maori language and for that reason I rise to take a short call not a long one to put forth some thoughts in Maori on behalf of the Maori Party. The Maori Party supports much of what is in this bill. It is right that we consider this proposal very carefully based on what each of us has said about young people drinking and driving and any death resulting from that. It has affected each of us in some way or other. We and the nation need to find a way to avoid that difficulty that is gnawing away inside us. Maori and non-Maori people on their own will not solve it but everyone has to take responsibility. We have all been affected by the tragic circumstances brought about through drink-driving.  
What caused us great concern when we the Maori Party were debating this issue amongst ourselves was the raising of the driving age from 15 to 16 years. It was while we were debating away yes or no that we found a positive reason for raising the age. There was a problem in the case of the Hon Tariana Turia who said she lives on a farm in Whanganui working alongside her husband George. The big problem was with the children driving themselves to sports venues or other places. That was similar to what the Hon Steve Chadwick and Louisa Wall had to say about driving to sportsgrounds. I am the same too with my five kids. My home is in Ngongotaha a famous place in the country and some distance from Rotorua. It is a drive of about 20 to 25 minutes to the city so there is a daily ritual with five children in pursuit of sporting events. So when the children get to the right age you say to them: “OK over to you. Buy your car; it’s over to you.” So that is that statement. But I am thinking about those in a similar situation in rural areas on farms and quite far away from larger towns.  
In rounding off the debate amongst ourselves we ended up asking whether it was right for adults to say to children: “We are fine we can drink to a certain level but you cannot—absolutely not. The laws are not the same for you kids teenagers and young people.” The point we are making here is that what we say to adults must apply to children as well. If we say that we will not allow children a single drop we will not allow an adult to have a single glass of wine or beer; do not tell them that we do not allow them to take a single drop while an adult can take a single glass of wine or beer. Just as for adults it will not be allowed for children. Where is the justice for children if we say “You have to do this but it is different for us adults.”?  
So that is what we are on about — just a little thought of ours. We oppose those clauses but agree to most of the bill simply because we need to monitor this aspect of the bill in the days before us 
.]  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Some of us have not yet debated Part 2. We had the closure of Part 1 which was a significantly long part. Some of us have been trying to use the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I urge your reconsideration of accepting the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not put closure motions lightly. The member ought to be aware of that. I have listened to a significant number of speeches that had very little to do with Part 2. I have made the decision that the Committee is ready to move on and I will test that decision by putting the closure motion. If members are opposed to the closure motion they should vote against it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 97 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to add new schedule 4 be agreed to. 
New schedule 4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Which one? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well there is a good question—which one; which title? I will give Tau Henare some suggestions about what it might be. I am happy to take a call on the title clause clause 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The title I believe is based on the Government’s Safer Journeys road safety strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the period 2010 to 2020. Gosh 2020 is a long time away but it will be here before we know it. The Safer Journeys strategy which is related to the title has as a long-term goal: “The vision a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury”. There is no problem with that—no problem with that. It is a motherhood and apple pie kind of vision. The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is supposed to implement that goal. 
Maybe the title should have been “Land Transport (Missed Opportunities) Amendment Bill” because the words “Road Safety” in the title are a little misleading. Although the bill goes some way towards addressing issues in relation to improving road safety between 2010 and 2020 it ignores of course the elephant in the room the missed opportunity that the title should reflect. It ignores the overwhelming evidence including that in the  
Safer Journeys  
document which the title of the bill is based on and which is what this bill is supposed to be about. It ignores the elephant in the room which is the lowering of the adult drink-drive blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05. It could have been done in this legislation. If it had been maybe the title could have been “Land Transport (Road Safety: Labour is Here to Help) Amendment Bill”. If the Minister of Transport had accepted my amendment to Part 1 we could all now be going forward on this bill feeling pretty happy about it. The public would have been feeling pretty happy about it too because the missed opportunity to save 15 to 33 lives every year would have been taken up. 
Unfortunately the Minister has kicked the issue into touch. We have a 2-year research period for getting more evidence when the evidence is already there. More lives will be lost and more money will be wasted when we did not need to have that. Maybe the title of the bill could be “Land Transport (Road Safety: What a Waste of Money and Time) Bill”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Cop out! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well there is another good suggestion for the title. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: the Government Copped Out) Amendment Bill” because the Minister has copped out on this issue. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety but Only If We Feel Like It) Amendment Bill” or it could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: Let’s Drink Three-quarters of a Bottle of Wine and We Can Still Drive) Amendment Bill” and we could just not worry about it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I know the member couldn’t. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: There are many possible titles. Seeing that the member Tau Henare is taking such an interest in the title and in my contribution on the title I ask him to stand up and respond to some of those titles and let me know what he thinks. I think there are much more creative titles than the ones I have suggested that would fit this bill and would be more suitable than the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
The “Other Matters” part is really interesting too. I was thinking about it and wondering what fitted into the “Road Safety” bit and what fitted into the “Other Matters” bit. I am not really sure. All of this bill is about road safety so what are the “Other Matters”? Maybe they are all of the repeal revocations and consequential amendments that are in Part 2 and the schedules. Maybe those are the “Other Matters” bit. Some very obscure Acts that I have never heard of are being repealed or amended by Part 2 and the schedules. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will also take the opportunity—having been denied a lengthy debate on Part 1 and on Part 2 after rightly challenging the Chair—to accept the call of the Chair. It means we will have a little rave on the title of this Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would call it the “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” because I believe— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There’s got to be a law against this sort of thing. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: —if Tau Henare could just listen to the evidence—that it is a very sad day when we get an opportunity to have such a massive bill before the Committee that we have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing. 
We have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing here and there will be up to 66 lives lost while the Minister garners evidence when he knows from the ministerial adviser to the Prime Minister that that evidence is already here. We are now facing a very similar type of debate to one that was running in the UK just recently which shows entirely that this Government will not go near anything at all that touches what its members call that nerve of social legislation. 
Members opposite who have a good conscience have said to me that they are not allowed to vote on any social legislation. The Prime Minister has told them that in the first term of Government they are not to introduce any social legislation after Labour’s bold initiatives in the 9 years we were in Government. I say to Tau Henare that it was Labour that brought in the Law Commission report on alcohol which is the guiding document for all other legislation that impacts on alcohol and here is the golden opportunity in this “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety but Not Far Enough and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. 
We know that the Prime Minister wrote to the Ministry of Transport officials and this is the reply he received. He was told the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-driving limit even though research and polls show that most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced. How sad! This was one crack at land transport legislation that could have been universally accepted by all parties in this Chamber but for the issue of the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol limit. I think it is very sad. It mimics what goes on globally. This debate has just happened in the United Kingdom and there Ministers of the Crown were advised by doctors and physicians about their lost opportunity too for reducing alcohol-related deaths and morbidity on the roads. 
Michael Woodhouse is yawning as if the loss of lives and morbidity on the roads does not matter. To us over here it does matter. We know the evidence is already there about reducing the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams but the Minister will sit on his hands prevaricate and ignore evidence-based research that has been put by the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has copped out of giving leadership to this country and leadership to the children of this country by setting an example to young people and saying it is not good enough to go out there and drink and drive. Here was the opportunity. 
The Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport could have shown leadership. I think he wanted to but he got bowled by his own leader the Prime Minister who rode roughshod over him and went directly to the Ministry of Transport advisers. They gave him the advice which we have here that he would get a bad public reaction to this so the Prime Minister decided that we would not go there even though 70 percent of those polled tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport that this is what should be done. 
I also acknowledge the legacy of the Hon Darren Hughes in this debate. Darren fought very hard in this debate in the House and he took on the Minister of Transport. I enjoyed the repartee between the two of them. Darren came near to convincing the Minister of Transport that this was a good idea. I think a legacy to Darren Hughes would be to acknowledge that we could have today called this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill but we cannot. We are here in the title debate making a half-hearted attempt at road safety. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased that I have the call to talk about the commencement dates—the various commencement dates actually—of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill is structured quite differently from most bills we have been debating in this Chamber in that it has four different times at which various parts of the legislation will come into being. I invite the Minister in charge of this bill Steven Joyce to give some insight into why we have four different time frames for various sections of this legislation to come into being. 
We have the bill in front of us and I want to let listeners know that a whole series of clauses will come into force 90 days after the date of Royal assent. They seem to be mainly—clause 6 is one of them—a grouping of issues about the way that licensing will happen. That is what they appear to be to me but it would be great to get some clarification from the Minister himself. 
Then there is another group of clauses. They seem clearer to me because they are about taking blood specimens. I expect that this group is about letting our health system prepare for a new way of dealing with blood specimens because clauses 31 to 35 and clause 37 which happen to be about the way in which blood specimens will be dealt with by our health system will come into force 180 days after the date of Royal assent. So one bunch of new rules is coming in 90 days after the date of Royal assent and another bunch is coming in 180 days after the date of Royal assent. 
Then there is a third group which seems to be mainly about the issues that have been mostly debated in this bill— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: All for good reasons Sue. If you’d been in the committee you’d understand why it was like that. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I invite the member Michael Woodhouse who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to get up and give clarification because we are debating the commencement clause and it is important for the Committee of the whole House to understand the insights the select committee members had on that clause. I would be really pleased to hear Michael Woodhouse take a call to enlighten me on this issue. 
The clauses in the third group seem to be about the zero blood-alcohol limit which Tau Henare was so confused about. They seem to be about the new interlock system that we can use. But we are not told how many days after Royal assent the clauses will come in. The dates are even more vague—if that is possible. Clause 2(3) states that these particular clauses—and I will not read them all out; there are a number of them—“come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” So we could have about a dozen probably up to 18 different dates for each of those clauses to come in; that seems to be a bit of a shambles. Then clause 2(4) states that everything else the rest of the Act “comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Probably by my estimation there are about 30 different dates then on which all of this legislation could come into being and I think that that will be very very confusing. 
It will be very confusing for the authorities who need to administer this Act including the police. I think the police will have a bit of a nightmare working out which provision comes in when. Most of the provisions of the Act are coming in the day after the date of Royal assent. Then about a dozen clauses will come in 90 days after the date of Royal assent and three clauses which all seem to apply to the health system will come in 180 days after the date of Royal assent. As I said before about 18—I have not stopped to count them—different clauses will come in on a date we do not know about and they might all come in on different dates according to the commencement clause. So it is really important for the Committee of the whole House to understand exactly what is going on with what I think are the approximately 30 or more different dates on which the various provisions of this bill are to be enacted and the reasons behind that. 
Why I ask the question—and I really would like the Minister to respond—[ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare may not be interested in the shambles the police might be left with over the dates on which they will have to deal with various parts of the Act coming in but I certainly am. I would expect that the Minister of Police Judith Collins might be really keen to hear what the explanation is and exactly how the police will deal with different parts of the Act coming in at different times. They will need to understand that in order to do their planning. Legislation like this makes quite a big difference to the police force in the way it will be administered so it is really important that the police understand which clauses are going to come in after 90 days and whether those clauses are the bits they are to administer. The Ministry of Health needs to understand so that it can get its orders and instructions out to hospitals up and down the country in relation to the provisions that come in after 180 days and that seem to apply to them. The ministry needs to know how it will manage those provisions. 
I will have to look at various clauses because all of the next bunch will actually come into force on a date that as stated in clause 2(3) “may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” Those clauses are clauses 5 6 16 21 22 24 28 and so on. I will not read through them all but for example clause 5 is about “Drivers to be licensed”. That is the provision that takes away the concept of a limited licence which we are used to in this country and brings in three new licences. There is “an alcohol interlock licence”—so that will obviously be an issue for the licensing authority—“a zero alcohol licence or a limited licence”. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I will take full advantage of the 2 minutes I have left to debate the commencement clause because before the dinner break I was seeking clarification. I am hoping that the Minister who is responsible for this bill will be able to cast some light on the matter because it is very confusing. Clause 5 for example is about the new ways in which drivers will be licensed for “an alcohol interlock licence a zero alcohol licence or a limited licence.” Those are all new categories. That provision will come in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber unless it is necessary to do so and then not to disturb the proceedings and the member speaking. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The clause I just referred to will come into force under clause 2(3) “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” That gives us no clue about the sort of time frame when that particular clause will come into force. It is a very important clause because it is about the new licensing regime that will be brought in by this bill. Yet part of the very next clause clause 6(1) will come into force 90 days after the Royal assent. Clause 6 is the clause stating that drivers are not to exceed specified alcohol limits. It is all very confusing. 
I think it will be very confusing for the authorities who will need to operationalise this legislation because they will not have any idea when they will be able to issue those new licences. The commencement clause clause 2 gives no clue whatsoever about when—even roughly when—that new regime will come into being; subclause (3) states that the date will be “appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council” and that it could come into force on “different dates for different provisions.” 
It is my contention that we are no further ahead in terms of this commencement clause about when these provisions will be coming in. I think they are really important provisions because I know that families out there want to know when their 15-year-olds will be able to sit for their licences or whether they will have to wait until they are 16. It is really important for this to be understood. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 This bill really should be called the “Recidivist Drink-driver We Are Going to Ping You Bill”. 
Darien Fenton 
: It’s your Government’s bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well maybe it should be called the “We Are Here the Opposition Is There and We Will Get on with What We Were Elected to Do Bill”. Maybe it should be called the “We Didn’t Have 10 Years When We Sat on Our Backsides Doing Nothing; We Have Had Only 2 Years and Look Where We Are Now Bill”. The folly in what we have been hearing from Opposition members is that the bill does not fit with any one title that they have given us to debate. 
Really there are two issues. There is the issue of the recidivist drink-driver who continues to drink-drive maim hurt and in some cases kill. We are saying that we will target those people and that is what the title is all about. That is what the essence of the bill is all about. 
The bill is not designed for Kelvin Davis’ auntie who has the odd sherry wanders down Karetu Road and gets stopped by Paddy Whiu or whoever. 
Kelvin Davis 
: It’s square gin up there; that’s what they drink. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well square gin then—I am sorry. In Motatau we do not do anything like that. Our drink is milk out of the cow. 
That is the folly in the argument of members opposite tonight. They say we are not doing anything for safety. 
Sue Moroney 
: You’ve got to listen to New Zealanders. You’re not listening. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh we listened. In fact the evidence shows that most of the people who are a danger to society fall into two categories. One— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That’s an obscene sign. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry. There are two categories. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Are you in the Mongrel Mob? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No this is the sign of the Headhunters. One category of driver is the young person the new driver. There should be a zero alcohol limit—those people should not be allowed to drink and drive—yeah totally. 
Sue Moroney 
: Really? That’s a bit loony left isn’t it? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is not. Apparently the lady from Melville is saying that proposal is loony left but it is not really. 
The other category is the recidivist drink-driver. He is the one—and it is normally a he so I will use the generic— 
Hon Member 
: Sexist! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well OK I am sorry. I belong to the National Party and not to the gaggle opposite. I apologise. Those are the two target areas that we are trying to fix up on the community’s behalf. That is what the bill should be called. It should be the “We Will Ping You If You Continue to Do Bad in Our Community Bill”. 
I have to say that I have heard some violent stories from Kelvin Davis and Kris Faafoi. They were heart-wrenching stories but I just cannot understand why those members were trying to blame the Minister of Transport for what happened to the people involved. That was the essence of their decision to use those two stories. I tell members this: maybe the people those members mentioned would be alive if the drivers who caused those accidents had been pinged a lot earlier. That is exactly what this bill does. 
This bill puts out there a safety net for our community—that is all. I have no problem standing in this Chamber tonight and saying that the existing title hits the nail dead smack on the head. Members opposite can get up and talk about what the title could be and what it might be in fantasyland but the reality is this: we won sit down move on and let us do what we were elected to do. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 As always it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Hon Tau Henare. What arrogance he just demonstrated in talking about clauses 1 2 and 3 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I asked him why he is always here in the Chamber yelling out when he has so little influence on his Government. His Government is so out of touch. If it was in touch it would be amending the legislation to decrease the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood. We have raged on that issue in the debate but I still do not understand why this bill does not amend the principal Act to ensure the legal blood-alcohol limit falls. We all know and we have all heard the arguments all night— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The country is lucky you are not the Minister of Transport. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The country is lucky that Tau Henare is not the Minister of anything. Thank goodness for that. May we never see that day—and in fact I think we never will. 
I express my disappointment that the blood-alcohol concentration limit has been kicked into touch by the Minister of Transport. He did not have the fortitude to do something about it when he had the opportunity so the principal Act will be amended without the blood-alcohol concentration limit being amended. 
I did not have the opportunity to speak earlier on so the other issue I want to address in talking about the principal Act being amended— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: In the title? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —in clause 3 “Principal Act amended”—is the provision in clause 12 that raises the minimum driver-licensing age. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I thought you were going to raise the minimum wage. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is a good idea actually. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well you brought it up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I apologise Mr Chair but I am being sorely provoked from across the Chamber. 
In this bill which amends the principal Act clause 12 raises the minimum driver-licensing age. As we have said in debate tonight and earlier we do not support this clause. We have some difficulties with it. I make it really clear that Labour is extremely sympathetic to some of the comments the Minister made earlier on. No one in this country including the Labour Opposition wants to see young people dying on our roads unnecessarily. No one wants to see that. But our difficulty with this provision which amends the principal Act is that there is not the evidence that the issue is around age. The issue of age versus education versus time on the roads and so on has not been explored. We know from the evidence of course that young drivers actually become more dangerous when they have had some experience not when they start driving. We have a problem with the fact that the overall effect of these changes is that young drivers will have to be 17 before they can obtain a restricted licence. That causes enormous problems in a struggling economy. In a struggling economy not everyone will stay at school. Kids have to stay at school till they are 16 but many of them want to go and study or go out and do jobs. They may even work part-time. The country is in such a parlous state that many kids now have to go out and work part-time just to help their families. 
David Shearer 
: If they can get a job. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If there are any jobs out there of course. Then of course they will receive the minimum wage which had a miserable 25c-an-hour increase from 1 April. How are those families supposed to cope with the fact that their 15 or 16-year-old will not be able to go to work after school or do any study? They will not be able to take up study. It is fine to talk about study and doing things for our young people to bring them through—I hear Paula Bennett going on about that all the time—but what happens if they cannot actually get there? 
The real difficulty is that in Auckland where I live there are no alternative means for those kids to get from home to work. We have a real issue about public transport in Auckland. Even though Labour did an enormous amount around it we now have a Government that just wants to build roads everywhere and spend a fortune on roads of national significance—roads of national significance that mean nothing to 15 and 16-year-olds who are trying to get from home to work to earn a little bit extra to help their family to support themselves. The reality is that the cost of living is having a dire impact on families. Because wages are not going up—the minimum wage is pathetic—children 15 and 16-year-olds are now contributing to the family’s income. How on earth are they supposed to get to work? 
The other thing I thought was that in amending the principal Act the Government would have been more sympathetic to its rural supporters. Federated Farmers and Rural Women New Zealand are good organisations that made very straightforward submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about their concerns about how young people in our rural areas were supposed to get around from one place to another. They might be going to school going to college or going to work. This Government has shown it does not care. It has shown it is out of touch with 15 and 16-year-old young people not only in our urban communities but also in rural communities. This Government does not listen; it is not listening. It is completely out of touch. There were discussions during the select committee process about alternatives and I know that exemptions for young people who need to go to work or who are in rural communities were explored but the Government said nothing about that alternative. It is not interested in it. 
I go back to what I started with. Labour is extremely concerned along with everybody else about the crash statistics for our 15 to 19-year-olds. We are very concerned about that. As I said no one wants to see our young people dying unnecessarily on the roads. We have a high teenage crash rate but let us be clear about it: the problem is not when they start driving it is not when they sign up at 15 to get their learner licence; it is later on. I think the ACT member talked about the figure of 100 hours. That is what the statistics and the information tell us. I am really disturbed that we are punishing our young people. It looks like the Government is tackling a problem but it is doing it without evidence—it is doing it without thinking about whether the problem is age driver education or experience. The Government has called for 2 years of research on lowering the blood-alcohol concentration limit—it is prepared to do that. It says it will not make a decision even though the evidence is already overwhelming and even though the public want it. Given that I would have thought with this other issue the Government would take a consistent approach: find the evidence and find out whether age driver experience or driver education makes a difference. 
In this legislation amending the principal Act the Labour Opposition is extremely disappointed with two things. One is the amendment to the minimum driver-licensing age which will have an impact on our young people. The other is the cop-out that this Government has demonstrated by refusing to take up the evidence and the call of the public—the New Zealand public—to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. As we have said we really support a lot of the amendments in the bill; we think they are good steps forward. I add that those steps build on the work Labour did when it was in Government despite what the National Government has said. I do not know whether it has taken any notice but there was a whole programme called See You There—Safe As around improving road safety. In fact road safety has been improving steadily for a long time. It improved under Labour. With this Government we see no goals for improving it; it has a vague vision about reducing accidents and injuries. Of course everybody will say that is a good thing. “Road Safety” is in the title of the bill but there is no real commitment to looking at some of the things that actually matter like the impact of changing the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol concentration limit. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it is a perfectly well-named bill. It is all about road safety which is what this amendment bill is doing. I was talking at the end of the first reading regarding our alcohol culture; I will pick up from there. We have a youth drinking problem. I know that the law reform bill that is currently before the House will go some way towards addressing that problem. Certainly youth have been targeted. 
I really wanted to take the opportunity to talk about FebFast. At the end of February when FebFast finished we did not have a time to acknowledge it because we had the Christchurch earthquake. It just really was not the right time to do it. News came out today that the people who supported FebFast raised over $100000 which goes towards youth drinking programmes and education. That is absolutely wonderful. I acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway who led the Labour team for FebFast; I led the National team for FebFast. 
As role models as leaders and as MPs we can do a lot to help change the culture of drinking in this country. There are many ways that we need to look at to deal with this problem not just through legislation. In many respects change comes from the ground up and it is often community-driven. I say: “Well done to everyone who supported FebFast.” I certainly look forward to next year’s FebFast. 
New Zealand has not been doing very well in its road safety statistics. The Minister told us earlier in the evening that we have bad statistics. Our fatality rate is 60 percent worse than the rate in Australia. We are lagging behind and that is really not good enough. Our youth are at risk along with drivers who reoffend—drivers who drink alcohol and are over the limit. But youth particularly are of concern. In my speech on Part 1 I said that 15 to 24-year-olds are overrepresented in the statistics. They represent 14 percent of our population and equate to 16 percent of all licensed drivers yet in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all fatal crashes. Those statistics are quite shocking. That age group was also involved in 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. Those statistics are very very sobering and very concerning. 
That is not satisfactory so we have to focus on youth. This bill does exactly that. It calls for a zero alcohol limit but importantly education is a key part of this legislation. It aims to improve all road safety education that is available and to increase access to it. I am very pleased that the bill allows approved defensive driving courses to be undertaken in the learner-licence phase. I think that everyone from time to time not just youth should take a refresher course. It would suit all members and everyone who drives in New Zealand. It is something that everyone should consider doing from time to time. 
But it is important that the bill proposes to increase the licensing age to 16. Members on this side absolutely support that proposal. It is the right way to go. As I said in my speech on the second reading when I was learning to drive there were 1 million vehicles on the road. Now there are 3 million vehicles on the road. Now it is busier the cars are more powerful and drivers need to have their wits about them particularly in big cities. I am sorry but the brain of a 15-year-old and the brain of a 16-year-old I am sure physiologically might be very similar but I think in maturity they are worlds apart. I think that every year that passes before a driver first embarks on driving the better it is because driving uses a lot of sensory information and coordination. Certainly when the consultation phase of Safer Journeys which is the Government’s road safety policy going forward to 2020 was embarked upon it showed there was clear public support for raising the age of driving to 16. Members on this side stand by that policy and there is no question about that. 
Other shocking data has been released recently and it all adds to support for this amendment bill which is all about road safety. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 This is my first opportunity to take part in the debate on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. One of the other matters to do with road safety that Labour believes is missing from this legislation is the reduction of the adult blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. This is a measure that has massive amounts of support out in the public. It is beyond me that National which is normally very poor in showing leadership and fails to advance an issue unless it has been focused-grouped to within an inch of its life cannot look at the public support for a measure to reduce the blood-alcohol limit to a level that will actually capture drivers who are impaired and will bring down that limit to a point where drivers have to be under a level at which they are impaired to be on the road. 
Given the amount of public support out there for that measure I cannot believe that it has not been advanced in this bill. I mean that is what National is all about. It is what conservative politics are all about. They are about waiting until somebody else tells politicians what to do. The public have told the Government what to do. They would love to see this bill focus on reducing accidents caused by drink-drivers by having that level reduced but it is not there in the bill. 
I suppose that one of the other matters—the title refers to “Road Safety and Other Matters”—is the fact that this is one of the few occasions when Steven Joyce has been rolled on an issue. Steven Joyce runs that Cabinet; everybody knows that. This is one of the occasions when he has actually been rolled. Steven Joyce came out and said it was ridiculous that he could drink the amount required in order to get to 0.08 grams and still be able to drive. But what happened? In typical conservative politics the Government got scared. It got scared that there would be some sort of public backlash. I do not know where it thought the public backlash would come from because the support for this measure is overwhelming. But the Government got scared and it backed down even though Steven Joyce the man who always looks after the optics the man who runs that Cabinet was rolled. That is why this particular measure has been removed from the bill. 
I would like to pick up on Jackie Blue’s point about FebFast. The news out today is fantastic. FebFast raised $100000 for youth alcohol programmes but $100000 is unfortunately a drop in the bucket in terms of what is required. I note that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in reporting back on this bill saw early intervention and greater public health measures to support people with alcohol problems and to support drink-drivers to kick alcohol problems as real positives but that the committee felt that those matters should fall outside the scope of this bill. This bill is about road safety and other matters. One of those other matters could have been more support for drug and alcohol services but the select committee said no that fell outside the purview of this bill. 
But the truth is that the cuts that we are seeing this Government make to the health service in New Zealand mean that those services will not be available and we will not be able to tackle the problem of recidivist drink-driving. There are larger prison sentences and we can put a few more people into prison. But in terms of actually tackling the problem the Government has failed to do that not only in this bill but also in the other activities that it is undertaking by cutting the money provided for the health services. This Government is making sure that there will be— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: No wonder he is worried about Leonie if this is all he has to say. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Who? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: The person whose business you protested outside. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Oh the word has got back to head office. Ha ha! Anyway the member opposite would like to talk about the campaign in Palmerston North. We will have plenty of opportunities to talk about that at some other time. But let us talk about this bill because it is clear that National—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell you what; if the member who is interjecting wants to talk about asset sales we can. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 My and Tau Henare’s esteemed elder from Ngati Hine Sir James Henare once said: “We have come so far not to go further. We have done so much not to do more.” That really should summarise the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because it does a heck of a lot but it does not quite go far enough. It does a lot but it could have done more. One of the big areas where it could have done more is in reducing the blood-alcohol level from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. That change would save lives. It would probably have saved the lives of the three people whom I spoke about earlier tonight— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many 15-year-old lives are you prepared to sacrifice? This is politics. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: There we go—the mouse from the south is squeaking again. He is chirping from his seat but he does not jump up and contribute anything of any substance. As I said that reduction would have saved lives. Instead as Iain Lees-Galloway has said National members were waiting for some polls. They were waiting to get the feel of the nation before they made a decision for themselves. Despite the fact that National is a party that prides itself on individual rights and individual responsibilities those values go out the door when need be. I think National members live by the rule: “These are our values and if you don’t like them we have others.” 
Another area where I think National members have gone too far is that of raising the age from 15 to 16 for new drivers. My daughter for example is 15. She is coming up to 16 in June. She is going for her licence but we as responsible parents have decided that she is not quite ready to sit for her licence. She is allowed to drive when there is an adult in the seat next to her but we have said she cannot go for the next stage until we think she is ready and she will not be ready for another couple of months. That is our choice as responsible parents and I thought that was what National members stood for—individual rights and individual choice. 
But of course in an instance like this National members throw those values right out the window and choose others. They are a bit scared of what the polls would say—sorry I should not have said that. But National is a party that has to wait for the feedback from focus groups which ring around and find out what people will say. They test the waters with their little toe and when things do not—[ 
Interruption 
] I think it was Winston Peters who said: “You don’t test the water with both feet. Only a fool does that.” 
This whole issue of raising the new-driver age to 16 hurts those of us who live in rural areas. In Kaitaia we have a fledgling bus company that runs on biofuel—would you believe it. Kaitaia is the centre and the company services an area that is about an hour and a half north about 45 minutes east and about 40 minutes west. This is a fledgling bus company. It is not as though there is a bus at the bus stop every 5 minutes as we would find in the city centres. 
The people up north cannot rely on a public transport service so we need our kids to be able to drive. We have sports fields. Kaitaia is the centre but there are a lot of sports fields in outlying areas. Kids from Kaitaia need to get out to their sports practices and this bill will make things just a little bit more difficult. 
It was interesting to hear Jackie Blue say there are many more cars on the road these days and many more since she got her licence. That is true and it makes us wonder why this Government is promoting policies that put more cars on the road. Why cannot the Government look at policies that remove cars and trucks from the road such as investing in public transport and investing in a decent rail network across the country? As I said earlier— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I advise members on both sides of the Chamber that interjections should be directed to the person who has the floor. There should be no private engagement between members who do not have the floor. It is totally out of order and it is discourteous. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Chair but it is all right. We know that the Hon Tau Henare’s best days are behind him and Hillary College was a long time ago. 
I am not sure why this Government keeps perpetuating policies that put more cars on the road instead of looking at ways of taking cars off the road and creating safer roads in that way. Government members talk about the  
Safer Journeys 
 document. Surely removing heavy traffic from Northland’s winding and shockingly upgraded roads would make life safer for us up in the north. 
The booze bus is a regular visitor to Kaitaia because the police keep on catching people who drink and drive. I think we need to send a message to drink-drivers that we are getting harder and we will accept a lesser level of intoxication. I think that message should have been sent home and it is a missed opportunity by this Government. It should have reduced the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. As Sir James Henare said we have come so far but unfortunately we could have gone further. We have done a lot—I will give the Government credit—but we could have done more. Kia ora. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 First of all Mr Chairperson I congratulate you on your new role as Assistant Speaker. I look forward to the contributions you will make in this House as you have done previously. This is a great opportunity for me to take a call on clauses 1 to 3 which relate to the title commencement date and the amendment to the principal Act. A good point for me to begin with is a reassurance to Sue Moroney who raised a few questions about commencement dates. I have those at hand and I thought it would be worthwhile for me to comment on them. These were dates that the officials recommended to the Government. The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already cautioned members about interjecting on each other when they do not have the call. It will desist. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require the New Zealand Transport Agency to make substantial system and information technology changes to make provision for alcohol interlocks and also zero alcohol level licences. 
There are two trigger points that I think are worth mentioning. The first date is 180 days from receiving the Royal assent. That timeframe is to allow consultation with health professionals. Obviously there will be quite a few forms and new techniques required. The other trigger point of 90 days after receiving the Royal assent will prepare for publicity and allow the police to recalibrate equipment which is really important such as roadside breath-screening testing devices for the youth zero blood-alcohol limit and research into the harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. Of course the day after the Royal assent is when most matters dealing with the repeal of existing provisions in the Transport Act will come into force. 
The other significant point that I wish to raise is the licensing age increase. Supplementary Order Paper 229 proposes to make that change to the licensing age on 1 August this year not 90 days after the Royal assent. The date of 1 August is a Monday and very much gives some certainty to parents and caregivers of young drivers etc. I hope that that puts Sue Moroney’s mind at rest on the commencement dates. 
There has been quite a bit of discussion this evening about the blood-alcohol limit particularly for youth drivers and we know what is involved there. There has been quite a bit of debate from the other side who are proposing that the blood-alcohol level be reduced to 0.05 grams. I did a little bit of research—[ 
Interruption 
] Members might be interested in this. In 2001 the then Minister of Justice Phil Goff said: “If we are going to change the limits there would need to be hard evidence.” Is not that amazing? So Phil Goff in 2001 as the Minister of Justice said that we need— 
Hon Member 
: That was 10 years ago. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. In 2001 Phil Goff said that we need hard evidence. He then sat at the Cabinet table for all of that period when Labour was in Government and he did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. Now we hear Labour members crying out in Opposition after 9 years of doing nothing while in Government whereas this Government is now allowing the police to collect this very important data and research. 
The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very pragmatic bill and we have seen that by the engagement we have had through the select committee process. I acknowledge members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who are from all sides of the Chamber. I acknowledge the contributions that they have made on this important bill. 
We all know that we need to do more on road safety and I have heard from members opposite tonight that this bill does not go far enough. Well this Government in just a couple of years under Steven Joyce’s stewardship has done an awful lot on road safety. I think we should be proud of what this Government has done in its first couple of years. 
Darien Fenton 
: Nanny State—cellphones. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Now we have an interjection of “nanny State” from the other side of the Chamber. On one hand those members are saying “nanny State” which was the catchphrase for them in the 2000s under Helen Clark and on the other hand we have a pragmatic set of changes that will make a huge difference. We all know that our young drivers are causing a great deal of harm to themselves and to others on our roading networks—14 percent of the population causes 37 percent of fatal crashes. We are making some serious changes to address that issue and I believe that it should have the widespread support of the Committee. I am disappointed that our Opposition wants to play politics on an issue that we are trying to address pragmatically. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson and let me also endorse some of the comments of previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. It is good to see you in the Chair once again and I look forward to your reminding us of the Standing Orders one after another for a very long time. 
Previous Opposition speakers have stood and said that Labour supports the bill for a number of reasons but I am actually quite amused by the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Tau Henare who suggested that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be renamed the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged Bill” which is probably what he believes. I would endorse that to a point. I would say that we should rename the bill the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged (but They Can Still Have a Couple of Beers More Before They Do Get Pinged) Bill” because what this bill fails to do is to take notice of public opinion. The public opinion is that the blood-alcohol limit should be lowered from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams and that clearly is something that the Government has ignored. As we know it is very dangerous to ignore strong public opinion particularly when it comes to matters of public safety on our roads so that is something we are quite disappointed to see in terms of this bill. 
However it is logical that we support this bill for a number of reasons such as the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers and the zero limit for drivers under 20—and we have seen much of that happen in recent years; actually over the past decade or so—the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders and the doubling of the minimum prison term for drink-driving drug-driving or reckless driving that causes death. These are all issues that affect all our communities. These are the issues that many of us as parents fear every time our young people leave home to go out and socialise with their friends and all the time that they are out we sit at home wondering whether they are OK. 
We in this Chamber should do everything possible to ensure that our young people are OK when they go out and socialise and that is why the Labour Opposition says that this bill does not go anywhere near to being enough to satisfy our concerns as we sit at home that our young people our tamariki and our mokopuna are safe out there on the streets and also that they are not endangering the lives of others. It is important that we have a rigorous debate about this particular legislation knowing that at some time or another it may affect any one of us in this Chamber in the most tragic way. 
I heard previous speakers refer to family circumstances. I am fortunate to have four sons. I have a 15-year-old who is coming up on 16 and who is currently about to go for his probationary driver’s licence. I know that his teenaged ambition is to achieve that. He wants to be an automotive mechanic. Unlike my other sons who have achieved to the very highest level in universities he just wants to be a mechanic. He just wants to be a person who can take a motorcar to pieces and put it back together on his own. I come from a trade as do many other people in this Chamber and it is a satisfying achievement to have a trade behind one. 
But having said that I look at the possibility of raising the age limit to 16 in terms of young people acquiring their driver’s licence and I think that my son will be fortunate to acquire his driver’s licence at that age and enter an automotive mechanics course at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and from there he can achieve just about anything he wants. If this legislation should come into force though it may be that it will restrict the ability of our young people in the future to achieve what many other young men and women have already achieved. On these courses a probationary driver’s licence is a necessity. One cannot get on to the course without it and that makes a lot of sense. How would someone fix a motorcar—pull it to pieces and put it back together—if he or she does not know how to drive it? It is like many other things. If we do not understand how the particular pieces of machinery work we will never become an expert at working on them. I want the Government to actually think about that. Although it is attempting to promote public safety albeit in a mediocre way it may also be limiting opportunities. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification. Can you give me some clarification and point to where it states in the Standing Orders that when two members from different sides of the Chamber get up a member from the same side as previously gets the call again? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all that is at the discretion of the Chair. Secondly once I have called a member I cannot take the call away from that member. I recognise the concern that the member has expressed and I have noted that. The call has already been given. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Mr Chair tena koe. It is very important that we note that your encyclopaedic knowledge of the arcane rules of Parliament has demonstrated that Tau represents zero waste because in order for waste to occur there has to be a product. For the entirety of this evening there has been no product. There has actually been an enormous amount of fog an enormous amount of confusion where that member prepared to deliver to his own Minister his commitment to vote against the bill. Mr Tau Henare had not chosen to read the bill; he did not realise that members on this side of the Chamber actually applaud some of what the Minister is doing in terms of taking a zero-tolerance approach towards very young and vulnerable drivers. Please can we enable the Minister to provide that message to Mr Tau Henare. 
I will talk about the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I suggest that it be called the “Land and Marine Transport (Road and Marine Safety) Bill” as that would enable us to actually address the issue of the day which is the gross danger and absence of safety in the marine environment today. There has been a total absence a total disinterest on the part of the Acting—and I use that term in its fullest meaning—Minister of Energy and Resources. I wish that the title of this bill had been expanded because that would have enabled us to address one of the larger safety issues today. It does relate to transport: it relates to the intrepid yachties who are bobbing around out there defending the rights of the tangata whenua up and down the Tai Rawhiti and who have been long since forgotten about by members on the other side of the Chamber. All that those people are doing is ensuring that their democratic rights are protected as they are transported around by yachts and as they stand against the dangers represented by exploration activity in the absence of environmental safeguards. That level of safety could have been addressed had we changed the title of this bill. 
I also want to talk about the commencement date. I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy for explaining to the Committee that there is a reason why all these dates and segments have been identified. It provides an opportunity for the police and various other agencies to prepare to enforce these rules. But that causes us to look at the Royal assent. I bring members’ attention to clause 2(4): “The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Royal assent has a very proud and rich history. It goes right back to the Royal Council at a time when Parliament was a pawn of the Sovereign. We have come right forward although I feel it is necessary for me to point out to a number of members that in the time of King Henry VIII he sought to avoid using the Royal assent when he sought to execute his fifth wife. The prospect of execution— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’ve been watching  
Robin Hood  
again. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
:—and the most voluble member over there is actually— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ve seen this movie. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Sir please counsel the member. If he keeps going on like that he will have another heart attack. He is getting too feverish; he runs the risk of having another heart attack. King Henry VIII and I think it was some time in the 1500s as he sought to execute his fifth wife was not interested in personally exercising the Royal assent and at that point he was able to deputise to commissioners so that he could effect the outcome and take his place in history. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who played Henry? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The term of execution and that member’s voice—they are inseparable. The execution unfortunately for that member will be delivered by his colleagues. When we use the term “zero” we are actually thinking about that poor man’s prospects. He has zero prospect of finding a seat. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman; it is an inspired decision. I am delighted to take a call on the title of and the commencement date for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill but before I do I wonder whether members will indulge me while I elaborate on the interjection on Mr Davis before the dinner break. I do not want him to think that I was being insensitive to the story he was telling in asking the question. I think that as he is not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee he may not have known what “BAC” was. He looked a bit blank. But sad though his uncle’s death was—and I say the same with regard to Mr Faafoi’s story—the point and the question I was asking was what the blood-alcohol content in his system was when he passed away. The fact of the matter is— 
Kelvin Davis 
: 0.07. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Is the member putting that in  
Hansard 
 now as an interjection knowing it to be true? All right it must be true because he has put it in  
Hansard.  
There we have it on record: it was 0.07 grams. That is very interesting. 
Labour members have spoken at length about research—some 300 pieces of research—that they claim demonstrates unequivocally that people are safer at 0.05 grams than at 0.08 grams. In fact those 300 pieces of research do not say anything like that. What they establish is that the greater the level of alcohol content the higher the risk. Well that is hardly a revelation is it? That has been known for a very long period of time. Some studies will go to a risk curve of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams but the simple question which is the premise of this bill and the reason for the collection of the research still has not been answered—that is if a person has a blood-alcohol content of 0.05 grams to 0.08 grams how many of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads are caused by people with that blood-alcohol content where those people are at fault? The simple fact is that we do not know. 
Although we have a bill that is named the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that question could fall into either of those categories because it is a road safety question but it definitely also falls into the “Other Matters” category. It is on the other matters that I will briefly touch. One of the disappointing aspects of the Committee stage of this bill is that there are so many other matters that I expected members like Darien Fenton would have raised because the bill goes to the issue of road truck safety. She made very few references to that—I think she made one brief comment about it—and none of the very excellent changes that this bill brings about has been mentioned by Labour. 
I could come up with a number of titles that Labour members might have suggested although they did not. One could be the “Land Transport (We Are Really Keen on a 0.05 Gram Limit but We Are Prepared to Sacrifice Our 15-year-old Boys) Bill” because that is exactly what those members are prepared to do. The unequivocal research states that those kids are far far less safe on our roads. Just being a driver aged 15 to 19 without having had any alcohol creates a death risk five times greater than that of a 30-year-old driver. But Labour members are prepared to completely avoid any of that evidence in the interests of expediency and the fact that those 15-year-olds will be voters in 3 years’ time. Labour has given away 2011; they want those 15-year-olds to vote for Labour in 3 years’ time. As I said I wish them good luck with that. Those members are prepared to allow those kids to kill and to maim themselves on the roads but they are not prepared to wait for the equivocal evidence that exists right now to be much clearer in 2 years’ time when we will have created the evidence base that we need in order to decide whether to change the limit for blood-alcohol content. 
I appreciate the call taken by the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport particularly on Ms Moroney’s challenge about the commencement dates. There are very sound reasons why the taking of blood and in particular the new technologies that are available for the safe taking of blood from suspects—which the Committee heard about—will take quite a bit of time to be gazetted and put into practice in our hospitals and primary health care facilities. 
With that I think we are coming towards the end of this Committee stage. It has been a robust debate. I am quite sure that members on the other side have nothing new to say but the Chairperson may wish to challenge that. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will talk on the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it should have another couple of words in it: “Selective Evidence”. What we have heard tonight is a lot of selective evidence to try to justify what is in terms of the alcohol question a pretty sad story. 
I will go back to what I was talking about before. What happened with this bill was that the Prime Minister John Key asked the Ministry of Transport to check whether a glass of wine might put people over the blood-alcohol limit. He was so nervous about that and what it might mean to the constituency that they decided not to change the limit. As it turned out Mr Joyce found that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine which he termed “ridiculous” before he was over the limit. But by that stage they had already made up their minds based on thinking that perhaps a change would be too nanny State to keep the limit at 0.08 grams rather than 0.05 grams. Here is where it becomes interesting because there is a historical record that has nothing to do with evidence. Then Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill to bring the level from 0.08 down to 0.05. What happened? Well Mr Key said that National would make it a conscience vote. A lot of people over there on the National side would have voted—I guarantee Jackie Blue being a doctor would have—for the level to go down from 0.08 to 0.05. But Mr Joyce in caucus said “Well actually that makes me look rather stupid—or more stupid.” So what he decided was suddenly it would be a caucus vote. 
By this stage National has dug a hole so deep that it cannot get itself out of it but popular opinion is two to one in favour of bringing the blood-alcohol limit down from 0.08 to 0.05. And so we should. As Michael Woodhouse just said as the amount of alcohol permitted increases the incidence of accidents increases. If we compare 0.05 with 0.08 there is a pretty good chance that the accident rate increases as a result of the extra intake of alcohol. That is what he said and I completely agree with him. Therefore I cannot understand why that party is still saying it is basing its policy on evidence when it knows that it is based on political bungling on the part of Mr Joyce. That is what it is—nothing less than a bit of political bungling. 
If Mr Joyce was really interested in bringing the road toll down by approximately five deaths a year then he would probably do something about the road between Warkworth and Wellsford the “Holiday Highway”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re banging on that drum again are we? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Oh yes. Five people a year die on that particular stretch of road. Instead the Minister is improving at great cost—more than a billion dollars—the road between Puhoi and Warkworth. Why is that? Because people turn off at Warkworth to go to their baches at Omaha including the Prime Minister. He has a bach at Omaha. I suspect that Mr Joyce finds himself going to that particular area as well. Over the holiday period he does not want to be tied down by cars stopping him from getting to where he wants to go—that is of course if he is not using the helicopter. Mr Key will now be able to drive up to Omaha in a seat-warmed BMW in the wintertime without any interference because the road will be nice and smooth. 
As a result of that work on the road between Warkworth and Wellsford is being delayed. On that road five people a year die. On the other road from Puhoi to Warkworth one person a year on average dies. We could make some incredibly simple cheap modifications to that road based on solid evidence. That is why I say the title of this bill should include “Selective Evidence”. Political expediency is why the Government is pushing through these clauses. We could make a real difference by improving the Warkworth to Wellsford road. We could make a real improvement in the status of the road. 
The other piece of evidence that has been overlooked in this debate relates to the raising of the driver age. We all know that anywhere in the world not just here in New Zealand drivers between 15 and 25 years old particularly males create the largest amount of traffic accidents and traffic deaths but it is important to note and nobody mentioned it on the other side of the Chamber that that rate is coming down. In 1986 nearly 17 percent of all road deaths were caused by people in the 15 to 19-year-old age group. By 2006 it had dropped down to just over 11 percent. It is important to note that for that particular age group the rate of driving accidents has reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that pushing up the driving age from 15 years to closer to 17—because by the time people get their full licences they will not be 16; they will actually be 17—will bring about a decrease in road deaths. 
Labour members agree with having better driver education. We think it is hugely important. UK driver education is superior to ours and that could be a contributing factor in the road toll there being less. An extended learner period for drivers is also important. It is very interesting to note that when 15 to 16-year-old drivers are in a car with an adult they have a lower accident rate than other adults. So it is not actually an issue of competence; it is simply an issue of experience in driving cars. Most studies will tell us that at least 250 hours of driving experience is necessary before somebody becomes a competent driver. So the experience of the driver not the age is the critical point here. No matter which age someone starts driving at the first 2 years after they get their licence are the most critical not only here in New Zealand but elsewhere internationally. 
I think that as a number of our speakers have pointed out by raising the driving age to 16—in effect 17—we will disadvantage many people particularly in rural areas. Many people aged 16 or 17 have started work and are doing shift work. They will not be able to get to work. We will disadvantage those people whereas today they are certainly not disadvantaged. Labour members are in the unusual situation of supporting Federated Farmers because its submission was actually a very good one. It pointed out exactly what I just said—the evidence as opposed to the rhetoric. I say that the position Labour is taking is possibly not the one that has the most popular support out there in the community but we are taking it because we believe we should put in legislation based on evidence. The Minister of Science and Innovation who is in the Chamber at the moment will agree with me because the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser just released a report that said our policies and our law should be based more strongly on evidence. I totally agree with him. Yet in this critical legislation the Government is willing to throw that evidence out the window. 
The bill is supported by Labour. It has some really excellent provisions in it but it falls short on the issue of alcohol and the issue of the driving age. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 It is 6 minutes past 8. [ 
Interruption 
] I think that is evidence of the nature of that member’s contribution to his caucus but I do not want to go there because the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. I respect the contributions our colleagues have made on that side of the Chamber because we will agree with this bill. 
There are areas that our colleagues on this side of the Chamber are not all that flash on but none of us is prepared to impede the progress of the bill. As one of the members residing in Dunedin said we are probably getting towards the final stage of the Committee’s consideration of the bill. But although he is a very avid contributor to the debate I should say that his ability to influence the conduct of the Minister in relation to the interests of the people of Dunedin in terms of transport industry development or transport industry production is somewhere near zero. I have no doubt that he has sought to use his many skills some of which come across with a somewhat haughty tone. He has sought to use them on the Minister of Transport. I can understand that because he is dealing with a very tough character. Despite his using every technique of tone stature—diminished of course—and other skills picked up and expertise sourced from his earlier forays on the rugby field unfortunately he has not managed to protect one single transport-related job. He has not improved the safety and other matters of the workforce who are exposed to that part of the transport industry otherwise known as the rolling stock of the railway industry. But this is not about the railways per se; this is about safety. I was unfortunately interrupted by Tau Henare’s contribution of intellect which was like an empty vessel—loud but vacant. 
I will continue with my brief account of why Royal assent is very important. Tau Henare may wish to know that in the land of his ancestors Scotland—I personally have not seen my relation Tau in a tartan skirt; I think I have seen him in a piupiu—Royal assent is not applied to legislation of the nature of this bill until a period of 2 or 3 weeks elapses. That enables an agency with a constitutional authority to refer the bill in order to test its legality and lawfulness to the highest court—I presume the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.  
The concept of Royal assent as I have said earlier is traced back to the concept of Curia Regis the Royal Council which comprised bishops people of nobility and people from the boroughs and shires and was popularised by that person otherwise known as the father of parliamentary democracy Simon de Montfort. Those are things that Tau Henare may or may not find of more than a passing relevance.  
This evening we are coming to the final stages of the bill and we are prepared to usher it forward so it can go to the next stage. We support any initiative that improves the prospects of our young people changing their ways. But of course before they change their ways a number of us have to address our own ways. The less said about that the better. In addition we will support the Minister of Transport. We are disappointed that he did not accept our two or three amendments but we will support the Minister because he is largely carrying forward the seeds of a safety policy that originated from the previous Labour Government. He has picked up the Labour policy. Unfortunately he has distorted some of the better elements to do with the alcohol limit and the point at which our young people should be able to drive legally but deep down the underlying momentum has come from the previous Labour Government. We introduced a safety policy and the Minister gave it a new name. The challenge the Minister has to address now is to extend safety into the appropriation of the National Land Transport Fund so that when it is spent it is spent to improve safety. Kia ora. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 This call will be short but I will respond to Michael Woodhouse who said that the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I think a new title for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill could be the “Come Down Hard on the 15-year-olds but Sacrifice the 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to the Wolves Bill”. If National members were true to their evidence base and research they would not have cut out the 15-year-olds and said they should be protected because as Michael Woodhouse stated the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I wonder what National members have against 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Surely those young people deserve the same protections that National members say 15-year-olds will enjoy under the legislation. To me it seems really rich that National members will die in a ditch for 15-year-olds but will sacrifice 16 to 19-year-olds on the roads of New Zealand. 
When Labour comes out with sensible legislation that protects people it is called nanny State but when National does it we hear from the Minister that the Government is being pragmatic. The bill is called pragmatic legislation. I think “pragmatic” and “nanny State” are synonyms; they will be found under the same heading in the thesaurus. If National members want to call this daddy State legislation pragmatic then we will call it what it really is—koro State legislation. 
The issue of the age of 15 is the low-hanging fruit. It was so easy for National members to say: “We did not want to risk a really big public backlash by saying that young people cannot get their licence until they are 19 so instead we will make it look as though we will make a really big difference by targeting just 15-year-olds who cannot vote yet. We will not make them upset. But if we make it harder for 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to get their licences then oops they may not vote for us.” They will see nanny State in action and they will remember it come 26 November. That is what the National Government has done. It has picked the low-hanging fruit. It has targeted 15-year-olds. National members do not care what happens to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds who are also targeted in the research. It is really sad that National’s values flip-flop and chop and change depending on which way the polls blow. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 226 and 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. On behalf of the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill and for hearing over 200 submissions which has resulted in changes to the bill. 
As members of Parliament and those in the community who are interested in this issue will know the bill has had a long genesis and has involved a complex debate on difficult issues. At the heart of the issues was the impact of the Internet on copyright law and the effect it had on incentivising creators to produce original works. 
It is important in law that we provide appropriate protection for creative industries so that they can continue to provide jobs for New Zealanders and continue to contribute to our economy. But at the same time the creative industries must adapt to changing technologies and the changing market place for creative works. 
The Copyright Act 1994 grants exclusive rights to creators of original works so that in a sense they can make an economic return on their creative endeavours. That situation provides a vibrant industry in the fields of music literature films and software in particular. So ensuring that copyright owners have effective measures to enforce their copyright is consistent with the Government’s key goal of encouraging economic growth. However amendments made to the Copyright Act in 2008 were intended to bring the 1994 Act in line with the contemporary digital landscape. These amendments included the insertion of section 92A in the Copyright Act—and I note that Clare Curran the member for Dunedin South has written extensively on this issue in her various blogs—which has required Internet service providers to adopt and reasonably implement a policy for the termination of repeat copyright infringers. 
However as the House will know public and industry opinion was that section 92A was in fact unworkable. Accordingly this Government stopped that provision from coming into force and undertook to look at the issue again. So this bill the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 and also amends Part 6 of the Act to provide a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements. 
Currently copyright owners lack an effective enforcement measure against illegal file-sharing which is somewhat practised by many people who use the Internet often of a younger age group. 
Clare Curran 
: Do you? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I would not do that. However I note that I do know younger relatives who may possibly have done that. Claims in the District Court for copyright infringement via file sharing would be too expensive and costly for both the copyright owners and for those wishing to contest infringement claims. The current process is unduly complicated in that copyright owners need to apply for a court order to get an Internet service provider to release an Internet account holder’s details before they can make a claim. 
The bill provides for copyright owners or their representatives to send information showing alleged copyright infringement via file sharing to the relevant Internet service provider. The Internet service provider will then match that information to an account holder and it may then—and this is the important point—send up to three infringement notices within the prescribed time frames. This is known as the three-notice rule. 
If the account holder ignores those warnings and continues infringing the bill provides for the copyright owner to take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal. The tribunal can make awards of up to $15000. As other speakers will note there are other provisions in the bill including a provision for copyright owners to apply to the District Court as opposed to the Copyright Tribunal for the suspension of an Internet account for up to 6 months in appropriate circumstances. 
The key recommendation from the Commerce Committee is that provisions in the bill relating to Internet suspension do not come into force until such time as specified by an Order in Council. I should note that there were a large number of submissions on this specific issue arguing both for and against Internet suspension as a deterrent for copyright infringement. The compromise recommended by the Commerce Committee and supported by the Government is one that provides the right balance between the interests of Internet users and the need for an effective deterrent against illegal file-sharing. The Government is committed to monitoring the infringement notice process and the Copyright Tribunal process in order to determine whether they are in fact sufficient deterrents to illegal file-sharing. 
Another key recommendation from the select committee is that Internet service providers will not be initially required to set up a notice-sending system for their mobile broadband networks which of course are increasingly popular systems for file sharing. This covers a period of 2 years after the bill comes into force whilst the Government monitors any copyright infringing activity from these sources as those devices increase in their capability. However an Order in Council can change the date that these networks are included if there is a substantial increase in the volume of file sharing over mobile broadband and that would be an essential part of noting change in technology and change in Internet capacity through broadband networks. 
There were a number of submissions on whether the bill should include specific exceptions to prevent an order or award being made by the Copyright Tribunal or the District Court against an Internet account holder. The Government considers that the Commerce Committee has developed a sensible recommendation on this particular issue. The committee has recognised that creating specific exceptions in itself would create loopholes and has instead recommended that the tribunal or the court has the discretion not to make an award or order where it would be manifestly unjust. This will allow the relevant body to determine on the facts of each case whether an award should be made in the circumstances. 
It is important to note that Internet users should attempt to ensure that their connections should not be used for illegal purposes—that is a very circumspect sentence. There may be a number of useful technical procedural amendments proposed by the committee that the Government will support. The Government will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage which will propose minor technical amendments. The Supplementary Order Paper will also amend the commencement date for the Act from 1 July 2011 to 1 September 2011. 
In closing I reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensure the Copyright Act remains a useful and effective tool for New Zealand’s creative industries which contribute significantly and whose contribution will increase in the future. As I know from my role as the Minister of Science and Innovation they will contribute significantly to our economy our culture and our role in the wider world. I commend the bill to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I have mixed feelings about the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill coming before the House today. The House is in urgency and given that the bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for months nothing about today or tomorrow requires the bill to be passed quickly. The Government uses urgency excessively. Before I get into the substance of the bill I will quickly mention some recent statistics about urgency that were compiled by my colleague Grant Robertson. In just over 2 years of the National Government 17 bills have been passed without referral to a select committee compared with five or fewer in the full 3 years of the three previous parliaments. There are reasons to justify urgency from time to time but not to that extent. 
One thing about the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill is sure: it did go to a select committee. There was robust debate in the Commerce Committee and throughout the community and there has been much to-ing and fro-ing on the bill. The outcome is not perfect but with the support of both sides of the House the legislation is better than what was passed in 2008. Labour supports the bill but we still have reservations and I will be speaking about them. 
I also want to say that in some ways I am pleased the legislation has come back before the House. It was the first portfolio issue of communications and information technology that I took on board and I realised pretty quickly that the rising discontent and dismay among the community about new and emerging technologies and the creation and distribution of digital content had to be addressed and that we parliamentarians were mostly out of touch. 
If I thought I would get a straight answer—although I think there was nearly one from over on the other side of the House earlier—I would ask all members right now to put up their hands if they have or if they know someone who has illegally downloaded material. I would like to think that many of us as a result of the discussions that have gone on around the bill and in the wider context are now a bit more in touch with reality on what people are doing on the Internet. 
The bill has created a lot of interest. There were 237 submissions including 31 supplementary submissions. In the coming years the Internet will become increasingly essential in all of our lives. Disconnection of accounts is a disproportionate remedy for file sharing. We needed a law but we did not need a bad law. The bill represents better law. I know that it will not please everyone—in fact there are parts of the bill that some submitters still oppose—but there are times when it is important to negotiate in order to get an outcome that is less bad than taking a high moral stand and ending up with something we fundamentally cannot live with. Negotiation is not a one-way street and I am pleased to say that my experiences in negotiating with the Minister of Commerce Simon Power on the bill and in the Commerce Committee have been constructive. 
Labour is prepared to support the bill through its remaining stages due only to a compromise that we reached with National that no New Zealander will have his or her Internet connection suspended as a result of the bill. Labour’s preferred option was to completely omit account suspension provisions from the bill but National’s position was intractable. Account suspension provisions remain in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future but any Minister who implements termination will have to wear the consequences. 
Rather than oppose the bill outright we are prepared to compromise to ensure that New Zealanders are not denied access to the Internet which is something that so many people rely heavily on today. If the suspension penalty is used the Minister of Commerce will have to enact the clause by Order in Council putting the onus on the creative industries to prove that there is a case to terminate access and that the notice system is not working. Let us be very clear: if it were not for this compromise then the bill before us today would state that New Zealanders’ Internet accounts could be cut off for 6 months. Labour would have opposed the bill and it would have been bad law. 
Although the high moral ground might be a great place it is not much good when we are left standing on our own and the world moves on around us. Labour wanted to have an impact on the bill—and we have—but we have not got everything we wanted and we have not got everything that many in the community wanted. This bill is not Labour’s bill. Section 92A was from our bill and despite the good intentions to make it work it resulted in a grand stoush between the different parties that led to a rethink. Labour pushed for and supported that rethink. 
I will quickly mention the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming before the House today on proposed new section 122MA. I know that the proposed new section has caused some more consternation in the industry in relation to what appeared to be an attempt to push through a guilty by accusation regime and to put the onus on the account holder to prove that he or she has not infringed when all the rights-holder has done is file a notice of infringement. What appears in the bill appears to put the onus on the account holder and the words used—“an infringement notice is conclusive evidence”—are misleading and wrong. We understood they were wrong after the industry approached us and we sought further talks with the Government. The Government agreed to amend the clause and to ensure that once a notice is received and the Copyright Tribunal process triggered all the account holder has to do is respond and challenge the notice. That will trigger a reversal of the onus and put it on to the rights-holder to prove that an infringement has occurred. 
What we have ended up with is better. The bill is not perfect but it is better than the process in many other jurisdictions. Right now in the UK implementation of its Digital Economy Act legislation that is designed to crack down on unlawful file-sharing is being delayed by a judicial review in the High Court because of a challenge brought by Internet service providers. Internet providers BT and TalkTalk demanded the judicial review arguing that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without proper debate. They claimed that the measures unnecessarily impact on users’ privacy and force Internet service providers to police copyright infringement on the Net. The courts will consider whether the Act is in line with the European legislation—in particular as it relates to users’ privacy and the role of Internet service providers. If the court finds in favour of the Internet service providers then the Act will no longer be enforceable. 
Thankfully the bill before us today was worked through and compromise was reached albeit somewhat grudgingly. That brings me to a reason why I am pleased the bill is before the House today and why if we had to choose the issues in the bill that are plaguing people are kind of minor in comparison with the bigger picture. I refer to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which is a free-trade agreement of sorts that is currently under negotiation between New Zealand and eight other countries including the US. The agreement is an attack on our sovereignty and what it currently contains in relation to intellectual property issues is truly frightening. Leaked texts of the Internet Protocol chapter reveal that if the agreement is accepted in its present form and if New Zealand signs up then the bill will be chicken feed in comparison. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is the next battleground for intellectual property in New Zealand and we all need to unite around it. 
Auckland-based Internet protocol lawyer Rick Shera has written about this issue recently. He said: “The return of s92A guilt on accusation repeat infringer termination of internet accounts—3 strikes … the US wants us to effectively scrap the last 3 years of consultation around the replacement of section 92A and the reasonably balanced (but still not perfect) approach we are working towards in the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill … Imagine you’re an ISP who has to bear the cost of gearing up for that regime only to be told later in the year that its Ground Hog Day and we’re all going back to the section 92A debacle.” 
Labour has said that the leaked text on intellectual property copyright and parallel importing in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations requires an emphatic rejection from the New Zealand Government. The secrecy surrounding these provisions is of real concern. The leaked United States provisions are plainly not in New Zealand’s interests. 
The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill is a compromise. We support it but we have serious reservations about suspension of Internet accounts as a penalty. Thankfully termination will not be enacted. We are concerned about the costs of this new regime about where the costs will fall and about who will pay. We will keep a watching brief on the onus of proof issue raised in proposed new section 122MA and on whether mobile technology is affected and will be included in the legislation in a few years’ time. The bill is a lot better than it was. As long as termination of accounts remains unenacted we will support the bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise in this second reading to support the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. Before I talk to the specific sections of the bill I will remind the previous speaker Clare Curran about a little of its history. 
The original section 92A of the Copyright Act was added by the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act passed by the Labour Government and led by the Hon Judith Tizard. That section actually caused such an outcry from opponents and industry stakeholders that it raised serious concerns. I was not in Parliament to support that bill but I know that Judith Tizard pushed it through. As a result our National-led Government has not brought section 92A into force. A number of industry people were against the Labour legislation and the Internet Blackout campaign drew international support against it. So it is rich that the previous speaker has come to this House and said that she grudgingly accepts this bill. 
We did a lot of hard work on this bill and there was a lot of consultation with various stakeholders within the industry. What has come about I believe is a firm but fair compromise which is about making the legislation more workable and effective. It discourages illegal file-sharing and it provides more effective measures in order to protect our creative industries and help them enforce their copyrights not just in the Copyright Tribunal but in the District Court. 
What does the legislation do? As the Minister pointed out the three-notice regime includes Internet service providers sending warning notices to customers informing them that they have infringed copyright. Part of that regime is about warnings but part of it is about education. A number of surveys have shown that people who share files do not actually understand that they are breaking the law—they do not. Part of the notice regime is to educate those people. Many of them are young but I would not totally blame young users of the Internet for transgressing the laws; I think that people across the board are part of the society that breaks the law. 
The tribunal can award up to $15000 in penalties based on the damages. The suspension regime that is part of this bill can be brought in by Order in Council. What is important here is that the Government will work with stakeholders to monitor and review the situation. We will monitor and review the situation and if suspension is deemed to be the appropriate measure based on the facts over time after a review then that is what will happen. But suffice it to say that we need to monitor the situation. The Ministry of Economic Development will work with various stakeholders including the member opposite Clare Curran who said she was none too happy about the result of this bill. But at the end of the day I thought all parties were happy and that a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements had come about. 
It is a good bill. I think it will be effective and workable in the long run. Stakeholders—certainly those who have come to me both personally and at the Commerce Committee—are happy with the situation which will be reviewed and monitored going forward. I support this bill. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am not on the Commerce Committee but it is interesting that we are talking about conflict here. When the original Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was proposed it was supported by National at the time and it was actually the Internet service providers who as a voice and as an industry voice rose up and said they had some very real concerns about it. I heard the leader of our committee Clare Curran speak and she did not attack it at all; she said Labour had some reservations. I tell the House that we do support this bill and this position. 
This position has come about because this bill I think has not been rushed. It went to the Commerce Committee and submitters were heard and given their day of having their democratic right exercised at the select committee. It is as the result of that and of considerable negotiation that we have come to this position today. We have serious concerns and reservations about the suspension of Internet accounts as a penalty for breaching copyright but because of the compromise that has been reached democratically at the select committee—and I congratulate all members and the chair—Labour members are now prepared to support this legislation and we reiterate that in the House tonight. 
All of us in New Zealand know that it is incredibly important for copyright to protect our local artists our musicians and our creative industry producers. They are the heart and soul of New Zealand and their very success shapes us as New Zealanders and the face of New Zealand internationally. We would never want to damage those creators of creative products who are very much at risk through the copyright provisions proposed in this bill. We in Labour strongly believe that those who create music films and other entertainment should have their work protected from piracy. I am sure members of the Government believe the same because we are all incredibly proud of our creative industries which are growing industries in New Zealand. The creative industries would provide opportunities for more jobs and more work if only the Government would put emphasis into the training of people in those industries but we do not see that at all. Our opposition to the suspension provision takes nothing away from the support of our local artists. We agree that repeated copyright infringements deserve a penalty but the balance is all about what that penalty is and what that penalty regime is. 
I congratulate those who spoke up and submitted to the select committee. Labour wants to give all of their industries a fair go and to make sure that everyone pays their fair share. That is Labour’s principled approach to most of our policy positions. There are jobs in this industry especially in the information technology industry and especially in interactive video games that are yet to be created but they are intrinsically linked to the development of the “New Zealand Inc.” information technology identity. I think those jobs are very worthy and need protection. 
We still have serious reservations about the suspension of Internet accounts as a penalty for breaching copyright. Amendments were made and compromise was reached at the Commerce Committee—and I congratulate members on that negotiation—which means we will now support the legislation. I think that is positive. We were assured by the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power that no New Zealander would have their Internet connection suspended as a result of this bill. 
I think that National member Sam Lotu-Iiga was absolutely right; most people on the Internet when they become Internet-savvy do not use it to infringe. They do not infringe intentionally. But I know the younger generation and I have certainly seen evidence of infringement amongst my children’s generation when they download. I do not think they see that as being illegal at all. If they infringe copyright with what they download then we have a problem. Information technology creatives are also creative in finding ways around and in circumventing any disconnection. They will do that simply by setting up multiple Internet service provider connections and we know that. This industry moves very rapidly in creativity. When in Government Labour was very aware of piracy and we were aware of piracy in lots of areas too such as films and lots of other creative products. We wanted Internet service providers to do their own policing of illegal downloading and to have a policy—just a policy—for terminating active repeat offenders. 
We still have concerns about this bill but it is great that we are debating it in the House tonight. The regulatory impact statement states there is a case for intervention but there is uncertainty about the scale of harm done by illegal file-sharing. The case has not been clearly made that sales of music and movies via the Internet are decreasing due to illegal file-sharing. The regulatory impact statement did not have a preferred option which shows that the case has not been clearly made that sales of music and movies via the Internet are decreasing due to illegal file-sharing. 
Some sections in the bill remain problematic. The infringement notice is a burden and the bill actually says that people will have to prove that they did not in fact infringe a copyright. Some submitters raised concerns about that point at the select committee and I am pleased that the Minister has attempted to clarify that under the Supplementary Order Paper put forward today. 
I think there has been a good process. It has been a robust process and Labour certainly now supports the bill. I congratulate all of the committee members. I am pleased about the Supplementary Order Paper. I think we have to be very aware of the trans-Tasman implications. When we think we have fixed legislation in New Zealand we may find some other global implications we need to be very careful of. But to all intents and purposes we support the bill. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a kotou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the hard work of the Commerce Committee members. I might be a geek but I am not the type that can fix a computer. Information and communications technology is one of my 11 portfolios—I have a bundle—and to be honest I do not have a huge history of looking into technology or copyright issues. But I acknowledge that I really enjoyed hearing the submissions on this bill and learning more. 
I love New Zealand music; I love New Zealand film. I want those artists to make a fair living through their art. I thank all the submitters. The message I heard from them was clear. The Green Party will be opposing the bill tonight because we have always opposed and we continue to oppose account termination or suspension as a remedy for file infringing whenever it is written into legislation. Even if not immediately enacted the termination provision should not be there—full stop. 
The Green Party also opposes the use of urgency to pass all stages of this bill through the House with no warning that it was coming. 
Tonight I will touch a little on my personal reflections on the select committee process highlight the improvements that have been made—because some were made in the select committee—and lastly explain the reasons why the Green Party will be opposing this bill tonight. Without any technical background—except maybe website surfing gaming and no doubt unintentionally listening to pirated material—I went to the select committee to hear submissions on the bill. I went in with an open mind and I met with both sides of the debate outside the room. 
In my first reading speech I focused on how the Internet had built connections increased global communications contributed to more collaborative ways of working and revolutionised business and the global economy. The Internet has unleashed fantastic creativity from the arts to academia and business. However making a business out of creativity is in some cases not viable because of illegal file-sharing. 
The Green Party supported this bill at its first reading stating that although we did not think it would solve all the problems it might play a part in the solution and we looked forward to hearing more in the select committee. The Green Party thinks the current bill is significantly better than its predecessor which introduced the Draconian section 92A and was put forward by Labour during the last term. This bill repeals the existing section 92A legislation and replaces it with a “notice and notice” system which copyright-holders can then use to go to an Internet service provider which has the power to ultimately go to the tribunal to ask for penalties for repeated copyright infringement. 
I think it is important to remind this House that the Green Party was the only party in this House to oppose the section 92A nonsense at every stage. We offered amendments in an attempt to fix it. 
I acknowledge that significant improvements were made to this bill in the select committee. Those changes included clearing up the definition of “Internet service provider”; excluding universities; limiting the scope to cover only file-sharing technology not one-offs from email or websites; and amending rules so that Internet service providers are no longer required to consider whether to accept challenges reject them or refer them on to rights-holders. All challenges are now passed on to the rights-holder. 
It is good to see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper from Minister Power on the Table addressing section 122MA which is the “guilt on accusation” section. However the financial damages include a punitive element and are not merely compensatory. This is especially important in New Zealand where often we are at the end of US or European-based supply chains. We can wait months or sometimes years to get access to content that is freely available overseas. The introduction of a compensatory penalty or more controversially a zero-dollar penalty for infringing against international products that are not available in New Zealand may have encouraged rights-holders to provide digital content sooner to Kiwis. 
Internet account suspension as a remedy for file sharing was the big issue at the select committee and the one that many submitted on. Determined opposition was clear from independent groups and consumers as was the desire by rights-holders to wave this termination stick. The key question at the committee was whether suspension of a person’s Internet account for copyright infringement was a needed deterrent tool that would however unlikely actually be used by copyright-holders or whether it was an ineffective tool—as David Farrar put it “an unproportional response and a bad precedent.” 
In the end the select committee reached a compromise whereby termination was drafted into law as a remedy but available only if the Minister enacted it in the termination clause. I like compromise and the idea of parties working together towards a solution so I was initially very keen on it. But in the end after really searching within myself I came to the conclusion there was no way Parliament should be drafting into law something so disproportionate to the problem. It will not stop the pirating of copyright material and it could take away people’s access to the Internet which in today’s wire world is I believe a human right. 
We should remember that file infringing is a civil offence not a criminal offence. Often people are sharing files because they are simply not available in New Zealand because of the antiquated distribution system of the global behemoth that uses it to extract as much profit as possible. We should also remember that net profits have increased in the digital age for many film and music industry players and only certain distribution channels have dropped precariously. 
Ultimately I think termination should never ever be written into legislation. We believe it sets a bad precedent is disproportionate to the problem and will not solve the issue. The Green Party asserts that there is danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may be only temporary and a result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models. The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing and I believe that punishment should be proportionate to the offence. Citizens are not denied the right to use a telephone just because it happened to be used in the commission of a crime and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era where more and more public services are provided only online. 
An additional risk from the select committee’s compromise is that far from a compromise it is likely to be just a delay. We cannot support this being written into law. The compromise deal reached to secure the Labour Party’s support avoids responsibility and passes the decision on to the Minister. Parliament should be the determiner of this not the current or a future Minister no matter how well intentioned their comments. 
The Minister who obviously supported termination in the original bill will now likely face an intense lobbying push by rights-holders keen to have this stick and wave it at Kiwis as soon as they can. As the Creative Freedom Foundation has pointed out this is not a solution. In fact it is a massive problem because there are no Government statistics about infringing Internet downloading in New Zealand. The decision will be made on lobbying. Internet termination will be enabled in Cabinet not in this debating chamber. 
In summary the Green Party thinks this bill is significantly better than its predecessor. We are glad to see the changes made in the select committee and we are happy that a compromise was made at the select committee so that termination will not be enacted immediately. However we believe it is just a delay and we cannot support termination being written into law. We support the three-strikes “notice and notice” system and believe notices and fines will be sufficient. Research commissioned by the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft found that a notice from the Internet service provider would be enough to stop 71 percent of New Zealand young people further accessing illegal copies of digital files. 
We support Kiwi rights-holders and Kiwi artists and we think the use of notices and fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate and proportionate sanction for file sharing. Access to the Internet is vital for engagement with our modern world and the Green Party will have no part in legislating it away from the people. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to speak on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill which deals with the concept of file sharing. In most cases the Maori Party would advocate that the art of sharing is a practice we endorse but in this case sharing takes on the more negative meaning—what is described as unauthorised sharing which I guess in street talk might also be called pinching or theft. File sharing is about the transfer of material usually music movies or software via the Internet between two points usually two Internet users. Sharing of copyright works often occurs without the authorisation of the copyright owner and that is illegal. This bill is to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. It aims to deter file sharing that infringes copyright deter and educate the public about the problem compensate copyright owners for damage sustained through file sharing by widening the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal to award damages provide sanctions for serious copyright infringers and limit Internet service provider liability that may result from account holders infringing files. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill throughout its remaining stages. Our research tells us that the creative industries are being massacred by illegal sharing overseas and the same trends are very clearly starting to emerge here in New Zealand. We also know that there are an estimated 4698 Maori directly employed in the creative industries which are the most impacted by illegal file-sharing and that does not include people in indirect employment such as lawyers or accountants. Take for instance local performing artists such as Stan Walker Maisey Rika or Bic Runga. Like most artists they will be affected by illegal downloading and file-sharing. Illegal downloading and file-sharing has resulted in a loss of income for the majority of local artists and that has made it increasingly difficult for New Zealand artists to earn a living by making music in this country. That is despite the fact that excitement and interest in new local musical artists is higher than ever. Illegal downloading and file-sharing means that record copies are generating less revenue which in turn means that we have fewer resources to invest in new New Zealand artists. 
In our consultation with various Maori involved in the industry we were told it would be a huge drawback for copyright-holders to chase up infringement because most copyright-holders are people who work on their own with no infrastructure no administrative support and no coffers full of money to pay for the work required to do so. We were also told that no industry can sustain itself on a free model nor can creators make a living if what they create is free. The bill then goes a long way to deterring illegal file-sharing. Even from the limited and selective consultation process we have been through we know that Maori artists absolutely support this bill as they believe it will have a positive impact on the ability of local artists to earn a living as musicians. 
We note also the advice of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand known as RIANZ. The association represents 60 major and independent record companies more than 1100 New Zealand recording artists and producers and over 95 percent of commercially released recorded music in New Zealand. It told the Commerce Committee that the direct impact file sharing has on the record industry and its recording artists including local New Zealand labels and artists is substantial. Sales figures for the New Zealand music industry including New Zealand and international artists show that for the period from 2001 to 2009 the total value of album and individual track audio sales dropped from $119 million to less than $70 million per year. That seems a staggering reduction in sales which essentially is at the core of the problem being addressed by this bill. 
There was also some heartening evidence during the select committee stage that some basic interventions could make a significant difference. Judge David Harvey shared the results of the Synovate survey  
Movie File Sharing Amongst Young New Zealanders 
 which found that more than 70 percent of respondents in New Zealand would cease infringing activities if they received a letter from their Internet service provider. All it takes is a good old-fashioned letter. This finding has been corroborated by a similar survey in France in 2008 which found that 90 percent of users would stop illegal file-sharing after two warnings from their Internet service provider. 
There are some other relevant issues we want to raise in the debate. As we know technology changes so rapidly that a bill such as this one could well be obsolete in a year or two as Internet sharks find new platforms and channels that get around laws such as this one. Vesting the entire Internet copyright issue in regulation will ensure that the rules for such offences can be changed quickly to keep up with the changing online landscape. 
Finally I will just touch on the two major changes recommended by the select committee that we believe do not support the general intent of the bill. We suggest that suspension is not proportionate to the crime as most people would cease illegal downloading after the first or second notice and it takes a particularly belligerent person to ignore three warnings from an Internet service provider. The second change is to allow lawyers into the tribunal. This defeats the whole purpose of this bill because a situation will inevitably arise where everyone will “lawyer up” at the tribunal hearings. All that will do is exacerbate the current problem that the cost of litigation exceeds the likely payout from taking someone to court. We do not support these changes recommended by the select committee. 
However we are supportive of the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper which largely appears to be about clarifying arrangements with the Copyright Tribunal. We believe that it is a good thing that the Supplementary Order Paper clarifies that the Copyright Tribunal should not automatically presume that infringements of copyright have been committed by an account holder simply because of an infringement notice. In other words this is akin to the concept that people are innocent before the law until proven guilty so to speak. More important the Supplementary Order Paper helps to clarify the process and substance of a tribunal proceeding as it applies to this issue. It also amends the Copyright Act 1994 by increasing the number of members who sit on the tribunal from three to five. One might question the increase. We hope it is to ensure that the new member will have knowledge of tikanga Maori be confident in the application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be well informed about the implications of Wai 262—the flora and fauna claim. The Maori Party will support this bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill tonight. It is interesting to note that this bill repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 which was introduced under the leadership of Judith Tizard of the then Labour Government. We talk about technology and how fast it moves and we know that since 1994 technology has moved extremely fast. What was relevant then is not necessarily relevant now. It is important when we are looking at legislation around technology—for example this bill which is very narrow; it is about file sharing—that we get legislation that can stay true for a period of time and will not be outdated. It is more principle-based I believe and that is the way it should be in order to ensure it stays current for a longer period of time in a very fast-changing environment. 
The Commerce Committee worked really hard on this legislation I have to say. The select committee had it for a long time. In fact I felt very sorry for the officials when they first came in. I think I am relatively savvy when it comes to computers but when it comes to file sharing my generation does not know much about it; it was not around when I first started using computers. It actually took them a while to explain file sharing to a few of us on the committee. It came down to having little boxes in front of the select committee and the officials would explain that a bit is taken from this box and a bit from that box—a bit from this computer—until there are a thousand little bits and they make up a file. It takes a bit to get one’s mind round it. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It does. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: That is right I say to Steve. It took a little while for the committee to get its mind round what this bill was about. At the end of the day the committee came to a compromise. We had a huge debate over how we discourage file sharing and how we ensure we are not over-regulating or over-penalising people who file share. But it is really important to remember that file sharing is actually an illegal activity. We talked about two things. One was Internet service provider warning notices. An Internet connection provider such as Telstra or XTRA would give customers a warning if they think they have committed a breach and have been file sharing. One can then get a second warning and a third warning. We also talked about it being about not just breaching it but knowing that one has breached it. A whole generation out there is coming through that does not understand that file sharing— 
Jonathan Young 
: Don’t care. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Or they do not care but I do not think that is necessarily true. They do not realise that what they are doing is illegal and is not right. Out there we have peer-to-peer file-sharing programs. One can put a software program on one’s computer and file share. What is wrong with that? I have three children who are on the Internet all the time. I do not know whether as a parent I would be able to find out whether they are file sharing. I like to think they are not and I like to think we have educated our children about it. But until I had this legislation before me at the select committee I did not know about it I have to say. It is quite different from breaching copyright where someone sends someone else a file. That is different again. If someone sends someone else a file they may be breaching a copyright as opposed to what this legislation is about which is peer-to-peer file-sharing programs. I think it is important to educate the many kids out there. Ohariu the electorate where I live has very high usage of computers especially by youth. It is really important that we educate our youth and their parents about what file sharing is and educate them that we should not be doing it. It is different from breaching copyright and we must bear that in mind. 
I am looking forward to debating this bill further in the House in the Committee stage and the third reading. Thank you very much. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and add to the very sound comments that have been made by my colleague Clare Curran who I want to acknowledge through this process has made a really significant contribution to this debate. I think we all have to acknowledge and I would like to see it acknowledged by Government colleagues that the original version of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was drafted by the previous Labour Government and it was supported by the National Opposition. We have acknowledged on this side of the House that we did not get this legislation right in its original form. We stand up and we own that but we have not seen that kind of ownership on the other side of the House. I have some comments for the Green Party on its position but I will leave those for later on in the discussion. 
I think we should all be up front here. There is one word to describe this legislation through all its iterations and that word is “fraught”. This has been a delicate balancing act between two very important fundamental rights particularly from the perspective of Labour members of Parliament. On the one hand there is the issue of how to deal with the rapidly changing world and we on this side of the House absolutely value the importance of having the freedom to access information and to access our creative industries via the Internet. That was very very important to us from a social and a democratic perspective and it was something that we wanted to protect. But secondly we wanted to protect the right of creatives in particular to protect their intellectual property. That is a fundamental issue for us if we are to have those people who work in the creative sector continue to make a living out of what they do. I have a few other comments to make on that further down the track. 
At this point I want to declare an interest. As Labour’s associate spokesperson on arts culture and heritage I have a direct interest in making sure that we protect our creative sector and everything that it contributes to New Zealand from a cultural perspective. That includes music films the screen industry and all iterations of our creative sector. So at the top of my mind when looking at this issue has always been how to balance the sector’s needs with our overriding need to ensure fair and equitable access and access to justice in considering whether someone has infringed upon someone else’s rights. But let us be clear on this: not all creatives have sat in the same boat on this issue. I have had many come to me and say they acknowledge up front that the future of their industry has changed and they are embracing that change and they want people to be able to freely access their work. But at the same time we had the flipside where other creatives acknowledge that there was still an element of industry for them to be able to access. 
Folk on the other side of the House are holding up signs at me and my eyesight is clearly going because I cannot read them. Perhaps Katrina Shanks will flash the sign again so that I can see it. It says: “Have you ever file shared?”. I am happy to answer that question directly for the member. To the best of my knowledge I have not. What I will say and this is where I will sound like a Pollyanna is that I have always had a problem with the downloading of New Zealand music in particular because I know New Zealand musicians. I know that they struggle to survive in the industry in New Zealand and the last thing I want to be doing is stealing from them. That is how I always perceive them. 
Clare Curran 
: Support and fund them. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That point is well made by my colleague. We have a dual role here not only in protecting their interests but also in supporting and fostering their industry. That is another debate and if Chris Finlayson was open to having that discussion I would like to discuss for instance his current bent on funding the classical arts rather than some of our more modern arts but that is for another day. 
I want to quickly run over the on-notice process and how it will work because there are a couple of elements in there that I want to clarify. We have already talked about the fact that copyright owners who can provide evidence of infringements will be able to request Internet providers to tell their customers to stop printing material. It is implicit that it will be the likes of the Australasian Performing Rights Association and the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand that will be taking this action. It is unlikely to be individual copyright-holders just because of the very nature of the costs that may be involved in this. That is something that this House must monitor. We must monitor the access that people have to this process. The first notice will inform the account holder that the infringing activity has occurred and that it is illegal. A second and third notice may be sent if an account holder ignores notices and continues infringing. If the account holder continues to infringe then the copyright owner may seek a compensation award of up to $15000 at the Copyright Tribunal. I raise the point that someone on Twitter with me this evening called this bill the “Guilty Until Proven Innocent Bill” and I could see why they may give a label like that to this bill. That descriptor does not impart the account holder’s right of rebuttal against an accusation. I understand that new section 122MA is clarified by the Minister of Commerce on Supplementary Order Paper 230. I hope that we will go over that in greater detail in the Committee stage to clarify that there is a right of redress for an account holder. 
The bill as introduced provides that copyright owners can seek the suspension of an Internet account only through the courts and that suspension can be for up to 6 months. This provision remains in the bill but will apply only until the Minister brings it into force by an Order in Council. That is an important point. The Greens and Labour do not like this provision. We do not fundamentally believe that a right to suspend someone’s Internet account should be contained in this legislation. But I make this point to the Greens: they know full well that had Labour withdrawn and said that we would not support the bill in its entirety we would have the original provision sitting in this legislation now and the right to suspend an Internet account holder’s account would have existed from the moment the bill is enacted. This was a compromise. Although we stand against the provision the bill could have been a lot worse had Labour not sat down with the Government and negotiated a much more palatable arrangement. We could have taken the high and mighty stance and stood back and said that we disagreed and as a result we would have come back with something that I think a lot of people would have seen as being as unpalatable as section 92A potentially. So we did compromise and we are standing up and acknowledging that but at the end of the day we think that as a result of that negotiation we have a better outcome for both sides of the argument on what I continue to believe is a very very fraught issue. So that is a point of clarification that I wanted to make. 
I have some final parting thoughts. I notice from some of the statements made at the Commerce Committee that a lot of weight has been placed on the idea that infringement notices will rectify this situation. I want to acknowledge that we cannot be too naive in the implementation of this bill. So my first point is this: just because it is law does not make it so. Just because we have in this House written this piece of legislation does not mean that from day one tomorrow people will stop file sharing. We will have to enact this bill and act on the provisions in this bill if we are to protect the rights of copyright-holders. So education will be important. 
Secondly and very importantly for the sake of our creative industries we as policy makers and as a Government and Opposition have a responsibility to work alongside the creative industries as they navigate this changing world. There are two things I would recommend to the Government in this regard. First if we are to support our creatives in order to find a way to continue to make a living and survive in their area of work we should not cancel the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme which I know the Government is considering via Work and Income. Retaining that scheme is one way that we can work alongside our creative industries to figure out how to manage this changing world and how to make money out of creative industries which ultimately benefit all of us our communities and our cultural sector. Secondly the Government should open the doors to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That is the biggest threat facing our intellectual property holders our creatives at this present time. If the Government opens the doors it will show all of us that we have nothing to fear but currently I think the fact that the doors are closed means that we absolutely do. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I would like first of all to thank the member who just resumed her seat Jacinda Ardern for her admission that Labour got it wrong with section 92A. 
I rise to support the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill through its second reading. I recognise that the previous speaker referred to herself as a Pollyanna and I think a Green member called himself a geek. I will not go as far as that but I will follow in their footsteps and call myself creative. I will put myself in a little box like those members have. 
Ms Ardern has just made the admission that Labour got section 92A wrong. She went on to say that we should also do so. I am a little bit confused as to why we should do that. This National Government is trying to fix a problem that was created and caused by Labour and the Internet Blackout week in New Zealand was a result of the Labour bill the Labour law. This National Government decided not to enact it because there was an outcry over section 92A. We went to the public for consultation and this bill is the result the outcome of the consultation process the first reading and the select committee process which I have to say was quite long. 
I appreciate the Opposition’s support for this bill because I also struggled with this issue. I have come from the creative sector and I see the benefit in both sides of the argument. I know that there are some brand new creatives out there both singers and movie makers who struggle to get noticed and often put their creative movies or music online and it goes viral and ends up getting noticed. That is not quite the file sharing that we are talking about here but I ask members to hear me out. 
The Korean movie industry the huge Korean wave which earns billions of dollars came about as a result of viral file-sharing copyright infringements in other countries like China where people downloaded movies and copied DVDs and now it has become a humungous industry that makes a lot of money for Korea. Even in New Zealand I know that there was a Chinese students’ group that put their drama online because they could not get anybody to make it. They virally spread the news and were so successful that it was picked up by a channel and it even went to China. 
I see the benefit in promoting these creatives online and possibly supporting the file-sharing issue. But the industry needs protection. I have come from the sector. I do not know how many other members on the other side of the Chamber have had the same experience but as a fledgling screenwriter I know how long it takes to develop an idea come up with a script get that script to a producer and get funding for something to be made. It costs time and a lot of money for that process to reach fruition and for that movie or piece of music to be made. 
I know that Steve Chadwick talked about the copyright issue. The piracy issue is big but that is already protected. But this whole copyright file-sharing issue is not done unintentionally; it is done intentionally because we have something called the Internet. The development of fast Internet means we have a major problem on our hands. People download the software to share with their friends. It is not like me buying a DVD giving it to Steve Chadwick and saying I am sharing the DVD—I cannot do that. I can purchase a video and share it with a friend and I can buy a piece of music and share it with a friend. That is quite different from this. This is about people intentionally going to something like Torrent and downloading the file-sharing software intentionally knowing that they will infringe copyright. 
Katrina Shanks talked about little boxes on the table as a way of understanding how this works. Even though I worked in television even though I worked in the film industry I had no idea how this peer file-sharing thing worked. I am in that generation as well. I had to learn what this was about. It is incredible how they do it. They download the software and they put it up. There is Internet chat about it. Young girls and young boys teenagers—and I am not blaming the teenagers mind you—basically put up on a chat site a comment like: “Anyone know how to download the latest movie?”. I will not mention what it is. They start a chat line. They help each other to download movies that are not even released here in New Zealand. So they are breaching copyright and they do it through Internet file-sharing which should be illegal. I am very pleased that we have had to deal with this because apart from helping us understand what this issue is all about we will be able to monitor our children and our families and prevent them from breaking the rules. 
As I said this is very very different from getting a DVD and sharing it with a friend. I think it was a Maori Party member who talked about the fact that the recording industry has lost a lot of money. I know for a fact that from 2004 to 2009 the income the recording industry derived from sales actually halved. That was due to file sharing—through illegal copies being shared among friends. With the advent of faster Internet and with broadband becoming more available movie industries are also in major trouble. I support the bill and I look forward to the Committee stage as this debate continues. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. Before I start I wish to acknowledge the great efforts put into the bill by the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power and also the Hon Lianne Dalziel the wonderful chairperson of the Commerce Committee. The issue of file sharing is not easy. The bill is a great compromise. I also thank my learned colleague Labour’s communication and information technology spokesperson Clare Curran. Her press release dated 3 November 2010 was so good that it has been well read by stakeholders and interested parties. 
Due to a last-minute compromise between Labour and National no New Zealanders will have their Internet connection terminated as a result of the proposed new copyright laws. The compromise means that the provision for termination of Internet access as an ultimate penalty for repeat copyright infringement remains in the bill but cannot be enacted unless the Minister makes the decision to do so. The Minister would have to enact the termination clause by Order in Council which puts the onus on the creative industries to prove there is a case to terminate access on the Internet service providers to ensure that the system of providing deterrent notices to copyright infringers works and on the Minister to ultimately make the call. Without that compromise Labour could not have supported the bill. The compromise is important realistic and well warranted but I acknowledge the points raised by Mr Gareth Hughes and I look forward to seeing what his amendment has to offer at the Committee stage. 
I agree that we are dealing with the real world and with reality. In this world in our modern daily lives Internet access is fast becoming as necessary to us as the provision of morning or evening newspapers or as important as television cellphones water or electricity. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish a regime that deters file sharing that infringes copyright to educate the public about the problem to compensate copyright owners for damage sustained from copyright infringement by file sharing to provide sanctions for serious copyright infringements and to limit Internet service provider liability that may result from account holders’ infringing activities. The bill is largely about education and deterrence. 
Much has been said about the controversial section 92A and the widespread objections it has attracted. Some submitters at the select committee hearing described the section as one of guilt upon accusation. The bill repeals section 92A and replaces it with a three-notice regime backed up by a $15000 fine and a 6-month Internet suspension. Minister Power described the three-notice regime as the major feature that educates the public about illegal file-sharing and that provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright. The bill ensures that infringers are given adequate warnings that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal. The three-notice regime despite its gentle name seems to have won wider support as an effective mechanism. It is believed to be more effective than the much-hyped three-strikes regime. 
Following Judge David Harvey’s wonderful submissions he informed us that a survey in France in 2008 found that 90 percent of users would stop illegal file-sharing after two warnings from their Internet service provider. Judge Harvey also made available a copy of the 2008 Digital Music Survey conducted by Entertainment Media Research in the UK. The survey showed that 70 percent of users would cease infringing activities after one notice from their Internet service provider. In a local context the Young New Zealanders and Movie Downloading survey found that more than 70 percent of respondents in New Zealand would cease infringing activities if they received a letter from their Internet service provider. 
I thank Judge Harvey for his contribution. I remember my early university days in Auckland when I had the privilege of studying information technology law under Judge Harvey. The classes started at 8 o’clock in the morning and Judge Harvey who is always energetic and thoughtful would have to rush to the city campus of the University of Auckland and 2 hours later rush back to the District Court in Manukau. Judge Harvey is New Zealand’s most tech-savvy jurist. His submissions enlightened me and the select committee and I thank him for his great contribution. 
Submissions from TradeMe Two Degrees Mobile Ltd the New Zealand Film Commission InternetNZ Computerworld and the University of Auckland were good too. The University of Auckland in its submission raised some important issues. It had two serious concerns among others. The first concern was that the bill as worded is not consistent with the explanatory note. The university’s second concern was that if universities libraries schools or similar organisations are excluded from the definition of Internet service providers then they are potentially liable as account holders. 
I note that the Commerce Committee report recommends that the term “ISP”—that is Internet service provider—be replaced by the new term “IPAP” which is Internet protocol address provider. I look forward to discussing the matter in more detail and more specifically relevant amendments to the Act such as to sections 92 29 and 122 at the Committee stage. 
Labour is prepared to support the bill through its remaining stages due to a compromise we have reached with National as was explained by my learned colleague Clare Curran who took the first call on behalf of Labour. The compromise means that provision for the suspension of Internet access as an ultimate penalty for repeat copyright infringement remains in the bill but cannot be enacted unless the Minister makes the decision to do so. Labour’s preferred option was to completely omit the provision for account suspension because it is Draconian unnecessary and would not work. The provision for account suspension remains in the bill and could theoretically be used in the future but any Minister who implements termination would have to wear the consequences. Rather than oppose the bill outright we prefer to compromise to ensure that New Zealanders are not denied access to the Internet which is something that many people rely on heavily nowadays. Thank you. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I must admit that New Zealanders must wonder at times about the huge quantity of laws that we create. As a child I could never understand how Parliament could full-time create law after law until I realised that because society and in particular technology changes in many regards opportunities or technologies are created that then demand that regulation wraps around them in order to bring some order. What we are experiencing today as we look at this copyright infringing law is essentially the future meeting us. These are the sorts of things that people wrote about in times past and today we are facing the challenges of legislating for that. When we think about it we remember that Leonardo Da Vinci drew helicopters and that Jules Verne painted a word picture of submarines. Do members remember  
The Terminator 
? I am sure they do. The computer system— 
Clare Curran 
: “Hasta la vista baby.” 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Yes! In that film a computer system called Skynet ruled the world. It was like the Internet today. The Internet creates so many opportunities but also along with those opportunities comes the infringement of people’s rights. This legislation is about bringing some order to the chaos that surrounds the globe because of technology. 
It is really interesting to consider this technology of peer-to-peer file-sharing. A gentleman called Yochai Benkler wrote a book called  
The Wealth of Networks 
. He said: “What is truly unique about peer-to-peer networks as a signal of what is to come is the fact that with ridiculously low financial investment a few teenagers and twenty-something-year-olds were able to write software and protocols that allowed tens of millions of computer users around the world to cooperate in producing the most efficient and robust file storage and retrieval system in the world. No major investment was necessary in creating a server farm to store and make available the vast quantities of data represented by the media files. The users’ computers are themselves the ‘server farm’. No massive investment in dedicated distribution channels made of high-quality fiber optics was necessary. The standard Internet connections of users with some very intelligent file transfer protocols sufficed. Architecture oriented toward enabling users to cooperate with each other in storage search retrieval and delivery of files was all that was necessary to build a content distribution network that dwarfed anything that existed before.” 
We have to say that the people who did that were brilliant—teenagers and young 20-something people. Of course we know that when we look at the Internet today we can see the people who started Google Facebook and Microsoft. They were just going to university or were just out of university—and some of them were not even there—yet their brilliance created those systems and opportunities. But what we face today is the fact that people use this technology without respect for the rights of others particularly as we have said in relation to the creative sector of our society which we all appreciate. We all enjoy movies. We all enjoy the music and the art that is created. We all enjoy the ideas that writers can portray. How accessible are they today? Well it is absolutely amazing. Yet through of all this ability to access information through music audio and video files—all of these things—there is not yet coming with it the sense of responsibility with regard to ownership towards those who originated the works. The economic impact of the ability to file share is huge. 
In 2004 an estimated 70 million people participated in online file-sharing according to a CBS News poll and that is an international figure. Nearly 70 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds thought that file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all whom they surveyed who followed the file-sharing issue considered it acceptable in at least some circumstances. That meant that the total value of music sales dropped globally from approximately $38 billion in 1999 to $32 billion in 2003 which meant that a tremendous amount of money was no longer available to those people who had created the music. 
A survey in June 2009 here in New Zealand of 1000 New Zealand Internet users between the ages of 18 and 70—which is a wide range is it not; it is a wide age range—found that every respondent had downloaded copyrighted material at least once in the previous year. It is a common thing that has been happening in our society; legislation is catching up with it to bring a sense of fairness in the market place. 
There are people out there who desire to make a living out of the gifts and abilities they have. That is a wonderful thing and we want to support those people in it. I remember a person who came to the select committee: Anna Cahill the executive director of the Screen Directors Guild of New Zealand. She said that one issue the select committee should understand is that the industry all around the world is grappling with trying to find a new model that works both logistically and financially. At present no one model works but in the future there will most likely be an efficient model such as iTunes. I probably think that iTunes does work and is quite good. She said that in the meantime piracy was laying waste to the livelihoods of many people. 
I was able to converse with constituents from the wonderful electorate of New Plymouth in Taranaki—we call it “Taradise” for obvious reasons. One constituent said to me: “I would like to comment on the recent drafting of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. This includes a new section 122MA that states ‘an accusation of infringement is conclusive evidence of infringement.’ This means guilt on accusation and is clearly contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The commentary to the bill says ‘this is to have a fast-track system for copyright owners.’ This is not what law is for. The law should be set to provide justice and fairness.” I thank Peter very much for his comments and input into the process. 
I am pleased to say that the Supplementary Order Paper that has come to the House states—and we will no doubt discuss this further in the Committee stage—that it will omit the phrase “an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following:”. It will substitute that with the phrase “in relation to an infringement notice it is presumed—”. I was able to say to my constituent that the preciseness of matching infringing IP addresses to account holders at precise times is a bit like an electronic DNA. However once an account holder provides evidence or reasons why a presumption is incorrect it is then the responsibility of the rights-holder to prove that the presumption is correct. I think that we are making forward progress in a very difficult complex but exciting area. Thank you. 
Amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Infringing file sharing 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take another call tonight and continue this debate on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. When I spoke earlier I said this was a difficult—oh our officials have joined us. I acknowledge them for the hard work they put into this bill for the patience and perseverance they had with some of the Commerce Committee members in coming to terms with what file sharing is and for the displays and the enthusiasm they showed in trying to get us to understand how when someone file shares they can get lots of little bits from everyone else’s computers pull it all together and that is the file that is shared. It takes a bit for someone who was not brought up in the generation of file sharing to understand it. Even though I had a computer in the first job I had so I have always worked with computers technology changes. It shows just how fast people are left behind. My children would love to hear me say that. I always tell them I know exactly what they are doing all the time and that I am like Big Brother and they cannot do anything I do not know about. In fact they can do a lot I do not know about and what scares me is what I do not know. It is until we have legislation like this in front of us that we actually become aware of how fast technology moves and how fast we can get left behind. 
In earlier debate I talked heavily about the Internet service provider warning notices and how the committee had a big debate on that and the provision to terminate or suspend someone’s account with an Internet service provider an Internet service provider like Telecom or XTRA if they broke the law and did some file sharing. I do not think people can accidentally file share—that is the thing. If people are going to file share they have to have the file-sharing programs. They cannot accidentally share someone else’s files unless they have the software on their computer. To do that they have to have made a decision as to the type of system they themselves will use to obtain files. I do not think people understand it is illegal to file share. If people do it they are undermining the musicians the artists and everybody else because they are not legally paying for the file they are receiving. 
It is interesting how software develops over time as well. It is so common and I had no idea that the software was so common. I did a little search on Google on Jonathan Young’s iPad beside me. In fact that is technology in itself. We had a good talk about the use of wireless locations especially down at the Wellington waterfront where there is free wireless Internet. If someone has a laptop down there a free wireless connection is available. Someone could be using third-generation technology for example—well third-generation is not quite right but someone could be using the wireless connection down there and could be logged on to someone else’s system. If that person shared some files illegally who is liable for that? Technology is moving so fast and now people joke with me that I do not have an iPad but just a little old laptop that takes about 20 minutes to open. When I am still waiting to log on the guys beside me have instant emails on their iPads and they say: “What’s that old thing you’ve got there—that old big box?”. Of course it is a laptop that normally takes 20 minutes to log on. They have done all their work and have gone. 
Technology has changed and it is hard to make legislation that does not age fast but stays current. That is why I am a big advocate of principle-based legislation where technology may change but the principle stays the same in respect of what the legislation is trying to achieve. It was really interesting to talk about what youth are doing how we can educate them on what they can and cannot do with their computers what the most effective way to do that is and the campaigns we can run. How many users are aware that what they are doing is right or wrong? It is really hard to be heavy-handed to begin with and to say we will terminate or suspend an Internet connection on a first offence or a second offence when users have to learn what they can and cannot do and what their boundaries are. So what do I and other parents do in Ohariu which has one of the highest levels of Internet use in the country? What do we do when a parent has a child who is file sharing and that parent like me is not quite aware of what file sharing is and then all of a sudden that parent’s Internet connection might get suspended? Well that is really good! So that parent will talk to the child and try to educate them but then the child may try to sneak something past the parent a second time— 
Jonathan Young 
: You could smack them! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I am not even going to repeat what that member said to me about what he would do if the child did it a second time. If the child did it a second time once again the parent could go in and say: “You can’t do this. We are going to lose our ISP.” If it happens a third time the connection could be terminated and the whole house is affected. So there is a line and a balance between what is right and what is wrong and where the legislation can provide for suspension of an Internet connection. The situation will be interesting and we will watch it really closely. We will watch it and the stakeholders will watch it. The Ministry of Economic Development will work on it and watch it over a period of time to see whether we can get some change just through education and issuing notices. It will be really interesting to watch. 
My colleague Jonathan Young talked about a survey that was done and I want to talk through some of the statistics that came out of that survey. This survey was done by TelstraClear of 1048 Kiwi Internet users aged between 18 and 70 like Jonathan Young was saying. When we are talking about such a wide range of people we have to wonder about what type of software they have on their computers and what they are aware of and what they are not aware of. I know that my father-in-law for example is very computer-aware but I also know that siblings come in and fiddle around with his computer. They load software on it and put their own little fixes on it when it falls over. I am sure he is not always sure about what software he has on his computer and I think the same thing happens even for my generation. My son tries to do fixes on my personal computers—not my work computers Parliamentary Service will be pleased to know. He tries to do fixes and goes through a backdoor which I always assume requires him to take screws off and undo the back of it but obviously he does not. It is like an information technology backdoor that he talks about which I have no idea about. It is hard to know what type of software we have on our computer at the end of the day. 
The results of the survey are even more interesting: 46 percent of households interviewed had peer-to-peer file-sharing software on their computer. I thought that was a huge percentage—I could not even imagine 46 percent of those people interviewed knowing what peer-to-peer file-sharing actually was. The survey said 48 percent believed that the prospect of being caught by police and fined was the most effective legal tool in trying to deter copyright infringers. That is pretty harsh but it is interesting they thought that. The disconnection of broadband for repeat offenders was thought to be effective by 43 percent and I would think that is where most people would be. For more than 50 percent neither measure was significant enough to stop illegal downloading. Music was the most copied content at 82 percent followed by software at 49 percent movies at 35 percent and games at 31 percent. Those interviewed thought that content copying was widespread and most planned to do it only occasionally. The survey said 32 percent claimed to copy music more than once a month while 23 percent used iTunes a legal online source. It is interesting to see the types of statistics that emerge when Internet users are surveyed on what they are doing and what they are not doing. 
This legislation is a good step in the right direction. We have a compromise. The Commerce Committee worked hard. It is important we have principle-based legislation so that it can move with the times and is not caught up in the very fast-moving environment we are in. Nobody knows what is around the corner. This legislation is a step in the right direction. If it is monitored closely and is ensured to be working effectively then it will stay in place for a period of time. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take this call as one of a number I hope in the Committee stage of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. There are many things to talk about so I will start with trying to get to the heart of the issue as I see it for Labour which is the suspension issue and whether people’s Internet accounts should ever be terminated. That is something that Labour feels very strongly against. We are supporting this bill because we have reached a compromise where although termination remains in the bill it will not be enacted unless it is enacted by an Order in Council. 
Before I talk about that I will just put it clearly on the record that Labour absolutely supports our local artists musicians and creative industries whose successes have shaped New Zealand and the very face of New Zealand inside our country and internationally. It is really important to put that on the record because a number of speakers have mentioned the importance of our creative industries. But I will also put on the record that it is important to support them not only in words but also in deeds. That means supporting our public media our public broadcasting and our public creative industries. Unfortunately we are not going in that direction in this country at the moment; we are going in the other direction by making cuts to them. The cut to TVNZ 7 is probably one of the most significant cuts in terms of funding for a new digital channel in our new digital environment. That is where we should be putting our investment but unfortunately we are not. 
I will read to members from one of the submissions brought before the Commerce Committee. Before I do so I acknowledge the extraordinarily committed dedicated and intelligent hard work done by the officials during the debate. There was an awful lot of debate in the select committee. Some new cutting-edge issues were discussed. Although some of the members around the table had a bit more of an idea than others about what was being talked about at times the officials were very patient. I acknowledge the work they did by coming back over and over again with more analysis and more definition around some of the issues. 
I will give members a picture on the issue of file sharing. I will be honest; one of my colleagues came to me recently and said she wanted to get access to a piece of music—her favourite song. She has loved the song for years and cannot buy it anywhere. She does not know where to find it. She had tried everywhere. It is not on Amazon and she cannot get it in a shop. She does not know how to get the song. She asked me what she should do. I asked her whether she had been on the Internet and looked for the song. She said she had but that all these file-sharing sites kept coming up. I said I would ask for some advice. The advice that came back to me was that because the song is not sold anywhere any more—it is not available in any shop—the only way to get it is to go to one of the BitTorrent sites and download it illegally. My colleague would not and did not do that but that gives us an idea of why so many people are file sharing. They are downloading content illegally in an environment where they cannot get access to material because either it is not available in any other form or it is not available in their jurisdiction because the material has not been released. That is unacceptable and it demonstrates flawed business models across the industry that are not responding to consumer demand. 
I asked of every submitter who came before the select committee who represented a rights holder whether they had a business model in train to enable people to file share legally and the answer was no. Essentially that is a failure of the market and it is the reason why we are looking at this legislation today. The bill is putting in place a regime to hopefully educate people to cease the file-sharing activities that are being talked about—70 million items are being downloaded illegally. The only problem is that the alternatives are not great. That is one of the core issues. 
I will read to you from the submission— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the person in the Chair when using the word “you”. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: My apologies. I wish to read to the Committee the introductory points from the submission of InternetNZ. InternetNZ is an organisation that could be described as being very future thinking. It represents many in the industry who are Internet service providers but also people who are passionate about the Internet. InternetNZ is what one would describe as a moderate organisation as well as being future thinking. The submission stated: “This Bill is a major improvement on the legislation it seeks to replace. Infringing file sharing is happening (and cannot be condoned) but it is important to consider the effects of it before deciding how to tackle it. The copyright content industries are doing exceptionally well given the global economic situation. Sales are up and more money than ever before is going to Kiwi artists. This success shows that file sharing is not having a damaging impact on the industry and that the evidence presented to that effect has been deemed unreliable by among others the United States government. Because the impact of file sharing does not seem to be major Parliament should not take major complicated and expensive steps to address it. It should not allow the content industry to seek aid in propping up an unsustainable business model. The best way to tackle file sharing would be to impose a notice and notice regime where those found infringing get told their activity has been picked up.” 
That submission was reflective of a number of submissions. The Creative Freedom Foundation is another organisation that started its submission by stating: “We support the purpose of this Bill. Changes in technology that have made copying easier have led to the need for new copyright enforcement processes that are effective for artists as rights holders while maintaining due process protections.” 
We had a number of submissions from reasonable organisations in a future-thinking space that said that some enforcement measures need to be in place but that they need to be very moderate. We need to address the fact that there are flawed business models and that the Draconian measures of termination or suspension—whatever we want to call it—are overreacting to the size of the infringement. That is essentially the basis for the opposition to the termination or suspension of accounts as a remedy for file sharing. It is disproportionate to the problem. It will not solve it because ultimately we are still left with the issue of where people can get their content legally. There are places on the Internet where people can get their content legally but unfortunately many of those places require users to sign up. Those business models are starting to emerge but they are not by any means available right across the industry. They are not available to most ordinary people in New Zealand. 
Another very good example of absolutely getting to the guts of the issue—and which I mentioned in my first reading speech—was the movie that I think won the Oscar— 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. While you are in the chair Mr Robertson I congratulate you on your promotion to Assistant Speaker. 
It is a real privilege to speak on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge like my colleagues have done the officials and the work they put in on the bill. The bill has been difficult in terms of balancing the competing interests. The stakeholders were quite passionate shall we say about their respective views and opinions. 
The bill is about balancing the rights of property rights holders—and they are intellectual property rights—with as many speakers have already pointed out this evening the developing and changing technologies that are inherent in this technological age particularly around the use of the Internet. The bill is about protection of property rights. Although intellectual property rights are not tangible and cannot be held in one’s hands some submitters compared them with those of owners of private property of landowners of people who have private property rights that we clearly understand. 
In trying to protect these property rights we must understand that investment research and development resources time and energy have been put into developing them. In particular the creative industries put in a lot of time and resources and a huge amount of risk is involved. There is a risk in terms of putting moneys up front developing a product a service or a technology then seeing how that product is taken up by the market. If that product cannot be fully capitalised on in terms of its return then questions arise. That was the original intent of the legislation in 1994: to protect intellectual property rights holders particularly those in the creative industries and to balance that against the developing technology. If we are going to have thriving creative industries we must have laws that not only protect those rights but make them enforceable in a court of law or certainly in a tribunal situation. 
The argument put forward by the creative industries was that suspension is vital as the ultimate sanction. One of the submissions talked about a number of high-volume online infringements by individuals. In such cases a three-strikes graduated response would in effect be useless superfluous and redundant. That submission was put forward in terms of why suspension should be the final sanction. In many reported cases infringements have been made by not just individuals but groups of individuals who have abused the file-sharing technologies that are out there. 
So that is on the one hand; on the other hand we heard from a number of Internet service providers. This point has not been raised this evening but they talked about the costs that would be imposed on Internet service providers in implementing this regime. It would involve millions of dollars. We heard from a number of Internet service providers and when questioned they went back to their respective organisations and made an attempt to quantify the cost of implementation. They came back and the figures were quite startling. The figures were in the millions. That put us as a committee on notice that the compliance costs of this regime which no one has mentioned as yet tonight are serious. A critical part of the consideration is that we do not over-regulate or the regime may be counter-productive to certainly our economy. 
One of the other reasons that suspension was advocated was that the option of termination would penalise not just a single user the transgressor of the copyright but also other users who are part of the network. For example where a teenager was the transgressor and the account was terminated that might affect not only that teenager but that person’s mother father siblings and other whanau or family members who are reliant on that account. Also the issue of suspension was seen as not just one of deterrence; that regime would educate those who were transgressing against the legislation. A notice regime was important in order to send a message a deliberate message if you like to those who had infringed to educate them that they were in fact breaking the law. I think that was an important part of the consideration of the Commerce Committee. 
I think the majority of us came to recommend the new section 122PA in clause 7 which in effect brings together a workable compromise on this issue. The bill’s provisions allowing for Internet suspension are retained and would come about only if evidence indicated that notices alone were not having the desired effect. In this instance the suspension provisions would be brought about by an Order in Council. I think that is a fair and reasonable compromise in terms of the dilemma we found ourselves in because the competing interests which were laid out by the various stakeholders in quite a passionate way were quite compelling—on both sides. 
I think we need more evidence to make a more informed and more reliable decision as to whether suspension is in fact to be implemented. I think my colleagues feel and certainly I hear from members opposite that that is a fair and reasonable solution. Certainly stakeholders of the industry will need to monitor it and cooperate with the officials at the ministry. I am sure that when the review date comes in the future we will have the evidence to suggest whether such a policy should be implemented. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment what impact the negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will have on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The reason I raise the issue is that I have before me an article by Brian Fallow from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 31 March. In it he starts with what we all know: “A balance has to be struck between on the one hand fostering innovation and creativity by protecting the fruits of such labours and on the other stifling progress”—and actually causing cost I would say—“by making it too difficult and costly to access and build on the discoveries of others.” That impacts partly on patents but also has implications in respect of copyright. 
I am one who firmly believes we need to protect the creative endeavours of the people who go to the effort to make creative content. Whether it is a new design a piece of music a piece of art or literary works in the form of poetry or a book the people who put in the effort should be able to protect that content and control its use in the future to a reasonable extent. The provisions in the bill relating to section 92 are predicated on current assumptions about the length of copyright. That section applies only if something is copyright. If it is not copyright then copying it via the Internet or any other means does not infringe anyone else’s copyright. No property right is being infringed. Therefore the length of the term of the copyright is fundamental to how this legislation works in practice. 
According to Brian Fallow the leaked text from the US negotiators in the Trans-Pacific Partnership includes this ambition on the part of the US: “The US also seeks to extend the term of copyright from the life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70 years.” There are economic consequences of this change. Mr Fallow quotes a recent study by the Australian Productivity Commission which said conceding that change would cost Australia between A$70 million—NZ$95 million—and A$240 million. The consequences of the Government changing the underlying rules relating to the length of copyright if the Government were to buckle in negotiations with the US are very substantial. 
Although I agree that we should protect the fruits of endeavour for people who make creative content I think there should be an end to the life of that protection. In the end valuable copyright material ends up in the hands of corporates more often than not if we are honest. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are not owned by the original people who drew the cartoons; some corporations will have purchased them from somebody else. The corporate interest that we create in copyright—which actually confers monopoly rights on the holder of those rights; they are monopoly rights—needs to be limited as to term and that term should not be excessive. I for one think that even life plus 50 years is already a bit long. That is my personal viewpoint but I am not advocating a change to it. I think that life plus 70 years would be too long and I want to hear from the Government and the Minister in the chair that they are not going to concede that change. 
The next point they make in the article is that the very vexed issue in respect of section 92A which is under debate here will if the Americans get their way in these trade negotiations be up for grabs again. I am quoting again: “Rick Shera IP partner with the Auckland law firm Lowndes Jordan said the draft text reopend the vexed issue of the role of internet service providers in policing intellectual property rights. As ISPs are the conduits for infringing material the film and music industries have targeted them around the world as the best place to throttle it. ‘We thought we had almost got to the end of it with the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill due to be passed in the next couple of months’ Shera said. ‘Imagine you are an ISP who has had to bear the cost of gearing up for that regime only to be told that it is groundhog day and we are all going back to the section 92A debacle.’ ” 
I think it is an appropriate request for the Minister in the chair to give some undertaking to the Committee that we are not wasting our time on passing this bill only to have the legislation effectively undermined and the issue reopened by the negotiations under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I compliment the members who have contributed to this debate. It is a pretty tricky balance between the copyrights that the National Party holds dear—and people who create items that have value such as music film and the like being able to secure value from those creative endeavours—and another pretty important right the right of freedom. The National Party was founded on some very basic principles about freedom of expression and the State being limited in the degree to which it can constrain freedom of expression and the general freedoms that we enjoy as New Zealand citizens. I want to put on record though the chequered history around this issue and I note some of the contributions that have been made by Labour members. 
I do not proclaim to be an expert on copyright law. I commend the job that the Minister of Commerce Simon Power has done in this area. Like so many members of this House I have had to become familiar with this issue because of the huge furore created by the passage of section 92A of the Copyright Act. Anyone who was in an electorate office who looked at an MP’s mail or who was at the Nelson market has heard of section 92A. The first time I heard of section 92A I was not too sure which legislation it was in but literally thousands and thousands of people were agitated by the bill passed by a previous Government in 2008. It got us into this pickle and Simon Power and this Government have had to work through this issue in a balanced and sensible way. I think the provisions in this bill and in particular the very constructive work done by the Commerce Committee get us to a very sensible balance between those competing rights. 
I will respond to a couple of specific points in the debate. Clare Curran brought TVNZ 7 and the creative industries into the debate. I have to tell members that in so many areas the previous Government left financial landmines that have gone off for this Government. In respect of TVNZ 7 the previous Government funded it for a limited period and said that it would become self-sustaining. Whether the issue is in relation to the work that Simon Power has been doing today in legal aid the mess in ACC that I was left with or some of the other problems that so many of my ministerial colleagues are dealing with—including the area health boards and the huge deficits there—it shows that the previous Government was financially reckless. It set up programmes that are unaffordable in these tight fiscal times. 
I challenge the Labour members who are interjecting. I have a simple question for them: do they commit to funding TVNZ 7? On the one hand they cry in protest that this Government with all the challenges of the Christchurch earthquake and the global recession has to make difficult decisions. We had an impassioned plea from Clare Curran that the decisions we have made about TVNZ 7 were absolutely awful and that we should fund it. I simply ask Clare Curran this question again: will Labour fund it? Oh! The silence is deafening. We have a Labour Opposition that is playing politics and is not prepared to commit its opinion to say it would fund it. It truly shows how hollow Clare Curran’s criticisms are. 
I shall come to the thoughtful question from David Parker in respect of the issues around copyright and the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions. The first point I make about the discussions is that— 
Clare Curran 
: Secret negotiations—why are they in secret? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Look it is really interesting is it not? The member interjects that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership are occurring in secret. Well I have a simple challenge for her: when her party was in Government and negotiating the free-trade agreement with China were those negotiations all held in the open? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rubbish! They were not. Exactly the same protocols about the negotiation of the free-trade agreement that occurred with China are occurring with the US. But you know we all understand in this Chamber that there is an ugly anti-American language probably amongst that party—I think it was a “gaggle” that one of the Labour members referred to; I think it was the self-interested trade unionists who were referred to—in relation to the anti-Americanism there. Members on this side of the Chamber are proud to say that a free-trade agreement with the United States would be good for the living standards of New Zealanders and good for trade and providing we can get an agreement that is in New Zealand’s interests that is something we will advance. 
But I also want to clarify an issue for Mr Parker. He assumes that all of the copyright issues between New Zealand and the United States are one way. Well that is to significantly discount the huge creative industries that exist in New Zealand. Let us take Dave Dobbyn a wonderful musician and his musical product of “Loyal”—right? Should he be able to claim the copyright and value for that production? We as members of a party for property rights say that Dave Dobbyn deserves to be able to protect the property rights of his creation and so should other talented musicians and filmmakers whom this National Government is very keen to advance. We want to protect those sorts of talents. 
Further I point out a hole in David Parker’s approach—as a typical sort of self-interested unionist; I think that is the phrase—in saying that these copyright laws benefit only corporates. Let me tell members the point. Let us say there is an argument to be had about how long copyright should apply. Should it be for 50 years after the death of the author for 60 years or for 70 years? Mr Parker argues that the only people who would benefit from that copyright would be corporates. Let me tell members why that perspective is incorrect. Why is that incorrect? Generally what happens with musicians artists and films is that a person sells that right on to a corporate and the value that that person receives as an individual and a creator of that copyright material is dependent on how long that value is for. So any extension in the period of copyright would play as much to the benefit of the creator as it does ultimately to any person who might purchase that right; and the sort of anti-business rhetoric we continue to hear from the political left undermines New Zealand’s interests in respect of those trans-Pacific negotiations. Again I stress that this is a really balanced and sensible response to a difficult issue and I think this bill should be commended to the Committee. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I would like to take a few calls but I am not sure whether my voice will last long enough. I am not sure whether members are aware that a parallel debate is happening right now on the Internet on Twitter. The debate has already gone to The Pirate Bay where people are using peer-to-peer software to move this debate around. 
In a Senator Ted Stevens moment—Senator Stevens was the guy who famously said the Internet was “a series of tubes”—Jonathan Young has now been immortalised as the creator of a meme with his fantastic comment that the Internet is like Skynet from The Terminator. Already Tweets and pictures with that meme have gone around. That shows the power of the Internet and how fast it moves. The debate online has already moved much much faster than the debate in the Chamber. 
I will make a couple of comments on Part 1 of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I will start with clause 5 which repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act. I have heard members from both National and Labour blaming each other for the mess that the last Parliament got itself into with the deplorable bill that introduced section 92A the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. I heard Labour members blaming National members for voting for the bill and National members blaming Labour members for bringing it in. In fact both parties are responsible for that bill and only the Green Party members can stand here and say we did not vote for a single reading of it. I would like to see a bit more responsibility taken from members in both parties for legislative actions in this Parliament. 
I thank the officials in the corner; they did fantastic work. Unfortunately I could not find the gigantic flowchart they prepared for us to try to explain the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I say to them: “Kia ora. Thank you very much.” 
I heard from Miss Street that when it comes to Internet account suspension there is no evidence. I heard from an honourable member that no compelling arguments were presented by the advocates for account suspension. I do not get why we are putting the provision into the bill when both sides agree there is not the evidence to back it up and there are no compelling arguments for it. Everyone in this Chamber agrees that education is the key. We all agree on fines and notices yet we had to go one step further and write this deplorable account suspension provision into the bill. That is why I have introduced an amendment to take the deplorable series of clauses from 122O through to 122PA out of the bill. Frankly account suspension provisions should not be in legislation. 
We have heard some good arguments from Labour members on why account suspension is bad but I have heard in the debate this evening two different things. From members on the left side of the Chamber I have heard that they have a guarantee from the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Simon Power that accounts will not be suspended. Yet from members on the right side of the Chamber I have heard that if suspension is appropriate it will happen. There is a disjunction between the comments of the two parties and I would like to flesh out the facts. The compromise is being presented as a great common-sense solution. I want to get the facts on the table and find out exactly what is happening with these clauses. 
The fact is that an account suspension provision is still in the legislation. I am sure Labour members’ intentions are good but the fact is that their perspectives on the negotiations are solely their perspectives and not necessarily those of reality. National had the numbers so maybe it just called Labour’s bluff. I am sure Labour members are all crack negotiators and well skilled in negotiations but what if they had stayed strong to their principles? What if they had gone to the Minister and based on their principles said: “No way. We are going to fight it with all of our breath. We are going to run another section 92A campaign and get rid of this deplorable legislation.”? What if? We will never know because we are hearing only one side of the negotiations. 
Minister Power has a track record of building cross-party support for his legislation in Parliament. I am sure that would have been an incentive to bring together robust legislation that did not have this deplorable clause allowing accounts to be terminated. The fact is that I admire and acknowledge the intent of Labour members but I just do not trust the Government when it comes to the bill and its provision to enact account suspension through an Order in Council. I do not know why Labour members trust the Government. Labour members do not trust the Government on GST tax and workers’ rights. Why all of a sudden would Labour members start trusting the Government on digital copyright issues? It is just amazing. 
The Green Party was not involved in any of the out-of-select-committee negotiations so we do not know what was discussed. I ask the members on both sides of the Chamber what was negotiated. Is there a piece of paper? What was the deal? None of that information has come out yet Labour members are telling the New Zealand public to trust them that they are crack negotiators and that they have struck a great deal with the Government to make sure that account suspension never comes into force. Yet National members are saying that the Government will bring it in if it is appropriate. Where is the deal? Will anybody table the deal? Is it on paper? What is the threshold for account suspension to be brought in? Will there be any public consultation when the provision is enacted by an Order in Council? None of those questions is being answered and the public have a right to know why. 
In the absence of the information being out in the public I urge parties to support my amendment to take the termination provision out of the bill. The provision can come back to Parliament because that is where it rightfully should be decided on not by a Minister through an Order in Council. The decision should be made in Parliament. 
We are making a big call tonight on the State’s power to come in and turn off people’s Internet account for a civil offence—not even for a criminal offence. Essentially the legislation has a disproportionate remedy. It will not stop the pirating of copyright material and it takes away what I believe is a basic human right to the Internet. 
The Hon Mr Parker raised an interesting point about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Was the partnership discussed in the deal? Is the termination provision in the legislation a reserve in case we need to enact it under the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Why is the provision in there? If the Minister cares to take another call I would like to know what his threshold will be to enact the provision. Will the Minister guarantee that the provision will not be enacted in this term of Parliament? 
In summary we all acknowledge that the bill is a step in the right direction after the old failure of section 92A but the Green Party cannot vote for the bill with a clause on account suspension written into it even if it is not to be enacted. Kia ora. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to a couple of the points the Hon Dr Nick Smith made and also reinforce some of the issues I raised that he did not address. 
The first is that he hurled across the Chamber what he thought was an insult. He said we on this side of the Chamber should be ashamed of ourselves for being in favour of union movements. That is not something we hide; we are actually called the Labour Party. If ever people wanted evidence as to why unions are necessary to maintain and improve the rights of low and middle income workers they have only to see what the Government did this year with the minimum wage. The minimum wage went up by 25c a week in the face of all these huge increases in the cost of living. People cannot rely on the Government to get a wage increase; they have to organise their own rights to have a bit of countervailing power in their negotiations with employers in order to earn enough money to live. 
The other issue I raised and put to the Minister in the chair was whether National would extend the monopoly rights conferred through copyright pursuant to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We all know that National has an abysmal record in terms of controlling monopoly excess. One example it should really be ashamed of at the moment is its failure to strip out some of the billions of dollars of excess pricing we have in electricity as found by the Commerce Commission in its 2009 report—$4.8 billion of overcharging. Dr Smith will get to his feet and say we did nothing about it while in Government but that is wrong. We regulated prices for lines and we set up the Commerce Commission inquiry that reported just after we left Government and proved the $4.8 billion—or 18 percent per annum average—overcharge by the State-owned energy companies which National will now sell entrenching that price gouging and making it even worse. 
That is why on the basis of that history it is right for me to come to this Chamber and inquire whether what National will do with monopoly rights in respect of copyright will be another example of plundering at the expense of consumers as it favours the interests of the copyright-holder. 
I have already said that I agree with copyright. I think we should protect copyright for creative content. 
Hon Member 
: That’s the second time you’ve said it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith did not hear it when I said it the first time. I think we should protect copyright but that does not mean it should last for ever. They are monopoly rights that enable people to monopoly price. Monopolies ought to be controlled in the copyright area as everywhere else. That is why there is a limited term to copyright in law; otherwise those monopoly rents can be extracted for ever. That is the theory that lies behind copyright behind patent law and behind limited terms to both patent and copyright. That is why Brian Fallow is right to state in his article that the US trade demands on intellectual property are a real sore point. 
Simon Bridges 
: I can’t read it from here David. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member cannot? Well I will read it out to him. The headline states: “US trade demands a real sore point”. Protectionism provisions in Trans-Pacific talks should alarm our Government. 
Dr Smith also said all our negotiations on the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement were in secret. Not so I say to Dr Smith. There were regular briefings of Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions by the Labour-led Government. Grant Robertson was involved in them so the Minister in the chair should not suggest that we had that same level of secrecy. 
We still have not heard from the Minister whether he will reopen the vexed section 92A issue pursuant to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and whether he will upset the fine balance that has been achieved and endorsed by legislators. I again quote from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article of 31 March by Brian Fallow: “Fine balances have been achieved and endorsed by legislators Shera said but the US agenda in the secretive TPP process could drive a coach and horses through much of that.” That was said by Rick Shera a partner of Lowndes Jordan. I am sure he is a competent person; I have no reason to doubt that his views are credible. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I will not go there in terms of responding to what Mr Parker was talking about because I think he is simply anti-American. 
Before I get on with my speech I thank the officials who are here in the Chamber. As previous speakers have mentioned the officials have put up with a lot of our ignorance about what is happening out there. Some of us have talked about the generational differences and the fact that we were not getting to grips with how file sharing was happening. The problem is not about just file sharing—it is not like sharing a copy of a DVD. It is actually the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. 
Clare Curran said unauthorised file-sharing was happening on the Internet because some material was not available on the Internet or anywhere. She gave an example of a colleague who wanted to get a copy of a piece of music that was not available anywhere and she suggested that the only place her colleague could possibly go was to one of the Torrent websites. She qualified that statement by saying that her colleague did not go there. I hope she did not mean to say what she insinuated. To say that just because something is unavailable and someone does not have it that person could do an unauthorised activity and ignore the right of the copyright-holder is totally like saying that if someone does not have the money and has no ability to earn it they have the right to go and steal it off somebody else. That is pretty much a similar thing. Breaking a law whether it is an assault on a person or an assault on copyright should be punished not excused. 
During the Commerce Committee’s consideration we heard many submitters from both sides of the argument. I want share some data that I think came from the Motion Picture Association. When we look at the monthly infringement rates per country in 2009 we see that we did pretty well. We are down here on the graph I am holding at third to last. When we look at the breakdown of the monthly infringement rates per capita we see that we are way up there behind only Australia. 
What is really interesting about the data is that on both of the graphs Korea is last. I am not just trying to plug Korea because I was born there. It is really interesting that Korea has the most Draconian law when it comes to Internet and online infringement. It was the first country that— 
Simon Bridges 
: What about Uzbekistan? 
MELISSA LEE 
: No; Korea. It was the first country to suspend online accounts because people infringed copyright law. It was the first country in the world to do so. 
Two in five in New Zealand youth download movies for free. The majority of those infringers do not feel guilty that they are taking income from creators such as New Zealand bands and movie-makers. Perhaps Clare Curran is right in that if more of this music and movie material was readily available people would not download illegally. But unless the industry can be protected there will not be incentives for businesses to develop business models and innovative tools so that users can legitimately access the range of content while protecting the rights of the copyright holders. 
It is similar to when we are growing vegetables. If we are not very successful we get help from somebody else. Internet communities are the same. If we want something we share files with our friends our peers but at the moment the way people are going about that is to do it illegally. They are file sharing copyright material and that should not happen. In order for creators to flourish we need to protect their rights and I think this is a fantastic thing we are doing. I commend the bill to the Committee. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I was not sure I would take a call in this debate but I thought that was an extraordinary contribution from the member who just resumed her seat Melissa Lee. It highlights the lack of any kind of plan from this National Government. 
The example my colleague Clare Curran gave went to the nub of the problem. We are making these changes because we want to support New Zealand artists and to support their copyright rights. We want to make sure they are not losing enormous amounts of money and to make sure they are not prevented from continuing to do what they want to do because of people illegally downloading and obtaining their information. That is what we want to do and that has to be the end goal. 
Melissa Lee said that the Labour Party was saying it was OK for someone to download illegally and that that was like committing assault but that was not what Clare Curran said. Clare Curran said that if people cannot find online something they desperately want to purchase legally they may eventually go to a file-sharing website because they were not able to find it anywhere else. A solution would be to work out as many ways as possible to allow people to find this information and these products legally. It is about prevention. 
The National Government’s approach to law and order is all about passing at the tail end ridiculous legislation such as the three-strikes legislation which will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime. It does all those things at the tail end of the spectrum after an offence has happened and they do nothing to keep people safer at all. National rubbishes all the great work that the Labour Government did in trying to prevent crime through early intervention. It rubbishes it calling it PC and namby-pamby and loads up ridiculous laws such as the three-strikes legislation at the ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff end of the spectrum. Melissa Lee was suggesting we do that in this area as well. Labour members are saying we want to make sure people can access things legally. That will be the way that we solve this problem—as well as having a penalty at the end. But to say that the penalty at the end will solve the entire problem is not being realistic. 
I pay tribute to my colleague Clare Curran. This has been a very difficult issue. It has been ongoing. As the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment has said a number of us have received numerous correspondence through our offices on this issue. It is an issue that strikes to the very heart of the freedom that New Zealanders feel they should have when they are accessing the Internet. We need to determine whether the punishment fits the crime and try to balance it with the need to protect New Zealand artists and their work and ensure they are not losing their livelihoods. It is a very difficult balance to get. I congratulate Clare Curran on the work she did in trying to find a compromise and trying to find a safeguard. It is not perfect by any means—not perfect at all—but it is a compromise and it is a safeguard. 
Labour members did not have to do that. We are in Opposition. The Government had the numbers to push through the original law as it was. We could have just railed against it shouted into the wind and said how terrible it all is but we wanted to be constructive in this area. We wanted to find a solution that works and also protects the rights of New Zealanders so that they do not feel they have a kind of Big Brother over-the-top Government approach coming down on top of them. It has not been easy but that is what a responsible Opposition does. That is what a responsible Opposition has done in this case. As we said the solution is not entirely perfect. If we were in Government we would probably do it differently having learnt from our experience when we were in Government. But “compromise” is not a dirty word and the compromise in this respect and in this regard is far better than what would have gone through had Clare Curran as our spokesperson on communications and information technology not put in that work to try to find something that would allay the concerns of all those people out there who were contacting us before the last election and post the election about the excessive nature of that particular penalty under the law. 
I was disappointed that the Minister in the chair chose to attack my colleague David Parker in the way that he did. I think the issues that David Parker was raising were actually very sensible. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to respond to a few of the points that have been raised by members to add to the debate we are having this evening. The first of those I want to respond to is from the Green Party and Gareth Hughes. There is a fundamental problem for Green Party members: they do not understand that rights go with responsibility. It does not matter what area of endeavour it is in. With this area of the Internet the Greens are very strong on rights but very light on responsibilities. I have a question for the Green Party. In our law governing our transport system we have a right for people to drive a car. But also we have in our law the responsibility that goes with that right. The ultimate sanction for the courts is to take someone’s driver’s licence from them and to prohibit that person from driving for the broader public good. Frankly our road transport system which requires order would not operate without that sanction. 
We could look to another sector such as telephones. The member rightly says that telephones are historically a basic right. Telephones have become a pretty essential part of life. Yet in our laws it is possible that if somebody abuses the privilege of a telephone—they use it for improper purpose they make abusive phone calls and the like—the courts have the power to take away that person’s telephone as the ultimate sanction for not respecting that right and the responsibilities that go with it. 
We have other areas—for instance radio telecommunications using old walkie-talkies and those sorts of forms of early communications. Again there are rights there that are balanced with responsibility. This bill provides a whole lot more checks about the steps that need to be gone through. But ultimately we are saying that if we cannot control the Wild West and the abuse of copyright then the law needs to have the ultimate sanction to be able to suspend a person’s Internet connection. This Government brings to this debate that proper trade-off that goes into a society with rights and responsibilities. 
I also want to respond to some of the points made by David Parker because I really think they exposed some pretty flawed thinking. David Parker argued that copyright is a monopoly. I think the member has it all wrong. Copyright is actually about a private property right. If a person such as Dave Dobbyn creates a magnificent piece of music such as “Loyal” do we oppose his being able to control the distribution and use of that music? Is he exhibiting monopoly rights over his creation? How is that different to me expressing my monopoly rights over the house I own the monopoly rights I have over my car or the monopoly rights I have over a creation I make as an engineer in my field of endeavour? I really think that for Labour to align copyright with a monopoly right is a flawed perspective. 
David Parker was a Minister of Energy in the previous Labour Government. He was in charge of the electricity network when we saw the highest price increases ever in the history of New Zealand—a 72 percent increase in power prices. The gall! He now stands up in this Chamber and lectures a Government that is seeing substantially less increase and I have the figures. During Labour’s period in Government power prices went up by 8 percent per year. In the first 2 years of this Government they have gone up by 4 percent per year on average. I ask members to remember that that includes the introduction of the emissions trading scheme and the increase in GST. I say to members of the Labour Opposition— 
Raymond Huo 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What the Minister is trying to say has nothing to do with the current bill. It has no relevance whatsoever. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister is replying to previous issues raised in the debate. He can do that for a little while. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It was Mr Parker who somehow in this debate introduced the issue of power prices. I just wanted to tell the Committee a few home truths about what has been going on in that sector. I can understand that if I was a Labour member I would be pretty defensive and would not want to hear a few hard facts about what has actually happened with power prices. 
I stress again that I think Simon Power the Commerce Committee and the officials have done a really balanced sensible job on this important bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the chance to take a very short call on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. This call is directed at the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment. I would like his response to a particular issue. I have been following some of the social media traffic in relation to the bill—and people are keenly watching the debate in the House tonight—and I am seeing two pieces of feedback coming through. The first is there seems to be an adverse reaction to the Minister’s references to Dave Dobbyn and the second is about an incredibly important point and that is the definition of “file sharing” within the bill. 
Simon Bridges 
: They don’t sing “Loyal” in the Labour Party at the moment. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The member may jest but I have an important point to raise. Originally in the bill the definition of “file sharing” stated: “ ‘file sharing’ is where material—(a) is downloaded from the Internet; or (b) is made available on the Internet by a user in a form in which the material may be downloaded by 1 or more other users; or (c) is transferred directly or indirectly via the Internet from one user to another user”. That was the original definition of “file sharing”. Under that definition everyone who has ever used the Internet probably by default falls under the definition of having shared files. 
But we do of course have a new definition. After reading the InternetNZ submission I have to say the new definition of “file sharing” is very similar—other than the omission of the word “protocol”—to the original suggestion from InternetNZ: “file sharing is where—(a) material is uploaded via or downloaded from the Internet using an application or network that enables the simultaneous sharing of material between multiple users; and (b) uploading and downloading may but need not occur at the same time”. As I say it is a very similar definition to that worked through by InternetNZ—with some caveats and some trepidation I have to say. InternetNZ was of the view that more work needed to be done on this area but I imagine that for the sake of expediency InternetNZ made a recommendation during its submission. 
I would like to request the Minister given that  
Hansard 
 will be used as a record going forward in the way that this bill is applied in practical terms to give the Committee his view of the definition of “file sharing” how he sees that definition being applied once this legislation is enacted and becomes law. For instance does he believe that it includes an attachment to an email? How far does his view of this definition go? I think clarification from the Minister would be helpful for this debate. I am not going to give my interpretation because of course as a Government Minister his definition on record in  
Hansard 
 will be much more important going forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution on that issue. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 There are so many things to say. Essentially there are a couple of things I want to address. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment opened a can of worms when he talked about fundamental principles. He started by talking about principles but then basically attacked Opposition members. He then talked about the fundamental problem with the Green Party. Well I would like to tell the Minister what the fundamental problem is with the National Government and it is that it is full of hot air. 
The Government is full of rhetoric that does not match the reality and there are so many examples of that. I would like to bring one example to the attention of members tonight that has core relevance to this debate: the importance of investing in our heritage and in our cultural content. Essentially that is the thing we are trying to protect through this legislation by providing copyright—protection of the creators’ works. Unfortunately this Government is taking away the funding the support base and the confidence from our creative sector which is a great tragedy. Unfortunately this is the awful rhetoric we are faced with from this Government. 
Let us look at some of the facts. The Minister attacked the Labour Opposition in relation to TVNZ 7. Television New Zealand appeared before the Commerce Committee last week and told that committee which saw this legislation through and did all the hard work that it was no longer a public broadcaster. Television New Zealand said it had been instructed that it was a commercial broadcaster and that was before legislation has been passed through the House to disband the public sector charter. We are making Television New Zealand into a commercial broadcaster. There is no public broadcasting in this country; there is no investment by this Government in cultural content which this legislation is designed to protect. We are ring-fencing the funding for Radio New Zealand and squeezing the heart and soul of New Zealand content. 
Basically the Minister has contributed only hot air to this debate. He does not understand the issues. If it was the actual Minister who is taking this legislation through the House who was getting up and talking about principles maybe we could have taken him seriously. This legislation and Labour’s support for this legislation is based on principles. Labour’s support for legislation is always based on principles. If we want to talk about the monopoly issue versus the failure of the market which underpins this whole issue but which this Government refuses to address then I want to make some comments about it. 
I refer members to another submission. It was a very sensible submission provided to the select committee by one David Farrar. Mr Farrar whom I may not always agree with on a number of issues makes some very sensible points in his submission about the research on economic damage that is being claimed by many organisations—not the people who create content but the organisations that represent them such as the corporates and the monopolies that David Parker was referring to. He said that some rights-holders produce reports stating that the economic damage is in the billions assuming that every single download of a work is a sale that would have otherwise occurred. This ignores the fact that many downloaders try— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There are a couple of points that I would like to respond to in the debate and the first of those is the accusation or the assertion from Clare Curran that Government members—and particularly me—have been talking just hot air. Well let us go through the dialogue that has occurred in the debate. In that member’s earlier contribution she made a great deal of and objected to the fact that the Minister of Broadcasting has decided not to provide additional funding to Television New Zealand for the funding of TVNZ 7. I pointed out that the previous Government in agreeing to fund that channel had said that the funding was for a limited period and that Television New Zealand would then be able to run it from its commercial revenues. 
I had a very simple challenge for the member Clare Curran: if she objected to the Government not funding the channel would she say whether Labour would have funded it? The members were absolutely silent. They could give the Committee absolutely no assurance at all. My simple point to her was that it was the case of the pot calling the kettle black. If there is hot air it is a party standing up in this Parliament saying that something is outrageous is awful and that the Government is not going to fund something but then not being sure whether their party would fund it. I have to say to the member that that is hot air. 
I can tell the member something else that was hot air and that was the charter that the previous Government had within Television New Zealand. Everybody in the broadcasting sector has come to the conclusion that Labour’s charter was nothing more than hot air. I say to that member before she asserts such claims in the House to consider that point further and to give us some idea despite all the rhetoric about supporting the creative industries where her party was when the call was between the creative industries and the filming of  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand. Well I think Damien O’Connor had the answer—that is that self-interested trade unionists went ahead of the national interest and the interest of New Zealand’s creative industries. 
I will also respond to the question from Jacinda Ardern about where in this bill the definition of file sharing is. It is quite simply set out in clause 7 of Part 1. That clause sets out quite clearly the definition of file sharing and I further say that yes that definition does include an attachment that involves the sharing of files. 
I was also very concerned that members opposite took offence at my enthusiasm for Dave Dobbyn Bic Runga Hayley Westenra and other great New Zealand artists. I have to confess to being an enthusiast for all of those great New Zealand artists and I am surprised that members opposite would be anything other than enthusiasts for those wonderful New Zealand musicians whose creative rights and copyright interests this House should seriously consider protecting through copyright provisions because those creative industries are so important to New Zealand. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 We have just heard another lot of hot air. The Minister for the Environment is dissembling shall we say. He does not understand the issues he cannot enter into debate on the substantive issues in the bill and he will not address the underlying major issues that I was attempting to address. 
I would like to continue talking to the Committee about the market failure which is essentially the most important issue that this country and this Parliament should be addressing in terms of how we as a nation can create encourage foster and support our creative content which is essentially our cultural identity and can ensure that it is available to our citizens and to the rest of the world. We should also enable and encourage new business models to occur that will enable people to use the Internet which is our future and enable them to share content legally. When my colleague on the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young earlier talked about the— 
Simon Bridges 
: A good guy. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: He is a good guy—sometimes. He talked about the fact that the future is meeting us. I think that is what he said. I wrote “No! No!” in my notebook because essentially the future is already happening and this legislation is behind the eight ball. 
Although Labour has supported it because we support the fundamental principle of copyright and acknowledge the importance of protecting the creative content that our people and our nation create—it should be protected—we also know from what is happening from the behaviour out there in the world that there is a fundamental market flaw. I will go back to David Farrar’s submission. He said the reports about the damage being in the billions of dollars assume that “every single download of a ‘work’ is a sale that would have otherwise occurred. This ignores the fact that many downloaders ‘try before they buy’ or in other words download to see if they like something and if they do then purchase it legally. This is not to condone such acts”—and every submitter who came before the select committee was not condoning these acts; they were describing what is happening in reality what our children are doing and what our friends are doing and what apparently none of us are doing but just about every person we know has family members who have done this—“but to point out that the assumptions over economic damage are unwarranted.” He continued: “In Australasia the most recent stats (from the Int Assn of the Phonographic Industry) show that music revenues are up 3.5% (physical sales down 2.4% digital sales up 41.4% and performance rights up 8.6%) in 2009. Also APRA reported that in 2008/09 distributions to music creators increased by 10%”. At the same time and I hope the Minister is listening “In the movie industry global ticket sales were up 7.6% … during the worst recession in 70 years.” 
The point of these statistics is to put the claims of the industry groups into proportion. Legitimate sales of content on the Internet are going up more and more content is being sold and the claims that illegal file-sharing are causing such damage are simply false. What has happened is that there is a market failure and here I am lecturing the National Government on market failures. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit new sections 122O 122P and 122PA. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Related amendments to Parts 10 and 11 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to insert new clause 9A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 Commencement 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Simon Power be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The passing of this bill marks the conclusion of a long complex and controversial policy debate on how to address the widespread unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the key features of the new enforcement and awareness-raising measures that are created by this bill. 
Copyright owners will be able to work with Internet service providers to send a series of warning notices to persons who are engaged in file sharing that infringes copyright. If an Internet account holder ignores these warnings and continues to infringe then copyright owners will be able to take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal for an award of up to $15000. Just as important at all stages persons who are accused of illegal file-sharing will have the opportunity to respond to any of the allegations that are made. The regime will be low cost and it will be efficient for all parties. There is also scope in this bill to bring into force an additional enforcement measure: the suspension of an Internet account by the District Court if the notice and Copyright Tribunal processes do not provide an effective deterrent against illegal file-sharing. 
These new enforcement measures provide important legal protection for our creative industries and the incentives for them to continue to create music film software and other works that New Zealand consumers enjoy. The new measures are fair and balanced and will do a great deal to educate Internet users about the rights of copyright owners and the issues relating to the sharing of copyright works via the Internet. 
On behalf of Simon Power the Minister of Commerce I thank everyone who has contributed to this bill and the policy process that led to it including members of the Commerce Committee parliamentary counsel officials members of the public and industry representatives who have participated in the various submissions and the policy development process. 
It is the Minister’s hope that through the constructive discussions that have been had across the House and through a very thorough public consultation process this bill will provide an enduring solution to a very difficult problem. At core this bill is about a balance of private property rights and the freedoms that people enjoy on the Internet. It provides an appropriate balance. I am very pleased to commend this bill for a third reading in this House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. Again I place on the record my thanks to the officials for the hard work that they have done during the passage of this bill. It has been a very complex bill. I think my colleague Jacinda Ardern described it as fraught. I have found it to be quite exciting and challenging because ultimately I think it is about the future. The underlying issues are about the future and about how we use the Internet. This bill has enabled us as a Parliament to start thinking about that matter and about addressing some of those issues. 
I will also place on record my thanks to the Commerce Committee—its chair Lianne Dalziel and the other members of the committee; all of them. It was an interesting and generally quite constructive experience to engage with the Minister of Commerce Simon Power on this issue and certainly to engage with the industry. To all of those people who are out there listening—I know that many hundreds perhaps thousands of people are watching this parliamentary debate at the moment because I know how deeply they feel about this issue—I say that Labour supports this bill and that it supports it on the basis that there has been a negotiated solution which is that although the suspension of Internet accounts remains in this bill it is not enacted. That is the only basis on which we could support the bill. 
Labour fundamentally believes that New Zealanders have the right to access the Internet and that all New Zealanders should be able to access the Internet. We are fundamentally opposed to Internet disconnection and I cannot say it any more plainly than that. This compromise means that the suspension of Internet access as the ultimate penalty for repeat copyright infringement remains in the bill but it cannot be enacted unless the Minister makes the decision to do so. The Minister making the decision would have to do so on the basis of there being a case put clearly by the rights-holders in order to prove the damage being done to the industry and it is our opinion that such a case cannot be made in this current environment. As members know Labour’s preferred option was to completely omit account suspension but National’s position was intractable. Again I will also put on record particularly for the benefit of the Green members in this House that Labour has been transparent and open about all of those matters right from the very beginning. 
Having addressed that matter I will say a few things about the debate that we have had tonight because the debate has gone in a number of interesting directions. A number of matters were not discussed unfortunately and one of them is the costs although I must correct myself and say that one member opposite did raise that issue. I would have liked to go into that issue a little bit more as it goes to the regulations and to how this bill will act in practice including what those costs will entail and who will end up paying them in order to make this regime work. 
There were a number of extremely interesting submissions on this matter and a number of estimations were made on the actual cost of producing a notice that would go to a person using the Internet who was alleged to have infringed. The cost of processing and sending a notice was estimated by one of the Internet service providers as I think somewhere between $1 and $28 per notice. This issue needs to be continued to be examined in terms of how many notices will actually be put out there what the costs are and who ends up paying for that. A number of other issues need to be addressed as well. 
This debate is a positive thing in some ways but one of the things that this debate has done is to put firmly on the agenda the thorny and frightening issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It has been described as a trade agreement but it is fast becoming something much more than that and goes to the heart of issues of sovereignty. A number of speakers in the House tonight have talked about that. To quickly recap I mentioned the fact that while this bill is passing through the House New Zealand might have the ability to put in place its own copyright regime only to be overtaken by something much much bigger and much more frightening in terms of our intellectual property rights and our ability to manage our creative content. Essentially that could be overtaken by this bill. 
Labour has made statements on this matter. We have asked for more transparency and for a broadened dialogue and we have asked the Government to make a commitment to that. So far tonight despite repeated calls there has been no sense of that commitment coming from the other side of the House. That is a great disappointment. 
I go back to the core parts of this bill. This bill will establish a regime that deters file sharing that infringes copyright. It is hoped by many in this Chamber and indeed I think by all of us across this Chamber that the intent of this bill will largely be served by the educational role of the notice and notice regime that the point at which an alleged infringer is taken to a tribunal will be minimal and that essentially if people are infringing copyright and do not know that what they are doing is illegal which is what much of the research shows then they will cease that behaviour once they have received the first notice or the second notice. That is essentially what we hope will happen. But as in every regime around the world that is dealing with these issues at the moment there is still no real conclusive evidence on that. We are lucky in a sense in New Zealand that we are tonight putting through this House legislation that does not include that Draconian measure of suspension and termination which has turned so many other environments in the international area on their heads and created a flashpoint for protest. As I mentioned in my second reading speech in the UK there is a High Court case a judicial review happening as we speak on their legislation because it includes termination. 
In conclusion I say that Labour supports this bill. We support it with reservations. We believe there are some much bigger issues to deal with on this issue. We look forward to providing substantive policy in this area. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak on the third reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. This is an opportunity to thank the Minister Simon Power for his work in bringing about this bill which cleans up some of the mess from the last Government. It is an opportunity to thank the Minister also for his negotiation skills. There was a lot of negotiation going on not just with other parties but with stakeholders in order to get what I believe to be fair and reasonable legislation that addresses the needs of all stakeholders. 
I will talk on a couple of other points but first I also thank the officials. We have brought a number of bills to the House through the Commerce Committee. Our relationship with the officials in getting legislation through our select committee—but also through the House—is good. We salute the officials and the work that they do. This piece of legislation certainly provided some pretty complex issues to work through. 
I will touch on a couple of issues during this speech. One is about cost recovery. I mentioned in the Committee stage that I think it is a pretty big point. When the Internet service providers or Internet protocol address providers came to the committee they talked about the huge burden of cost for implementing such systems. Depending on the size of the Internet service providers some said it would be in the millions of dollars and some said it would be in the hundreds of thousands. But in terms of coming to an actual cost per notice processing fee they came up with a range of between $14 per notice and $56. Those notices far exceed the actual price of the transgression. We could not work out in this legislation an appropriate cost recovery or fee-paying system. That will be left to the regulations. In my opinion it is not always ideal to leave these types of fee-paying systems to the regulations but in this case I think the officials will work closely with the relevant stakeholders to find a system that is fair and reasonable for the parties. It may be relevant to note that regulations have been set up in the United Kingdom on a cost-sharing basis. That may be a model that our officials and certainly the stakeholders here may look to. 
This legislation has been about balancing competing interests. We have all noted the importance of private property rights the importance of intellectual property rights and the investment by our industries—especially our creative industries—in making those products and services and the importance of balancing that out with the freedoms of individuals to express themselves and the freedom to certainly access the Internet. I think on balance this legislation has been put through in a really effective way. I think the legislation will be workable. But just as a warning if you like to the members opposite I say this is still subject to evidence being produced that this system will work. It is not a guarantee as one of my colleagues from across the aisle has said and we will not support that as a Labour member said prior to my speech. It will be about collecting the right amount of evidence and a decision being made in the future in a review period that will be reasonable in order to see whether the current regime is working and whether a suspension system will be put in place. But this is very good legislation; I think it balances out the competing interests and I commend it to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to note that the Hon Chris Finlayson is a Minister in the House now. His colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been in the chair for most of the night on the Copyright (File Sharing Infringement) Amendment Bill and unfortunately he has not addressed the issues we raised that still remain outstanding with regard to the effect that the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations will have on the length of copyright periods and whether the section 92 provisions in the bill will be reopened. According to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 31 March from the content of leaked proposals from the United States Government in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations those things are on the table. The United States wants to lengthen the period of copyright so as to benefit the monopoly holders of those copyrights and also to reopen the issue about what responsibility Internet providers should have in respect of breaches of copyright that are carried out through the services they provide. 
The policy issues and the Labour position on the bill have been well outlined by Clare Curran and I will not go into that again. But I do want to just place on record that I think it is unsatisfactory that the Minister in the chair despite the fact that this issue has been the subject of prominent publicity has not been able to give us any assurance that the Government is not going to bend on these issues. I believe in copyright but I do not believe in open-ended copyright periods. I do not believe in unrestrained monopoly rights in any area. If one develops something that is patented which actually needs novelty and a lot of other steps to be proven before one can get a patent one’s patent does not last for 50 years beyond the life of the person who made the invention. It does not last as long as that. A patent right is a lot shorter in terms of years than we already have for copyright which currently goes for 50 years beyond the life of the creator. The United States wants to extend that to 70 years. 
The theory that lies behind copyright is not advanced by extending the copyright period. The theory that lies behind copyright is that there has to be some fair reward available to the person who creates creative content or content suitable for copyright in designs and things. It is important to allow that through copyright. Otherwise people will be unable to afford to produce the content that makes us richer as a society—and I do not just mean “richer” in a money sense; I mean culturally richer because we have the result of creative endeavour. So that is the theory behind it. 
When copyright was invented it was I think originally a law invention in the United Kingdom. Until then people could write a book and the next day someone could rip it off. So someone could rip off the book that someone else might have laboured 10 years to produce; the person who spent the 10 years writing the book could be left penniless and the person who ripped it off and then printed it could make a fortune and that was wrong. Apart from anything else if that had persisted there would not be many people writing books and we would all be the poorer for it. That is essentially why we have copyright but there does not have to be copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years after their death in order to encourage people to write books. It has already gone a lot further than that if we think about it. In practice an author does not write a book because someone else will get a royalty potentially 50 years after he or she has died. That is not real. And the fact that the Americans want to extend that to 70 years after the death of the author is patently about money. It is not about creativity; it is actually about extending the monopoly rights of the copyright holder. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: It’s not a monopoly. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a monopoly. The copyright is a monopoly. Did I hear that member say it is not a monopoly? That is completely wrong. That is what people get when they get copyright. They get the right to control who copies it. The copyright holder is the only person who has the right to legally copy it. That person has monopoly rights. 
Jonathan Young 
: Personal property right. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a monopoly personal property right. It is an intangible right as one member put it. 
Chris Tremain 
: No one is arguing that it’s a property right. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What? 
Chris Tremain 
: That’s what the Minister said. He agreed with you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Did he agree that the term should not extended beyond 50 years? 
Chris Tremain 
: No he said that it was a property right. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well no one is disagreeing that it is a property right. We are just saying there should be limits to that copyright. There should be limits and the Minister would not go on record and say it ought not to be extended beyond the existing term of 50 years after the death of the person who created the material that is subject to copyright. This is just so typical of this Government which really rules for the big end of town. Those at the big end of town are the ones who benefit from extended use of those monopoly rights. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: And employees of those corporations. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh I see. So there is going to be some trickle-down theory. I have no problem with people making money. I actually like businesses to succeed and make money. I like making money myself. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But we ought not to confer monopoly rights that give people a privileged right to extract a monopoly rent for an unfairly long term. That is why I made reference at the start of this to the theory that lies behind copyright. We should have recourse to that underlying theory which is to encourage creativity and creative content to be formed for the benefit of society. When there are lengths of copyright that are longer than is necessary to achieve that people should not kid themselves that they are in pursuit of the theory that lies behind copyright. They are not. They are actually agreeing to longer terms because it is in the monopolistic interests of those people who have that pre-eminent position as a consequence of their copyright and who want it to go on longer. That is all that is happening. So the Government ought to be clear and say it will not agree to that provision. 
Chris Tremain 
: So we’re going to socialise creative talent now are we? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That member does not get it. He just does not get it just like Dr Nick Smith did not get it. But I do trust that Chris Finlayson will get it and that is why I am raising the issue. I hope that he keeps an eye on this in the negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Otherwise we will make New Zealand poorer as a country overall not richer. We will get poorer as a country overall not richer by agreeing to those sorts of unwise terms. We do not agree to ridiculously long lengths of patents. Why should we have overly long periods of copyright protection? That is all I am asking and we still have not had an answer from the Government on that. 
The other issue is that it would be a nonsense to go through all of this again and reopen the section 92 debate. I do not say Internet providers ought to be free of all responsibility in respect of protecting other people’s property rights. That is a cop-out. Having said that I say there are technological difficulties that cannot be ignored. It is no use having laws that are patently unenforceable which was one of the problems with the underlying law before its reform. I do not approve of laws that sit there theoretically on the statute book but cannot in practice be enforced because that brings the law into disrepute too. 
I support this bill but I am concerned that this Government is too permissive of monopoly excess. We hear people claiming that this is private enterprise. Monopolies are not an example of free enterprise; free enterprise relies upon—in its proper form in my view—competitive markets. These are exceptions to competitive markets. The Government is too ready to agree to uncompetitive markets in New Zealand. National has done it before in respect of lines companies and we still have it in respect of power companies where we have proven that there is monopoly excess gouging of consumers through excessive monopoly-based power being used to excessively price electricity in New Zealand. We have seen it before in New Zealand in respect of telecommunications. Currently legislation is going through this House that will create monopoly rights in respect of some incumbents in the broadband arena which has been widely opposed by most broadband market participants as being anti-competitive yet is still being pursued by this Government. So in New Zealand people are right to be suspicious of this Government when it comes to its control of monopoly excess and I certainly am. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been an absolute privilege to speak tonight even though my voice is fading. I acknowledge all the robust debate we have had. 
So we have the Internet eh? It is not like Skynet but it is transforming our world in such amazing ways and I have seen that tonight in the debate online. It is not just a “nice to have” in the parlance of the Government. It is an essential utility. It is an essential part of our modern world. It is the way the Government interacts with its public. It is the way our democracy is increasingly having its debates. It is where Government departments interact with the public on things like tax. It is where we entertain ourselves. It is where some of us meet our partners. It is where we literally live our lives. It is such an important part of our world. I also think that Internet access is a fundamental right in our modern world. One survey of 28000 people in 26 countries found 80 percent thought that Internet access was a fundamental right and I support that worldview. 
Essentially the debate we have had tonight is the legacy of a decade or more of a lack of actual foresight by this Parliament and previous Parliaments. We should have been having these discussions 10 years ago. A whole generation—my generation—has grown up not knowing anything else but copyright infringing. All my generation has grown up with are those ridiculous ads we see when we load a VHS. Those ads say that stealing a video is like stealing a car or robbing a purse. It is nothing like that. Those exaggerations in the ads have done no good service to the genuine debate on copyright in New Zealand. 
It is good that Parliament is discussing Internet issues and copyright in general. The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill is better than before and I have taken every opportunity I can to point that out. It is so much better than section 92A of the Copyright Act. The Commerce Committee did some fantastic work in cleaning it up but ultimately we need to have a fundamental rethink on copyright law. We have gone about it in the wrong direction in this Parliament. This bill has come from the position that we need to strengthen copyright. That is the basic premise this bill is built on not a genuine reflection of what copyright is in 2011 what it will be in the coming decade or what we need to do to make our copyright law better more robust and reflect the real world. 
It is disappointing that this debate is happening under urgency. I was looking forward to contacting members in the Chamber and putting forward another Supplementary Order Paper to amend the parody and satire law clauses of our copyright legislation. At the moment websites are being taken down in New Zealand because we do not have an ability for artists creatives political satirists or anyone to use parody or satire as a legal defence as they can in Australia. I recommend that members check out the Hitler downfall parody videos that are online particularly the one about Internet take-downs. 
It is a pity we are taking this legislation through all stages tonight. I acknowledge the listeners and thank them for their tweets humour and ideas but most of all for engaging with politics. Too often there is a disenfranchised chunk of our country. It is great that they have definitely been watching us in their hundreds—maybe thousands—today. 
The theme I have picked up from those tweets blog posts and humorous pictures is the scepticism of us as elected officials and the scepticism of Parliament as a legislature when it comes to copyright law. Section 92A really did scare a huge chunk of our most informed population and the lack of responsibility in the House has been disappointing. It is all right to say we mucked up section 92A. It was bad law. It was rushed through. The process at the end—when massive amendments were rammed through—was terrible. It is all right for both Labour and National members to take responsibility and sometimes say that they mucked up. 
It is also not surprising that there is scepticism from the public for the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. New Zealanders are legitimately concerned that we are literally negotiating away our rights as a country in order to get free-trade deals and when it comes to our own independent ability to make law on things like copyright. 
I acknowledge the compromise that was reached at the Commerce Committee. I prefer that we are seeing this position in the Chamber. I would still like to see the facts about what thresholds will enact it what the evidence will be what the timelines will be and whether there will be public consultation. I have not seen the facts and I do not think the public have seen them. It is good we are debating the bill but I do not think we should have a provision in the bill for account suspension. 
The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to that provision so is Labour. Labour members say they are fundamentally opposed to the provision but they are quite happy to devolve responsibility to the Minister. They are washing their hands of the responsibility. People want to vote and people want to see principles in the Parliament. They want to see what a party’s bottom lines are and when members say they are fundamentally opposed to something but will vote for it people start to question that view. 
Our position on the opposition to account suspension is not a Green position; it is our community’s position. I have seen comments from the right of the political spectrum all the way through to the left. It is not moralistic or a case of the Green Party taking a higher ground; we are taking the public ground—what the public of New Zealand want. 
This law is bad precedent. The Minister Nick Smith is wrong. We do not take away someone’s bike or car if they use their bike or car to commit a robbery. We do not take away someone’s telephone if they use it as part of a criminal act. It is just not like that. We have seen no evidence that account suspension will be effective. We have seen no compelling arguments as to why we need to do it. 
I misquoted earlier. The 70 percent figure those who would reduce their file infringing after receiving an education notice was not a New Zealand figure. I understand that it was a Canadian figure. We just do not have that evidence in New Zealand. Ultimately we are bringing in a law that is disproportionate will not work and takes away people’s rights to an Internet account when the Minister decides to enact it through an Order in Council. 
The Greens have not been irresponsible. We do support notices and fines and we do think they are an appropriate deterrent. It is somewhat ironic that Jami-Lee Ross our newest member who gave a fantastic tea-party speech all about the role of the big State is voting for a law where the State will come in if the Minister enacts it and take away—pull the cable out—someone’s Internet account. That is “big State” if ever I saw it. 
There is a chance we could have got a better bill. There is no reason why account suspension had to be in the bill. Minister Power is a reasonable Minister. I am sure he would have liked to have cross-party support in the Chamber but we will never know because Labour members say: “Trust us. We negotiate as hard as we can. Trust us.” But can we trust Labour? Ultimately like the tweeters I have a great degree of scepticism of the Government and I believe that it will bring in account suspension as soon as it can. Who knows how long the Government will look at the evidence for what type of evidence it will be and who will be providing it? Serious questions are left up in the air. Essentially the section 92A debate will keep on flowing over the next years. 
In summary I acknowledge the good changes made at the select committee—peer-to-peer software the changing definitions of Internet service providers and the fact that on the whole lawyers will not be involved in the tribunal. I acknowledge all the stuff we did not get a chance to talk about tonight because rightfully we focused on the account suspension issue. It would be good to discuss what was left in the regulations. It would be good to discuss mobile termination and the big decisions the select committee made on that issue. To wrap up I say that I am proud to be standing on my principles in this Chamber and not voting for a law that has such a disproportionate unfair unworkable and wrong clause in it about account suspension. Kia ora. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to continue the discussion and debate on the third reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The issue is very interesting. Essentially three parties are involved—copyright holders those people who utilise what they produce and in the middle Internet service providers who are the medium through which the files are shared. 
In July 2008 20 percent of Europeans used file-sharing networks to obtain music and 10 percent used paid-for digital music services such as iTunes. So we can understand why musicians are particularly concerned about and interested in the passage of the bill. If we look at those figures in Europe we see that two out of three downloads were through file sharing whereby there was no payment to or acknowledgment of the owner of the music. I remember Moana Mackey making a comment during the Committee stage that I found very interesting. Her comment was about working to find a compromise between the personal property rights of a creative person who constructs a piece of art writes some music or makes a movie and the rights of people who own a computer to access information and content on the Internet. We should be looking for a compromise. 
There is a very logical compromise which I am sure everybody in the House supports and which the bill is about and it is called a financial transaction. If somebody wants to download something from the Internet that belongs to somebody else if they engage in a financial transaction—value for value—then the person who downloads the song and listens to it or watches the movie receives value from it and they reciprocate value back to the producer whether the producer is a company or an individual. That transaction is broadly acknowledged as being both honest and fair. The bill is about balancing the rights of people by doing what is honest and fair by people. 
Our Government wants to see the economic and financial growth not only of industry manufacturers and exporters but also of our creative people entrepreneurs designers and innovators. We want to see those people acknowledged and advantaged by their skill. We want the nation to be aspirational. If we allow people to rip off others take away what they have created and give back no value then we are undermining the aspirations of this country and undermining those people who use their intellect creativity— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)