Volume 613 Week 42 - Tuesday 11 November 2003 
Volume 613 Week 42 - Tuesday 11 November 2003 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Tuesday 11 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Parliamentary Delegation Tonga 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from Tonga led by the Minister of Finance is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the acting leader of the ACT party that ACT’s parliamentary membership has changed and that Donna Awatere Huata is no longer a member of ACT for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(3) Donna Awatere Huata is from 11 November 2003 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. 
At this point at least no question of the member’s seat becoming vacant under the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 arises. That Act sets out certain conditions and procedures under which a member can be expelled from the political party for which he or she was elected. The acting leader of ACT has indicated an intention to invoke that legislation. Whether that is possible is a matter that does not arise at this time. 
ACT now has eight members of Parliament. I will therefore consult with the Green and ACT parties about the seating to be occupied by them in the Chamber. The Business Committee will need to reconsider the allocation of questions. I will reconsider the allocation of first and second reading and general debate speaking slots. I expect these matters to be settled by the end of this week. In the meantime the present allocations will continue to run though the Green Party now the third largest in the House will be called ahead of ACT to vote and to speak in debate. Allocations of funding to ACT and to Donna Awatere Huata will need to be readjusted to reflect the new party balances. This is a matter that I will attend to on advice from the Parliamentary Service Commission. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I heard you correctly you indicated to the House that the Green Party is now the third-largest party in Parliament. I do not believe that is so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I should have said fourth. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was my point of order. The error was clearly a case of wishful thinking on the part of some people or a typographical error. But when I get up for a point of order I expect you if I am asking for one at the same time as another member to respect the issue of seniority in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely; I always have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You didn’t then! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always have done except that time. As this ruling involved the ACT party I felt obliged to call the acting leader of ACT for a point of order first. But I take the member’s point. He is technically correct. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Economic Credibility 
1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has the Government received any reports into its economic credibility? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The latest household labour force survey released today showed further drops in the unemployment rate. We now have the fifth lowest unemployment rate in the OECD which puts us in the top quarter. The financial statements for the 3 months ending September also released today showed the operating balance tracking some $700 million – odd above Budget forecasts. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What recent evidence has he received to support the assessment of Mr Prebble the leader of the ACT party that Labour has high economic credibility? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There have been many such reports. The data I just referred to certainly demonstrates that fact and the ASB in a statement on unemployment numbers paid tribute to the Government’s economic policies and the success thereof. That is what I believe some people call “destroying New Zealand”—may it long continue! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How credible is it to have the Minister of Finance’s $5 billion surplus or his $700 million of spare cash when we have kohanga reo throughout the country running out of funding and calling in parents to relieve teachers and clean toilets and similar sorts of shortages in other parts of the education system and in the health system as well? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If the member thinks that under accruals accounting an operating surplus is “spare cash” it shows why he should leave these questions to John Key. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about the credibility of the Minister of Finance. Surely rather than a smart-arse comment like that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. The member can certainlyflick a comment back but he does not use unparliamentary language. He withdraws and apologises. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have withdrawn and apologised. None the lessthe Minister should answer the question. If he has a reason for kohanga reo to be out of funding—for parents to have to come in and supply cleaning materials for their toilets to relieve teachers and to provide art materials for all those young people—if he has abandoned the closing the gaps policy that was so important a wee while ago and if he has such a fine economic performance to his credit why does he not explain that situation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to say a few more words. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under accruals accounting an operating surplus does not necessarily reflect a cash surplus. Equally if the member thinks about the unemployment numbers released today there is scarcely room for a large fiscal stimulus to the New Zealand domestic sector at the present time. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the clear value that the Minister of Finance puts on Mr Prebble’s assessment does the Minister realise that Mr Prebble gave his Government an A for spin but an F for policy—this Government being the most anti-business anti-success and anti-prosperous Government we have had to endure in a generation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A Government that can boast the lowest unemployment rate for 16 years 3 successive years of higher growth than the average for the OECD growing household incomes and a particularly large reduction in unemployment amongst Maori and Pacific Islands people is clearly what the ACT party would regard as social failure. For it success is the flogging off of State assets rising unemployment and increasing poverty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister of Finance admit that in the time that he has had a say in the Labour Party’s running of this country we have seen New Zealand grow in real terms at one-third less than Australia’s rate and that we have a balance-of-payments crisis in this country that is almost unprecedented; does he put that all down to himself and his colleagues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To the first question no. To the second question current account progress in New Zealand is following Australia’s track very closely and I keep drawing that to the attention of the financial sector. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Daily Post 
 last year in which Dr Cullen stated that there would be 4 percent growth in the next year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Bream Bay Club Ruakaka—Air Quality 
2.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Crown Research Institutes 
: Does he accept that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited report titled “Air Quality inside the Bream Bay Club Ruakaka” was “flawed” as claimed by MP Steve Chadwick in her 30 October 2003 letter to Clubs NZ; if so what were the report’s flaws? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 The problem that report has run into is that it has been represented as a health risk assessment which it never pretended to be. To quote the report’s author: “It is not a health risk assessment and does not make any claims on the effects of any indoor contaminants (including tobacco smoke) on people.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the Minister deny that the scientists who wrote that report were leaned on to write a letter to the health authorities highlighting aspects of the report that do not focus on the science but instead on the political spin? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They certainly have not been leaned on by me. In fact I have a letter from the senior air quality scientist responsible for the report who states: “I have the impression that some aspects are being misinterpreted”—continuously it would seem. 
Jill Pettis 
: What advice does the Minister have on whether the claims that have been made about the report are scientifically justified? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To quote the report’s author again its air quality measurements “do not support any particular conclusion about the health effects or exposures due to tobacco smoke within the club.” That is an interesting contrast to the claim of United Future leader Peter Dunne that the report found that extra ventilation resulted in an acceptable level of air quality. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that the workers and patrons of the Bream Bay Club have the right to breathe air free of carcinogens that kill thousands of New Zealanders and is he satisfied that the research into the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke is sufficiently robust to justify the smoke-free legislation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In answer to the second question I am not sufficiently well-briefed to be honest to give the member a point of view. In answer to the first question most certainly. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How does the Minister reconcile his last answer but one relating to comments I had made about the report with the final statement in the report’s conclusion which reads: “During a trial period of extra ventilation concentrations of both contaminants fell to very low values even when smoking was allowed in a part of the club. This level of indoor air treatment appeared to result in a very acceptable level of air quality within the club.”; was the Minister aware of those comments when he dismissed my comments earlier on; if so how does he reconcile the inconsistency? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I was aware of them and I reconcile it thus: there is a difference between comfort—whether smoke gets in one’s eyes—and health—whether cancer gets in one’s body. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How does the Minister explain the file note by the scientist responsible for this report which states that he was sort of leaned on and forced to write to Mr Gillespie from the Ministry of Health and does the Minister think it is appropriate that politics should determine scientific results rather than letting them stand and be judged on their own merits? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The allegation that a scientist in New Zealand has been leaned on is new to me and it would be a matter of some concern if ever a scientist in New Zealand responded to such leaning. However the chief executive of the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research points out that the institute stands absolutely and entirely behind its research but went on to say that the report was not intended to provide comment on or research into the impacts of ventilation on passive smoking. The institute points out that even with extremely effective ventilation systems someone sitting next to a smoker would still be affected by passive smoking. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree that scientific papers are optimally assessed by international peer review and that it is unfortunate that a member of his own party has commented on this paper for political purposes before it has been thoroughly scientifically assessed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry to advise the member of the most basic piece of information: this was not a peer-reviewed piece of science. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Minister to address his claim that this report was not about smoke-free environments within the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka when the report in the section headed “Issues” on page 1 states: “The particular issue addressed here posed by the owners of the Bream Bay Club is basically: can we achieve acceptably clean air in our club by using air filtration and ventilation especially for protection against the effects of cigarette smoke?” How does he reconcile that statement in the report with his denial that the report was about that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is what the chief executive of the Bream Bay Club said it was about. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research gave a report on air quality on the issues of comfort on the issues of particulates and on the issue of carbon monoxide—not on the various toxins that arise from tobacco smoke. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end so as not to interrupt the flow of questions but I draw your attention to a difficulty we have time and time again in this House. Mr Shirley’s question to the Minister asked whether he accepted that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited report was flawed. What the Minister went on in his answer to say was that it did not cover that and it did not cover that. The report was never intended to cover those things. The precise question was: was this scientific report in its own terms flawed? The Minister refuses to answer or address it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is arguing the quality of the answer and I am not expected to judge on that. The answer stands as the Minister gave it. It addressed the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I seek leave to table the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report which backs up the claims I have made. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the letter to the manager of public health programmes by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists with the file note copy outlining how they were leaned on and forced to write this letter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Auckland Issues Minister—Confidence 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before I ask the next question can we have a brief time to stop laughing at that answer? I cannot hear myself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member raises that sort of point of order he will not be asking any further supplementary questions today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How on earth can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues who in spite of the Auckland Regional Council’s current plea that: “A lack of Government policy on population is putting added strain on already stressed resources.” said this morning on National Radio that the Government is doing its bit to help Auckland to cope with a burgeoning population; and can she explain what this “bit” is that she is talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The “bit” includes very substantial additional funding across a whole range of Government areas—not least in particular the work going on between Government officials at central and local government levels on the Auckland transport plan. 
John Key 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister who has under her watch saddled Auckland ratepayers with a dilapidated rail system failed to make any progress whatsoever on a credible roading infrastructure and seen massive regional council rate rises that have prompted a rate revolt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To take simply the first question the dilapidated rail system is largely the result of the privatisation of New Zealand Rail by the previous National Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does this “bit” as the Minister put it include helping the hundreds of Aucklanders with diabetes-related eye diseases who are going blind waiting for treatment the 40000 immigrants arriving in Auckland in the last year alone Auckland cancer patients who for the first time face a wait for lifesaving chemotherapy or migrants wasting valuable time and money by missing hospital appointments because they cannot understand letters advising them of check-ups although they are meant to have an understanding of English to arrive here in the first place; and with translation costs to the Auckland District Health Board reaching more than $4 million in the last year which “bit” of that story is helpful to Auckland? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister replies I will give my only warning today—there will be no interjections while questions are being asked and that is it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Considerable extra resources have been devoted to the Auckland health system. The introduction of population-based funding will certainly assist Auckland in particular. A great deal of work has gone into cooperation between the three Auckland district health boards. Those are all positive progress issues in Auckland. Generally migration adds to New Zealand’s wealth and value. I suggest that Mr Peters ask the member next to him about that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Despite not taking up the Minister’s invitation to ask the member next to me about that—he having been profitably employed since the day he arrived unlike the tens of thousands whom the Minister brought in—I ask this: does this “bit” include the Government’s instruction to doctors that they cannot refuse to treat illegal immigrants or residents regardless of the comment made by Auckland District Health Board chair Wayne Brown that: “It is not fair that the taxpaying locals are missing out on health care because their money is being used to treat illegal immigrants.”; how can she possibly have faith in the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues who clearly ignores Aucklanders completely other than that she is some sort of soulmate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Auckland issues is not responsible for such details as the relationship between district health boards and doctors in Auckland. 
Exchange Rate—International Credibility 
4.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he think he was being responsible when he stated that any action taken to curb the exchange rate by the Government would be declared “if and when I have done something.”; if so what impact does he think such a statement has on New Zealand’s international credibility in the financial markets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and none. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister considering an increase in the current $4.5 billion target for New Zealand’s reserves so that he can intervene with more confidence in the currency market; if so does he acknowledge that the current reserves cost the taxpayer $10 million a year in carry costs and that any increase in reserves would lead to a $20 million or $30 million cost and would run against the advice given to him by the Reserve Bank in his briefing that it would be marginal at best? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not considering that. I have been informally advised that the Reserve Bank may raise the issue with me despite its briefing to me as Minister. I have yet to consider it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think it is respectable to repeat past experience when he was first a member of Government when the dollar rose to US44c and finished at US72c—destructively against the interests of exporters—then between 1994 and 1996 it rose 26 percent under a National Government without any effort by the then Minister of Finance to do a thing; why does he think that a rise of 33 percent in the last 15 months is good for exporters good for a country dependent upon exports and good for our wealth as an exporting country overall? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought I had made it rather clear I do not but unlike the member I act according to the law. I do not believe that one can call in the Reserve Bank governor and simply order him to lower the exchange rate as that member seems to think one can. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister considering any changes to the treatment of foreign investments in New Zealand as the Thai authorities did on 14 October when they prohibited non-residents from earning interest in their current accounts dated less than 6 months; if so what does he think these impacts will have on the $98 billion of foreign investment currently in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The member may rest easy on that score. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that his comments to curb the dollar last week are working; if so has he noticed that the Kiwi has gone up 100 points since he made them to a 6½-year high? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have noticed that. But what I do know about exchange rates is that what goes up does eventually come down again. 
Growth and Innovation Task Forces—Skill Needs 
5.  
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to meet the skill needs identified by the growth and innovation task forces? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
The Government has committed $21.55 million over 4 years for two new contestable funds to ensure the training needs of the biotechnology information and communications technology and design industries are effectively met by tertiary education organisations. The Tertiary Education Commission is commencing work with the tertiary sector on the new growth and innovation framework sector peak bodies to ensure that they understand what the funds are for and they are ready to make applications early next year. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What are the two funds called and what practical purposes might they be used for? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The enterprise training for emerging industries initiative— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What name? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that people are eager on the other side to tell their local institutions about this so I will repeat that. The enterprise training for emerging industries initiative can build connections between tertiary organisations and the three sectors by helping an information and communications technology organisation to establish additional types of training within the growth and innovation framework sector or to help establish consortia between these sectors their companies and particular providers within the tertiary sector. The entrepreneurship and knowledge transfer initiative can promote the sharing of knowledge by supporting the development of management training or providing advice and support for the commercialisation of good ideas. 
GATS Negotiations—Overseas Investment Commission 
6.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Which countries requested the New Zealand Government to remove or ease requirements for Overseas Investment Commission approval for foreign investment in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 It is accepted practice amongst World Trade Organization members that requests made by and of other countries are to be kept confidential. But I can confirm that nine countries have asked for changes to our screening system as part of their General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) requests. That does not put New Zealand under any obligation to acquiesce to such requests. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister see any similarity between the European Union request to New Zealand to remove all requirements for Overseas Investment Commission approval for foreign investments and Dr Cullen’s request that the review of the Overseas Investment Commission considers “whether company purchases should be removed from the purview of the OIC” and is that similarity pure coincidence? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am not prepared to confirm that any particular country has made such a request of New Zealand but I would point out to the member that the review of the Overseas Investment Commission may just as likely result in the requirements being tightened up as in their being liberalised. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the New Zealand Government’s position on its participation in the GATS negotiations? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The New Zealand Government has published its 10 guiding principles for New Zealand’s participation in those negotiations. The discussion document was published in March. I now seek leave to table it and I draw it to members’ attention yet again. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: What discussions has the Minister undertaken with the Greens on preventing the sale of land to foreigners—which incidentally is New Zealand First policy—and has he received an assurance from the Greens that they will take a principled approach and oppose any removal or easing of the powers of the Overseas Investment Commission relating to the sale of land to foreigners or will the Greens’ approach be the same as it was on the GE legislation? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have not myself undertaken any consultation with the Green Party on that policy which I take to be the failed policies of the former New Zealand First coalition partner. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm with regard to the procedures of the Overseas Investment Commission and particularly our sensitive land purchased by overseas interests namely our coastal land that in the last 6 years the total proportion of our coastal land purchased by overseas interests represents not 0.1 percent but 0.018 percent of our coastline? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: My understanding is that the correct figure is 0.1 percent but if the member really wants to get more information on that he should set down a question to the Minister responsible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As the Minister thought he would put into contention the record of New Zealand First is it not true that when he was in Government between 1984 and 1990 virtually no applications failed to get approval that between 1989 and 1996 every application was successful and that since the new Government has come back in 1999 the applications to the Overseas Investment Commission are not handled inside the office of the Minister of Finance or Treasury but rather down there where they are rubber-stamped on a constant basis? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I cannot confirm any of the statistics from the member but I can confirm that when he was Deputy Prime Minister the Government of the day introduced a new and more rigorous set of criteria for the Overseas Investment Commission but then sneakily never implemented them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table evidence that on the passage of the bill at the time of the coalition collapsing the bill was withheld by the then National Government operating by itself and later submitted by the Minister of Finance the facts of which that Minister next to him knows—[ 
Interruption 
] Tell the truth for a change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. He will please withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member has asked for leave to table a document. I am going to take that leave. Is there any objection to him tabling that document? There is not. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that what the Minister said he must know not to be the truth because he was in a Cabinet that did precisely that—took a bill that was through its third reading and awaiting the Governor-General’s assent and sent it down for that. A statement to that effect was put out by the Minister responsible for the Treasury at the time the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen. He as a Cabinet Minister must have known that. If he knew that then either he has amnesia or there is something else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a statement in the House. He cannot be accused of not telling the truth. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister aware that US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has asked Australia to remove its foreign investment regulations as part of its negotiations over a free-trade agreement and can he see the uncanny resemblance between that and the proposal floated yesterday by the Minister of Finance to remove companies from the purview of the Overseas Investment Commission? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: No. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand laws around foreign ownership of land cannot be tightened beyond those committed to under GATS without breaching New Zealand’s World Trade Organization obligations; if so which is more important to this Government: protecting iconic sites from foreign ownership or toeing the line at the World Trade Organization? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: New Zealand can if it wishes tighten the conditions surrounding the purchase of land by overseas people in New Zealand. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Bed-night Contract 
7.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
): 
 Why did the Department of Child Youth and Family Services fail to use $1 million worth of pre-purchased nationally contracted bed nights in 2002-03? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: The Department of Child Youth and Family Services contracts with providers annually based on estimated volumes of around 335000 bed nights. Last year there were 13514 unused bed nights—4 percent of the total. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services plans a small surplus of bed nights to ensure there are always beds available at short notice. However last year’s surplus was higher than it should have been partly because a large provider that cares for some of the country’s most challenging children experienced difficulties that meant its bed nights went unused. The baseline review also found that the department’s information systems did not address local needs precisely enough and recommended ways to improve them. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister assure the House that no children were left in unsafe environments over the 2002-03 year while safe beds that were paid for were not used; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding would be that that is exactly the case—that no child was left in circumstances that he or she should not have been left in. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the Government doing to ensure the effective use of pre-purchased bed nights? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We are implementing the baseline review’s recommendations including investing up to $11.55 million over 3 years to ensure the department’s systems are efficient and effective. We are also injecting an extra $7 million over 3 years to help build a stronger regional structure to ensure that services are better aligned to local needs. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How can he have any confidence in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services budgetary process to meet the needs of abused or neglected children in New Zealand when it does not even know the total number of children currently in its care? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The department does know the total number of children in its care but unfortunately its data is currently held at site level which means that when that question is asked it takes some time for the department to gather the data and put it together. That is one of the changes recommended in the baseline review—that as well as the department holding that data at site level it should hold it nationally. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that last week a question was asked of Ruth Dyson on that very precise matter. In what has been described by the newspapers as a “Parekura-ism” she got up and gave a long extended answer that made no sense whatsoever. Today that same answer has been given by that Minister saying simply that the information is being kept but we cannot tell it to the House—a full week later. That is just contempt of Parliament and a bureaucratic disgrace approved by that Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is debating the answer. The answer certainly addressed the question asked. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the 31 percent increase in notifications to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services this year that require further investigation including 260 critical cases 115 very urgent cases 1673 urgent cases and 712 low-urgent cases how does the Minister know that those unused bed nights were not needed to keep those 2760 children safe? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I stress I am answering on behalf of the Associate Minister. What I said earlier was that it was my understanding that no child was left in circumstances that he or she should not have been left in. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why did the Department of Child Youth and Family Services fail to make full use of its budget for high and complex needs in 2002-03 and what steps is it taking to improve its services for children and young people in its care who have mental health needs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A precise question would need to be put down to the Associate Minister to get the answer as I am answering on her behalf. But the member will recall that the history of this money is one of it being shared between education health and child youth and family services and that it took quite some time for the courts to get used to recommending that children are placed in a way that will make use of this money. That meant the uptake was a little slower but my understanding is once again that money is now being used by the courts. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he give an assurance that no Department of Child Youth and Family Services social worker was made to compromise his or her practice by having to leave a child in an unsafe environment because the social worker was under the false impression that no bed nights were available in the year 2002-03; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have not spoken to every social worker in the country although there are record numbers of them at the present time. But the social workers are professional social workers and they need to make professional judgments. I am sure they do everything they can to make sure children are placed properly. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the information that shows there are 2760 cases needing further investigation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sexual Offences Against Children—Supervision Regime 
8.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the purpose of the extended supervision regime for child sex offenders proposed by the Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill introduced today is to provide protection for children from high-risk sex offenders following the completion of their jail sentences or upon expiry of their parole or release conditions. The new provision allows offenders who a court believes are likely to reoffend to be the subject of supervision and controls for a period of up to 10 years following the completion of their sentences. This may include direction as to where they work and live and whom they associate with. It may require them to attend rehabilitation and relapse-prevention programmes. Where necessary it can include home detention for up to 12 months and electronic monitoring—in contrast with what members opposite did which was nothing. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was far too much noise during that answer. The Minister was giving information about a request. A lot of supplementary questions can come as a result. Certainly there was too much noise when that answer was being given. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the bill apply to those already sentenced under the existing law; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. When the bill is enacted it will apply to all high-risk sex offenders still subject to sentence as of today’s date. The reason is that prior to the Sentencing Act passed last year preventive detention criteria were less stringent and some high-risk offenders were instead given finite sentences. The law requires that those people be released when they complete their sentences even though they are likely to reoffend. Although this legislation may override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in some respects it allows society to exercise what I believe is justifiable control over high-risk offenders so as to protect vulnerable children from their reoffending. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not drop this spin and admit that all this bill provides is the ability for an electronic monitoring bracelet to be attached to those offenders; and how is that going to stop vile sexual predators like Barry Allan Ryder and Lloyd Alexander McIntosh from molesting young children when all that an electronic bracelet does is monitor where the offenders are not whom they are with? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the National Party in Government had introduced the sentencing law I passed last year then those offenders would have been subject to preventive detention—and the member knows it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question. I want him to give an answer please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is that unfortunately until the Sentencing Act came into effect last year the law on preventive detention for repeat offenders was inadequate. It was inadequate for the whole 9 years that that member was in Government. We have brought in the toughest regime that exists anywhere in the democratic world to ensure that those people who have completed their sentence but still constitute a risk of reoffending can receive the tightest possible monitoring and control that the law allows—notwithstanding the fact that that may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why confine post-sentence supervision to sex offenders who have relatively low reoffending rates and not cover robbers burglars and other thugs who hurt fresh victims—young and old—far more predictably; and why not simply replace our useless parole system that makes every judge a liar? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was a little wide of the original question. The Minister may comment very briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This bill focuses on child sex offenders who are already convicted and likely to reoffend because of the seriousness of the consequences of their reoffending given the vulnerability of their victims. This is extraordinary legislation. It is the toughest legislation that this House has ever seen introduced and I expect the member to support it on that basis. I expect the National Party to do so in repentance of the fact that it spent 9 years in Government doing absolutely damn nothing. 
Ron Mark 
: From those answers can we now take it that this Government’s approach towards mental health issues and the intellectual disabilities suffered by the vast majority of the people the Minister is talking about are simply to be contained by him in criminal legislation instead of doing the unthinkable which is what all of New Zealand wants: accepting that these people should be treated as mental health patients or people with intellectual disabilities and putting them back into institutions where they can be properly cared for and looked after as opposed to being chucked out on the street and once again endangering the lives of ordinary citizens? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was far too long a question but I allowed it. The Hon Phil Goff can respond briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is factually wrong on the nature of the condition from which the worst of these offenders actually suffer. They are not mentally disordered— 
Ron Mark 
: Yes they are. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Does the member want to hear the answer to his question? They are not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not the same drivel—no. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If those members are to interrupt continually I will not bother to answer this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked the Minister to reply briefly. He can do that very briefly and I want him to continue very briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If a person is mentally disordered he or she will be dealt with under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and could be confined in an institution. If people are intellectually disabled they will be dealt with in a different way. The sorts of offenders who are being dealt with under this legislation are offenders who meet neither of those definitions but in fact who can and should be held criminally responsible for their actions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will this Minister not admit that this bill will not protect even one child in this country because all he is planning to do is monitor where those sexual predators are not whom they are with—it is not supervision it is home detention and it will not work? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It will protect not just one person; it will protect the potential victims of the likely 350 people who by year 9 will be subject to control and supervision under this legislation. This legislation provides not simply for the normal level of supervision under parole; it provides intensive supervision for the highest-risk offenders which includes confinement in their homes electronic monitoring and where necessary a 24/7 regime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has given a long enough answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this but in the seven or so supplementary questions that have just been asked of the Minister in all but the last question the level of interjection from the Opposition was so high that sitting just four seats away I found it virtually impossible to hear the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact there were five supplementary questions. I heard the Minister give vigorous answers. Of course there was interjection. We expect that on occasion. When I thought it was excessive I stepped in. 
Algerians—Investigation of Arrivals 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the Government currently involved in any investigations with respect to arrivals from Algeria in September 2003; if so what are the circumstances of those investigations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: As the Minister has said before in this House she is not prepared to disclose information about an individual case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked this Minister a pretty serious question. I have some idea where this question is going and he has a responsibility to answer it. He has flagrantly told us all that he just will not answer. Frankly that is an abomination of democracy it is an abomination in respect of accountability at question time. I for one do not intend to put up with that and I expect you not to either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I expect the Minister to address a question when it is asked. He certainly addressed that. The member can now have a supplementary question if he wants one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated right now. The member will not argue with me about that. I have ruled. There is too much argument about whether Ministers’ answers are satisfactory. That is not my job. My job is to ensure that the question is addressed. I heard the question. I heard the Minister’s answer. He certainly addressed the question concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make one thing very clear to you. I have a right to raise a point of order in this House and I will not be put down by you or anybody. The point is that I did not ask for an individual’s circumstances. Read the question again! It states: “If so what are the circumstances of those investigations?”. How can the Minister come to the conclusion that I was asking about an individual? I shall have a point of order unless—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The member who made that interjection will leave the Chamber right now. 
 Edwin Perry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will finish his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that I asked a question in respect of any investigations and if so what the circumstances of those investigations were. The Minister contrary to your ruling said he would not answer because he said it was to do with an individual. That is contrary to the question as well. I am now asking you to get him to his feet give this House and this country some respect and tell us what is going on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 127/6 which states that an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought. The Minister gave an answer. It was within the Standing Orders. The member can ask a supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The ambit of that Speaker’s ruling cannot cover the Minister’s answer. He referred to an individual but I am not asking that question. You should look at the question; you and the Clerk allowed it through. Now I am told that he can get away with that answer. Until you can distinguish the plurality of my question from his singular answer then your Speaker’s ruling simply cannot stand. I ask again for an answer on the circumstances in respect of any occasions in September. He will not give me an answer and I am asking you to make him do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question was in order. The Minister gave an answer that was in order according to the Standing Orders. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question he can now do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This goes to the issue of the Opposition having to verify questions with the Clerk’s Office. It is not easy to get questions past the Clerk. We cannot ask questions that are based purely on supposition. We have to take evidence to the Clerk’s Office that supports the question being asked. In this case the questioner presumably has evidence that there is an investigation under way by the Immigration Service at the moment with regard to the arrival of Algerian persons in New Zealand from September 2003. The question is: if it can be so far in the public domain that we are able to prove the veracity of the question to the satisfaction of the Clerk why can the Minister simply not acknowledge that in the House? Surely that goes right to the heart of Standing Order 372 of the Standing Orders you are required to protect which says that a reply to a question must be given if it can be given consistent with the public good. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed that is the Standing Order but as the Speaker’s ruling says—and it has to be the only possible Speaker’s ruling on this matter—the judgment about whether giving an answer is in the public interest must lie with the Minister alone. If the member cares to think through why that is so it is apparent on the face of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question may well be allowable and this one was. I never ruled out the question. No one says that the question was not in order but it is the Minister’s responsibility to answer as he sees fit—as long as he addresses the question. He did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was the Minister able to answer questions about Ahmed Zaoui yet get the Speaker to agree with her that she should not answer this question today; and is it not a fact that another suspected terrorist has arrived here from Algeria— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Point of order— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a point of order; please be seated. I am not going to take that. He knows that anyone can raise a point of order. He himself insisted on that right earlier. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that rudeness. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To whom? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the House. He will do it right now or he will leave. Right the member leaves! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could enlighten some of us junior back-benchers about how the House is meant to operate. In one week we have a Prime Minister standing up and for political advantage spilling her guts on the personal details— 
Government Members 
: Sit down! 
Ron Mark 
: How many are we going to throw out Mr Speaker? We have already lost one New Zealand First MP for interjecting on a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and if I catch one member doing anything like that he or she will be going straight away. 
Ron Mark 
: On the one hand we had the Prime Minister spilling her guts on details of a private health situation in order to shore up a political position. On the other hand we now have a question lodged—with 4 hours’ notice—about which a Minister could even have had the decency to make a phone call before turning up to the House some 4 hours later and with the House’s acceptance batting the question off by stating that he would not discuss the personal details or circumstances of an individual. It seems to me that this House cannot have it both ways and that we need some consistency here in order to maintain discipline. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is consistency and I have ruled on each of the issues the member has raised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will find in the  
Hansard 
 that at least part of a question—certainly the first tranche of a question—was asked by Mr Peters before the Deputy Prime Minister took a point of order. Surely the House is entitled to an answer to that. Can I also add that the National Party has a supplementary question to come. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point made by the member is accurate but Mr Peters should not have involved the Speaker in that issue. My job is not to judge on the quality of the answer as he knows; my job is to ensure that the Minister addresses the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He did ask a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did ask a question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point I was going to raise was that it seemed to me that on the face of it the question was out of order. The member sought a question asking how the Minister had got you as Speaker to agree with something the Minister was stating. In any case that is not a question for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister is not responsible for your rulings in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I am going to rule in favour of the member—if he sits down. As far as I am concerned there were two parts to the question asked by Mr Peters. The second part most certainly was out of order because it involved me and it must not do so. The first part was in order if the Minister wanted to answer it but I cannot remember its exact wording. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Could the member repeat the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One of his own party can repeat the question. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I will repeat it as closely as I can. Will the Minister confirm one way or the other whether an investigation is going on concerning a suspected terrorist who arrived here in September 2003? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the House that one of the difficulties the Minister of Immigration gets into is that she is not allowed to talk about individual cases. In this case the member asked a general question at the beginning. It seemed obvious that that was leading towards an individual case which it has. Individual cases are not something that the Minister of Immigration is allowed to comment on. Under section 129T of the Immigration Act she is explicitly prohibited from saying anything about cases to do with refugee status—for example while they are being heard. Members asking questions of the Minister of Immigration need to realise how closely circumscribed by the law her comments must be. Therefore I have no intention of commenting on her behalf on a case like that. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has said that he cannot give us an answer based on an individual but right throughout this year we have had answers based on Mr Zaoui. I understand that Mr Zaoui is an individual. This House has been given information about an individual. Why can the Minister not maintain the same policy that has been maintained all year on that individual Mr Zaoui. Really all we need is a simple affirmative or negative. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot second-guess the way the Minister was going to answer. All I have to ensure is that he addresses the question. His answers can lead to further supplementary questions but that is his answer not mine. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If the Minister is not willing to talk about an individual case can he assure the House that there is no one—other than Mr Ahmed Zaoui—who is now subject to a national security certificate and is being held in custody so that we can avoid the kind of situation that happened in August 2000 when there was an apparent terrorist plot to blow up the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No because the member is inviting me to talk about individual cases on behalf of the Minister of Immigration. In general if anybody enters this country with anything they should not have having done things they should not have done or with a moral character that might be under question those matters are always under scrutiny and if appropriate they go to the police. We will not be invited to talk about a particular case. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whilst I referred to the nature of the question I also wanted an assurance that a person subject to a national security certificate would be in custody. Do we have that assurance? We need an assurance that that person—or persons—subject to a national security certificate would be in custody. That can be answered in a general sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That part of the member’s question is in order. The Minister might like to comment on it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the circumstances of the questions today it would require the Minister once again to confirm or deny an individual case. I am afraid that I am not able to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a general question. He was not asked a specific question. The Minister can give an answer to the general question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question invited me if I remember correctly to confirm or deny whether someone was being held in relation to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes they would. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister confirm that in recent times many people fleeing the repressive Algerian Government have been granted refugee status in New Zealand including supporters of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and that negative information provided by the Algerian regime on such people is not always credible? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes to the first question and yes to the second. It is not always credible. 
Methamphetamine—Addiction Support 
10.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement of May this year in relation to methamphetamine that “While dealing vigorously with those who make money from this scourge we also need to ensure that we are supporting people who are addicted or whose lives have already been severely affected or destroyed by the drug”; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I do. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the Minister’s support for drug and alcohol treatment why has he decided not to support the continuation of the Hanmer clinic’s outpatient services in five centres in the absence of a rigorous evaluation of its outcomes compared to other treatment programmes and before the completion of the Ministry of Health’s impending review of all rehabilitation services in the central and South Island regions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Firstly my advice is that some at least of the community services that are closing under the Hanmer clinic will be continued by the district health boards in those areas. The fact is that a 2001 review and a 2003 audit of the Hanmer clinic facility have shown that to provide any more public funding to the private organisation running the facility would be close to irresponsible in terms of the use of public funds and desired medical outcomes. There were only 11 patients in total at the Hanmer clinic—eight were public and three were private—under a contract of $9.8 million. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the coalition Government doing to ensure there is the right mix of residential and community-based treatment for alcohol and other drug-affected people? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The district health boards that fund those activities in the central and South Island regions are nearing the end of reviews to ensure they are funding the right mix of residential and community services. The actual date of the end of those reviews is unknown but is likely to be at the end of this year or early next year. The Mental Health Commission is reviewing the mental health blueprint and that review takes place this year. It is looking at targets set for alcohol and drug services. The blueprint is over 5 years old now and this review is timely. It should inform the Government whether the current mix is satisfactory. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister accept that methamphetamine addicts who need urgent inpatient treatment can experience significant adverse consequences if not treated in a timely fashion; and why does he believe that he or his Government can provide timely care for these patients given that the only inpatient unit in the upper South Island is booked solidly well into next year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My advice from the Mental Health Commission is that there are 132 residential beds in the South Island. There is in fact an excess of residential services and a shortage of community services. Various reviews are going on at the present time but the advice I am receiving is that there are adequate residential services now and the reviews will show clearly whether that is correct. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to the first part of the primary question is the Minister aware of the Western Australian model of asset seizure being promoted by some members of this House and the New Zealand Police Association—a regime that suspends basic principles of justice such as lawyer privilege and the concept of innocent until proven guilty and under which police seize assets in order to give those assets to themselves—and does he see any conflict of interest or potential for abuse of process inherent in such a proposal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I did not hear all of the question but I know that the Green Party was the only party in this Parliament that voted against the reclassification of methamphetamine and that the Progressive party which gained significant financial support from the coalition Government in the last Budget faced the fact that the Green Party opposed that budget and therefore also opposed the extra financial provisions we had for drug and alcohol treatment throughout the country. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am loath to make these kinds of points of order but the Minister did not even attempt to address that question in any way. He talked about the Budget and the reclassification issue and they have absolutely no relevance to the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion the member is perfectly correct. It has no relevance. The question asked was about a Western Australian example. I would ask the Minister to comment. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It may come as a surprise to the member but I have no ministerial responsibility for what happens in Western Australia. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of police estimates that gangs are making 95 percent of the profits from the production of P why has the Minister not lobbied the Minister of Justice for tougher laws on gangs such as the proposals recently unveiled by United Future; or does he naively believe that anything less than seizing gang property and making gangs prove their legality will have any impact whatsoever? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not know how the member knows exactly what I have lobbied the Minister of Justice on but the Government is looking at the issue of the assets of crime and we are reviewing that legislation. The Ministerial Committee on Drugs which I chair and comprises senior Ministers like the Minister of Justice has met far more often and taken far more action than any Government in the recent history of this country. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the Minister’s support for alcohol and drug treatment why did the Ministry of Health stop funding the Taha Maori programme at Queen Mary Hospital 3 months ago only to announce last week that an almost identical kaupapa Maori adult alcohol and drug service for the South Island is to be established; or can he confirm that the real reason was that the Hanmer clinic was unable to find a partnership with Maori for what was otherwise an extremely successful programme? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In the first instance the Maori programme that has been funded is in the community in Christchurch and not in a residential environment in Hanmer. The second is that I remind the member that recently the Hanmer clinic closed for financial reasons. Perhaps there may have been some knowledge of those situations inside the Ministry of Health. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister claim that his Government is dealing vigorously with those who are profiting from P production when the New Zealand Police Association president claims that delays in testing evidence by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research make a mockery of the police crackdown on the manufacturers of P because offenders are free to start new laboratories while on bail for up to 2 years before they are brought to trial and as Minister responsible for the national drug policy will he formally request additional funding for the institute in next year’s Budget; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only the final part is in order. The rest is directed to another Minister. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has provided $6.55 million to the police for extra resources for methamphetamine laboratory detection and three-quarters of a million dollars to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research for its development of scientific resources. These resources we are advised by the institute itself take years to develop. This Government has taken action; previous Governments did not. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the Minister’s support for the treatment programmes how does he intend to ensure that the excellent staff employed by the Hanmer clinics are retained in service in New Zealand and not lost to other countries; and how will he ensure that the 350 current clients are successfully integrated into other treatment programmes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My advice is that those clinicians nurses and others who work or had worked at Hanmer are being considered by the district health boards that will continue those services and any who wish for employment and are qualified for it have a very good chance of succeeding. 
Hanmer Clinics—Ministry of Health Contracts 
11.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did the Ministry of Health end its 3-year contract with Hanmer clinics 14 months early and did the clinics fulfil their contractual obligations in providing services to drug and alcohol patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Although 13 months and $3.6 million of Government funding remain for the provision of services by Hanmer Institute Ltd the decision to end the contract was mutually agreed to by both parties because of the company’s financial difficulties. A recent audit report showed that the company was failing to perform its contractual obligations in a number of areas. 
Heather Roy 
: How did the performance of the Hanmer clinics compare with that of Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust and will the generosity of the Ministry of Health in paying that Maori health trust’s tax bill be extended to ensuring that the Hanmer clinics are not left in debt? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Ministry of Health has been incredibly generous to Hanmer Institute Ltd. For example in May 2000 the ministry gave it a suspensory loan of $300000 in January 2000 it gave additional funding of $275000 in May 2002 it gave additional funding of $250000 and in April 2003 it gave an advance of $100000. The Ministry of Health has been very generous and very patient but at the end of the day it will not allow more taxpayers’ money to go to a private business that is in serious financial difficulty. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Ministry of Health have any responsibility for staffing issues at Hanmer Institute Ltd? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it does not because Hanmer Institute Ltd is a private company and is therefore solely responsible for staffing issues. The institute and the ministry in an agreement to end the contract that was signed on 8 November agreed that the ministry would pay a sum of money to the institute to assist it in making payments owed to staff. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister believe that the inpatient drug treatment services at Hanmer provided a valuable service for those who needed treatment—I quote the Minister of Health Annette King—“far away in the bush somewhere”; and can we trust the grip on reality of a Minister who considers Hanmer as “far away in the bush somewhere”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not know whether the member has been to Hanmer recently but I think that if he had he would find it a little far away from the main centre of Christchurch. As I said the audit found that the services offered by Hanmer Institute Ltd did not meet all its contractual obligations. I find it fascinating that ACT and National are prepared to go in to bat for this particular provider when they are very quick to criticise any provider that happens to be Maori. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does the Government square the closure of the Hanmer Institute clinics with the overall nationwide shortage of alcohol and drug treatment services given the tough new Jobs Jolt policies which mean that in effect Work and Income will force beneficiaries whether they like it or not into drug and alcohol counselling on pain of losing their benefit? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the Hon Jim Anderton pointed out in answer to a previous question there were 11 patients in the residential service at Hanmer eight of whom were public patients. For the member’s interest none came from Auckland because Auckland would not send patients to Hanmer—and had not for many years—and patients from the old midlands region went there only for the Taha Maori programme. So it was not accepted by the referring physicians as the most appropriate service. I thought it was interesting that a memo from staff written only 1 day ago stated how concerned they were at the financial mismanagement of this organisation. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister agree with Janice Gemmell an organiser with the National Union of Public Employees who said last week: “It is our understanding that $3 million a year would fully fund the hospital so the Government’s $30 million contribution to Team New Zealand’s yachting campaign would fund a decade’s extension to Queen Mary’s life.”—and I have to say the saving of a great many lives—if she does not agree why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree because there is no justification for any Ministry of Health to pay a much higher rate to Hanmer Institute Ltd than to any other residential provider in New Zealand. That may have been the view of that particular person last week but the view of the employees this week was to suggest that “action should be taken to sue the directors of the Hanmer clinic and Queen Mary Hospital personally on the grounds of financial mismanagement. We feel we have sufficient documentation and evidence to substantiate such a claim.” 
Methamphetamine—Environmental Science and Research 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many methamphetamine labs found by police are still waiting for the evidence seized from them to be examined by Environmental Science and Research and when do these cases date back to? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 There are currently 132 suspected clandestine methamphetamine labs under investigation by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. All have had initial examination by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. I am advised that the oldest active case dates from July 2002. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting that under Labour crime is more random and more violent does the Minister not think there is a very real risk that some of these drug cooks will escape conviction because of the undue length of time being taken to get many of these serious drug cases before the courts? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I can advise that under Labour—as that member quoted—considerable resources have gone into resolving the problem of methamphetamine in New Zealand and as a result the police have been doing an extraordinarily good job on our behalf. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What additional resources have been provided by the Government to deal with the methamphetamine problem? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As a result of this year’s Budget an extra $6.8 million over 4 years has been provided to process methamphetamine cases. Two seven-member clandestine laboratory response teams have been established and an additional $700000 has been provided to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to investigate 100 methamphetamine labs. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Institute of Environmental Science and Research had budgeted for only 20 meth lab investigations this year when in 2001 41 labs were discovered in 2002 147 and the number is expected to exceed 200 this year; and is this not another example of this Government’s pathetically inadequate response to methamphetamine which it has allowed to become a major crisis in society? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot explain the first part of the question but I can explain as far as the second part of the question is concerned that additional resources have gone into the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and as has been pointed out by the police and the institute one cannot just pick scientists up off the street. It takes a while for them to become engaged and that is what is happening right at this moment. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Overseas Investment Act—Review 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rod Donald seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the decision to review the Overseas Investment Act. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider however that the decision to initiate a review that will lead to legislative proposals by the middle of next year requires an urgent debate to be held on it today. The application is accordingly declined. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
I seek leave to table two documents. One is the European Commission request to New Zealand that we remove Overseas Investment Commission control of rural land and remove the $10 million level of scrutiny. The second document is Robert Zoellick’s letter to the United States Senate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Voting 
Correction 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to change the New Zealand First vote on the question that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet to consider the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer 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 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). Our vote was incorrectly delivered at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to change that vote and have it recorded accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not and it will be done. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Dog Control Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Children’s Commissioner Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Children’s Commissioner Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is no doubt that there was a need for focusing on the main aims of the 1996 legislation and that some of those did need updating. There is no doubt that it was appropriate that they centre on owner responsibility better nationwide enforcement and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. I am slightly sorry that we are not taking this bill clause by clause. It is relevant that we talk on the title and the title itself is appropriate in terms of the bill being a dog control amendment bill but it could also fittingly be called the “Labour Government Let’s Wait 4 Years Until There is A Crisis Bill”. After all this particular legislation has been languishing for over 4 years and it was not until there was a spate of dog attacks in south Auckland and around the country and finally the awful situation with the dog that mauled Carolina Anderson that the Labour Government was jolted out of its state of languishing and finally did something regarding this bill. The National Party certainly does support the main thrust of this bill but we are particularly concerned about universal microchipping. 
Another title that perhaps this bill could have had is the “Labour Government (We’ll Build Fences as Long as the Great Wall of China) Bill”. There is no doubt that the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter was all for fencing off every farm every hamlet every personal home in the country to in his view secure the population from dangerous dogs. Fortunately he came to his senses and that part of the bill has been wiped. 
But perhaps the third title suggestion could be the “Labour Government Central Control (Make Another Million Dollar Database and Microchip Them All) Bill”. Because unfortunately that is what the Labour Government is planning to do. Even though the Local Government and Environment Committee did not recommend universal microchipping for a whole variety of reasons for some unfathomable reason the Minister Chris Carter decided to override the select committee that heard all the submissions that cooperated well that collaborated well and prescribed in a true socialist Labour Government way universal microchipping for all dogs in New Zealand even though it is very costly not only in money terms but also probably on the dogs themselves. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The history of dog control issues is almost as long as the last decade—in fact as I said in the second reading debate it goes back to 1991. The other issue which was the major issue then was breed-related with regard to the supposed impact of dangerous dogs. That was heightened after 1997 after the death of Mr Dinsdale and the supposed belief that pit bull terriers had been part of that death and resulted in the select committee being set up that put together Parts 1 2 and 3 of the original Dog Control Bill in 1999. 
As I said in the second reading I think it is important to go through the history of the bill as we consider the parts under the title of Dog Control Bill because the issue really was then one of control. The issue was whether it was to be a direct control. If we are looking at the title that could be. The aspect of universal microchipping has now been advanced. But the issues we were concerned about in the select committee were to modify and to make good the bill as it was in the committee and that met with most of our support. 
New Zealand First has taken a position on microchipping that is unrelated to the Minister’s stance because when we looked at the cost of the microchipping suggestions that were made in this bill we considered they were too costly for a few thousand dogs at the very most. The establishment of a national data register and what that meant in terms of technology was a costly exercise and in this case would be met by either the taxpayer or the ratepayer. We will come to that as we go through that part of the bill. New Zealand First has found that this is basically a Dog Control Bill. Microchipping is not a control issue. Perhaps that should have been added to the title of the bill because strictly speaking that comes under registration. This bill could have been called the “Dog Control Amendment and Registration Bill” and that would have met the terms not only of this debate but also of the bill more strictly as it will be in its final form. On behalf of New Zealand First and like others on the committee we arrived here with a bill that generally enjoys consensus. The title is one that we agree with and we are pleased to support the bill further. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 1A Commencement 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note that there are some suggestions in this clause that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004 and that clauses 8 15 and 35 come into force on 1 July 2006. It seems to me that if clause 8 were allowed to come into force on 1 July 2006 it would give effect to universal microchipping throughout New Zealand coming into effect on that date. I believe that that is contrary to the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee certainly in terms of the compliance costs and in terms of the priorities that this legislation is trying to achieve and they are to diminish the number of preventable dog attacks. In my view that provision is inappropriate. 
However the select committee did consider the other two options. Clause 15 deals with microchipping dangerous and menacing dogs and the select committee was in agreement with that. Clause 35 refers to dogs that have been impounded—that they also be microchipped—and there was no great objection to that. But the question of universal microchipping needs further debate in this Chamber. Given that the select committee heard all the submissions and agreed that it was inappropriate to have universal microchipping as suggested by clause 8 which would bring it into being in New Zealand on 1 July 2006 it is highly relevant to this commencement date to talk about universal microchipping and the fact that it certainly is not a priority in terms of reducing unnecessary dog attacks. 
There are many things that should be done prior to the enormous expense incurred by having clause 8 coming into force. It is for that reason that I think it is important the Committee takes note of the amendment that I have put forward regarding clause 1A and that is to omit from subclause (1A) the expression “8”. Undoubtedly the select committee noted that the most important measures in terms of preventing unnecessary dog attacks centred on owner responsibility much better nationwide enforcement and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. It is the irresponsible owners whose dogs often do not have either collars or discs and they are also very unlikely to have microchips. Besides we know that all dogs will be required to have collars and discs even if they do have microchips. Not only is this an extra cost and compliance but it will be over and above the requirement for all dogs to wear collars and discs which is the status right now. 
But we have learnt that it is the irresponsible dog owners the ones who have unregistered dogs and whose dogs do not have collars and discs who are very unlikely to conform with the requirements for microchipping. I believe that the Minister is quite out of place when he provides in clause 1A for clause 8 to come into effect on 1 July 2006. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The commencement date of any bill is important but in this case it is even more important if one accepts universal microchipping. As has already been stated the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee did not support universal microchipping but they did support the microchipping of those dogs classified as dangerous and menacing and impounded dogs that are returned to their owners. That provision takes effect on the commencement date of this bill. Therefore the commencement date becomes important. It allows the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs and local councils to set in place the procedures by-laws and all the other things that will go with this bill being not just dog control legislation but also in time allowing for new or additional types of registration. Therefore the commencement time is important. We concur with the Minister that the maximum amount of time is needed both now and through to July 2006. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 A common concern of those who did not wish to see their dogs microchipped was the cost involved. I note that clause 15(3)(b) provides that a dog owner must provide to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying that the dog will not be in a fit condition to be microchipped before the specified date. It seems to me it is not terribly difficult for a local authority to judge whether a dog has been microchipped because it is done simply by waving a wand over it. The idea that the device has to be inserted by a veterinary surgeon— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are debating clause 1A “Commencement”. 
MIKE WARD 
: I was simply raising the issue as a warning to the Minister that I would like some clarification later on. I concur with Mr Peters that the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned that the provisions relating to dangerous dogs will come into force at the point of enactment of these provisions—in 2006. It seems to me that 2006 is a long way off for dogs that have been judged to be dangerous or menacing. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been interested to hear the other members who have risen to speak on clause 1A which is the commencement clause of the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Those members seem to have focused exclusively on microchips. I have not been part of the earlier discussions by the House on this bill but I believe there are far more telling reasons why the Minister should not have this bill commence on 1 December. They are that this bill in fact changes a whole range of things that go way beyond microchips. The microchip proposal as I understand it will not really take effect until 2006—safely after the next election and safely in the middle of an election cycle so that the upset felt by the thousands of families who will be affected by this legislation will be at sufficient distance for the Labour Party to feel that voters will have forgotten about it by the following election. 
The commencement dates in this bill are important for other reasons. This bill goes through and changes a number of features that do not have anything to do with dog control and have everything to do with dog destruction. This bill brings in a new offence of rushing and the instruction to get the court to destroy the dog. Has any member considered what that will really do if it comes in on 1 December this year—before Christmas—when just about every ordinary New Zealander knows that it is in the nature of dogs to rush? Rushing is what dogs do particularly when they see cats. It is what dogs do in excitement. Rushing as the new offence provides for is something that every family pet will do no matter how well controlled it is at some stage or other. New section 57A in clause 29 provides that the court may order that a dog be destroyed if it has rushed at persons animals or vehicles. When that provision commences on 1 December this year there will be some very miserable families if it is taken seriously—if the police bring prosecutions in respect of a dog’s normal behaviour towards cats. It does not even require in that new offence that there be any injury to anyone. It requires only that there be a risk of that. Of course there is often such a risk. When a cat is sitting on the top of the letterbox and hissing in its defiance but also in its satisfaction at having evaded a dog there could have been a risk of injury. 
We should also look at the changes that this bill makes to section 57 of the principal Act when thinking of the commencement date because we can see that section 57 states that the court must order destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Well how exceptional is it for a dog to attack a cat? It happens every day. The most placid dog can be tempted into attacking a cat and this legislation does not leave a judge with any discretion. It is not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. We have had judges who have given their comments about this provision. Yet the Parliament is to rush this legislation through and have it commence on 1 December this year probably before most New Zealanders will even be aware that the bill is through and before most New Zealanders have any idea that the risks now of owing a dog—something that is part of the heritage of this country far more than most of the pseudo-heritage that this Government tries to protect; the tradition of a family pet and of the kids being able to walk the dog in the park—are so high that for any family that does not have discretionary income it will not be a sensible thing to have a dog. 
Is that what this Minister wants—that the Christmas present is a new law that says people should not risk having a dog because it could bankrupt them and their family if it so much as attacks one cat? There is no recollection of the wisdom in the old saying that every dog has one bite. Many dogs will have one bite although they are perfectly sound safe pets. They will have one bite because they are provoked. There is nothing in the bill that says a provoked dog should not be destroyed. Even a human gets self-defence as a defence. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I feel compelled to rise and rebut some points raised by the previous speaker that are simply not true. Rushing for example is not a new offence at all. It is contained in the 1996 legislation which continues in this legislation. It is given its own section in this new legislation but it was contained in the Act. Also rushing does not automatically lead to the destruction of a dog. A court may order a dog’s destruction through repeated and dangerous behaviour but it has that discretionary power. Attacking of course does lead to the destruction of a dog unless exceptional circumstances apply. 
The previous speaker from the ACT party said the Government was rushing to get this bill through in time for this summer so we could have a draconian and sort of holocaust approach to dogs. Actually the issue is about getting this legislation through before the summer holidays begin so that we can keep children safe in our community. Members of the House will remember that last summer there was a series of very dangerous dog attacks where some children were very badly injured and suffered life-threatening injuries. We do not want to see that repeated in our community. 
The speaker from the Green Party Mr Ward raised a question about timing. I want to clarify for him that the provisions of the legislation apply as far as the provisions on dangerous and menacing dogs are concerned from the time the bill is signed into law. So for this summer the provisions about keeping dogs on leashes muzzling dangerous breeds and so on will apply so that communities especially children will be safer. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on clause 1A(1) which states: “Section 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004.” New section 52A(2)(b) inserted by clause 24 states that a dog must be “confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises”. I am sure we will have a more extensive debate on that provision when we come to Part 5. The requirement is a vast improvement on the original one which was to provide fenced access to the front door and I think it will be welcomed by many people. It is wise that the commencement of that provision does not occur until 1 June because it will involve some costs to dog owners. It will require some planning on their part to ensure that their properties comply with the regulations. 
I think the provision is sensible and reasonable. I know that many people are concerned when they jog and walk around communities about dogs that are able to come straight out on to the road. Although those dogs may not actually engage in an attack they do cause a considerable degree of fear and concern in people who are simply passing by properties. I welcome this measure and I think it is sensible that it does not commence until next year. 
However the public should be made aware of the fact that this law is coming and that they will need to count the cost of having a dog on their property. If their dogs are to be allowed to circulate their sections completely they will need to consider how they will meet this requirement to have them under control. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was glad that the Minister did rise to clarify the point I raised—that the rushing offence has simply been expanded. But I ask him to consider when looking at the commencement date of the new rushing provision the fact that even though the rushing may have led to injury or death the current Act still leaves the court with the discretion as to whether the dog is destroyed. The new provision—which has been substantially amended and which will commence on 1 December—leaves the courts with virtually no discretion. As soon as the court is satisfied that a dog has committed an attack it has to order the dog’s destruction unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is simply not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. This provision does not require that the cat be hurt in any way— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or a rat. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It could be a pet rat too. This provision does not require any kind of damage to have occurred and the courts have been concerned about that. They have expressed their concern about it a significant number of times. 
This Christmas present to New Zealand families will change our culture. It has been part of the New Zealand upbringing and experience that families have dogs. The commencement date of 1 December is rushing things. People believe that this bill relates to dangerous dogs and to owners who have taken no responsibility for their dogs. The Local Government and Environment Committee came out with a whole lot of provisions designed to try to distinguish between dangerous dogs and dangerous and reckless owners and the rest. Instead we have ended up with a bill that will penalise even the most benign dog that bites just once. 
It seems to ACT that this legislation should not commence until 2006 after the hysteria has passed. Most New Zealanders know that the legislation should contain provisions that instruct the police and local authorities to attack the gangs that have dogs that cause that sort of fear—to go for the owners who do not bother to register their dogs. The commencement date of 1 December 2003 will be a matter of utter indifference to the kinds of people who do not obey the law anyway and whose dogs are not kept under control because they are not even registered. That commencement date should be deferred until there has been some cool reflection. The Minister should have an opportunity as he will with the microchip provision—the 2006 provision—to think about whether he really means to make dog ownership beyond the reach of the average family which cannot afford to pay the kinds of fines and legal costs that will be inflicted on it when a simple single attack of the kind that this legislation penalises has occurred. 
This bill ought to distinguish between dangerous dogs and other dogs and ought to recognise the wisdom in the old saw that every dog has one bite. It ought to deal with the real problem which is not the control of dogs generally but the control of gang members families and people who are often not in families who do not give a stuff about any law. This legislation attacks innocent law-abiding people whose dog makes a mistake or who themselves make a mistake. That will leave more misery in the long run when children grow up without having had the pleasure of knowing what it is like to have a pet. New Zealanders who live in one of the least densely populated countries should be able to expect dog ownership to be seen as a right of children but we will have prudent parents saying they cannot run the risk of that. They will ask what they can do if the woman down the road complains that their dog has rushed at her cat and want to know how they can defend themselves if that occurs. It is a normal part of the relationship between dogs and cats that that occurs; our language is rich with the expectation of that. “Fighting like cats and dogs” is such an expression. It happens. 
This Parliament has leapt in and wants to pass this legislation by 1 December 2003—to have it in effect literally in 2 weeks’ time probably before it has been distributed and is known to people. I doubt given the current state of the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s operation whether the amended and published Act will be available even to lawyers let alone to ordinary folk by 1 December. That commencement date should not be the starting date for this legislation because there is no assurance that New Zealanders will know what the changes are by then or that they will have the ability to look up the details of them. That is a breach of our principle of law. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to make a few more points with regard to the commencement date. Firstly I refer to the point made by Larry Baldock about clause 24 which relates to the fencing provision. To my mind the Government has fortunately come to its senses. It has recognised that fencing half of New Zealand is inappropriate and that the major thrust of this bill should certainly be on owner responsibility. The point is that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004. 
The Government has suddenly today brought in Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter. It has not discussed with anyone that Supplementary Order Paper which overrides the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and it has led to considerable confusion. I do not entirely agree with Stephen Franks of ACT that it is inappropriate that the bill comes into force on 1 December this year; I believe that the bill should have come in years ago. It was only because the Labour Government did not focus on the importance of preventable dog attacks for 4 long years that a crisis occurred and finally it got around to doing something. 
As I have pointed out owner responsibility is vital and clause 24 does indeed deal with the control of dogs on an owner’s property. It makes the point that the owner of a dog must at all times ensure that the dog is either under the direct control of a person or confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises. That to my mind is reasonable and is the sort of law that all responsible dog owners should abide by. If an owner is not abiding by that then it is right and proper that appropriate fines are put on that person. Unfortunately there is a small group of irresponsible owners. 
That is the same argument that goes along with microchipping—again these comments are on the commencement date because after all clauses 8 15 and 35 are due to commence on 1 July 2006. Indeed providing for universal microchipping was the difference the Government made on Supplementary Order Paper 167 overriding the select committee’s wishes. What is so aggravating about this Labour Government bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper on top of its bill which has been to the select committee and amended by it is that the bill is now quite different. We no longer know whether clause 8 is omitted whether it comes into force on 1 December 2003 or whether it comes into force on 1 July 2006 as the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper states. I hope he will take a call to explain why clause 8 is omitted. I hope that he has rethought that come to his senses again and realised that the wisdom of the select committee should be followed: that universal microchipping is inappropriate in New Zealand and that there are far more important priorities. This is the point that Mr Franks made. 
We want to have practical enforcement of dog laws in New Zealand. We do not want to devote a huge amount of time and attention to expensive databases and microchipping every dog that is with a responsible owner. We want to clamp down on irresponsible owners and ensure that the basic framework of the 1996 legislation is better enforced because it has not been universally enforced around New Zealand. Hence I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain why he has suddenly brought in that Supplementary Order Paper to override the bill that this Parliament expected to see today and to say whether he has indeed come to his senses and decided to do in with universal microchipping. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 1A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A further amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 1A is inconsistent with the decision the Committee has just made and I rule it out of order. 
Clause 1A as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2 Interpretation 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
New clause 2A Objects  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to insert new clause 2A be agreed to. 
New clause 2A agreed to. 
Part 1 Functions duties and powers of territorial authorities 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I am reminded of the old cliché: “Every dog has his day” particularly when it comes to this Minister of Local Government. This Minister has chosen a very bad case to introduce some very bad law with regard to the microchipping of dogs across the whole of New Zealand. I am reminded of that old saying because despite the fact there has been concern about this dog law through about three Parliaments under this Government we are today debating this bill yet in the case of horrendous crimes against people—and 92 percent voted in the election before last for tougher sentencing—we have done nothing. When it comes to dogs and the case of the little girl Carolina Anderson who was injured we are today rushing through legislation that will result in the microchipping of every dog in New Zealand. 
In the Local Government and Environment Committee there was widespread support for most of the intent that is set out in this legislation but there was certainly no support for microchipping every dog and the cost that goes with that. This Minister under the advice that he was given said: “I’ll make a generous offer. We’ll set up the database. We’ll put up the dough for that.” It would probably have been a smarter decision for the Minister to say: “We’ll spend a bit of money on education on dogs particularly dangerous dogs and dog ownership.” Instead of that the Government has decided it will set up another INCIS computer program somewhere—another quango somewhere that is likely to end up in disaster. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who made that hash? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Listen to the interjection from the other side of the Committee! That has certainly set members on that side alight. They never learn. They should learn from the mistakes of the past. 
The Government is to set up a computer program. How will a computer program go out on the streets and prosecute and track down those who flagrantly abuse the law? How will it work? How will it actually bring to heel the dangerous dogs listed in this bill that people still keep and do not have microchipped? How will it work? What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities around New Zealand enforce the law? I appeal to local authorities up and down New Zealand that may be listening to this debate to please go out and implement the intention of this law but show sensible discretion when it comes to sensible owners who do not have their dogs microchipped or do not meet other restraints or regulations that may be placed on them in this legislation. Much has been made of the fact that it is a family tradition— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 3 and 4 are the clauses under discussion. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am aware of that and I will come back to those clauses. Clause 8 allows microchipping. I accept that it is outside the Part 1 debate we are having at the moment but it is at the guts of—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the Minister have something to say? I did not catch that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Everyone is trying to help the member. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes I am grateful for that support. Surely the Minister will take a call to correct any mistakes he thinks I might have made with regard to the discussion I am involved in. I will wait for that call and listen with great interest. 
The bottom line is we are debating legislation today that will not fix the problem that is associated with the reason why this debate is taking place. Unless we have local government bodies that are prepared to go out and enforce the law and unless we have a Government that is prepared to support those people in that role then this bill will not overcome the problems we have. If members look at the various bits of Part 1 they will find that local authorities must adopt a policy to regulate the behaviour of dogs in public places. Well will they? Will the Minister make sure they do that? Will they do so in the future? There has been no evidence of it in the past. In fact if the law had been upheld in that regard the particular case in point would not have happened. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The previous speaker the National spokesperson Mr Ardern asked two very very good questions. He asked what the Government was doing about education about dog safety. Clearly that member has not been reading the releases from my office. If he had he would know that some months ago the Government agreed to set aside half a million dollars for a public education campaign about dog safety. That member was quite right; we could set up every law we can to try to make the community safe and to encourage the local bodies that have to enforce the law to carry out their obligations but we could never prevent especially in the home attacks by dogs. I am focusing a half-million-dollar public education programme on dog safety in schools and kindergartens in order to get that dog safety message across because it is very important. 
The previous speaker also asked what the Government was doing about making sure that the councils followed the new regulations and rules. Firstly the member should know from reading clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1 that the councils must review their dog control policies and apply strengthened criteria to places where children are more likely to gather and where attacks can happen. 
A former speaker raised the question of little Carolina Anderson the girl who was attacked in Auckland last Christmas. She was playing at a park where there was an Auckland City Council sign saying “No dogs off leashes”. That was a case where a territorial authority was not carrying out its existing legal requirements. I am not criticising the Auckland City Council; it is one of the most proactive councils but in that particular case it was not carrying out its legal requirements. What we have done is give the local authorities a strong steer to look at the issue again and they are all going to do that. They are required to give effect to their new dog control policies by making new by-laws if necessary and they have to do it quite quickly—within 60 days. 
They have until 1 September 2004 to revise their policies. I hope they do that within the spirit of the new Local Government Act which means engaging with their communities in making decisions about for example which areas will be leashed areas—where all dogs will need to be on a leash—and which areas will be for dogs to roam free. I am hoping the councils will look very carefully at the criteria that are set in the legislation; they refer to areas that the public use widely and areas where children will be found—playgrounds schoolyards and so on. Those are areas where dogs should be leashed. 
The speaker was right; we have to give a strong message to local government authorities to carry out their obligations. We have now empowered them with greater ability to do that. We have given them a strong message about the safety measures to consider in drawing up those regulations. Together with that basket of new legislation is also a package on education for people about dog safety because that is a very important part of the whole new thrust of this legislation which in the end is about keeping the community safer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In looking at Part 1 clauses 3 and 4 I point out that the Local Government and Environment Committee was guided by the fact that we had before us a survey of territorial authorities on dog control issues—both the interim report in March and the final one in June. In that survey the adequacy of the 1996 Act was in question. Some sections were agreed to by the councils but they were divided over whether the Act had adequate powers for identifying potentially dangerous dogs preventing incidents involving the same owner preventing dangerous dog incidents and seizing dangerous dogs. 
The policy in clause 3 is one that the committee felt could be realised out in the council world. We felt there needed to be more rigorous enforcement but the way in which it is done is still left in the hands of the local council. The policies that the councils are required to plan seemed to us to be reasonable. In particular clause 4 is an improvement. It requires the councils to report back on their dog control policies and we hope the Department of Internal Affairs’ template check of best practices will go with that. The end result for the councils will be a reporting system that is known by their ratepayers and residents and that is an improvement on that which is there at the present time. 
Since the committee reported back I have talked to several councils about the bill. They are in agreement that some of them need to do better. They are also very conscious of the fact that there is a cost issue as well. My last point is that it may very well be that when they look at the requirements in clauses 3 and 4 that the legislation in its final form will set out for them they will realise that the common good factor that has been called for by the people out there with regard to their demands for better dog control means that responsible dog owners should not be the only ones to pay the cost of meeting the requirements of this policy. In their planning for 2004-05 the common good factor should mean that the cost comes from the general ratepayer as well as from the revenue received from responsible dog owners. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I support both clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank Mr Jim Peters for raising the issue of the response of local government to the survey I put out last Christmas asking the councils all over New Zealand—all 76 of them that are required to enforce this legislation—how effective the 1996 legislation was. Frankly I was appalled with the response we got. A few councils were good record-keepers. Some were absolutely hopeless; they did not keep any records at all. We did not have any way of finding out how many dogs were registered in New Zealand because of the shoddy and inconsistent record-keeping of the councils. 
The legislation gives a strong direction to and requirement on territorial authorities to have best practice. There was a bit of best practice. I hope that at the end of this there will be best practice everywhere. The Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled requires that the councils record the basis of each individual classification of a menacing dog. It also provides that the councils give a copy of that to the Secretary of Local Government. So we are following it up. It will be checked on. That will help to ensure that central government and local government have statistics available so that they know what is happening with dogs in our community what percentage of dogs are registered dogs how many attacks are taking place and whether there are remedial steps that can be taken to try to prevent and mitigate against those attacks. 
Again I emphasise that this bill is about public safety. These are common-sense provisions that we hope will improve public safety. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Indeed clauses 3 and 4 are among the very important practical things the bill does. The Local Government and Environment Committee learnt that enforcement and the keeping of records around the country were extremely variable and that several territorial authorities had far more optimal keeping of records and enforcement than others did as the Minister of Local Government said. By ensuring that the territorial authority must report annually we are putting in a very important discipline that will allow benchmarking throughout the country. It is a great shame that we have so many territorial authorities. Hopefully the next National Government which comes into power in 2005 will attend to that. But despite that there is no doubt that this part of the bill will allow benchmarking throughout the territorial authorities in New Zealand so that those territorial authorities on the margins can be easily identified and brought up to speed in terms of ensuring that best-practice guidelines are adhered to. 
One of the other useful things that emanated from the select committee and the submissions was that it was appropriate that a publication of best-practice guidelines be available to all territorial authorities so that they could use it as the blueprint for how they would respond. Undoubtedly it seems to me that that is a much more democratic and voluntary way to impose standards of dog control than having highly prescriptive legislation as is implied by the microchipping aspect which the Minister is so hell-bent on imposing. 
 Certainly these two clauses clauses 3 and 4 of Part 1 are key to ensuring we have good standards of record-keeping in New Zealand. After all one of the difficulties of quantifying whether we have serious dog attacks in New Zealand has been the fact that there has been such variable record-keeping. The research unit in Dunedin has done a very assiduous job in that area and I understand that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand result in people requiring hospitalisation but many thousands of other dog attacks go unreported. Clauses 3 and 4 will indeed add that discipline by ensuring across New Zealand that there are far better standards that far better records are kept and that the territorial authorities that are on the margins—of which there are many—are pinpointed. 
I hope we will have ministerial oversight that ensures those records are kept and I hope the Minister will take a call in a moment or two to explain to Parliament how he as the Minister at present from 1 December will ensure that this part of the bill is followed and adhered to. I believe that it is practical and worthwhile. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This is a rather important bill and I am happy to talk about Part 1—clauses 2 and 3. It is quite apparent when debating this bill that there is a hugely good intent in it. I do not think anybody doubts there are problems out there. But it is the applying of it in practice in which I see some real problems. 
An example of the requirements now to be placed on territorial authorities is new paragraph (4)(b) of section 10 which has been inserted in clause 3: “the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access ...”. What exactly does that phrase “uncontrolled access” mean? Does it mean the dog will be on a leash so that he is controlled while he gets access or does it mean the dog is uncontrolled on say a beachfront? Whether it be winter or summer huge numbers of people will be there. I do not understand what “uncontrolled access” to public beaches actually is. I assume there will be some dog inspectors at those public facilities checking to see whether the dogs concerned are controlled. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps explain that a little to me. Does it mean that when dogs are on the beach running free and chasing birds or sticks as they do they are in a very real sense not controlled? By very definition a dog that is taken for a run is not under absolute control unless the owner has been to a kennel club or that sort of thing and has instant control of the dog. My experience of urban dwellers especially is that they use voice control to try to control dogs in these public places and that is not a practical way of doing it. It is only members of the farming community it seems to me who manage to control their dogs; they control them in a much more disciplined way than do so many people who take their animals into what I would call urban situations. So I ask how we are to control animals that are allowed to roam free in those specific areas. 
I have some other real problems too. I was hoping to get a call on the earlier part of this bill where I could have talked about the concept—I think the Minister spoke about it—of education of the public and indeed of the dogs. Education requires an extensive period of time. Owners will not be educated nor will dogs in the very short time frames that this bill allows for so the exercise of having controlled animals in public places frequented by children is probably a totally impractical suggestion or requirement by this bill. 
There is also a requirement for the territorial authority to have regard for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. What exactly is that and how in a practical sense will it occur? Will there be a park for dog owners and their dogs and another park next door or will the park be divided up by a solid fence that dogs cannot jump over? I do not think the practicalities have been thought through of how amenities will be provided for the public so that they can enjoy the great outdoors free from dogs—whether it be free from their faeces or just free from their presence. It seems logical to me that we will have to fence these areas in half to allow for both situations to occur. 
The cost of that alone will be very prohibitive and rates will go up yet again. If the Government is dead keen to promote this bill maybe some funding should also follow its passage. One of the problems that territorial authorities face is that although they are compelled to implement the will of the Government on any issue that may not be accompanied by an appropriate amount of funding. It always falls back on the poor old long-suffering ratepayers many of whom may not be dog owners so why should they have to pay? 
Those are the sorts of concepts I do not believe the Government has really thought through. It has not given a practical look at this whole situation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In this Part 1 I believe that clause 3 “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs” and clause 4 which inserts what will become new section 10A “Territorial authority must report on dog control policy and practices” will do more for achieving the aims of the bill than almost anything else we have in the legislation. The very crux of any law is how it is enforced and I think that all of us on the Local Government and Environment Committee acknowledged that. The Hon Ken Shirley said very early on in the discussion that in his opinion the major problem was that the current law was not being enforced enough and most of us would agree with that. It is probably a result of the fact that he has been living in Tauranga for a number of years that such common sense is beginning to rub off on him and why he is making such wise statements from time to time. 
Clearly it is councils doing their jobs and making sure they enforce the laws that have been passed by Parliament that will guarantee a safer environment for our families our children and everybody with regard to the possibility of attacks from dogs. The first stage is for councils to adopt a policy and this is an excellent process. I welcome the Minister’s amendment in his Supplementary Order Paper that foresees and makes clear the importance of enabling the public to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs. That needs to be to the extent that is practical which is what is contained within his amendment. I welcome that because otherwise we may be asking councils to do the very impossible. They can do only the possible and do the very best they can. 
In clause 4 the things that the territorial authority will have to report on are vital. That provision has been referred to earlier as we had the Department of Internal Affairs report to the committee on what was currently going on around the country. As the Minister has said and others have referred to some of the reporting was appalling. Without good information and data we cannot make good laws and if there is a need in the future for further amendment it will need to be based upon very accurate statistics across the country about what really is taking place. We may find that the situation has improved so much that in time we can begin to give a bit more freedom back to dog owners. As more and more dog owners become responsible perhaps we will be able to ease up on the requirements in this legislation. 
 I welcome these two clauses. I believe the most important provision is that the territorial authority must give public notice of the report because the best people to keep local councils accountable for their role and responsibility are the people those councils serve. A Big Brother Government will not watch over all the councils to make sure that they do their jobs; instead local residents will be able to look at that report every year and see whether their council is doing a good job. If the report is shoddy with plenty of holes and things that are not reported on then that council will be held accountable by its community and I think that is an excellent way forward. These two clauses are essential and will perhaps provide the most safety and security for members of the public. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Dog control officers dog rangers and dog control bylaws 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with dog control officers dog rangers and dog control bylaws and seems eminently sensible—unlike the member for Otaki from time to time—in repealing section 15 of the Act and substituting a new section 15 as set out in clause 5. That section headed “Power of dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter dogs” is an appropriate part of the bill. The SPCA and in fact the whole of New Zealand would be totally in agreement that a dog control officer or a dog ranger who has “reasonable grounds to suspect that a dog is without access to proper and sufficient food water or shelter may enter on any land or premises where the dog is present and ... supply the dog with food water or shelter:”. 
It is important that we ask questions so that we can ensure that the dog control officer leaves appropriate notes that are readily accessible. That is so that he or she can be identified and the circumstances readily sorted out by the landowners if due to totally unpredictable events they have left their animal at home—such as being in a car crash and taken to hospital—rather than the situation being one of absolute neglect. It is important that in certain circumstances it is a two-way responsibility and that is spelt out in this part. 
Clause 7 is headed “Power of constable dog control officer or dog ranger to request information”. That was highly relevant to the Owen and Hill case which was such a tragedy for Carolina Anderson. In that situation wrong information was given to people involved and it is vital that as subclause (1) states: “A constable dog control officer or dog ranger may for the purposes of this Act request the following persons to state his or her name date of birth address telephone contact number and place of work ... (a) any person appearing to be in charge of a dog; or (b) any person appearing to be the occupier of any land or premises on which a dog for the time being is being kept.” We totally agree with that. It is right and proper that that provision be in this part of the bill. 
I note that the fine has substantially increased—from $1500 to $3000. One of the practical difficulties is that if fines become too much for minor offences one could find that this law will not be accepted in a practical sense and that people will avoid their responsibilities. While that sum is reasonable and it is reasonable in the case of Owen and Hill—in fact the fine should have been much more than $3000—it is important that the territorial authorities have discretion in certain circumstances to be able to impose minor penalties for minor offences. 
I go on to clause 8 which deals with dog control by-laws. I note that the Minister in his complete lack of wisdom has deleted this area and instead put it into his new Supplementary Order Paper. I find it extraordinary that not even the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee who is on the side of the Labour Government was aware that the Minister was to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper this afternoon that carries very important but not obvious details. This is quite a difficult bill to make in terms of the amendments to the original Act. It is absolutely irresponsible of the Minister not to have consulted the chair of his own select committee—let alone members of the other parties who worked in collaboration when this bill was before the select committee to try to make it as good as it could be. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 With regard to Part 2 the committee members arrived at a very sound set of clauses. They clarified for us the powers of dog rangers and dog officials to seize unregistered or offending dogs. One of the issues raised in the submissions was the need for consistency of enforcement. That call came from the SPCA in Auckland and from other bodies as well. Part 2 does that. It makes clear the ability of the dog control officer to go to the next stage after he or she has seized the dog. It gives reasonable rights to the owner of the dog but it also has a vision for the care of the animal meanwhile. That is what one would expect of a humane council faced with the problem of unregistered or offending dogs. 
Part 2 also clarifies the implied rights of all owners or occupiers of a house. That potential impediment has been overcome in the part we are debating. The provisions are sensible and there are no great problems in them with regard to the way they will be carried out in practice. I have already talked to three dog rangers on the issues in clauses 5 6 and 7. They believe that those provisions are an improvement on what was there before. They had further suggestions—which always arise after the event—but at the present time it is a reasonable and sane part for us to consider further. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill as other speakers have intimated is very important. Essentially it is very much about animal welfare. There can be few issues for New Zealand that are more important. I mention briefly the need to ensure more than adequate animal welfare rules and regulations so that we treat our animals appropriately in order to ensure the image that New Zealand has of being an agricultural nation that is reliant on animal products. There are always those who from time to time for whatever reason do neglect their animals. They either let them roam free or feed them in an inadequate way. There should be appropriate controls and powers for dog control officers—or indeed even neighbours I suspect—to come in and ensure that the animal is well treated with adequate food water and shelter. 
Reading Part 2 I could not help but reflect on the question of why cats are not also involved. I know we are dealing with dogs in this particular issue but I cannot help but think we are putting welfare controls in so that dogs get a good looking after when I am sure there are many cat lovers around this country who would believe there should be legislation for their little moggies and so on. However that might be for another day—God forbid! 
Larry Baldock 
: What about pet rabbits? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Oh and pet rabbits and all! I want to just emphasise the point that animal welfare is a very serious issue and should be treated as such by those in authority to ensure that as I mentioned earlier the image of New Zealand is not tainted by those who for whatever reason are inadequate in their care of animals. 
Clause 8 in Part 2 inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act that requires “dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purpose of providing permanent identification of dogs:”. This is one of the areas of the bill that will cause some real controversy. Indeed I spoke with a retired school headmistress last night who was very concerned about this particular issue. She has imported a Danish something or other. I asked her how big it was and she said: “It’s just a little wee guy.” and she said: “There is no way I am going to put a microchip into my dog.” 
Larry Baldock 
: She won’t have to. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Somebody else will do it for her I suppose. 
Larry Baldock 
: No it’s only the new dogs from 2006. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well the point is that after that time if she gets a new pup or whatever of this particular breed there will be huge reluctance by people to understand why the Minister believes that dogs of this size little chihuahuas or the—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go: “Dog-chip plan draws mixed reaction”—Mr Peters is just showing me one of the local papers. There is some real concern about the necessity for putting a microchip into the small Jack Russells—the ones that while they can be a bit snappy are not really the problem. The focus of this bill is always on the pit bull terriers and the large dogs—those that are considered to be dangerous dogs. But it emphasises the point that all dogs potentially can be dangerous to a very small child. To a baby a very small dog might be of some threat but microchipping them will not be the solution. Microchipping a chihuahua for example seems to me to be a bit unnecessary to say the very least but the microchipping of a rather large Dobermann Alsatian or pit bull terrier does have some merit. But the people who we demand should have these dogs registered and microchipped are the very people who will refuse to present their dogs for registration or to receive the microchip transponder so that they can be tracked and traced and the owners identified. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I want to make a few brief comments. First of all it is about dog control officers dog rangers and dog control by-laws and particularly the dog control officers and dog rangers are crucial to the success of this legislation. It is important that we have taken the time in the bill to give them some clarity and some additional powers so they can do their job; it is not a job I would like to have to do in this country given the number of wild and mangy dogs that roam the streets. So I trust they will be encouraged by some of the additional powers given to them. I know of one very happy dog control officer who was almost stunned with the number of amendments in this bill—little pieces of the existing legislation that those officers have wanted to see improved tweaked and adjusted over the years and he is very very happy that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done such a thorough job in addressing lots of these issues. 
Clause 5 introduces a new section 15 into the Dog Control Act including subsection (5) which provides: “All reasonable costs incurred in the seizure custody sustenance and transport of a dog under this section may be recovered as debt from the owner of the dog.” I think that is a very important part of this section because we often hear people complaining about how responsible people are penalised by those who are not responsible. At the moment a lot of the costs of dogs being impounded and so on are borne by those who pay their rates. So this section sends a very good signal that the costs of being irresponsible will be passed back to people by way of a charge or a debt and we should all take some satisfaction from that. 
With regard to microchipping as mentioned by the previous speaker it is important that the message gets out across the country and I am sure it will come out more as we debate microchipping later that in fact the legislation does deal only with new dogs being registered from 2006. People need not fear that their current pets will have to be subjected to this. It will be the new pups as they come into the world and are registered and vaccinated that will have chips implanted. Currently anybody who purchases a purebred dog will find that the New Zealand Kennel Club already inserts microchips in them for purposes of identification so that is not likely to be of grave concern to those who have bought their pedigree dogs. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 We support the bill. It is good legislation by and large but we are still concerned about clause 8 which inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act requiring dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purposes of permanent identification. The other day the Minister said that the cost of the registration would fall on too few dog owners and in fact the cost of requiring every dog to be implanted will fall on all dog owners. The cost of the registration would have been on all dogs anyway and the national register would have been on all dogs and it will be I presume from the commencement of this bill. I am not quite sure when the national register comes into force but I imagine that it will come into force from the date the bill is enacted. It is an issue that some people feel particularly sensitive about and I hasten to add that I am aware it is a very small device— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That will be more appropriately discussed under Part 4. We are on Part 2 at the moment which has four clauses. 
MIKE WARD 
: Section 20(1)(ga)—clause 8? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 5 to 8. 
MIKE WARD 
: We believe that dog control is quite possible under existing rules. I said the other day the offences that occur are more frequently about law badly applied not bad law. In fact the new law tweaks the old law and puts some important new pieces in. However dog control can be quite well carried out under the present law without microchipping. Our concern remains. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Probationary and disqualified owners 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with probationary and disqualified owners. I note that section 21 of the Dog Control Act which describes the classification of probationary owners refers to the fact that a territorial authority may classify a person as a probationary owner if that person commits three or more infringement offences within a continuous period of 24 months and also if there has been a conviction for any offence against the Act. 
I also note that in the bill the territorial authority still has the discretion to require probationary owners to undertake training. I think it would be useful for the Minister the Hon Chris Carter to take a call and explain to us why it is not a requirement for such individuals to undertake training education etc but a discretion. Clearly if there has been a conviction under the Act and if there have been three or more infringement notes then it seems to me that it would be appropriate to ensure that the owner undertake a territorial authority - approved dog owner education programme or dog obedience course or both and that the person pay for undergoing that training or obedience course. It seems quite out of order that we would still have discretion after there have been clear infringements against the basic Act. 
Part 3 also deals with the disqualification of owners. I notice that clause 11(1) states that “if a person is disqualified from owning a dog under section 25 the person must—(b) not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time except for the purpose of—(i) preventing a dog from causing injury damage or distress; or (ii) returning within 72 hours a lost dog to the territorial authority”. 
This is of concern when we come to the case of Thomas Owen and Brian Hill because we want to be absolutely explicit. I hope the Minister will take a call regarding the question of someone being in possession of someone else’s dog. I have put in an amendment that should cover this situation fairly clearly so that instead of “not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time” we should add “not subsequently be in possession of a dog or control of a dog in a public place at any time” to make absolutely sure that such incidences as have occurred with Thomas Owen and Brian Hill do not occur. 
The other thing that concerns me about probation and the disqualification of owners is whether this will apply right throughout New Zealand. One territorial authority may apply such a requirement to an owner but the owner may go to another territorial authority. Consequently I have put in an amendment that hopefully will deal with this. It amends the principal Act to ensure that “The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification”. The same applies to disqualification also so that owners cannot go from one part of New Zealand to another and therefore get off the hook. I hope the Minister will take a call and assure the Committee that he has covered these very important issues. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In reference to Part 3 the point just made by Dr Hutchison is correct. There was I believe an intention at the time to encourage best practice—in other words for there to be improved or better practice on the part of territorial local authorities. So clause 9 is a discretionary clause. But clause 10 regarding the disqualification of owners is an absolute provision. It uses the word “must” and in that regard there will be consistency of enforcement throughout the country. Several bodies raised the issue that there be consistency with regard to enforcement and that is there in clause 10. It was the intention of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time that that be so but that the legislation be fair and reasonable. There are three strikes and it is after the third strike that people are out. If people are out after the third strike then they are on the bench for 5 years. That is what the clause states to a dog owner who has not been responsible and has not taken due care of an animal. I think that both clauses are fair and reasonable and deserve support. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Dr Hutchison raised the question of whether the legislation provides for coverage throughout New Zealand. I assure the member that section 29 of the Act already provides for disqualification throughout New Zealand. Dr Hutchison also asked why councils should have discretion over whether they can order a probationary owner to undergo dog education. Not every circumstance is the same so councils have the discretion to do that. They can choose to order that on a case by case basis and I think that is a very sensible approach. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a short call. I wonder whether the Minister may elaborate a little on what happens if a territorial authority—such as the one in Otago for example—does not have a facility where a person may “undertake at his or her expense a dog owner education programme or a dog obedience course (or both) approved by the territorial authority.” If I take my own situation as an example in Alexandra to my certain knowledge there is no such facility. There may well be one in Oamaru or Dunedin 2½ hours away. Is the intent of the bill really to ask people to jump in their car once or twice a week and travel very extensive distances? It is not like living in Wellington or Christchurch where there may be two or three of those facilities. I am not at all certain how many of them there are in my own region; perhaps I should have checked on that before coming to the Chamber. But I am perfectly certain that there is no such facility in for example Alexandra which is quite a reasonable-sized town. Nor is there one in Wanaka or Queenstown so we would have to go to Oamaru or Dunedin for training. 
That is a huge imposition on dog owners for what might have been a small misdemeanour on the part of a little dog that needs a bit of education or on the part of an owner who needs a bit of education. How will it be practically achieved if the facility is a good 2 or 3 hours’ travel time away? Is that a fair and reasonable request or demand to place on an owner? Has that been thought through? I am not certain whether it has. As everybody is aware the cost of jumping in one’s car and having a dog carrier or similar facility to attach to one’s vehicle to carry a dog long distances is a real expense. I would imagine that $150 would be attached to the round trip in many cases. Is that the intent of the bill? Again I can only reiterate that in the bigger cities of course there may be a number of such facilities but in smaller provincial communities I would be very surprised to find one or two at the very most of those sorts of facilities available to ensure that the territorial authority can in fact impose that requirement and that it can be met by the individuals concerned. 
I wonder whether the Minister may take a call on this issue. I am all for the education of dog owners and dogs; I think that is highly appropriate. But dog owners have to have facilities in their own districts in the first instance to allow that to occur. There may be an opportunity for an enterprising individual to start up dog training facilities as a result of this legislation. That remains to be seen. But if a territorial authority has a problem with a handful of dogs—say a maximum of half a dozen dogs during any one particular 12-month period—is that really worthwhile and what is the practicality of employing a dog training officer or running a dog obedience course? Again that cost will come back on to the poor long-suffering ratepayers who will have to front up for the cost of such a facility. 
I will leave the matter there and I ask whether the Minister will in fact inform me of how such education and training will be achieved if there are no facilities in any given district. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert before clause 9 the following clause: 
9AAProbationary owners 
Section 23 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(2A) The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 25 of the principal Act after subsection (3) the following subsection: 
(3A)disqualification under subsection (1) applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that disqualification. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28(1)(b) of the principal Act after the words “in possession of a dog” the words “or control of a dog in a public place”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Prohibited dangerous and menacing dogs 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This part relates to two very importantparts of the bill. First it deals with proscribing certain breeds and stopping their importation into New Zealand. When we looked at the issue of breed bans we looked at overseas jurisdictions and saw how they dealt with the issue. The breeds that are proscribed in the schedule—the Japanese tosa the dogo Argentino the Brazilian fila and the pit bull terriers—are all fighting breeds and are widely recognised internationally as being dangerous to the community. They are dogs that were bred specifically for fighting and often for hunting large game animals such as bears and so on. So they are dogs that are by nature and temperament aggressive and that generally speaking pose a risk to the community. 
Other countries have sought to ban those breeds within their jurisdictions. We looked at their experience to see whether that was successful. We saw bans proved in fact to be very complicated because classifying a dog as a type—belonging to say a pit bull terrier type which has a very wide range of types within the breed—is extraordinarily difficult. The UK Germany and some Australian states had some enormous problems with litigation as territorial authorities tried to say that a dog was a pit bull terrier and the owner tried to say it was not. Those cases ended up spending long periods in court and costing the ratepayers and taxpayers of those communities a great deal of money often with results that were not very satisfactory for public safety because the dog was for example found to be not a pit bull terrier but was still an aggressive and dangerous dog. 
So what we decided—and I am pleased to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has supported us—was that we needed to make a statement about the danger those dogs present to the community and that we do not want more of them to come into our country. We have erected barriers to prevent them from coming into the country but we have also said that within the country people who own any of those four breeds have to take extra care to keep the community safe. Owners will have to for example muzzle those dogs and leash them in public and so on. We have avoided the difficulties that overseas jurisdictions have had with regard to the classification of dog breeds internally and that is why I as Minister and the Government did not go down that path internally. 
But we do not want more of those dogs to come into the country. We have a barrier there and a recognised veterinary professional has to sign a document stating that the dog in question does not belong to one of the proscribed breeds. The importation of those dogs has been from countries where veterinary officers are of a high professional standard—the UK the US Australia and some other European countries—so I have a lot of confidence that that will be a fairly effective barrier. The odd dog may get through the barrier—I hope it does not—but by and large that import barrier will serve as a fairly effective break on any more of those dogs coming in. Three of the four breeds are very restricted in their numbers in New Zealand. One in fact may not even exist in the country so it will not be a particular issue. 
Now what about universal microchipping? I disagreed with the majority view of the select committee over this issue. In fact I signalled when the select committee’s report came back to the House that I would try to persuade other political parties to think about this issue again and I am delighted that we now have some support on it. So Dr Hutchison was not correct earlier when he said that this decision was new even to the Labour vice chair of the committee. In fact I made it quite clear last week that we would do this. Why have I gone ahead with universal microchipping? It seems to me that if we are to have an effective national database where all new registrations are microchipped from 2006 onwards and dangerous and menacing dogs are microchipped from 2006 as well then microchipping has to be universal and it has to catch all dogs in New Zealand eventually. 
There will be a period of transition. Probably by the year 2015 all dogs in New Zealand will be on the database and that will then address that serious problem that arose when I surveyed councils last Christmas. I asked how many dogs there were in New Zealand and was told we were not sure. Nor were we sure how many were registered because there is no national database. There are different systems of record-keeping throughout New Zealand. A national database that all dogs are on will fundamentally address that question. Universal microchipping will also address the other issue that some Opposition members have raised today of how to track a dog that goes from say Whangarei to Manukau City and that has been a problem dog in Whangarei. How does Manukau City find out about that? At the moment it cannot do so but with a national database which the Government has said it will fund the Manukau City Council officers will be able to instantly tap in electronically—that is the modern age. 
We live in the digital age now. We move with the times and microchipping is a means of moving with the times. There will be instantaneous access to a standard system that uses the same microchips has the same data-entry processes and contains data in the same format throughout New Zealand. It is a logical sensible and modern way of dealing with that. The select committee wanted to partially do microchipping. They wanted councils to buy the gear and use it on just some dogs. Well that then actually raises an issue of cost. Why buy the gear and not use it in the most effective way one can which is with all dogs eventually being microchipped? 
 Some people raised the question of a little chihuahua and asked why that breed of dog should be microchipped. In New Zealand many pedigree chihuahuas Jack Russell terriers and all sorts of other dogs little and big are already microchipped. The New Zealand Kennel Club which is a very enthusiastic supporter of the microchipping of all dogs encourages its members now to microchip their dogs. Why? Because if people steal a dog—and pedigree dogs are very valuable and just as loved as the little moggie pet—microchipping provides instant recognition. A collar and tag can be changed; a microchip cannot. So identification of the dog is about safety for the owner as well as for the community. 
Animal control officers also told us that one problem they have with menacing and dangerous dogs is that the owner disputes it is his or her dog that is involved or that the dog has done that before. Tags again can be changed which causes confusion over identity. Some members will remember a particular individual dog that was held by Porirua City last Christmas and the long litigation over whether the dog had attacked. The owner said no; the animal control officer said yes. There was a real dispute about the identity of the dog concerned. If that dog had been microchipped there would have been absolutely no confusion about its past history and its ownership. Again microchipping is a sensible safety measure not just for the community and not just for the sake of a dog’s identification but also for the owner. We can find out instantly whether a dog belongs to a particular owner by checking a microchip. 
For those reasons I am a very strong and passionate advocate for the microchipping of all dogs. It will not be an expensive process. A microchip currently costs between $12 and $20. If a vet inserts it he or she will charge a reasonable fee—as a good professional should. But animal control officers can easily be trained to insert microchips. Indeed in my other capacity as Minister of Conservation I say that my departmental staff microchip kiwis kakapo and other extraordinarily endangered birds in our country without any problem. Those officers are not trained vets but they are trained animal officers. I certainly have full confidence that council staff if trained adequately could do this job at minimal cost. So it will not be expensive either. For all those reasons—safety relative cheapness comprehensiveness and moving with modern times—I think that having a national database is an excellent idea. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with prohibited dangerous and menacing dogs. It was good to see that in the Local Government and Environment Committee the words “potentially dangerous dogs” were changed to “menacing dogs” because after all even the tiniest chihuahua could be potentially dangerous under extraordinary circumstances—maybe when it gets a microchip inserted under this Labour Minister who is so intent on microchipping every dog in the country. 
In terms of the prohibition on the import of certain dogs there was discussion in the select committee as to whether that was appropriate for New Zealand. The select committee on balance agreed that it was. Undoubtedly the international statistics clearly show that certain dog breeds are associated with a far greater incidence of attacks that cause morbidity and mortality. Even though it is difficult to recognise those breeds once they have interbred—and that undoubtedly is a huge practical problem—the dogs listed in the schedule the Brazilian fila the dogo Argentino the Japanese tosa and the American pit bull terrier all do inspire in some people a considerable amount of fear and intimidation because they associate those dogs with many of the dangerous attacks and dangerous acts and with having characteristics that do worry little children or people who are not in a position to be able to protect themselves. 
I agree that it is absolutely appropriate that we do this now—we should have done it 20 years ago—and that we have a mechanism to add to the schedule by amendment not by Order in Council. I think we will deal with that issue later on. I think that having a mechanism to add breeds to the schedule by Order in Council would be inappropriate because clearly this measure is something that will evolve over a period of time and it should be scrutinised through the usual conventional passage of legislation rather than by having a quick-fire route as in the example of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I think it is also appropriate that there be a ban on importing the ova semen and embryo of those dangerous dogs. 
But the most important and contentious part of Part 4 is the microchipping provision. I am fascinated and concerned to hear that the Minister says that probably by 2015 all dogs will be on the database. Dog registration has been a problem in New Zealand for 150 years—in fact Rua Kenana was arrested up in the Ureweras because his dogs were not registered. I think the Minister is in fairyland if he thinks that all dogs will be on the database but he said they “probably” would be. 
It is very interesting to hear that even this very day he received an email from Colleen Begg registrar of the New Zealand Kennel Club begging the Minister to review the way he wishes to prescribe the microchipping of dogs. In fact just to go through it she stated this: “The provision in the bill as reported back in new clause 36A(3)(a) is preferable by ‘making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority’. We ask that you consider dropping the change in the SOP and stay with the provision in the reported-back bill. Our reason is that the SOP 167 is too proscriptive and will incur additional costs. The whole issue of public acceptance is seen to be dependent on keeping costs to an acceptable level. We are not convinced that every puppy needs to be seen by a vet nor that this can always be done at time of vaccination.” 
I hope the Minister will take a call and address the concerns of the New Zealand Kennel Club which has been supportive of microchipping but not in the way that the Minister suggests. I say that the vast majority of submitters and New Zealanders regard microchipping as quite unnecessary. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 4 is interesting because throughout the course of our deliberations and even up until this very minute almost the issue of breed and the ability to classify on breed characteristics even in the Supplementary Order Paper wholly belongs predominantly to one or more breeds. The whole issue of breed has dominated these sorts of discussions here and abroad as well. I think that the Local Government and Environment Committee overcame some of the issues. We were told that there are 77 dangerous breeds in the alarmist conversations we had with various people about breeds. We have overcome that issue and have come up with a pretty sensible end result in the language that is before the Committee. 
With regard to microchipping we as a committee moved for microchipping in respect of dangerous dogs. It was not until after we had finished our deliberations and I talked to people out in the industry as it were that I became concerned that we were setting up a very costly system which we had agreed to for only a few dogs as I said earlier on. We also looked at the issue with regard to some of the practicalities of microchipping because we saw it as an issue of registration. It does not have much to do with dangerous dogs in some ways. I hope very much that the technology can be developed further than it has at the present time. It seems to be eminently sensible that if we can flick a scanner at a garage door that is the same distance away as from my seat almost to the chairman and open it we should be able to do something similar for the dog ranger or official. If we can get the scanner to work at a distance of 2 metres away or so then that will enhance the whole value of microchipping particularly for dogs that roam or so-called unregistered dogs that roam up and down the roads and across paddocks. 
We were also concerned as was the previous speaker about the cost of microchipping. Therefore I was interested to read an article in the weekend press. I refer to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 and its analysis of its survey of “The cost of man’s dearest friend”. Any potential cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping pales in significance compared with the suggested total cost of maintaining a dog—that is $1500 to $2000 a year. So the cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping does not seem to be quite so significant. When we talk to veterinary surgeons and veterinary clinics we can see that the cost of microchipping is not as high as might be thought. If it were done on a national contract basis it would be even cheaper than the current suggested cost. I do not think the initial cost is a factor. The ability of a scanner—or transponder—to do the job from a distance is a huge help. That will result as it has elsewhere in the world in a more rigorous system of identification of dogs nationally—place by place. It was said earlier that a survey of local authorities found the consistency of enforcement was not good and that situation went right back to an uncertain base. So when the Government suggested it was agreeable to setting up the base the register and was hoping to maintain that with the support of local authorities I thought that was a reason to go with the proposal. It is not the end. It is the process that will have to be developed but 2006 is a long time ahead for planned universal microchipping if the practice is to succeed. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are delighted that the bill targets dangerous dogs menacing dogs and problem dogs. Although we will be supporting the breed-specific bans we do have some problems with them. The following breeds of dogs—tosa fila brasiliero and dogoArgentino—do not exist in New Zealand or if they do they are very small in number. It is unlikely there are enough to warrant worrying about banning them. However they are dangerous dogs. We have been told and the Minister admits that the American pit bull terrier is a difficult breed to identify. We are a little bit worried that other dog breeds that look like pit bull terriers may be caught by this legislation. They may be required to be muzzled or neutered when they are in fact not dangerous but just happen to look like American pit bull terriers—in spite of the fact that American pit bulls are apparently difficult to identify. 
The bill bans four breeds at this stage. It has been pointed out by the kennel clubs that Italy started off by banning four breeds but now bans 77 breeds. I notice the bill contains fairly strict criteria for adding new dogs to the list of banned breeds but I would be pleased to hear the Minister confirm that he will be applying those criteria fairly rigorously before adding other breeds. Microchipping may not be a huge cost compared with the overall cost of owning a dog. As Jim Peters said maintaining a dog is an expensive business anyway. But microchipping all dogs so that dog control officers can get better use of their transponders would just add to the cost. Most dogs will never have the wand waved over them. It will happen only to problem dogs or dogs that come to the notice of dog control officers. Although the Greens do not support universal microchipping in some ways it has advantages. Hunting dogs will get caught by this legislation and that will offer some protection to wildlife. It will certainly offer some protection in terms of sheep being worried by dogs that escape from hunters. I suspect that once hunting dogs are tagged hunters will make very strenuous efforts to locate their dogs when they are lost. The Greens have mixed thoughts about both these measures. We will be supporting the ban on specific breeds but we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of universal microchipping. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The definition of “dangerous dogs” or “menacing dogs” is interesting. Those of us who have watched a television programme or movie starring a couple of Dobermanns tearing down a lawn at night running towards somebody popping over a fence and salivating as they do so will know it conjures up a pretty terrifying image of dangerous dogs. I have a little story of some people who lived in a house on our property some years ago. They had a Dobermann pinscher—that I think is the full name of the breed. Being a sheep farmer I was unsure about having that huge Dobermann on the property. The people said there was absolutely no problem and they told me what had happened the day before. They had a 2-year-old son or daughter who was playing with the dog outside. The child inadvertently reached up grabbed what I can only describe in this House as the dog’s unmentionables and gave them a bit of a yank. The dog yelped shot inside hid under the bed for the rest of the day and would not come out. But according to some that is a dangerous breed of dog. It was a huge Dobermann. 
It is an interesting exercise when one classifies all dogs purely by breed and says they are inherently dangerous. So too are Jack Russell’s; so too are any little snappy dogs. But to say that a Dobermann is dangerous just because it is a Doberman and just because it has been portrayed that way in books movies television or whatever is applying some sort of a driftnet to this issue. I know that many dogs are menacing and they look very dangerous. As a child I can well recall being scared stiff of walking down the street because of a rather large dog. I think it was a German wire-haired terrier a very curly-coated terrier and it had pink eyes. I can still see it. I was terrified of that dog but my parents assured me that it was totally harmless. So it is all a matter of what one perceives. 
Here we have legislation that is going to track these dangerous dogs by forcing the owners to have a microchip placed in the dogs in a few years’ time. I understand the Minister’s comments that stud breeders will think this legislation is a marvellous advance. They will know that the progeny of these dogs is absolutely genuine and that there is no falsifying of records. It will be of huge benefit to stud breeders whether the animals concerned are dogs or any other animal for that matter. It is a marvellous opportunity but again we come back to the fundamental point that the ACT party has been trying to get across and that is that this legislation will not catch those genuinely dangerous dogs and those genuinely dangerous dog owners. Surely these are the people we are trying to catch with this legislation—not the decent law-abiding people up and down this country who take their dogs for walks and treat them well and whose dogs become part of the family regardless of their breed. Staffordshire bull terriers look hugely menacing but are very placid. They are really marvellous family pets but if people cross-breed them with the pit bull therein lies the problem—and those are the people who are going to studiously avoid microchipping these dogs because microchipping means they could be easily caught and identified; both the dog and the owner. They are not going to do it. So we are imposing yet again extra costs onto law-abiding citizens and families who adhere to the requirements. It is all very well for the Minister and MPs on our salaries to say it is only another $30 or $40 or whatever it might be and that the fees are only a few more dollars. But to a lot of people another $30 to $50 is a significant sum of money and I do not think it is appropriate for us to say that it is not. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Part 4 contains most of the controversial provisions in the bill particularly the breed-specific provisions and the requirement to microchip. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a great deal about those matters from the submitters. This breed-specific legislation is very different from the type of legislation in other nations—in particular the UK. Their legislation is often referred to as a failure or not working. It may surprise members to learn that the UK has no dog registration at all. I spoke recently with one of its Government representatives about our legislation and was told that they look longingly at our kind of common-sense legislation as a way of dealing with their problem. The UK has a ban on the ownership of a particular breed but that is not what we are proposing. We are banning the importation of four breeds but it is still permissible to own one of those breeds. That is quite a departure from the examples overseas. 
People who own the pit bull terrier type of dog will not be prosecuted or have the dog immediately taken from them. The bill provides that the dog can be classified as menacing. The only onerous result is that the dog would be required to be muzzled when it is out in the public arena. That is a reasonable ask of the owners of such dogs regardless of whether their dogs are cross-breeds. If a dog looks like a pit bull terrier it will probably bite like a pit bull terrier and therefore people have a reasonable expectation that in the public arena which everybody wants to enjoy they will not be at the mercy of one of those dogs having a momentary flash and reverting to its carnal nature and taking a piece out of somebody.  
The select committee has arrived at a sensible middle ground in this legislation. The public need to get conversant with what is required in terms of menacing dogs. Their favourite dogs will not be taken from them. They will not lose the family pet. If they are of the opinion that their dog is safe—that it is not like all the other dogs—then the only requirement is that they muzzle the dog when it is in the public arena. I welcome the Minister’s amendments on his Supplementary Order Paper in that regard—one of which makes much clearer the effect of the classification “menacing dog”—and the Minister’s further amendment to omit section 33E(1)(ii)  because we do not want the control of those dogs to be by leash when they are in a public arena. That will be a matter for the local councils to deal with. If councils do impose by-laws whereby dogs have to be leashed in certain areas then that will apply to all dogs not just to those that are classified as menacing. 
I particularly welcome the Minister’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper relating to such dogs particularly those of a type because we are dealing not just with the type of dog that is outlined in schedule 4 but eventually with all types of dogs that could be considered menacing. It is important that we make this exemption for those large and potentially menacing dogs—such as German shepherds Dobermanns Rottweilers and so on—that are involved in dog shows across the country during weekends taking part in obedience trials or engaging in a lot of good family activity. Where a council’s local dog control officer has classified dogs of those types as menacing—which in normal circumstances have to be muzzled when in public—they can be given an exemption for the times they are involved in dog shows because obviously it would be ridiculous to have these dogs all with muzzles running around the circle while they are competing. So I welcome that amendment on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
On the issue of microchipping the crucial issue is not so much microchipping itself but whether we have a national database that enables dog control officers to have access to information that is vital to them in the performance of their job. I welcome that happening once the Minister’s amendments are passed. Not only will mandatory microchipping of new dogs take effect from 2006 which will eventually lead to a national database but also— 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are some typescript amendments in the name of the Minister to his amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 167. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is there any chance of putting the amendments separately—at least the one regarding the compulsory microchipping? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has indicated that he wishes them to be grouped so that is the way it is being done. If the Minister wishes to change his mind that is up to him. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that we have one vote on the microchipping provisions and another vote on the dangerous dog provisions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member care to explain again the leave he seeks. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think what the member is asking for and what the Committee might like to do is to be able to vote on the microchipping provisions and then on the dangerous dog provisions. I seek leave to have a separate vote on the two parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are voting for the Minister’s amendments now are we not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the Minister’s typescript amendments. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought we began voting on the amendments to the amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. I will put the question again because there appears to be some confusion. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the amendments to clauses 14 and 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit new section 33E(1)(a)(ii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 167; and 
to omit new section 36A(3) and substitute the following subsections: 
(3)Subsection (2) is complied with by the owner— 
(a)making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority for verification that it has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(b)providing to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying— 
(i)that the dog is or has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(ii)that for the reasons that are specified in the certificate the dog will not be in a fit condition to be implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner before a date specified in the certificate. 
(3A)If a certificate under subsection (3)(b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority the owner must produce to the territorial authority within 1 month after the date specified in the certificate a further certificate specified under subsection (3)(b)(i). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Other: Paul Adams. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Other related amendments 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 5 deals with other miscellaneous related amendments and encapsulates a lot of the issues that still remain contentious. I would like to note clause 30 which refers to dogs causing serious injury and to the increase in imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years and in fines from $5000 to $20000. The case of Carolina Anderson certainly highlights and justifies the reasoning that where serious injury has been caused and gross irresponsibility displayed then these penalties are far more appropriate than the older ones. 
I also want to note clause 39 and the regulations adding further breeds or types to schedule 4. I note that the Regulations Review Committee is in the process of having a review of such procedures as this covering a whole range of bills. I think it is also in the cervical screening bill. There are a variety of other ones that the committee wants to review because in principle it has said that this is a bad mechanism. That is consistent with the very bad mechanism and example the Minister has shown today in bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper that is confusing that the chairman of the select committee did not even know about and that he has brought it in without the consultation that was demonstrated by all parties when deliberating to try to make this bill worthwhile. That just exemplifies how arrogant this Labour Government has become. Here is a bill that has languished for 4 years. It took a crisis before the Labour Government finally took notice of it and it brought in a Supplementary Order Paper without telling anyone about it. It has also brought in a section such as 78A that the Regulations Review Committee suggests is totally inappropriate. 
However this part deals with a whole variety of things including the offence of failing to register a dog. As I mentioned earlier on it has been a problem that has plagued New Zealand history for over 150 years. Rua Kenana was finally arrested at Maungapohatu in the Ureweras for failing to register a dog. While the Minister might say that it is important to have a national database why has he not organised such adatabase over the 4 years he has had available to him? Suddenly he wants to bring in universal microchipping and has said that we have to keep up with the new technologies. In fact the new technologies are evolving. They are not foolproof they are expensive and they are surrounded by compliance costs. 
I see this as an example of the innate congenital reflex of a socialist Labour Government. It cannot help itself gaining central control to make up a national database and now to advocate universal microchipping. What will the next thing be? We will see the  
Brave New World 
 that Aldous Huxley talks about and we will have microchipping of children. That is not as far fetched as the Minister in the chair who is laughing suggests. A constitutent phoned me up and said that that was something he seriously thought should be done in New Zealand because in the United States and the UK the same argument had been put up because of children who had been abducted. I can just see that in the socialist reflex of the present Labour Government: once it has universal microchipping of dogs on it will go on to the next step—the  
Brave New World 
. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As has already been mentioned Part 5 covers a number of small issues. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 167 has made a considerable improvement to clause 18—that is with regard to the failure of an owner to comply the word “must” has been deleted and the words “reasonable grounds” substituted. That is a more reasonable approach and is in line with the general thinking of the bill. As the part covers a number of fees and the fee structure and the issue of microchipping has been raised yet again I remind the Committee that this day in WaggaWagga New South Wales it costs $41 to microchip a dog at 6 months for life for a desexed dog it is $35 for life and for an undesexed dog it is $100 for life. The cost to date of microchippingoperative systems is not as high as one would believe. In our case it should be not much dearer because our systems like Australia’s are under the control of an officer with dog knowledge and ability. 
The only other issue I want to emphasise here is the leash and the subsequent cost if one does not use it. As the owner of a dog one must carry a leash in public. That seems to us to be a very sensible requirement. It overcomes some of the issues of strict enforcement and allows some ability to question the owner particularly if the dog is in a public place. Overall the range of amendments is sensible. They are more costly because they are meant to deter and they are part of a reasonable system of enforcement. To some the much larger fee structure for infringement might seem to be unfair but it is also in line with the thinking that the failure to register to maintain what is fair and reasonable with regard to change of ownership transfer and so on are all matters that are reasonably costly for local authorities and therefore that it will be adequate recompense for the problems and costs that those things incur. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 There are some areas of law that simply set citizens at each other’s throats. Although lawyers can laugh and profit from those they are not things to be proud of. It used to be that the Fencing Act was always seen as such a piece of law. What Parliament is doing with this bill will compound misery for people in New Zealand compound the distress of ordinary citizens against innocent council officers doing their job and compound the alarm of judges at being forced to apply law that brings the law into discredit. The little episode that people in Wellington remember when Toot the dog disappeared to the acclaim of most of the population is set to be multiplied by this part of the bill. 
This bill states even without the Minister of Local Government’s nasty little piece of beefing up that the kinds of dogs any ordinary family might have could be vulnerable to the complaint of a neighbour and be destroyed. For example the legislation now states that a dog owned by a person and known “to have attacked any person or any stock or poultry or property of property of any kind” now must not be allowed to be at large or in any public place or private way other than when confined completely within a vehicle or cage or muzzled and controlled on a leash. That must apply to just about every dog. How many people who have brought up a pup have not had it chew a shoe or bite at the wheel of a bike until it is taught better or chase a cat until it has learnt that it is not allowed to? Almost every dog has done exactly what section 62 states and if the owner knows of that behaviour as he or she must he or she is thereafter obliged to muzzle it. 
This bill probably will not affect the sort of people whom parliamentarians have in mind. It will not affect the gang member whom the police are too afraid to tackle. It will not affect the families who are overrun with dogs and do not bother to register any of them. This legislation will be used by neighbour against neighbour. It will be used by council officers against inoffensive families in order to meet their quota and the effect will be a change in New Zealand’s culture. 
Judges have been complaining about this legislation and the Minister and his officials know that well. I shall read a few of the complaints about the milder form that is the present law. Justice Randerson said: “The courts are obliged to apply the law as ordained by Parliament unpalatable though that course may sometimes be.” Justice Barker said: “The word ‘exceptional’ which is what is required to avoid destroying a dog that falls foul of some of these sections is a very strong one and indicates a very difficult test to be surmounted.” Judge Callander said: “I am saying that one of the worst things judges have to do in their job is to make orders to destroy dogs and it feels like I imagine judges in the ’50s felt when they had to sentence people to death by hanging. I want to simply state to Mrs … that no judge takes pleasure at all in sitting in cases of this sort. We hate it but our function is to serve the law and to return the matters according to statute.” Justice Williams in the High Court said: “The learned District Court judge’s deep uneasiness at making an order for destruction is understood but as he said it remains the case that courts now have no discretion about ordering the destruction of dogs that attack people.” 
We are now compounding the error of this law. In a frenzy of hysteria we are making a law that will change the culture of New Zealand. Families that ordinarily have dogs will be affected. I have been a cat owner. I accept that the neighbouring dog is likely to attack the cat if it gets a chance and that the cat will mostly jump on a fence and hiss at the dog; that is the way of nature. But now as these provisions go if I do not like my neighbour I can force the court to order the dog’s destruction. I can force the dog to be muzzled. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not mind the interjections from the clot from Invercargill. He can jeer all he likes. This measure will rebound on him. He has a very short future ahead of him. 
This sort of law should not be passed in a wave of good intentions. We ought to look at what the law actually does and the incentives it creates. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 5 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 57(3) of the principal Act by omitting all the words after the word “destroyed” and substituting the words “the Court must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following: 
30Section 58 of the principal Act is amended by omitting all the words commencing and after the words “summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $20000 and must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I believe I have in the order of 4 minutes and 53 seconds to speak on the schedules. Schedule 1 certainly demonstrates just how bad this Minister of Local Government’s perspective is in terms of priorities. 
Under schedule 1 the infringement fee for “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog” is $500 and the infringement fee for “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined” is also $500. Which is the one that will contribute most towards preventing dangerous dog attacks? Undoubtedly it is “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined”. Yet we have the Minister insisting that New Zealand dogs are universally microchipped. It seems to me that this is clearly a case of the Minister’s mind his machinations his love for bureaucracy and his love for central control making his perspective get way out of line. The fine is $500 if one fails to implant a microchip in one’s pet chihuahua or whatever it is and $500 if one’s pit bull terrier is not controlled. That seems absolutely wrong. I think it is indicative of how this Labour Government has failed to look at the detail of this bill but instead has insisted on smothering it in bureaucracy. The next offence in schedule 1 reads: “Failure to keep dog under control”. The infringement fee is $500. How does that compare with “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog” which also has a fee of $500? Certainly in terms of achieving the aim of this bill which is to prevent dog attacks that injure individuals there is no comparison. 
Why has this Minister gone against the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and insisted on bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute that not even the chairman of the select committee a Labour Government member knew about? The chairman had not even read it. The Minister could not help himself—he slipped it in. He wanted to impose bureaucracy to smother the bill with bureaucracy. When one analyses it one finds that it is absolutely inappropriate that the infringement fee for failure to implant an unnecessary microchip is the same as that for failure to keep a dog controlled or confined or failure to keep a dog under control. After all we have clearly learnt that microchipping is unnecessary. It is not a priority and it is very costly. 
We note that schedule 2 lists the dogs that are subject to a ban on importation. These include the Brazilian fila the dogoArgentino the Japanese tosa and the American pit bull terrier. Again one of my concerns comes back to the regulations regarding how one schedules the new breeds. It seems incredible that although the Regulations Review Committee recommended that this procedure was inappropriate the bill before us shows us that the Labour Government prefers to see dogs added to schedule 4 in schedule 2 in this way even though this matter is particularly controversial. Surely all the checks and balances of the traditional parliamentary procedure should be looked at very carefully and maintained when one is going to add breeds to schedule 4. It seems quite incredible that the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the Regulations Review Committee. Not only does he ignore the advice of the select committee but he ignores the advice of the Regulations Review Committee and I think that is very sad. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
:  
Schedule 4 in schedule 2 encapsulates some of the concerns about breed-specific legislation. Those concerns are still with us. Even as late as this afternoon at half past 1 we were talking to people about the potential impact of this schedule. I think they were not sensible to the fact that in the previous part there is—and this is complementary to schedule 4—the ability for a new breed or another breed or type to be categorised or classified according to a very set procedure. It includes consulting with and getting advice from local government dog societies animal welfare organisations and so on. 
If there are still people out there who are concerned about breed-specific legislation I say to them that we did not go the same way that other countries have. It is a very very small list of dogs and those dogs are very few in number. The American pit bull terrier does pose some problems with regard to the first cross. But we looked at that matter and the same criteria listed in section 78C in clause 39—the tendency of the breed to attack and to exhibit aggressive behaviour and the risks to public safety—would be factors to consider if there were some concern about the American pit bull terrier and if it were not dealt with by the earlier parts of the bill. 
So basically the new schedule 4 takes a realistic common-sense approach. There are guarantees in the present bill to reassure those people who are concerned about the “breed not need” concept. That the number of dogs concerned is few fits very well with the general common-sense approach that the Local Government and Environment Committee had. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the schedules. Hopefully the Minister of Local Government will answer a couple of questions that I have for him if he would not mind. There is a fine of $500 listed in schedule 1 for failure to keep a dog under control. Can the Minister show me anywhere in this bill a definition of “control”? Does it mean a dog on a leash or walking at heel or strolling along in front? What exactly is the definition of this word “control”? I can see quite a lot of conjecture by many in the Kennel Club and so on as to exactly what it means. 
I think members of the Committee might be interested to know that just an hour ago my secretary had a ring from the Kennel Club relating to a little story I had told about a child grabbing a dog’s unmentionables. I stand corrected; the term is “manhood”. I want to ensure that that is correct and I am grateful to the Kennel Club for that. Obviously the Kennel Club is very very interested in what is going on during this debate. I am sure it will be equally interested in the schedules. 
I find in the schedules descriptions of the offences that can be perpetrated against society such as wilful obstruction of dog control officers and false statements relating to registration. Where in this bill are significant fines imposed against the breeders of fighting dogs for example? Instead of $500 why not make it $100000? It seems to me that nowhere in this bill are there sanctions against the people whom this bill is desperately trying to pick up. The gangs are not mentioned. They are one of the big sources of the fighting dogs that cause so much damage. They use cross-breeding which makes it almost impossible for the dog control officers in the execution of their duties to determine exactly whether those dogs are one of the breeds mentioned in schedule 2. I suspect the bill will also start driving the breeding of those dangerous dogs even more underground than it is. It will make life even more difficult for the dog control officers and for the legitimate owners of dogs. 
Coming back to the schedules I note that the fine for failure to carry a leash is $100. We all forget to carry our driver’s licence from time to time. [ 
Interruption 
] Barbara Stewart says she is a totally law-abiding citizen. Well if one has a couple of vehicles one can leave one’s licence in the wrong vehicle from time to time. Again we are penalising the innocent when the real perpetrators of problems in this society seem to roam completely free. 
There is a $1000 fine for allowing certain dogs to be at large unmuzzled. Again the language in the bill is appalling. How do we define those “certain” dogs? Again it will be interpreted by some one way and by others a different way. I have no doubt that various territorial authorities will put their own interpretation on it. It seems to be a trait of this Government that it passes legislation that it then allows society or the courts to interpret; the legislation does not say what Parliament meant. Our job is to provide certainty. Whether in the Dog Control Amendment Bill or in any other bill we should be providing absolute certainty to the courts the territorial authorities or whoever it might be as to what Parliament wants. We should be stating precisely what a dangerous dog is or what a “certain” dog that must be muzzled is. There should be no ambiguity so that members of the public know exactly what the Government is proposing and so they are able to vote against the Government at the next election with even greater vigour and fervour. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments on the new schedule 1 “Infringement offences and fees” of the principal Act. There was quite a bit of discussion about finding the appropriate amount of fine for these classifications. It is important that the penalty should fit the crime particularly because the dog control officers are trying to work positively for the most part with people in the community. They do not want to have to impose a fine that is too onerous when they feel that people have not been breaking the law intentionally or purposely. It has been difficult to come up with the right amounts. 
I point out that dog control officers have an alternative approach. If they feel the amount is not sufficient to penalise someone they can take that person to court by issuing a summary offence and hopefully can have a greater penalty imposed thus sending a message to that particular individual that his or her behaviour is not tolerated. The frustration that many dog control officers have they tell me is that when they do that they find that the courts often impose a fine that is even less than the infringement amount so they have gone through that process for very little gain. I hope the new figures will also give a message to the courts about what the appropriate fine is when dog control officers have gone to the trouble of taking people to court to prosecute them. 
A couple of offences in the new schedule 1 were of concern to us. One was the increase to $500 of the fine for failure to register a dog. The real problem across the country is that many of the councils have not been imposing the old fine of $200 at all and people have been allowed not to register their dogs. If they are caught the councils simply say that if they register them at that point they will let them off. That is contributing to the large number of unregistered dogs in the country. People are not worried about having to pay a fine if they are caught. It is important if this legislation is to be successful and deal with the number of unregistered dogs that the councils mandatorily impose that fine. 
But we felt that $500 was a little bit too much. It is more than I think what people are fined for driving an unregistered car on the road. So I have tabled an amendment to alter that amount to $300. I have been advised by a dog control officer in Tauranga that that is a much more sensible and appropriate figure. That amount of fine would also apply to failure to keep a dog under control or failure to keep a dog confined. Dog control officers need flexibility in the way that they address the public. If they feel there is good will they do not want to impose too stiff a penalty. I submit those amendments for the support of the members of the Committee when we come to vote on them. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 42 the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 52A the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 53(1) the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Children’s Commissioner Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Children’s Commissioner Bill has undergone a change of name during the course of debate. It is fitting that at this time when we are focusing on the rights of children we have changed the name of the bill from the Commissioner for Children Bill to the Children’s Commissioner Bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is that plural? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is plural. The only thing is that it is a bit of a mouthful and I am not too sure we should not just call it the “Kids’ Commissioner Bill”. It would probably be slightly more understandable to most people. I am happy about this particular name of the bill because what we have done—apart from the fact that it is a huge mouthful and somewhat difficult to say in a rush—is very similar to what we did in relation to what was the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind which became the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. It is an emphasis change away from someone who is for the children and saying that that commissioner is the children’s commissioner rather than the other way around. I believe that that is a good thing and the National Party is happy to support it. We are happy to see that that particular change has taken place in favour of children. 
Part of the purpose of this debate is to look at how suitable the name is. Apart from the fact that we like that particular name and the change in emphasis the purpose of this particular part of the debate is to look at how appropriate it is. Should this bill be called the Children’s Commissioner Bill given its content? One of the things I think possibly we could talk about is the fact that quite a substantial part of the bill is taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child yet the bill makes it quite clear that it does nothing more than append that convention to the bill. One wonders why when no action is being taken as I said in relation to the convention other than what was taken back in 1993 by the then National Government which ratified the convention. So for some reason the attachment has been made but it does not form part of the bill. I have to wonder whether maybe it should have in the title “Children’s Commissioner Bill” plus the attachment of “United Nations Convention for Children”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It tidies it up. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It does tidy it up but we then have to wonder why it is added on. I think it is just possibly added on to add to the weight of the bill and to make it look as though it really is more about the children than it actually is. But in summary the National Party is happy with the change in emphasis towards children and away from the actual framework of the commissioner. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The title of a bill should reflect the content of the bill and the title of the Children’s Commissioner Bill does that. It is appropriate and we are in no doubt that the bill is focused on the Children’s Commissioner. Although it may initially seem insignificant the manner in which something is worded such as the title of this bill can have really powerful implications. This amendment appears to reinforce the importance of the child and children and strongly suggests the idea of ownership. The amendment to the title also ensures that the title is congruent with that of other statutory office-holders—for example the Human Rights Commissioner or the Retirement Commissioner. So it fits in with the overall title of other such roles. New Zealand First supports this part of the bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand to speak to Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. Basically Part 1 is the crux of the bill. It concerns the purpose of the bill and one of the purposes of this legislation is to continue the role of the Children’s Commissioner and to enhance and strengthen that role. One of the questions I have for the Minister in the chair is to ask why the Government has backed away from making the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament which was Labour Party election policy for the 1999 election. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: No it wasn’t. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is very clearly in the policy in black and white. The Minister is shaking his head. But if one looks at the social welfare policy put out at that time one can see that it was very clearly indicated that the Labour Party’s intention was to make the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament. The aim was to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner and to make sure that there could be no criticism or thought that the Children’s Commissioner could be manipulated by any other body. That was the reason behind it but now we have a very diluted version of that. Yes some of the roles have been strengthened but not to the point that the Labour Party originally intended. So I think the Minister should get to his feet and explain why particularly in the purposes of Part 1 that has not been done and give reasons why the Government has backed away from what was a very clearly communicated intention. 
The next important purpose requires the commissioner to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important that that is now part of the Children’s Commissioner Bill so that the commissioner has express powers to ensure that that particular convention is promoted. 
One of the important changes we have seen in this bill is the change that allows the commissioner to give evidence in a court and gives the commissioner express powers to obtain information and documents for the purpose of investigation. I think tomorrow with the release of the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson reports we will see a fine example of the commissioner using those powers to collect information to be able to put forward an explanation for some of the high-profile cases that bother this country. We saw the same sort of work done with the James Whakaruru report and I think tomorrow we will see an equally important piece of work and hopefully some explanation as to why those two girls were murdered. 
I suppose this part of the bill is quite straightforward in terms of the preliminary provisions. There really is not much in terms of detail but if one looks at the purposes one can see it does very clearly give a broad-brush view of the changes that will be made to the commissioner’s functions and the modifications that will be made in an attempt to strengthen the role. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The purpose of Part 1 appears to New Zealand First to be very straightforward. The purpose statements in themselves are very clear as are the definitions listed there. I was pleased to see that there was no date specified on this particular bill as to when it comes into force as the bill has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is really good too to see the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am fully aware that although we do not always follow through on some of the recommendations from that particular body we do need to be reminded of that convention from time to time. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to see that the commissioner will have a role in helping to support and advocate for children in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We view the rights of the child as absolutely paramount. In particular when reviewing again the Convention on the Rights of the Child it was interesting to see that one of the most important parts is the right of a child and the rights of parents to have common responsibilities in the upbringing and development of the child and the declaration that parents and/or the legal guardians have the primary responsibility in the upbringing and development of the child and that is a fact recognised by the UN. We are particularly pleased to see that the commissioner will now have an absolute role in promoting this. We believe there has been too little acceptance that a child’s rights to acknowledge his or her own parents and for those parents to have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child have to be paramount and recognised. We hope that the commissioner can take a very robust role in this regard will not feel at all concerned about accepting any direction from any Government Minister or anyone else and can be an absolutely independent advocate for children. We are particularly pleased to see this part in the bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk on Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. I ask the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey to explain why it has taken 4 years for this legislation to come forward. This bill had its beginnings in the previous Parliament before 1999 when John Wright brought it in as a member’s bill. I remember that at the time the Social Services Committee was told that his bill would be parked up and overtaken by a Government bill. I think it would be interesting for the Minister to explain why it took 4 years to do so and not only that why this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for 18 months. 
This Government likes to tell New Zealanders that it really does care about children but I think many people out there remain quite sceptical about that. The Children’s Commissioner Bill will give more power to the commissioner but it does not give the commissioner true independence. A new commissioner was appointed just a few months ago and it is one position where I would have expected the Labour Government to consult the Opposition parties. There are a number of statutory functions that Parliament is responsible for like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman where there is cross-party consultation. Usually the people whose names are put forward are good people and usually we all agree with the names that are put forward and there is very little disagreement about the people who have been nominated. I would have thought that appointing a Commissioner for Children would be a similar sort of opportunity for Labour to show true parliamentary representation by asking members of Parliament to have an input. We were extremely disappointed that the Minister Mr Maharey and his Cabinet and Government did not seek suggestions from Opposition members and did not even bother to touch base. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We asked Winston Peters; he’s the Opposition. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Mr Samuels can call out from his seat but the point is that neither he nor any of his Government thought that this was a position important enough to consult with Opposition members of Parliament. We are talking about a Children’s Commissioner—somebody who advocates for children and who works across parties. The point is that there should have been cross-party representation in choosing the commissioner. Part 1 deals with the commencement and I would like to know why the Minister made this bill such a low priority for his Government. I think it is a fair question to ask. The bill has sat on the Order Paper for 18 months and I think it is fair for him to take a call and explain why the Children’s Commissioner Bill is of so little importance to his Government that it was pushed down the Order Paper quite consistently. 
This bill is very timely because the Commissioner for Children will release a report tomorrow into a very tragic case involving two young girls who were killed by their stepfather. The report will provide Parliament and the Government with some recommendations but we have seen such reports coming out of that office before and the very sad thing about them is that they are not binding on the Government. The Government can say that it reads them that it hears what the commissioner is saying then totally ignore the recommendations. I would like the Minister to reflect on the report about James Whakaruru which was probably the first major report put out by the commissioner. It had a series of recommendations. If I recall correctly that was back in 1999. When we look at the shape of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services today—the agency that deals with child welfare issues—we see that basically the Government made very little acknowledgement of the points raised by the Commissioner for Children. There were many steps in the James Whakaruru report which if the Government had taken them on board would have meant that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services would be a stronger organisation today. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. We were thrilled to see the work that has been undertaken so far by the Commissioner for Children and also the recent appointment of our commissioner. I guess the current care and protection issues that have been highlighted over the last couple of years stress the fact that it is essential for children to have their voices heard. The long-awaited time has arrived and we can now process this bill. 
I want to reflect on why we have commissions and to put that in the context of this particular commission. We have commissions because we recognise a particular set of circumstances or some particular values that as a society we want protected and advocated for and not left vulnerable to the whim of any given Government. We have privacy and human rights commissions an environment commissioner and very soon a families commission which will protect and advocate for that particular context. As children are undoubtedly the treasure of the nation the Office of the Commissioner for Children has a noble mandate to uphold their needs and rights for a safe and nurturing passage into adulthood. We are thrilled that the bill raises awareness and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the work the commission does in upholding it and that the bill will allow the commissioner to monitor the application of the convention by Government departments and other instruments of the Crown. United Future has a particular interest in those articles of the convention that highlight the rights of children to have healthy participation in their family context in particular articles 7 9 and 10 of the convention which specify those areas. 
The bill also relates to decisions that affect the lives of children promotes greater participation of children in decisions that affect them and takes an approach that gives their views a weight in accordance with the age and maturity of each child concerned. The bill will promote the establishment of accessible and effective complaints mechanisms for children. The pendulum has truly moved on and away from the days in which children were deemed to be seen but not heard. We welcome the opportunity for children’s opinions to be considered and commend the bill to the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Appointment functions and powers of Commissioner 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Before I get into some of the specifics of Part 2 I think it is worthwhile just taking at look at parts of the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to the particular part the Minister has just put through the Committee. The whole point of the Commissioner for Children Bill is to increase the amount of independence and strength that the Commissioner for Children has but if we look at some of the clauses in the Supplementary Order Paper that has just been supported by Labour we can see that the clauses are designed to claw back any of the independence and strength that this bill could have given the commissioner. I find it extraordinary that the Minister has put in a few clauses that basically allow him to control the work of the commissioner to review the operations and performance of the commissioner at any time and also to require the commissioner to supply the Minister with any information reasonably required and requested by him. That basically leaves everything absolutely wide open. That means the Minister can ask for any information whatsoever and the commissioner will be in a position—unless he or she has certain reasons for not providing that information—to hand it over. 
I ask members to look at the recent case of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. That investigation basically required the Commissioner for Children to ask the families involved for some very sensitive information. The commissioner had to do some very sensitive investigations and build a rapport with people who had information about the case. These particular clauses make it quite clear that the Minister is now in a position to ask for any information from the commissioner that he so chooses and I think that very much compromises the independence we were hoping this bill would provide the Commissioner for Children in her work. 
Part 2 very clearly spells out the sort of person who cannot be a commissioner and although it seems common sense it is important to restate that. The commissioner is not allowed to be an undischarged bankrupt or someone who has a conviction and certainly not someone who has any convictions to do with children because that would be quite ridiculous. Unfortunately in this day and age when some people can provide CVs that only can be described as pieces of creative writing it is important to restate these sorts of clear indications of the sort of person we want to as a commissioner. 
I look now at the general functions. Once again we see restated the important role the commissioner has to investigate any decision or recommendation made in respect of any child or in that child’s personal capacity. That allows the commissioner to investigate any aspect relating to the treatment of a child or the life of a child in this country and therein lies the nub of the reason that we have a children’s commissioner in the first place. Importantly the role of the commissioner is to raise awareness and understanding of children’s interests and rights and that is why a commissioner needs to be incredibly independent and not able to be manipulated or controlled by the Minister in any way. So in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper we have seen I am concerned by some of the changes that have been made at the last minute.I think the Minister should take a call to explain the reasons for slipping in those clauses at the last minute. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Sneaky. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: As my colleague has just mentioned it is very sneaky to do that at the last minute when the bill is very close to being passed. 
The commissioner also has to raise awareness in other ways and she will do that by commissioning research into any matter she sees fit—mainly of course research to do with the welfare of children. Once again to be able to do that job effectively the commissioner needs to be aware that she is totally independent and at arm’s length from ministerial control. That is why I am concerned by some of the changes the Minister has made. I invite the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey to stand up and allay my concerns and tell me that that is not the intention with some of those last-minute changes because it is an important role. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to look particularly at clause 7 “Appointment of Commissioner”. It is really vital that the nomination and selection of the commissioner is a transparent process and as such the amendment to clause 7 is an important one. The bill takes some steps to ensure that suggestions for appointment are made from outside and are free of interference from any political party—and of course from ministerial processes. With the recent appointment of the new Commissioner for Children cross-party consultation would have been an advantage to the appointment process because it is essential that the role of the commissioner remains independent at all times. 
When we look at clause 11(1)(g) we see that the bill now appears to give the court greater powers to suggest that the commissioner can give both verbal and written reports on his or her work. This means that the work of the commissioner may be curtailed as she gets involved in this rapidly growing area because the court process seems to be a very lengthy one and increasing as time goes on. 
New clause 12A “Commissioner to develop means of consulting with children” places an obligation on the commissioner to consult with children in certain circumstances. It is really vital that the potential legislation promotes an approach that empowers children and young people to participate in the decisions that affect them. We really do have to consider what children and young people feel about their society and their lives so New Zealand First will be supporting this part. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this part. I question clause 7 in particular as it relates to individuals who may not be appointed as commissioner. Subclause (3)(d) talks about an individual who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any other offence unless that individual has obtained a pardon. The thing that worries me a little is that it goes on to state “or served the sentence or otherwise suffered the penalty imposed on the individual”. On my reading of that subclause it means that someone who is a convicted criminal and has served a sentence can be appointed to be the Children’s Commissioner. I think that takes the clean slate rubbish slightly too far. I would like to hear from the Minister. If I am misreading that provision I would like him to have the opportunity to put me right. On a plain reading of that subclause it states to me that a convicted criminal as long as he or she has served his or her sentence can become the Children’s Commissioner. 
We may be a small country but I am sure that amongst our 4 million people we should be able to find someone who is not a convicted criminal and who is able to be the Children’s Commissioner. I certainly think we have not had difficulty with regard to that until this bill came in so I am sure the Minister could do a little better than that. We would obviously be very happy to support an amendment to this bill to make it perfectly plain that a criminal conviction and sentence whether served or not would render a person invalid in terms of being an appointee. 
I would like to hear from the Minister. I see the Minister is smiling. Hopefully he wants to talk to us on this point. To me he looks very keen to do so. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 talks about the appointment functions and powers of the commissioner. I too would like to make mention of the fact that this position is so heavily controlled by the Government that it almost wipes out the necessity to have a Commissioner for Children. If we end up with a political puppet then what is the point in having a Commissioner for Children? The Minister may like to take a call to explain to us that that is not what is going to happen with regard to that office. I do reflect on the fact that the former Commissioner for Children was appointed by the previous National Government and stayed in office until very recently. I do not think anybody could have called him a puppet; that is for sure. It is quite a worry that Labour has a reputation for trying to keep everybody under its control. It usually appoints its cronies to positions of importance. 
I see that the Minister is looking up. I have caught his eye and his attention is now riveted on this speech. It would be very very appropriate for the Minister to stand and tell us exactly what process he went through in appointing the commissioner and let us know that the commissioner will be given the freedom to do an independent job. When we look at Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey we find that the Minister’s fingerprints are all over the position. Clause 30A(1) states: “The Minister may review the operations and performance of the Commissioner at any time.” That sounds to me to be quite sinister. Then clause 30B(1) states: “The Commissioner must supply to the Minister any information reasonably required by the Minister and requested by the Minister in connection with the exercise of his or her powers …”. That means that in respect of anything at all that the commissioner is working on the Minister can demand that the commissioner show it to him. He can then exercise his ministerial authority to tell the commissioner to leave that issue alone or to take it here there or anywhere. 
I suggest to Mr Maharey that this bill now has become one that makes the Commissioner for Children simply a political puppet. I think that most New Zealanders would resent that especially since the two clauses that I have just read out have come out on a Supplementary Order Paper. The Social Services Committee did not have a chance to see them beforehand and the public of New Zealand did not have a chance to comment on them. I say that the Office of the Commissioner for Children who most people believed was an independent Officer of Parliament is now being brought under the wing of the political system. We can no longer trust that office. If these powers are as far-reaching as they appear to be we will no longer be able to trust that office to provide the independent advice that we have grown to accept from not only Roger McClay but also Laurie O’Reilly before him. Both were men who spoke out freely and had a lot of autonomy. I think the Minister needs to set our minds at rest. If he does not take a call that means he cannot set our minds at rest and our suspicions are founded—that this is a bill to turn that office into another Government spin machine. That would be such an indictment on the Labour Government that it hardly bears thinking about. 
Our party does not support this bill mostly because most people believe that a commissioner can do something about their individual cases. All the time as MPs we get individuals and families writing to us to say that something has happened concerning their children and asking for our help. Most people would also write to the Commissioner for Children thinking that he or she is in a position to be able to help. The point is that the commissioner cannot help. During the select committee process we heard many submissioners say to us that the Office of the Commissioner for Children was toothless in that it could not intervene in cases and it could not help families who were having real trouble. I believe that those families should not be going to the commissioner but to the Minister. They should be complaining directly to the Government. Otherwise they get up all those false hopes and think that somebody will sort out their problem. But the reality is that the commissioner’s office was never set up to do that. In fact it does become a complaints operation. It has an advocacy role and I think everybody thinks that that is a good idea but there are so many dashed expectations held by people who had hoped that the commissioner would sort things out when he or she cannot do so. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3Transitional and miscellaneous provisions 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Part 3 “Transitional and miscellaneous provisions” contains a range of clauses that basically need to be tidied up as a result of imposing new legislation on to an organisation that is already in existence. So of course one needs to restate a whole lot of things that we already know to be correct. For example the first clause in Part 3 just restates that the Office of the Commissioner for Children is the same as Children’s Commissioner. We know that with this Government language is everything but of course in terms of the day-to-day work being carried out by the Children’s Commissioner very little will change. Dr Cindy Kiro whom I met today will still be in the same position of being a very strong advocate for children. Although I thought this bill was designed to strengthen her role I am now concerned having studied the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in detail that much of the increased strength that we thought this bill was designed to give the commissioner has been withdrawn in one fell swoop by the Minister. Perhaps he became concerned about some of her more outspoken statements about children—in particular the Government’s performance when it comes to implementing things like the Agenda for Children over the last couple of years. 
In looking at the way the Office of Children’s Commissioner has been set up one wonders why the model was not used for another commission that is currently being established—that of the Families Commission. Here we have an office that is able to be a very strong advocate for children yet we have seen for the Families Commission a much more neutered version of an organisation that is unlikely to be able to advocate for much at all—given the scope of the Families Commission. Clause 30 deals with the application of the legislation to matters commenced under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. That piece of legislation basically underpins everything to do with children in this country and of course the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is set out in schedule 2 of this bill. There is not much to Part 3. It is quite small but it deserves some comment and my colleague Judith Collins will be taking a very enthusiastic call on this part. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I thank my colleague for that enthusiastic speech. Part 3 concerns me the most. Apart from the fact that a convicted criminal can now be the Children’s Commissioner there is also a provision that says the commissioner will in fact be able to become a toothless tiger because the Minister will be able to review all the operations and performance of the commissioner at any time. One might wonder whether there should be some sort of accountability. Well is the Minister not the one who is accountable? The commissioner is someone who is appointed for up to 5 years and is able to be reappointed. Personally I think a position of this magnitude should only be for a 5-year term because a commissioner is hearing all the time about problems and difficulties. It is the sort of role in which if continued on for a maximum of 10 years a person is likely to lose his or her objectivity. It is a role in which the person is hearing only of the negative and that is a very tough job. 
I am concerned that the Minister has not yet chosen to take a call in relation to this part. I am concerned that the independence of the role of commissioner is being prejudiced by the Minister in this Supplementary Order Paper—which has been tabled at the last moment. It has not gone through the select committee process and we do not know what the current commissioner Ms Cindy Kiro thinks of this. We do not know in Parliament what her views are about having her role reviewed by the Minister when she has already—and I think it is great—come out as a forthright defender of the rights of children. 
I will slightly digress and mention that I know Ms Kiro. We were both on the Casino Control Authority before I came into Parliament—I as the chairperson and she as a Government appointee. She is pretty left of centre but a very decent person in my view and someone who I believe will do a good job for children. She is the mother of two boys and it is good to see someone with some practical knowledge of children being able to comment on children. I think personally it should be a requirement in the House that only people with practical knowledge should give advice on parenthood. In this particular respect however the fact that Ms Kiro is not going to be trusted by the Minister to be able to be a forthright advocate for children is concerning because the main thrust of her comments will of course be about the Minister and his department. That is something that is very concerning to the National Party. We are not supporting this particular provision. We believe that the children of this country need a commissioner who is utterly independent and who is able to be as forthright as possible. Otherwise what is the point? We might as well save the money and not even bother to have one if we are going to have one who is tied unable to advocate strongly and without any concern for her position on the rights of children. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to put on the record that the silence of Minister Maharey means that the Office of Children’s Commissioner is now becoming a political office and that the commissioner herself will become a political puppet. I challenged the Minister to set the record straight and stated that his silence would mean that he concurred with those remarks. He was silent so I think that from now on we can acknowledge that this is a political office. I have to say I feel sorry for the new Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro because I am sure she came into the job expecting to be able to act with some independence and she probably did not realise that the Minister was going to table a Supplementary Order Paper that I think she probably has not even seen—because no one else has seen it. It basically says that anything the commissioner does can be at the behest of the Minister. I think that is an absolutely appalling state of affairs. We already know that the Labour Government has a liking to control everything that goes on and if people step out of line the Government has no hesitation in basically dumping them sacking them—you name it. To have a situation now where an office that was independent is no longer going to be independent I think is appalling. 
I wonder even about the report from the Children’s Commissioner which is going to be tabled tomorrow concerning the deaths of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. I wonder about whether there has been any political interference with that report. It was delayed several times. It has taken well over a year to be tabled and I am aware of the fact as is everyone else that it was a previous Commissioner for Children who was writing the report. Now of course it has passed on to the new Children’s Commissioner. I would again in the same vein like an assurance from the Minister that there has not been any political interference with that report. 
Part 3 basically discusses the relationship of the Children’s Commissioner with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act because the commissioner’s office was established under that Act. One of the reasons I am sure it was established was that the people who developed the idea of the commissioner’s office probably thought it would help to improve the ability of the department—what we now call the Department of Child Youth and Family Services—to do its job. But I have to say that the Office of the Commissioner for Children has not helped. It has given a lot of advice over the years but just recently we had probably the most damning report about a Government department in public-service history. I might add that it all happened under the watch of the Minister in the chair Mr Maharey. I do recall that when he stepped down from the position of Minister of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Ms Dyson who took over said that he had been a bit busy. The relationship between the Children’s Commissioner and the department is a close one because the commissioner often comments on the actions of the department but it has not helped at all because the department as we now know is in a terrible state of affairs. Just today we heard here in Parliament that about 2700 cases of potential child abuse need further action. They have not been acted upon. Hundreds of them are critical and very urgent. One has to ask oneself how many more children out there are in a situation similar to some of the real tragedies we have had. Those cases are sitting on the case list uninvestigated because this Government has not got its act together with regard to its child welfare agency. 
The Office of Children’s Commissioner can advise advocate and say everything it wants but if the Government of the day does not have a desire to actually fix things then children will be harmed; they will be damaged. One of the things I would like to see the Children’s Commissioner do is to be very bold and very brave and start to talk about the real issues surrounding child abuse—the real factors that are influencing families to damage their children. I hope that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner will advocate for proper welfare reform because the Minister knows that that is at the heart of the problems. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call. One of the things that attracted my attention during the debate and that I think is worth making a very quick comment on is the pronunciation of the name of the new Children’s Commissioner. We are talking about someone who is a fantastic person and I think everybody agrees with that regardless of where they come from around the Chamber. She has a practical and an academic track record that makes her highly appointable. In fact I cannot imagine anybody in the Chamber who would not have appointed her. However she is having a little bit of difficulty in getting people to pronounce her name properly. It is pronounced “Kiro” not “Ki-roe” and the various other pronunciations that have occurred in the Chamber. I just say that for the sake of getting the commissioner’s name right. She is a person who deserves to have her name pronounced properly. She is a person of real standing and independence and she has had a real impact already. So “Kiro” is the way that her name is pronounced. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The schedules of a bill are really the nuts and bolts. Basically it is where the explanations to many of the points made in the body of the bill are found and it sets out the other Acts of Parliament that are affected by the bill. In this case the schedules go into some detail about the actual funding of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and so on. We are coming to the end of the Committee stage and I would again ask the Minister to take a call before the bill passes into law to reassure us that this is not a bill to turn the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into a political puppet for the Labour Party. The Minister did rise to his feet and I was very hopeful that he would address the issue he had been asked to address. 
The point is that the Committee stage of this bill is the only opportunity for Parliament for Opposition parties to question the Minister on his Supplementary Order Paper 116. We all know that this Labour Government is an expert at bringing in Supplementary Order Papers to amend bills often introducing totally new provisions that have far-reaching consequences. This Supplementary Order Paper is only five pages long so it is not big. But if it turns an office from being relatively independent into one that is controlled by the Government then that is the most significant change any Minister could bring in. 
The public of New Zealand deserve an explanation because once the legislation passes into law the opportunity is lost and we cannot then relitigate the issues. The Minister needs to take a call to explain to us whether he is now turning the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into a political arm of the Labour Party because that is exactly what it looks like. The funniest thing is that John Wright—an Alliance member of Parliament at the time—when he introduced this bill into Parliament in the years between 1996 and 1999 wanted to make the then Office of the Commissioner for Children an independent body of Parliament. He wanted to make the office like that of the Commissioner for the Environment. At the time the advice was given that no the Office of the Commissioner for Children could still retain a great deal of independence if it were beefed up from the way it was already set up under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Development. 
This Supplementary Order Paper changes everything. Now in one fell swoop the Minister is turning this independent office into an office that has to put every piece of work it does before the Minister for his approval or change. The Minister is now able to vet every bit of work from the Children’s Commissioner. I can tell members that all the people who made submissions on this bill would have been absolutely horrified had they thought the tentacles of the political parties were wrapping themselves around that office. The Labour Party is already known for its moves in that direction. It is trying to control everything by putting mates and friends in all positions of power so that it has widespread powers. 
I want the Minister to take a call about the words on Supplementary Order Paper that state in new clauses 30A and 30B that the commissioner must supply to the Minister any information that the Minister requests and that the Minister may review the operation and performance of the commissioner at all times. I want him to set our minds at rest and say that in fact those words do not mean what we think they do—that he is now taking over the independence of the Office of theChildren’s Commissioner. 
 I would just like to finish this call by reminding members of Parliament that this office was set up to advocate for children. It was set up to try to strengthen the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. To be perfectly honest I think the previous Government did do that. This Government unfortunately has not helped at all. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the amendments to the schedules set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 116 under the heading  
Schedule 3: Higher Salaries Commission Act 1977 
 and substitute the words “To omit this item”; and 
to add to Supplementary Order Paper No 116 the following items: 
Schedule 3: Remuneration Authority Act 1977 
To insert after the item relating to the Public Finance Act 1989 the following item: 
Remuneration Authority Act 1977 (1977 No 110) 
Insert in the Fourth Schedule after the item relating to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand: 
“The Children’s Commissioner.” 
Schedule 3: Children Young Persons and Their Families Rules 1989 
To omit the item relating to these rules and substitute the following item: 
Family Courts Rules 2002 (SR 2002/261) 
Omit from rule 427(3)(f) the words “Commissioner for Children in both places where they appear and substitute in each case the words “Children’s Commissioner”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very pleased to welcome this bill back to the House for its second reading. The purposes of this bill are to reduce the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer through the National Cervical-screening Programme and to facilitate the operation and evaluation of the programme. The bill also establishes clear objectives for the cervical-screening programme and will enable the evaluators to assess the performance and safety of the programme. The bill gives effect to four specific Gisborne cervical-screening inquiry recommendations. 
The Health Committee has done an excellent job in considering the many thoughtful submissions that were made on this bill as first introduced. I congratulate the members of the Health Committee. I know that many of the issues were not easy to resolve. I am happy to recommend to the House that it accepts the committee’s amendments subject to some minor amendments. One important change as is apparent from the title of the bill is that it now relates only to the National Cervical-screening Programme. Any future extensions—and they may well be appropriate—will be dealt with in other legislative context. 
Let me remind the House why this Government introduced the bill. The National Cervical-screening Programme first became operational in 1990. It had considerable success in reducing cases of cervical cancer and in reducing deaths. Between 1990 and 1998 there is evidence showing a reduction of 22.5 percent and 46.3 percent for cervical cancer registrations and deaths respectively for women of all ages. In 1999 however it became apparent that there was under-reporting of cervical smear abnormalities in the Gisborne region. A committee of inquiry was established and the report was delivered on 10 April 2001. 
During the inquiry it became clear that there were many areas in operation of the screening programme that could be significantly improved. Over the last 3 years initiatives in policy training and leadership have all contributed to improving the programme. Such changes include policy and quality standards for the programme and in particular laboratories; an increased national leadership role in clinical expertise; the establishment of a national leadership role; and the development of new resources and training initiatives. However the select committee also identified a number of statutory barriers that prevent access to information. These barriers have obstructed the comprehensive evaluation of the programme. The bill will remove these barriers and set in place requirements for evaluation and more effective operation. 
The bill will enable the Director-General of Health to appoint appropriate qualified persons to carry out evaluations of the programme. These evaluations will generally focus on systemic issues and range from general monitoring of cervical cancer incidence and mortality to specific audits of the safety and effectiveness of the programme. As recommended by the Gisborne inquiry these evaluators will be either internal ministry employees or independent experts. 
Information and confidentiality are a key focus of the bill. I know that the select committee has given thoughtful consideration to the question of how to protect information and how to ensure the screening programme works as well as it can to protect all women. The issues are difficult and that is reflected in the fact that the select committee has recommended changes in that area. Not all the members of the committee agreed with those changes. There was one member in opposition—the Green member. 
I support the views of the majority of the committee and commend those to the House. I believe that most women in New Zealand would agree that achieving the best possible programme is the paramount objective. That means ensuring a full range of evaluating activities. This was emphasised during the Gisborne cervical-screening inquiry and the report states the following: “The choice of the programme is stark. Effective evaluation cannot be guaranteed if women’s consent is required. If the right of an individual to consent to access to her non-protected information is to predominate the programme cannot effectively evaluate its effectiveness and therefore the safety of all women participants is at risk.” 
The original version of the bill provided that evaluators would have access to information held only in hospitals and laboratories and on the register itself. That is the form of the bill that I introduced before it went to the Health Committee. That provision was very important to the evaluation but in the views of the majority of the select committee it was not enough. The committee has now recommended that the evaluators have access to all health information including general practitioner records in keeping with recommendation 11.17 of the Gisborne screening inquiry. I add that experience from the current audit of invasive cervical cancer and the expert opinion of Dr Euphemia McGoogan emphasise the importance of including primary-care records in those evaluations. After all it is in the primary-care setting that a woman usually has the majority of her contact with the National Cervical-screening Programme through screening tests. 
Additional safeguards for privacy have also now been recommended by the select committee. Women who made submissions to the committee considered and I agree that it will be essential to know what participation on the programme involves. Therefore the bill provides that when women are enrolled in the programme they will be advised that their records may be used for evaluation purposes. Of course they have the option of opting off at that point if for any reason aspects of the programme are unacceptable. New procedures to allow women to opt off the programme compared with opting off individual results—as is the case under the current cervical-screening legislation—will ensure that women who have not developed cervical cancer have a choice to participate in the National Cervical-screening Programme. 
There are also other safeguards in the bill to protect women’s health information. Evaluators can access information only for the purpose of evaluation and to the extent that the information is relevant to the evaluation. Personal matters—such as sexually transmitted infections sexual abuse and abortions—will be totally irrelevant to an evaluation or audit of any cervical-screening programme. Naturally evaluators will be subjected to confidentiality requirements set out in the legislation as well as their own professional and disciplinary standards. 
All information accessed by evaluators must be returned. The director-general can also limit access to certain information and regulations can be made to limit access to certain information. There are also provisions in the bill to ensure that women are made aware both by their smear taker and by the manager of the National Cervical-screening Programme how their health information will be used. 
I commend this bill to the House. I believe that it will improve the health of women in New Zealand. It will ensure that women have trust in the programme it will reduce the death rate from cervical cancer amongst women and it will save women’s lives. 
This has been an extremely good piece of work by the Health Committee. As I said the bill as introduced did not include access to the records of general practitioners. It was after hearing submissions from people who appeared before the committee and retaining Professor David Skegg as an adviser to the committee that those recommendations have come back to the House in this way. 
I commend the women who worked on this particular legislation. It was done in a very good way and we are determined to have the best possible cervical-screening programme for the women of New Zealand. They deserve no less. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important and long-awaited Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill. I am very conscious of the fact that this bill has emanated from one of the worst medical tragedies that has affected New Zealand—ever. I am referring of course to the findings and concerns in the 1989 report of the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. Then to make matters worse almost a decade later many of the same problems arose in Gisborne. The Gisborne inquiry arose from that initial inquiry and a whole range of recommendations were put to the Minister to achieve. One of them was to ensure that we had a highly effective health-screening programme. 
I was not a member of the Health Committee which discussed the details of this bill. I am aware that great efforts were made by all members of the committee to try to get it right. However I am concerned there are still problems with this bill and at this stage of events National will reserve its position until the Committee stage when we can see the details. 
One of the things that did worry me tonight was why the bill had come up on the Order Paper so suddenly. Maybe it is purely a coincidence that it arrived on the Order Paper on the same day that a particularly worrying article by Sandra Coney appeared in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 It concerns the question of informed consent which has been one of the main areas of contention with the bill but which the select committee has done its very best to overcome. One of the points that I think is worth making is that it is important to look at the whole question of informed consent in the full context of cervical cancer and its morbidity and mortality. The rate of cervical cancer mortality has been coming down steadily over the last 60 to 70 years even before cervical-screening programmes were instigated in a whole variety of countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. The mortality rates were coming down and only in recent decades has there been an upward increase in the rate of cervical cancer in younger women. That has been for a variety of reasons probably to do with the spread of the human papilloma virus and the herpes simplex virus. 
It is important to realise that we must not get too hung up on that relatively small area when it comes to looking at the wider picture—that is whether the need to ensure that general practitioner notes or primary-care notes are looked at by evaluators without informed consent will make a fundamental difference to the diminution of cervical cancer. It is very easy to get into this sort of debate without being aware that there are wider questions that should be answered first of all. 
 Included amongst those is the fact that it is vital to get the quality control mechanisms in place because that was not the case in Gisborne. In fact many people are not aware that Dr Bottrill was not a pathologist. He was actually grandfathered into his position without having ever come through a full course in pathology and cytology training. There is no doubt that at the time quality control mechanisms in terms of his laboratory were absolutely deficient. Over the last few years these mechanisms have improved considerably and that is absolutely fundamental in terms of trying to get an optimal service and screening programme under way in New Zealand. 
Quality control is necessary at a whole variety of levels within the screening programme including of course at the primary practitioner level—the smear taker’s level—because there are all sorts of confounding factors that can occur if smear taking is not done properly. So it is absolutely fundamental that there is an audit a quality control and a feedback mechanism to ensure that that very fundamental thing of smear taking is done properly is done consistently and that there is a report back where the accuracy is well over the 95 to 96 percent rate. Those things are all extremely important. 
One of the biggest points of contention of course has been this question of informed consent. One of the reasons that National is reserving its position at this point is that we understand there may be some changes that will appear during the Committee stage and we would like the opportunity to scrutinise those extremely carefully. I did want to make mention of one of the perspectives on cervical screening that has been put up by perhaps one of the most experienced clinicians and colposcopists in New Zealand and that is Professor Ronald Jones. He co-authored the paper with McIndoe back in 1988 that led to the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. He has great reservations regarding the structure of the cervical-screening programme and I think it is important that his views are taken notice of. 
He does say that it is worrying that Dr Karen Poutasi the Director-General of Health believes that all pieces of the screening programme are present but still have to come together to create a cohesive picture. After 13 years and after all the problems with cervical cytology screening he asks whether it is reasonable for the public to wait and hope a cohesive picture will emerge. He says that after 13 years he is unaware of a single scientific paper to have emerged from the screening programme. That is an indictment on what has happened over the last 13 years. There have been terrible mistakes. There have been inquiries yet no scientific papers have arisen despite the huge number of evaluations that have occurred over those 13 years. 
He asked whether it would be possible for a system within the bureaucratic framework and culture of the Ministry of Health to survive long term. He says that the answer is almost certainly no. He says that a national laboratory and associated screening unit would need some independence similar to that of other countries. I think that those warnings should be taken note of. He ends by saying that sadly his guess is that the screening programme will continue to muddle along within the insular world of the ministry. Thus it will continue in relative ignorance of what it could and should achieve be reluctant to accept criticism and be propped up by health bureaucrats who see New Zealand as peculiarly different. 
I end by saying that National intends to reserve its position on this bill until we have seen the details that will emerge in the second reading. We have grave concerns about the issue of informed consent. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to be speaking on this bill and I listened to the previous speaker with great interest and with some concern. The Health Committee worked almost unanimously on this bill because we very much wanted to have a very robust cervical-screening bill. The issues raised by the member reflect the fact perhaps that Dr Lynda Scott who worked with us so well on this bill along with other members in the Opposition—all of us really—wanted to have a more robust cervical-screening programme. However the issues that they seem to be concerned about now pivot on the issue of informed consent. I believe that that is only operational detail and it should not change the construct of this bill. I accept that we need to do some focused work on informed consent. 
We want New Zealand to have confidence in a cervical-screening programme. The question was raised: “Why do we even have one?”. New Zealand women also need to have confidence to know at the point when they have a cervical smear taken or a gynaecological assessment what will be done with their clinical record and who will have access in evaluating the outcome of their cervical smear results. That is absolutely important. But the fundamental thing in any screening programme is that we need a large number of women to be involved with the opt-off provision. 
We were urged to consider keeping the opt-off provision. We called the Minister back to the select committee because we were very much concerned about the access into primary health records. All of us wondered how we could have a robust evaluation of cervical screening that looked only at the hospital record. It was crazy to be looking at just cytology results in a hospital and not getting access to some critical information held on the primary record. All of us to a T agreed that women needed to be aware of what the evaluators would have access to in their file. We called the Minister back for that very reason. She assured us about the access into that primary file which could be a midwifes’ file as well not just the file of a general practitioner or an obstetrician and gynaecologist. When we were given that assurance we were more than happy to support this bill as it has been reported back today. Subsequent to that I do believe some clinicians were concerned about informed consent. 
I believe we need to do some work on informed consent but I think that does not need altering in the construct of this bill. Just remember that New Zealand women were urging for us to improve the rate of cervical cancer in this country. It was a recommendation of Euphemia McGoogan supported by David Skegg one of the very best experts in the country. I think the committee did a wonderful piece of work on this bill—all women except Pita Paraone who took our guidance on this. I believe that Sue Kedgley even though she voted against it accepted the need for a robust cervical-screening programme. That is our endeavour. With this bill we fulfil the recommendation of Euphemia McGoogan. 
I urge us to take carefully the consideration of the bill as reported back but some work needs to be done to give New Zealand women confidence that there will not be people crawling all over their primary clinical record. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I take a call in this debate tonight because this is an issue that I would like to know more about. I need to have some of my concerns allayed. There is not a member in the House who would disagree with the fact that what happened in Gisborne was a terrible terrible occurrence and when we look into that case we can see that there were a number of reasons why that case happened. I was surprised for example to hear that Dr Bottrill was not a pathologist in today’s terms. He was someone who was grandfathered into the role. It is clearly one of those medical tragedies that concerned all New Zealanders and it has certainly been a huge story over the last couple of years but I am concerned that this may be overkill for a problem that cannot necessarily be resolved by this legislation. 
The concern I have is that women who have been on the screening programme for many many years—I myself have been on the programme for the last 10 years—may be put in a position whereby they feel that they have to opt out because they do not want their medical files—the files held by their general practitioners—perused by people they do not know. I want to hear more from the Minister on that and I will speak further with David Skegg in Dunedin because I am unsure about the implications of allowing general practitioners’ files to be seen by people whom those women might not necessarily know. The relationship with the general practitioner is a very special one. I know as many women in this House know that sometimes we can have conversations with our general practitioner that might not have even with our own husband or partner. Women have very personal relationships with their general practitioners and they talk about things that get noted down in the notes. It is not the same as talking to a doctor in a hospital. I think we all know that our secondary notes get looked at by all and sundry and therefore we do not have the same sort of intimate relationship. 
I am concerned that my rights to have privacy in my files can be legislated away by this bill. I understand from the Minister that the review of files will relate only to women who have developed cancer and I hope that does not happen to me or to any other woman in this House. But it concerns me that researchers will be able to look through a file. One’s cervical records are not necessarily neatly in one section of the file. Researchers will have to flick though the whole thing. We should remember that a lot of women will have things on their files that they will not want even their own families perhaps to know—things like sexually transmitted diseases a history of sexual abuse terminations depression etc. I know that the Minister has said that those things will be irrelevant to the researchers when they look through files but the issue is that the researchers will still see those things. A lot of women will be concerned that that sort of very private information will be accessed by people they do not know. They know the nurses in their local general practitioner’s practice and they know the general practitioner but they will not know the researcher who looks through their files. The researcher might be a highly regarded person but the women will not necessarily know that so there are worries. 
Of course there will be confidentiality requirements but we are a country of 4 million people. Fifty-two percent of us are women and I am concerned that in a small country those sorts of things may be discussed. The researcher who goes through Helen Clark’s cervical screening results will probably remember a whole range of other things. I would like to think that those sorts of things will never be leaked to the public but we have seen occasions on which that has happened. I want to have my concerns about those sorts of leaks allayed. We must be given the opportunity to say that if we do not want our files to be accessed— 
Mark Peck 
: You’re just making it up. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Here is a man speaking on this. I do not think he has ever gone to have a cervical screening test so I do not think he is able to crack jokes and sit there smugly. He does not know what it is like to have the concept of somebody looking through his file and looking at things that he might not have told even his wife. These are legitimate concerns. The whole point of parliamentary debate is to bring up these sorts of concerns so that they can be dealt with. 
Mark Peck 
: What about the facts? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Once again Mark Peck sits over there and talks about an issue that is very personal to women. The cervical screening programme has saved many women’s lives. He does not know the first thing about the sorts of personal issues that we are talking about this evening so he should keep his trap shut and not make any further comment. 
Mark Peck 
: This is turning into grubby politics. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The member says that this is turning into grubby politics. I say that these are very sensitive issues that a lot of general practitioners have raised with me locally. I wrote to every single general practitioner in the Otago area and I asked them what they thought of the bill. Overwhelmingly they came back to me and said that over their dead bodies would they let anybody come into their practices fossick through files or demand to see their files. The problem I have with this legislation is that a lot of women will opt out. If this legislation is not changed in any dramatic way women like me who have been on the programme for years and who have enjoyed the regular call-ups—from I have to say very dedicated people who try to track women down come hell or high water to get them in for the tests—will not have the benefit of being able to have those regular call-ups because we will not want our files to be perused by people we do not know. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why not? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We are talking about extremely sensitive issues. If Jill Pettis had had four abortions had been sexually abused and had had deep depression— 
Jill Pettis 
: But I haven’t. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: —would she want all and sundry to go through her file and see what was in it? No. That member says she has not had any of those things. There are some women in this country who have had those sorts of concerns and quite rightly they might not want a researcher—no matter how well regarded that person is—to be able to look in their files. That is why I will be doing a bit more work on this. A lot of women take their relationships with their general practitioners extremely seriously. A lot of women say things to their general practitioners that they would not say even to their own husbands or partners. That special relationship needs to be respected. 
The cervical-screening programme has been a great programme and over many years it has saved lives. I am concerned that the Minister and that party over there are presenting these changes as a salve for problems that relate to one unqualified person and that they are pretending that more deaths will not occur from cervical cancer as a result of these changes. I do not think anybody believes that. I think that the solutions lie more in the area of quality control mechanisms audit processes and making sure that pathologists are the real McCoy. We are talking about legislating away women’s rights to have some privacy when it comes to their files. That party over there can suddenly pretend that it is politically correct to bring these things up but I say that those members should think about the woman who has had a history of sexually transmitted diseases a number of terminations and depression. She might not have told her partner and she does not want a person she does not know going through her file. She does not want someone marching into her general practitioner’s office and having access to something she holds to be deeply private. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Keep your word. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I find it remarkable that David Benson-Pope is calling out about something as deeply sensitive as cervical screening. [ 
Interruption 
] When was the last time Mr Benson-Pope had a Pap smear? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: For goodness’ sake! It is like a schoolyard. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5. Both sides should have a look at it. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We are talking about something that is deeply personal. [ 
Interruption 
] The Labour Party can make light of these sorts of concerns— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask Mr Peck to desist. He has his first yellow card. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am concerned that there will be a lot of women like me who will feel that they are in a position where they will have to opt out of the programme because they do not feel that their files should be accessed by anybody except their own general practitioner and the nurses from that general practitioner’s office. Rather than make light of those concerns the members on the opposite side particularly the males should be sensitive about those issues and work hard to allay those concerns. They are not just my concerns. They are the concerns of a lot of New Zealand women. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill. This bill is of particular interest to New Zealand First as we like many other New Zealanders have experience of it and know of people and their families who are suffering from and have suffered from this tragic cancer. The cervical-screening programme is a really great programme that has saved many lives. Cervical cancer is one of the more common cancers suffered by women. All the research indicates that early detection is paramount and this programme does that. 
New Zealand First believes that the operation of the National Cervical-screening Programme is absolutely essential for the health monitoring of all New Zealand women and we recognise that we need a very highly effective screening programme. This legislation with its monitoring and auditing of practices and results should assist in the elimination of the under-reporting of cervical cancer and the misdiagnoses that have come to light. The bottom line is that we cannot afford to have misdiagnoses and under-reporting slipping through cracks in the system in the way that they have in the past. The quality control mechanisms need to be put in place and this bill does that at all levels within the programme which we are very happy about. We all know that the early detection of problems is the best way to treat conditions before cancer develops. A register to enhance screening programmes will be beneficial to New Zealand women. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Benson-Pope has been throwing a wide range of insults across the House. He called me despicable for the speech I have just delivered. As somebody who has actually suffered from cervical cancer I take great offence at that. I would like him to stand withdraw and apologise because my speech was delivered from the heart on a very sensitive issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The point is that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is a personal reflection that is out of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Offence was taken and it was in the nature of a personal reflection. I believe that my colleague’s statement indicated very clearly why it was so deeply felt and I invite you to reflect on what you just said. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I am happy if offence was taken to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: New Zealand First does have some concerns about the informed consent process and the privacy of information as it was outlined in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
article. The last thing we want to see is the bill compromising women’s privacy. We do not want to have a situation where women are opting off the programme because of fears about privacy issues and their primary health-care records. Unfortunately I have already been approached by women who will be opting off this very programme because of the lack of a consent process and I wonder how many other women will also follow that course of action. The bottom line is that the programme needs the support of New Zealand women if it is to succeed. I have also had inquiries over the last couple of days about the people who are already on the programme. The basis on which many people joined the programme was that access to their records held in other parts of the health system was not automatically granted. This raises the question as to whether the terms of the original contract that these women entered are still valid or whether this bill starts a whole new regime. 
Everyone deserves access to the best health-care and access to this programme will occur only if people are satisfied with the programme. It is important for the well-being and the health of women that this bill proceeds—in reality every New Zealander is affected. Providing people with certainty about their health care and ensuring timely access to quality services is absolutely essential. We want the women of New Zealand to have the best possible screening programme. At this stage New Zealand First supports this bill. However we do have some reservations about the bill’s potential to undermine the privacy of personal health information. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be reserving its position on this bill. We will seek to amend the bill in a series of ways at the Committee stage and we will see what happens to those amendments. We are delighted to hear that others in this House share the grave concerns that we have with this bill and in particular in regard to the confidentiality provisions. We hope the reason this bill has suddenly leapt on to the agenda in almost the dead of night is not that it contains highly controversial clauses that will potentially undermine the health privacy of more than a million New Zealand women. Certainly women’s groups around the country are up in arms about these new provisions which mean that the highly sensitive general practitioner records of up to a million women will be able to be accessed by an indeterminate number of researchers and evaluators—people as Katherine Rich said whom women do not know will never meet and will not even know the national health index number of. All this information can be accessed without women’s knowledge or consent and for reasons that are still not clear to me and that remain a mystery to me despite my persistent questioning on this issue in the Health Committee—and I will say more on that later. 
This provision undermines the confidentiality and therefore the basis of trust of the general practitioner – patient relationship. Indeed it undermines the Hippocratic oath—an oath dating back more than 4000 years—in which general practitioners pledge to amongst other thingsprotect the confidentiality of any information that is shared in a doctor’s surgery. It undermines that fundamental tenet and therefore that basis of trust. 
It is interesting that it was never commented on by the Health Privacy Commissioner—and for very good reasons no doubt because it undermines the Health Information Privacy Code the consumers patients’ code and indeed the gains that were made by the Cartwright inquiry which emphasised the need to respect patients’ autonomy and the right to informed consent. 
The Health Information Privacy Code states: “Health information has long been recognised as being highly sensitive. Much medical and health information includes details of an individual’s body lifestyle behaviour and practices which are particularly intimate and may if improperly disclosed be misused.” That is why we have these stringent privacy provisions the Health Information Privacy Code to protect the confidentiality of sensitive medical records. 
There is a very interesting issue in that some people have mentioned Sandra Coney’s article today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. She raises an extraordinarily interesting legal issue. She points out that for the million women who are on the programme the legal basis on which they joined this programme did not include access to their records held in other parts of the health system—that is other than the cervical smears and so forth. She said that that is why the present auditor is seeking consent from these women.  
She states: “If we can see joining the programme as a contract between women and the ministry can the Government now change the rules without seeking the views of enrolled women as to whether they wish to continue on the new terms or opt out or can the Government unilaterally change the terms of the contract overriding women’s wishes as expressed during the earlier consultation for allegedly the greater public good?”. Certainly during the consultation phase there was overwhelming opposition to the provisions that are now contained in this bill. That is why consumer groups and women’s groups up and down the country are up in arms about this bill. There have been submissions from Women’s Health Action and various other groups that are outraged that this provision has suddenly been dropped into this bill. It was not there and there was not the opportunity to make submissions during the select committee. It was just parachuted in at the last minute and for no good reason that I can see. There is no guarantee that sensitive records on sexually transmitted diseases infections and sexual abuse etc—information that is not necessary for the effective running of the programme—will be kept secret because general practitioners are harassed. General practitioners have no time and will not fiddle around putting black ink through bits of the information that they hand over giving access only to certain bits. No they will reluctantly hand over entire files. 
It is interesting that half of the provisions of this bill require general practitioners to hand over the confidential sensitive health-care records of women. There is no doubt that this is why all the general practitioners I spoke to—and the one I went to yesterday to have my cervical smear—are absolutely outraged at this bill as are women’s groups around the country. 
The Minister said that this bill will enhance trust and Steve Chadwick said we must give women confidence in the screening programme but I am afraid that this single provision will do the exact opposite. It will undermine trust in the programme and as others have said many women will feel that they have no alternative but to opt off it. So it will achieve the exact opposite of its objective which is to have a strong robust programme involving all New Zealand women and to have their confidence. 
The Minister also said that all the information about sexually transmitted diseases etc. is not relevant but I would have thought it highly relevant. I would have thought that researchers would be fascinated to know about sexually transmitted diseases given that we are led to believe that such diseases are among the main causes of cervical cancer. I would have thought they would be only too delighted to get their hands on that sort of information so I do not believe those reassurances for one moment. 
The Green Party does not believe that a convincing rationale has been given as to why the privacy of personal health information and the approach that New Zealand has taken to privacy over many years should be undermined in this way. The vast majority of women have consented to be on the screening programme and we believe they will continue to do so provided that the confidentiality and security of sensitive health information is assured. Given the high percentage of women who participate on the basis of informed consent we simply do not believe the claims that insufficient numbers of women would agree to participate if their explicit consent were required. We believe that far from strengthening the programme there is a real risk that the provision will result in a backlash against it and a reduction in the participation rate as significant numbers of women opt out because they do not want their very sensitive very personal health information to be accessed by an unspecified number of evaluators. 
For all these reasons we believe that informed consent should always be sought before personal health records are accessed. The main purpose of accessing the records is to evaluate whether women who develop cancer or early signs of cancer have been treated properly. This was the only reason we were given as to why researchers would need the primary health-care records of up to a million women. Only about 160 women develop cervical cancer each year so it would be relatively easy to obtain consent from those women at the time they are diagnosed with cervical or pre-cervical cancer. 
We do not believe that there is any rationale for the provision. I asked Professor Skegg and many other people what they wanted to do with the primary health-care records of 1 million women—that is what this bill will give them and we are now told that they do not want them but this gives them access—and Professor Skegg said that researchers would need them only occasionally. If they need them only occasionally then let us allow women to give their informed consent. I am convinced that if women can give their consent then they will do so but if there is no provision for them to give their consent and if their primary health-care records can be obtained without their knowledge or consent then there is a risk—as Sandra Coney and others up and down the land have said—of a very real backlash. 
I am delighted that the Green Party having been the only party that had grave reservations about this bill is now being joined by other parties and that women around the country are making their voices heard and that some MPs are actually listening to them. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The aim of this bill the Government says is to assist the operation and evaluation of the national cervical-screening programme. Indeed as we have heard the committee did work very constructively together and was united in its will to get this legislation right. We have heard various concerns tonight and in fact ACT New Zealand still does have some concerns about the bill although they are slightly different in nature regarding informed consent from those of the previous speaker. 
It is important that this bill is robust so that we do have a robust national cervical-screening programme. Dr EuphemiaMcGoogan’s recommendations of course are very instructive and the bill has stemmed from many of those recommendations. In fact I think that at select committee level we have managed to address many of those but there are still some I do have concerns with and for that reason ACT will be reserving its position on this. We are very keen to hear the amendments the Minister has spoken about and until we hear what those are and the specifics that relate to them we will still be reserving our position. 
I do agree with the National speaker Paul Hutchison who said that there are still problems and I have similar concerns which I will go on to outline. But first when I was researching for this debate I looked back on my first reading speech and in fact some of the concerns I had then still do exist. I said that the current programme was set up because of a need to be seen doing something about cervical cancer. But international guidelines were ignored experts within New Zealand were not consulted and most important there was no adequate system of quality control. My concern is that the bill still does not address these concerns adequately. 
These failings were brought to attention with the report from the Gisborne cervical-screening inquiry and the most recent inquiry. The current bill is a response to the Gisborne inquiry but it risks creating another political response to a medical problem and again I say that that is still a valid worry. My first problem with this bill is that the ministry is still given the wide range of powers that it has at the moment with the national cervical-screening programme. The national cervical-screening programme provided by the ministry is going to be setting up the programme. It is going to be administering the programme and it is still going to be responsible for auditing and evaluating the programme. 
There is a conflict of interest when one body does all those things. I said in my first reading speech that there are other well-qualified bodies around the country that could participate in this programme and some that spring to mind are some of the university departments. We were very fortunate to have Professor David Skegg as our adviser. He in fact was brought to the committee at my suggestion and he gave us what I felt was very good advice. 
The second major concern I have is that one cannot take almost 1 million women directly from an opt-on programme on to an opt-off programme without their informed consent. [ 
Interruption 
] I know it has. One cannot take those women though from the programme we have at the moment change the rules and still expect them to go directly on to the new regime without their express consent. That is another reason we will be reserving our position on this. [ 
Interruption 
] If the Minister would like a call perhaps she should take another one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members on my right to Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) which states that running commentaries are out of order. If members wish to take a call they can do so next time. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I refer to the issues of informed consent that we have had. I do not share personally the same concerns that some of the other speakers have about access to primary-care records. I was involved with medical research for 10 years. Auditing and evaluating are done in a very robust way. In fact the auditors and evaluators have a very specific job to do. They are not there to scour through people’s primary records looking for every little embarrassing situation that may have arisen in somebody’s life. They do not have the time for example. [ 
Interruption 
] I agree with the people on the Labour side so it would be wise for them to be quiet with the sarcastic comments or else I might change my mind. 
Hon Annette King 
: They are good comments based on evidence. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right and I do believe in scientifically based evidence. The evaluators are not there to look for every little problem that exists so that is not my major concern. My major concern is that women are being changed to a different type of programme without their informed consent. Women need to have confidence in this bill and confidence in the cervical-screening programme. My concern is that the bill as it exists at the moment does not provide women with this confidence. My major concern is whether the Ministry of Health which I do not have confidence in to run and administer and evaluate this programme is the right body to be doing this. 
As I say it is very important to have this confidence from women to participate. We know that in public health circles it is imperative to have the majority of women participating in this programme for it to be truly effective. Part of the reason that the death rate from cervical cancer has decreased over the past decade is probably due to the fact that we have had a national cervical-screening programme. I would like it to be more effective than it has proven to be with the Gisborne inquiry findings. I feel that the best way of achieving this is for there to be more transparency within the programme. By that I mean that the Ministry of Health must not be involved at every step; or at the very least it must be a contestable process so that other bodies that we know exist within New Zealand and are well qualified to participate in a cervical-screening programme should be given the opportunity to do so. ACT New Zealand certainly would not have difficulty with this concept. In fact we would encourage it. 
I come back to the fact that women must have confidence in this bill. I look forward to hearing the amendments that the Minister is putting forward. Certainly I would like to be able to be in a position to support this bill but unless some of the concerns that I have and that the National Party has expressed—and in fact some of the informed consent concerns that the Green Party has expressed with New Zealand First’s support too—can be addressed I am afraid we will not be able to support the bill. 
Having said that the expressions of support given at the select committee still stand. Certainly I would like to see for the good of New Zealand women support from the whole House. I must say that if the amendments can address the concerns that we have then ACT New Zealand will be in a position to support the bill but at the moment that is not our position. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to now raise the point I have already raised with you privately. It refers to how it is that in this debate United Future is getting the eighth call rather than the seventh. You have explained to me that that has happened because when New Zealand First failed to take the call in the order we had agreed after much consultation between all the parties you then gave that call to the National Party and reverted later to New Zealand First and went back to the speaking order. 
I want to suggest to you that that is rather a perverse outcome. It means that a party is quite innocent—and in this case it is our own party which did not fail to take its call at the allotted time but we have been degraded from seventh to eighth. I think the alternative call you might have made and I would like you to consider this would have been to go to the Green Party—in which case we would have gone from seventh up to sixth in the speaking order. 
I guess the point I want you to consider is what sort of precedent we are establishing here because it is important for the future. I think we need to think about the perversity of what has happened tonight and whether that should become the norm for the future. I would like you to consider that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing this matter to my attention. The reality is though that the National Party was the only party seeking the call at that stage and therefore it had the right to be called. The fact that New Zealand First failed to call is negligible and does not really matter. The call was given to the person who took it and I ruled accordingly. I now call Judy Turner. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the point of order. Is this another point of order? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I want to speak further to a matter that I raised which I do not believe you have addressed in your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In that case the member needs to raise a further point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a new point of order Mr Speaker. I do not dispute what you have just said about the National Party being the only party seeking the call but I believe that thereafter you could have gone to the Green Party so that we go back to the sequence of calls agreed between the parties at the Business Committee—after much deliberation and discussion I might add. I would like you to reflect on whether you could have then gone back to the Green Party to restore the order to that which had been agreed by the House. As I pointed out it is a perverse outcome that we get dropped down one stage when we are just an innocent party to the whole thing. I do not feel that you have actually reflected on that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. Can I just say that the only person calling at that time was the honourable member Katherine Rich. Therefore she got the call. The Speaker can only give the call to a member who calls at that time. There the matter rests. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the second reading of the national cervical-screening programmes legislation. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable of all cancers. Early detection of abnormal cell changes can result in effective treatment and in New Zealand it is estimated that between 220 and 240 women develop cancer of the cervix each year and that 70 to 80 die from it. That is quite a high rate compared with other OECD countries. In fact Professor Skegg told us that we were the sixth highest of the OECD countries in the incidence of death from cervical cancer. 
The cervical smear test is a screening test not a diagnostic test. If abnormalities are detected then further tests are needed to get more accurate diagnoses. False negatives and false positives are not uncommon and that is why it is vital if this screening programme is to be successful for women that women are diligent in having regular smears and that the screening programme is stringently monitored. For this programme to be effective it requires New Zealand women to be committed to the common good. If a particular pathologist or smear-tester is not competent or a laboratory is not protecting slides properly or follow-up is inconsistent in some way then those failures will only be picked up by thoroughly examining all their work not just one or two results. 
The Health Committee worked extremely responsibly on this issue and I would like to commend Steve Chadwick for the way she chaired this process and also the committee members who in general did not allow ideology to get in the way of women’s safety. The decision therefore to include the accessing of the appropriate primary health information of programme participants by evaluators is essential. The question I ask myself is whether I am happy for programme evaluators to double triple or quadruple-check my smear results if it will help save somebody else’s life—because that is what the issue is about. The answer is yes I am. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.