Volume 642 Week 57 - Wednesday 10 October 2007Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 642 Week 57 - Wednesday 10 October 2007[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 10 October 2007Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Personal ExplanationsAir New Zealand—Charter Flight to KuwaitRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave under Standing Order 350 in regard to issues relating to Air New Zealand’s charter flight to Kuwait.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there—Hon Bill English: Is it a personal explanation?Madam SPEAKER: It is a personal explanation. That is the Standing Order the member referred to. I assumed members knew that. Is there any objection?Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker we couldn’t hear what it was about.Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry Mr Peters but people were not giving their full attention. Could you please repeat your request to the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have asked them three times. With respect usually you ask wait a moment and if there is no demur leave is conceded. You do not ask three times.Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point—Gerry Brownlee: The microphones were not turned on. We did not hear Mr Peters—Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated Mr Brownlee. I am on my feet. If you wish to remain in the House you will please be seated. Mr Peters yes I think that members did not hear what you said because there was too much noise in the House and secondly you referred to just the Standing Order and I think it may not have been clear to some people what the Standing Order actually referred to. If you do not mind we will start again and if you could repeat your request we will take it from there. I would appreciate that. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave under Standing Order 350 in respect of Air New Zealand’s charter flight to Kuwait.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you give us some guidance as to whether this is the appropriate Standing Order—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not a point of order.Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue Mr Brownlee.Gerry Brownlee: —for the Minister to use to address the House. The matters relating to this issue concern the Minister’s portfolio not the member personally. I think it would be far better if Mr Peters were to seek leave for a ministerial statement. Of course he does not need leave for that; he could just stand up and make it.Madam SPEAKER: I thank Mr Brownlee for his contribution. The matter is of course in the hands of the House. Members can either grant leave or not. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In respect of issues raised yesterday I find it necessary to make this statement to the House. On 16 August a National member of Parliament Murray McCully asked a series of five questions during question time and asked specifically: “Can the House have an assurance that at no stage did any official from his ministry”—and I repeat the term “his ministry” for MrMcCully’s edification—“communicate in writing or in any other form with him or his office aboutthe Air New Zealand charters?”. AsHansard records my response at that time was: “I have had a chance to review this matter with my officials and the head of foreign affairs over the last 24 hours. To the best of everyone’s recollections there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or his office.” That was the answer. I stand by that statement. I did not receive any communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.As this situation unfolded a full account of the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in this matter and an apology were provided by the head of my ministry Simon Murdoch after I had answered questions in the House on 16 August—after I had answered the questions. That account was tabled in the House—that is Mr Murdoch’s explanation was tabled in full in the House.My office as part of the process sought clarity around a Combined Threat Assessment Group report associated with the Air New Zealand charter. At the time of my answering questions in the House on 16 August my office was aware that a Combined Threat Assessment Group report had been generated. What we could not confirm was whether the report had been received by my office. However because Mr McCully had specifically asked about reports generated by my ministry and as Dr Cullen had already alerted the House on the same day to the distribution of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report there is no need to correct any answer given in the House.Indeed the answers remain factually correct as Mr McCully now admits. The fact that a Combined Threat Assessment Group report had been distributed to several Ministers’ offices was reported in the media the following day 17 August. It is all there. But to ensure that the facts around this matter are clear—[Interruption] Well I know that member is going to groan because now he is having the facts rather than a dissertation—Madam SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —of trivial rubbish like we have been hearing over the media for the past 24 hours.Madam SPEAKER: Order! No would the member please continue and if—Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He cannot interrupt with a point of order.Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated! The Minister has a point. These statements are heard in silence. There were comments and they were starting to become audible. I remind members that if interventions are made they create disorder which was happening. Mr Brownlee do you want to make some comment? And then we will continue.Gerry Brownlee: I raised the issue before as to whether it was appropriate for Mr Peters to be making his statement under the provision of a personal statement to the House or whether he should have been making a ministerial statement. In the contribution we have heard so far Mr Peters has talked about his office about the processes in his office about how other offices were involved etc. etc. That is hardly personal to him. Any failing on his part has been in the office of Minister. At what point does the House’s indulgence of a personal explanation become so abused that members have a right to start rejecting the information being put before them by a member on the basis that it is inappropriately put? This of course is a matter that could no longer be debated if the House were to accept the explanation—providing of course that everything that is put before us is absolutely accurate.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think that two points need to be made. The first is that if members believe that such a statement is going beyond what leave was granted for then the appropriate remedy is to raise a point of order not to start interjecting. That is theproper procedure. The second point of course is that if one were to take seriously Mr Brownlee’s commentary then if a Minister sought to correct an answer he or she should do so by means of a ministerial statement which would mean that every one of those occasions became a debatable affair within the House. Mr Peters’ point of course as he was explaining is that he does not need to correct an answer because in fact I as Acting Prime Minister at the time in the House actually gave all that information to the House at the time.Madam SPEAKER: I have heard enough. Initially the House itself judged it was appropriate for a personal explanation to be made so that matter is completed. The question then is whether the statement was remaining personal and was in order. So far it did appear that the statement was in order. It was relating to matters relating to Mr Peters. So I would ask him to continue.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Combined Threat Assessment Group report had indeed been sent to my office. It was received on Wednesday 16 May and receipted as it is a requirement that all documents of this nature must be lodged and receipted. The headline of the report and its risk assessment rating were read by the staff member but not the body of the report. The risk assessment rating determined by the Combined Threat Assessment Group—which I will not and cannot disclose—was not of a level though to ring those sorts of alarm bells. The report was then receipted and sent back.My staff member responded in the same way upon reading the report headline as did the heads of several Government departments and every other senior official who read it. Combined Threat Assessment Group reports make up only a small proportion of all the assessment material received by my office. Given the volume of documents and emails that my Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff handle every day they are expected to decide what information is to be put to me. This is in addition to the formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other Government departments that is put to me for decisions every day. In this specific incident my staff member displayed the same judgment as his chief executive officer and many other senior officials did. And I stand by his decision. If it is a matter of importance I expect either to be briefed by my senior officials or to see a formal ministerial submission on the subject. In the case of the Air New Zealand charters I received neither and my chief executive has already apologised for his omission and tabled that apology in this House.So the facts of the matter are clear. As Mr Murdoch has acknowledged errors were made by the department and they have been addressed and apologised for. A Combined Threat Assessment Group report which was not generated by my ministry came to my office and was dealt with in the same way that other senior officials had dealt with it. Those are the facts.Questions to MinistersIraq—War1.DIANNE YATES (Labour) to theMinister of Defence: Has he received any reports on the war in Iraq?Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Yes. There are daily reports in the media on the war in Iraq but oddly no reference to it in the recently released National Party policy on foreign affairs and defence. However—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Please continue.Hon PHIL GOFF: —I have seen a report where John Key explains that with the statement “the war in Iraq is over.” That will be an absolute revelation to the families of the 768 coalition force members who have been tragically killed in Iraq since Februaryof this year and of the around 3000 Iraqi civilians equally tragically killed in the last few months alone.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sitting beside Mr Goff and people in this House know he has an incredibly loud voice. I could not hear all the answer because the National Party members were barracking across the House trying to drown out his answer. I ask you to allow him to answer the question so that we can hear it.Madam SPEAKER: The member is correct. The level of intervention and barracking was to the stage where in fact it was impossible to hear the answer from the Minister. We will now have a supplementary question and if the barracking continues members will be leaving the Chamber.Dianne Yates: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear the answer as well and that affects my next question.Madam SPEAKER: If the member does not wish to ask the question she need not do so but I invite her to ask her supplementary question.Dianne Yates: Does the—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Order—or members will be leaving the Chamber.Dianne Yates: —Minister have any evidence given that the Leader of the Opposition has denied what he has said in the past to support his answer to my previous question?Hon PHIL GOFF: The evidence I have for the quotation from Mr Key is clear and is readily documented. I am happy to table that in the House. Equally I am happy to table Mr Key’s denial—his claim that the answer he gave was in relation to a question about the invasion of Iraq. I will table that as well because clearly that statement is misleading. I can understand that Mr Key forgot that he had voted for a resolution in this House a few years that supported the presence of New Zealand troops in the invasion. What I cannot understand—and it reflects on his credibility—is that he has forgotten what he was asked one day earlier and forgotten what he said in reply to it.Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister of Defence aware that in making his comments the Leader of the Opposition was relying on statements made by the previous Minister of Defence the Hon Mark Burton who in August 2003 talked about “humanitarian and reconstruction aid to post-war Iraq” comments by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade the Hon Phil Goff who in the same year expressed “great relief and satisfaction that the conflict” in Iraq “was short” and the fact that the same Hon Phil Goff the previous foreign affairs Minister also talked about providing “a sound basis for the engagement of the international community in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq”; and is the Minister of Defence now saying that the previous Minister of Defence and the previous foreign affairs Minister were wrong when they made those comments—or perhaps he does not understand that postwar means after the war is over?Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not resile from any comments I made at that time. [Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee’s question was heard in relative silence. I ask that members do the same courtesy to the Minister in his response.Hon PHIL GOFF: The only thing wrong with Mr Brownlee’s comment was that he got the month wrong. I said immediately after the invasion had taken place that I was relieved that the period of conflict involved with the invasion had been short which indeed it had been. The sending of New Zealand Defence Force engineers to Iraq was done at a time when it was sensible to do that. Unlike the combat forces that Gerry Brownlee and John Key wanted sent for the invasion the engineers were sent there under a United Nations resolution to do humanitarian and reconstruction work. What was absolutely wrong was the gaffe made by John Key last week when he said that theconflict in Iraq was over when clearly with thousands of people continuing to die that statement was wrong. Not only was it wrong but also instead of owning up to the gaffe he continued to mislead the country and electorate by saying he had not made the statement. That is becoming a pattern and it reflects on the integrity and credibility of Mr Key.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The circumstances of Iraq surely do not justify the kind of guffawing glee laughter and noise that is emanating from the National Party benches. National members have no right to be allowed to persist in behaving in this House in that way. No other party supports that attitude. I ask you to bring them to order.Madam SPEAKER: Yes the member is correct.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While the member was making that point of order there was a clear interjection from Bill English.Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid that I have asked members to desist and to respect the Standing Orders. There is obviously a determination not to do so. This is a House in which there should be freedom of speech and that means freedom to be heard as well. Of course interventions are allowed but members have no respect for that fundamental right of members in this House. That simply cannot continue. Members cannot hear. So I will systematically ask members to leave the Chamber from now on regardless if in fact members cannot be heard. Otherwise we will have to have question time in silence.Keith Locke: To clear matters up does the defence budget stretch to funding John Key on an educational trip around Iraq so that he can see what is going on inFallujah and in the suburbs of Baghdad meet the people and experience peace firsthand?Hon PHIL GOFF: The defence budget indeed might stretch to that but I understand from rumours within the National Party that it will not be necessary to spend that money because if John Key keeps making the gaffes that he is I hear that Bill English is arranging a whip-round for the National members to give John Key a one-way ticket there themselves.Dianne Yates: Does the Government welcome the new apparently bipartisan support for the Labour-led Government’s policies on Iraq and other defence and foreign policies reflected in National’s policy release last week?Hon PHIL GOFF: Of course if it could be relied upon. But I have two problems with it. The first problem is that it utterly contradicts everything the National Party has been saying publicly and sometimes privately over the last 7 years and secondly we have seen so many flip-flops one way and the other on foreign and defence policy by the National Party that it simply cannot be relied upon. I think policy should be founded on conviction and principle and not on the political expediency felt by the National Party to avoid losing votes on this issue over the next few months. For that reason although I would welcome a genuinely bipartisan approach I do not see any genuineness conviction or principle in what the media called a lame and tame foreign and defence policy. It is really “me too” without the conviction.Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister expressed relief and satisfaction that the conflict was short and talked about the postwar reconstruction of Iraq 4 years ago what was he implying if it was not that the war was over—and just by the way would it be OK for Mr Key to use his airpoints to go to Iraq now that Air New Zealand flies there in order that he can see firsthand what is going on in Basra?Madam SPEAKER: I doubt whether there is ministerial responsibility for the latter part of that question.Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not think there was anybody in this House shortly after the invasion of Iraq who was not relieved that the conflict involved in the invasion was relatively brief. I do not think there was any opposition in this House to the fact that theNew Zealand Labour-led Government decided to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. What has made John Key a laughing stock is his claim 4 years after the invasion that the war was over when conflict is still taking thousands of lives in that unfortunate country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the issue of the “me too” foreign policy and having regard to discussions the Minister and I have had is it true to say as Mr Key said—no doubt advised by Mr McCully—that only one-third of our aid goes to the Pacific or is it 51 percent; which of those two figures is correct?Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Mr Goff is a former foreign Minister and would probably be able to answer that question quite competently but it is slightly alarming that the current foreign Minister has to ask the defence Minister a question about foreign aid. I wonder how that fits in with his ministerial responsibility.Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no responsibility for foreign aid in his current portfolio.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the foreign affairs budget circa 2007 which demonstrates clearly that 51 percent of our foreign aid and overseas development assistance goes to the Pacific not 33 percent as Mr Key was told by Mr McCully to say.Document not tabled.Economy—Government Surpluses2.JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “If you look at some of the things we have done this term it has taken a while to build up the kitty for a substantial tax package. It has taken a while to build up the kitty for Working for Families. It has taken time to work up the kitty for interest-free loans and the early childhood programme. So undoubtedly there will be areas we will build on for next time which will be new.”; if so why?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; because unlike the Leader of the Opposition I am not reckless with public money.John Key: Would it be useful for the Prime Minister if I deciphered her statement for New Zealanders and it would go something like this—Labour is going to run very large surpluses like the $8.7 billion surplus it announced today so that it can build up the kitty to try to buy its votes next year in election year.?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know that the National Party is just so jealous that a Labour Government has run a strong economy with strong fiscal surpluses and therefore has many choices available to it in drawing up a Budget.John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the last four surpluses now total $34 billion and would she like to explain to New Zealanders why they are struggling to pay increased interest rates under a Labour Government why they are paying increased rates under a Labour Government why they are paying increased food and electricity prices under a Labour Government and most of all whywhile they are struggling it is good enough for her Government to hoard more tax revenue than is required?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member really should not confuse operating surpluses and cash surpluses. Secondly it is quite clear that the National Party’s 2005 tax-cut policy was so inflationary that mortgage rates would have been considerably higher had New Zealanders ever had the misfortune to have it inflicted upon them.John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday Michael Cullen told the House that there were four tests that had to be met in terms of tax cuts being affordable; in fact one of those tests was met in 2004 in which case why was there not a tax cut that year or is that because 2004 was not an election year?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would have thought even the member knew the difference between meeting one test and meeting four.John Key: Can I then repeat the question for the Prime Minister; in 2004 the four tests were met and a tax cut was not delivered and in fact the only time a tax cut for New Zealanders was delivered under her Government was 2005—it was promised but never delivered because Michael Cullen took it off them the next year?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member really should go back to previous Budgets. In previous Budgets the Government implemented substantial tax cuts for families in two consecutive Budgets. It has implemented tax credits for KiwiSaver for both employees and employers and of course the substantial business tax package to improve growth prospects.Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister received any reports on any previous Government’s term of office over 4 years that brought a surplus of $30 billion tax cuts of between $2 billion and $3 billion the lowest level of unemployment in two to three decades and a reduction in poverty for the most vulnerable New Zealanders all at the same time?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: One would indeed have to go back a long way to find a Government with as strong a record as this Labour-led one which explains why we have had this outbreak of fiscal envy from the other side of the House.John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to New Zealanders why it is better that she hoards more of their cash than she actually needs to run the Government’s books and they have to struggle to make ends meet?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course the Government has done a lot to relieve pressures on families and on superannuitants. I note that even by the Leader of the Opposition’s own admission his policy on tax cuts would leave middle-income New Zealanders worse off than they are under Labour’s Working for Families policy.State-owned Assets—Value3.R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to theMinister of Finance: What is the current value of State-owned assets in New Zealand and what was the total value of revenue generated from those assets in the last financial year?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The current total value of the State-owned enterprise portfolio as measured by shareholder equity is $23.5 billion as at the most recent annual report for each company. The total revenue generated in the most recent financial year was $7.75 billion and dividend payments in that year were over $400 million. Of course the State owns a huge range of other assets worth tens of billions of dollars such as schools roads hospitals etc. but even some of these seem to be under threat from a potential National Government.R Doug Woolerton: What impact would any proposed State-owned asset fire sale have on revenue and how would this affect the ability to cut taxes?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said the State-owned enterprises portfolio pays dividends of over $400 million a year. Therefore that contributes to the ability of the Government both to fund services and—if necessary or desirable—to reduce revenue. If those State-owned assets were sold off they could give a one-time cash ability but in doing so the revenue stream would be lost for the future.Hon Bill English: What did the Government do with the $1.4 billion proceeds of the sale of hydro assets owned by Meridian Energy?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those assets in terms of the dividend being paid to the Government which was not $1.4 billion at the time were used to invest in roading and in infrastructure—therefore in assets that appear on the Crown balance sheet.R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that any ideologically driven moves to flog off State assets to fund tax cuts is remarkably short-sighted given that once the asset is sold the Crown loses future revenue from that asset meaning that in return for a one-off tax cut funded from the sale the Crown loses future revenue to pay ongoing costs of tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed from a fiscal perspective it would only be justifiable at all if any revenue was used to pay off debt or to invest in other assets. If it was used to fund tax cuts then one has lost that asset on the books but National has said it believes in raising more debt.Gordon Copeland: When Rob Cameron the New Zealand Exchange the employers and manufacturers and many other financial experts all favour the sale of a minority stake in State-owned enterprises to Kiwi investors why does the Minister cling to 100 percent State ownership as a non-negotiable and is this not just an extreme form of socialist ideology at the expense of maximising New Zealand’s economic potential?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Indeed some level of common interest of that sort I would have thought was quite consistent with a Christian social and economic philosophy. Certainly that is the position taken by a range of Christian democratic parties in Europe.Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us what was the fiscal effect of selling a $1.4 billion State-owned asset and investing the money in roads which make no return on capital?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fiscal effect on the Crown balance sheet was by and large neutral because the asset of course appeared on the Crown balance sheet. If the member believes that building roads does not contribute to future economic growth I do not understand why he wants to borrow money to build them.R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that those with enough capital to buy State assets are likely to be deep-pocketed foreign companies and would he also agree that if State assets are sold to them we are likely to see a repeat of the situation in the 1980s and 1990s when privatised assets were sold to the rich and most profits disappeared overseas?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The reality is that whether by way of public float or by way of trade sale there is a high likelihood that much of any sale of State assets would end up in foreign hands. We have also seen in that regard in many instances a lack of commitment to expanding those assets within New Zealand. In some cases therefore the Government has had to step in and buy back those assets or engage in further regulation of the market to serve the interests of the New Zealand economy. The difference between some of us on this side of the House and others on that side of the House is that we have learnt from experience but they insist on repeating their mistakes.Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports highlighting the problems with a sell-off of State-owned enterprises?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are many such problems. One obvious one is the fact that most Kiwis do not agree with it. Indeed that is why Mr Key ran a mile as soon as Bill English floated the idea of privatising State-owned assets. Mr Key said the policy they had last time was timid but it was still far too bold for him and he wanted to retreat from it.Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports on how the $400 million in dividends paid by State-owned enterprises over the last financial year would be replaced if they were sold?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No I have seen no such reports at all merely a blind faith that somehow or other this will lead to stronger growth in the New Zealandeconomy. It seems very odd to offer New Zealanders the chance to buy assets in organisations they already own.Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document listing 23 State assets sold by Michael Cullen and Helen Clark when they were in Cabinet.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a comprehensive list including the sale of almost $8 billion worth of assets by the National Government.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the details of a sale of $1.4 billion worth of Meridian Energy by Dr Cullen 3 years ago.Document not tabled.Economy—Operating Balance Surpluses4.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Finance: What is the cumulative total of any operating balance surpluses for the years 2005 2006 and 2007?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The cumulative total was $26.4 billion. That is accounted for by accounting changes and revaluations of net $940 million; contributions to earnings on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund of $8.1 billion; net retained surpluses of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities which includes the other Crown financial institutions of $5.3 billion; purchases of fiscal assets of $5 billion; and advances and capital injections such as loans to district health boards and tertiary students of $5.8 billion.Hon Bill English: Why in 2005 election year when the surplus was $6.2 billion did the Government say that it could afford tax cuts but then in 2006 which was the year after the election when the surplus was almost twice as much at $11.4 billion the Government said it could not afford tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If one refers to the Budget this year where the clearest statements were made around that matter I said quite clearly there was room for movement in that respect fiscally but the macroeconomic circumstances demanded a tight fiscal position. The reality is that if the member’s policies had been followed—his leader promised $11.7 billion of tax cuts in 2006—then interest rates would have had to go through the roof as monetary policy tried to counteract that massive fiscal stimulus.Hon Mark Gosche: What have been the advantages of this Government’s prudent approach to fiscal management?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Our approach has leant against domestic inflationary pressures it has acted as a buffer in terms of the major shocks in the world economy and has allowed us as many international commentators have pointed out to be one of the best-placed nations to face the challenges of an ageing population. We have also been able to redress National’s decade of underinvestment in infrastructure and to address National’s long period of increasing poverty amongst children. When it left office one-third of New Zealand’s kids were living in poverty.Hon Bill English: Will the Minister answer the question I asked him before which was this: why in election year 2005 when the surplus was $6.2 billion did he say he could afford tax cuts but in 2006 the year after the election when the surplus was $11.4 billion he decided he could not afford tax cuts and cancelled the ones he had promised?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member now understands why I gave him the answer I did. It was not in 2006 that the second decision was made; it was in the 2007 Budget.Hon Bill English: Why should the public believe anything this Minister says about lowering taxes when the last time he promised to lower them was in 2005 which was election year and then he went and cancelled that promise after the election?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I see that the member has now corrected himself and understands that in fact that change in policy was made in the 2007 Budget not the 2006 Budget. His research is very poor as per usual. The member will simply in some famous words have to wait and see and he may well have to eat his words; and we do not confidently predict that he will.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as Minister of Finance when he is preparing Government economic policy does he consult his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister or does he just make any old comment he likes in the hope that somehow his leader will adjust to it one day?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for his question which gives me a chance to correct a rather common misimpression. Budgets under this Government are produced collectively and are signed off collectively by Cabinet and are prepared in close consultation with the Prime Minister.Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall his statement last year: “If we were to clear the headroom for tax cuts it would mean huge cuts in spending.” and how is it that now that election year is coming he believes he can have tax reductions without any huge cuts in spending?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure the member is aware that in Budget 2006 Treasury was forecasting a cash deficit of $1.5 billion. I do not make up those estimates; they are arrived at by Treasury. Because growth has been stronger because we have maintained record low unemployment because we have maintained record high employment participation tax revenue has been up and expenditure down on forecast. That is a matter for celebration although the member does not seem to realise it. Treasury is now saying that it believes it will be able to revise upwards its future revenue forecast. That creates headroom without affecting the Government’s broad fiscal targets in terms of debt and the impact on themacroeconomy.Hon Bill English: As he has now confirmed that the Labour Government believes there is headroom to deliver lower taxes without big spending cuts why does he believe there is no headroom for National to deliver lower taxes without big spending cuts or is he going to stick to his hysterical fear campaign?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is because just occasionally I take the member at his word and he said he has got to raise debt in order to afford his programme.Heather Roy: Is the Minister aware that the operating surplus announced today would be equivalent to an across-the-board tax rate of 20c in the dollar keeping the 15 percent rate for low-income earners at around $8.8 billion; and why does his Government refuse given these huge surpluses to give hard-working Kiwis meaningful tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the member is saying is that the Government should have run a $6 billion cash deficit. That would have required increased borrowing in 1 year alone of $6 billion—an increase in our gross debt of about 16 percent in 1 year requiring next year another nearly half a billion dollars of spending on just servicing that debt with at least a further $6.5 billion of cash deficit. If that is what the member is saying it is no wonder ACT is down to two members one of whom spends nearly all his time dancing or doing something else.Rates—Rebate Scheme5.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister of Local Government: What reports if any has he received on the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme for the new financial year?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I can advise that by the end of this week for the 2007-08 financial year ratepaying Kiwi households will have been rebated approximately $29.5 million. That is a promising increase over the equivalent stage last year showing that the expanded scheme has become better known and is popular for tens of thousands of low-income New Zealanders particularly those on fixed incomes.Steve Chadwick: The Minister referred to the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme last year; what was the final uptake for the whole of the 2006-07 financial year?Hon MARK BURTON: I am pleased to tell the House that the total for the 2006-07 financial year is almost $50 million paid to over 111000 households. As I indicated in response to the primary question rebates for this year are already running well ahead of the total for the same time last year.Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report6.Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to thePrime Minister: Does she stand by her statements that she had no plans to investigate matters Dr Ingram was unable to resolve because she did not consider further expenditure of public money was warranted?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes. There was no reason for me as Prime Minister to commit further public money on the issue of whether there was a ministerial conflict of interest. The police have quite properly proceeded on from the information collected by the Ingram inquiry to investigate matters within their area of competence.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statements following the release of the Ingram report that any further investigation into the alleged activities of Taito Phillip Field would serve “no good purpose whatsoever.” and that the issue of possible corruption by a member of Parliament was one of those issues that sort of does not resonate beyond the beltway?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The way has always been clear for the police to act on the allegations which appeared in the news media prior to the general election. What happened post the Ingram report was that they took the base of evidence collected there and proceeded on matters within their own competence.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Prime Minister told the House in answer to a question on 1 August last year: “If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.”; if so is it not fortunate that the police read the report a little more thoroughly than she did and carried out further investigations?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have told the House on many occasions my job as Prime Minister is to look at whether there is a conflict of interest in terms of the ministerial guidelines. Mr Ingram of course brought forward a lot of information that went beyond that and that is the information on which the police have chosen to proceed.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement “I think if you read the Ingram report you’d be hard-pressed to find something that was prima facie illegal.” with the position of the New Zealand Police that following consideration of the Ingram report a criminal investigation was warranted?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The police of course have taken inquiries on from the Ingram report. The fact is they have yet to lay charges and the member of Parliament concerned has yet to be judged either guilty or not guilty.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with Fran O’Sullivan who wrote on 26 May this year: “The terms of reference the Prime Minister set for her ministerial inquiry into Taito Phillip Field’s dealings have finally been exposed as a sham by the police decision to lay corruption charges.” and “Clark’s repeated obfuscations … are breathtakingly cynical.”; if not why?Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the inference of a shambles that is implied by that question. I think that it is unfair for a member to imply by his language any suggestion of guilt or responsibility for what may be assessed by the police themselves. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.Madam SPEAKER: The member is implying or stating that he believes there was a personal reflection on himself by the member?Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just to help clarify the matter I did no more than simply quote what was written publicly by Fran O’Sullivan in referring to the Prime Minister’s setting of the terms of reference for the inquiry and ask her whether she agreed with what Fran O’Sullivan had said. I made no further personal comment at all.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: One cannot make a comment parliamentary by simply quoting something from outside. Once it is repeated inside this House it can become unparliamentary.Madam SPEAKER: I accept the point made by the Leader of the House but I think that in this instance the quote did not meet the test of being unparliamentary. So I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question.Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For obvious reasons I seldom agree with Fran O’Sullivan. My job is to act in relation to Cabinet responsibility issues not to initiate investigations into the actions of members of Parliament. However if members opposite want to tempt me there is always the possibility of investigations into Nick Smith’s contempt of court Gerry Brownlee’s act of assault or whether Mr Groser still uses cannabis.Taito Phillip Field: Given the judicial processes we have seen in the last 2 years can the Prime Minister see the possibility of any benefit gained by any member of Parliament now being subject to investigation by the police; and given the results of that judicial process is there in her mind the possibility of every member of Parliament who has gained any benefit through his or her duties as a member of Parliament being thoroughly investigated and the possibility of those members being charged?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am not sure I ascertained the full import of the question but I repeat that as Prime Minister it is not my job to initiate investigations into the conduct of members of Parliament. My job relates to ministerial responsibilities and conflict of interest.Taito Phillip Field: Given the judgment that members of the public and this House are now aware of is it right to consider in this House the implication that if any members have gained a benefit through their duties as members of Parliament then they should also be subjected to investigation and possible charges as a result of gaining benefit through their duties as a member of Parliament?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think the answer is that if there are allegations that a member has benefited financially from actions that he or she has undertaken as a member of Parliament then that would be a legitimate cause for police inquiry.Burma—Sanctions7.KEITH LOCKE (Green) to thePrime Minister: Will New Zealand be following the example of the European Union and the United States by imposing sanctions on either imports from Burma or investment in Burma or freezing any assets of members of the Burmese regime held in New Zealand?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I am advised that New Zealand has not traditionally imposed economic sanctions other than those agreed to by the Security Council. Currently we do not have a legislative basis for imposing sanctions unilaterally. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for advice on whether it might be useful for New Zealand to have umbrella legislation that would enable us to impose financial or other sanctions in the future. At present we have to legislate case by case. We would support Myanmar being put on the Security Council agenda and would of course support and fully implement any sanctions agreed to by the Security Council.Keith Locke: Is not waiting for the United Nations to act in practice an excuse for inaction in that China is likely to veto any strong UN action including sanctions as it has in the past; and would it not be embarrassing if we keep importing for example teak furniture from Burma that is produced under virtually slave labour conditions when other nations in the European Union and America have implemented sanctions?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The point the member makes is exactly the reason why New Zealand from the very beginning of the United Nations has opposed the veto. That continues to be our position because it can stand in the way of something that the vast bulk of countries actually think would be desirable. But as I said to the member we are currently looking at whether we can improve the legislative basis for New Zealand to take action in future around sanctions. It is also worth pointing out that New Zealand has acted by postponing indefinitely the ASEAN - New Zealand dialogue meeting which was due to take place here in December co-chaired by Myanmar. We decided that would be completely inappropriate.Keith Locke: Will the Government be informing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund about the severe repression in Burma so that it can review its investments in Total and in Chevron Oil Co. companies that are major financial props for the Burmese regime; if not why not?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly Total has significant investments there although I understand that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have shares in Total that represent about 0.1 percent of the total fund. Total will undoubtedly come under pressure particularly in Western Europe to withdraw its investments. But it is worth pointing out that when another Western company pulled out of the Myanmar oil industry in recent years the vacuum it left was immediately filled by Asian companies. That reinforces my point which is that in order for sanctions to be effective they really do need to be multilateral and imposed at the Security Council level.Keith Locke: Is it not true however that our sanctions because we are a small nation are symbolic but important none the less and that even though the superannuation fund’s investment in Total may be only $18 million it is still $18 million that actually helps the regime; and should we not respond to the call fromAung SanSuuKyi and the democracy movement to introduce sanctions or at least to remove investments that affect the ordinary people in Burma today?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that traditionally the New Zealand view has been that sanctions need to be multilateral in order to be effective and that the evidence to date is that where Western companies have pulled out Asian companies have simplyfilled the void and have done so very happily. So I think we need a smarter approach than one of just some countries acting while others cream the rewards.Roading—Public-private Partnerships8.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to theMinister of Transport: Does she believe some new roads in New Zealand could be built as public-private partnerships; if so when does she expect to see the first of these occur?Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): Yes I do. In fact I know that new roads can be built as public-private partnerships because in New Zealand the private sector already builds our roads which are funded by public moneys. It depends on how one defines public-private partnerships. The member has made it clear that he is talking about private financing and ownership. The advice we have received from Treasury is that it is sceptical of the value of this type of public-private partnership and believes that most of the benefits can be obtained in other ways.Hon Maurice Williamson: Can I ask whom the public should believe then: the Minister of Transport who just says that yes she does believe that new roads can be built by public-private partnerships or her front-bench colleague Steve Maharey who stated in thePress on 3 October: “The Government is ruling out the use of public-private partnerships in the state sector … even to help construct new roads”?Hon ANNETTE KING: I realise that the member had already written out his supplementary question and did not listen to my answer. I made it clear that we already have public-private partnerships. We have the private sector building the roads; we have the public sector paying for them.Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming difficult again to hear. If members do not stop barracking we will be hearing the answers in silence.Hon ANNETTE KING: I said that it was obvious that the member had already written out his supplementary question and that he had not listened to my answer. I made it clear that we already have public-private partnerships in that the public sector pays for the roads and the private sector builds them. My colleague was talking about the fact that we do not believe we need private sector money to build our roads because the Government can always borrow more cheaply than the private sector can and if the Government does allow the private sector to finance roads the people who will pay are the users—in other words those who use the roads. They will pay a premium for that.Hon Maurice Williamson: Can I then ask whom the public should believe: the Hon Paul Swain who when Minister of Transport said that “Alternative sources of funding such as tolling and public-private partnerships can allow communities to develop land transport infrastructure at a time and in a manner that suit them.” or her front-bench colleague Steve Maharey who has stated that the Government is ruling out the use of public-private partnerships especially in the construction of new roads?Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to that member “Watch this spot!” because we will soon have tolling—[Interruption] Just listen! We will soon have tolling on the Albany toPūhoi realignment B2. It is not a private road; it is a public road that was built with public money and is owned by the public. It will have a toll on it. That is what my colleague was talking about—alternative funds from the public.Hon Maurice Williamson: Should the public believe the words of Labour member Darren Hughes when he said about funding during the debate on the Land Transport Management Bill: “I welcome the public-private partnerships that are part of the bill. It is a very good thing to have that in law as a kind of innovative solution.” or those of the front-bench member for the Labour Party Steve Maharey who has said that this Government has ruled out any public-private partnerships funding especially for the construction of new roads?Hon ANNETTE KING: My colleague from the electorate ofOtaki welcomes what this Government has done with private sector involvement and that is build a road atMackays Crossing with public sector money. This Government believes in the public ownership of roads. We believe that the Government can pay for roads out of public money and we believe that the private sector knows how to build them.Peter Brown: Noting the questions that are coming from the Hon Maurice Williamson can the Minister advise the House whether she takes seriously reports from the former Minister given that he was the most consistent transport Minister that this country has ever had in that he stuffed up all modes of transport—Madam SPEAKER: That is not an appropriate question.Peter Brown: —and if the Minister does not agree—Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Obviously that question contained information and irrelevant comment that the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for. If the member would like to rephrase his question to bring it within ministerial responsibility he can have one more go at it.Peter Brown: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was about two-thirds through the question and the tail end of the question would certainly make it a matter of ministerial responsibility.Madam SPEAKER: Well then just get to the tail end of the question first.Peter Brown: If the Minister does not believe my assertions that I have just made will she tell me which mode of transport—any one of them: air sea rail road land—the Government has not intervened in to fix?Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government with the assistance of New Zealand First and our other supply partners has managed to address all modes of transport. We have put more money into road transport. We have put considerably more money into rail and—and I emphasis this—we have bought back the tracks. Maritime transport has had attention that it had never had before.Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh rubbish!Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes it has. This Government also invested in Air New Zealand so that we retained our national airline. We have a proud record in transport. I do know that Maurice Williamson is a nice guy but he was a hopeless failure as a Minister of Transport. He never managed to have any money put into transport. He saw Auckland go from a disaster to an extreme disaster and we have been left to put in the money to fix the problem. We are certainly doing that and Auckland appreciates it. [Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Now the Government side of the House is actually following the example of the Opposition. Would you please all control yourselves.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen reports of the reception of local government in Queenstown which was addressed by the then Minister of Transport Maurice Williamson of his proposal that all New Zealand roads would be managed by four privately owned companies—a policy written by JimMcLay now of Macquarie Bank that National is waiting to put into place if it ever gets into Government?Hon ANNETTE KING: What we have seen in the last week has been the exposure of the National Party’s real agenda. So when Maurice Williamson talks about public-private partnerships he is talking about the privatisation of our transport network in New Zealand. He has said it before he believes it and that is what National would do if it ever got on the Treasury benches.Hon Maurice Williamson: Do the Minister’s answers today about the exclusion of any private funding for roading mean that if the Transmission Gully project requires any private funding at all then it will not proceed under a Labour Government?Hon ANNETTE KING: There are several issues here. First of all this is the first Government—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Now we will have this answer in silence. If anyone intervenes that member will be leaving the Chamber and that includes those on either front bench.Hon ANNETTE KING: There are a number of issues. First of all this is the first Government that has committed any money to even look at building a Transmission Gully road—$80 million to investigate the feasibility of it and work is under way. That could never happen under a National Government. Secondly the Government has already said that there is over $400 million of Government money to go towards it. Thirdly we have said there will be the ability to have a regional fuel tax which money could go to the Transmission Gully project. Fourthly they are looking at tolling it so the public would pay for it. Out of those options there would be money for the Transmission Gully project without anyone going to Macquarie Bank and National’s mates to put the money in.Health Services—Rural and Provincial Areas9.DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What action is the Government taking to enhance health services in rural and provincial New Zealand?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): The Labour-led Government is very aware of the realities of rural life and we have introduced many initiatives to enhance rural health services. To list just a few there is the rural premium paid by district health boards toprimary health organisations with rural practices; a rural recruitment service providing for the recruitment of general practitioners and nurse practitioners; a rural innovation fund which encourages the uptake and spread of innovative approaches to care in the rural health sector; and the number of fully funded places for general practice training will rise from 69 a year to 104 from next February. Those are just a few of the many initiatives we have undertaken in this area.Darren Hughes: Is the Minister aware of any reports that would adversely affect health services in rural and provincial New Zealand?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Unfortunately yes. I read in disbelief that the National Party intends to let the market determine how much general practitioners will charge. Although the National health spokesperson tried very hard to keep it in the closet National has shown that it intends to treat the health care of New Zealanders as just another commodity for sale in the marketplace. National’s plan will simply not deliver the services our rural communities expect or deserve. Market forces will not moderate general practitioners’ fees in rural areas as there is often only one general practitioner available. In market terms that is a monopoly.Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister advise in respect of the area represented by the member who asked the main question what action the Government is taking to ensure that the 750 people on the Kapiti Coast who cannot register with a general practitioner can register and can the Minister also explain why the Government is supporting the privatisation of district nursing on the Kapiti Coast?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are very aware of the challenges on the Kapiti Coast for some general practitioners. That is why we have in place supportive policies that assist to fund and support general practitioners and nurses right across the Kapiti Coast—and indeed across the country. The question I have for that member is whether he would guarantee if his market-forces policy came into being that those good patients at theWhakatane Medical Practice would pay $15.50 maximum for their general practitioner visits as happens under this Government’s policy. Would the market-forces policy guarantee those low access fees?Darren Hughes: In respect of the constituents on the Kapiti Coast who are waiting to be enrolled with a primary health organisation with a general practitioner can those constituents take the advice of John Key and just go down the road to another general practitioner if they do not like the prices or does the fact that there is a waiting list for my constituency just show that the market model and the invisible hand of the market does not work in the provision of general practitioner health services?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The fact that there is a waiting list indicates that the Kapiti Coast is a wonderful place to live in and that it is being well supported by the local members up there. The district health board is working through that issue to ensure that people can be registered with the primary health organisation in that area.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by Damien O’Connor that he supports the privatisation of the Motueka—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Combined Threat Assessment Group—Reports10.Hon MURRAYMcCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: How many reports from the Combined Threat Assessment Group have been received by his office since his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs and how have those reports been dealt with?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Since December 2005 374 Combined Threat Assessment Group reports have been generated. Combined Threat Assessment Group reports are dealt with in the same way as the literally thousands of cables emails and other voluminous reports are dealt with. My staff methodically vet the huge amount of material that comes through my office. The material ranges from being extremely sensitive and complex to the more mundane. My staff ensure that the material they deem important and relevant is passed to me. But equally they ensure that other less critical matters are handled at the appropriate level.Hon Murray McCully: Why did the Minister answer a question from me on 16 August as to whether any official from his ministry had communicated with him or his office in any form over the Air New Zealand charters by stating: “To the best of everyone’s recollections there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or to his office.” when emails released yesterday make it clear that such a report was received and receipted by his office?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr McCully is on record as saying that I am technically correct. That means I am totally correct. He asked a question and I gave him the right answer as did Dr Cullen. As the media reported on 17 August there is not one new fact. No amount ofbotoxing will give it any life.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know you have given a number of warnings—[Interruption] This is a point of order is it not?Madam SPEAKER: It is a point of order. The member who intervened will leave the Chamber. Members have had so many warnings today.Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.Ron Mark: You heard Dr Nick Smith say across the Chamber that the Minister is telling porkies which is tantamount to calling him a liar. Is that a parliamentary statement or an unparliamentary statement? Is he to remain in the Chamber?Madam SPEAKER: No I did not hear it. If the member takes objection—Ron Mark: I did.Madam SPEAKER: It is not you who takes objection. By this stage you must know what the Standing Orders are Mr Mark. If Mr Peters does not take objection then the matter lies there.Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister now confirm to the House that according to emails released by his office just this morning the Combined Threat Assessment Group report received by his office was in fact sent there by none other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list; and how does he possibly reconcile that with his earlier denial of receiving any communication from the ministry in any form?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the same way that Mr McCully was forced to admit on radio last night and this morning that I was technically correct. Now either one is correct or one is not. But seeing as he has put the issues of honesty truth and veracity on the line here who had the company on the last of the 3½ pages of the bad-debtAdbro deal where the taxpayer bailed out over $1 million to a certain company? Who owned that?Hon Murray McCully: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to accept that a report forwarded to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list does not constitute a communication in any form from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so why?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As Dr Cullen has pointed out the problem was that there was not any communication with the Ministers—neither the Prime Minister nor him nor Mr Goff nor me. That is the fact. That is what he said was “technically correct”. But then again seeing that the issue of honesty is in question here why did someone fail to get admitted to the Bar following law school? What was the reason for that—tell us Mr McCully; come on?Madam SPEAKER: That is inappropriate.Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister confirm revelations from the emails he released this morning that on 15 August at approximately 5 p.m. a day before the Minister assured the House that his office had not received any communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in any form ministry officials delivered a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to his office so that the document and the distribution list could be verified by his office and can he explain why he was still a day later denying that he had received any communications from the ministry when the report had then been delivered twice to the office by the ministry?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As I explained in my personal explanation on 15 August a Combined Threat Assessment Group report comes in. My official writes back to its origin and says: “Was this ever sent to this office? I want it checked out.” The external office came back with the reply “Yes in May” but neither in May nor on the 15th was the document shown to me until later on on the 16th when Mr Murdoch made the explanation that was given to this House. That is the chronology of events. Those are the facts.Hon Murray McCully: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand this morning that a staff member in his office had read the Combined Threat Assessment Group report; if so how does he reconcile that assertion with the statement in Mr Murdoch’s email released yesterday that the report was “ ‘receipted’—ie signed off but not read.”?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the staff member like all the rest of them read the top of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report and did not read the substance. He thought he would be alerted by the headline of the report. It is a pretty ordinary explanation. That is exactly what happened.Keith Locke: What is the Government doing to rectify the abysmal understanding of the Government policy against the war in Iraq when the emails and documents disclosed show that so many officials gave the green light to our national flag carrier ferrying troops to Iraq—at least 12 officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials from the police from the Security Intelligence Service from the Defence Force officials in the offices of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and they all got it wrong; what is the Minister doing about it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The simple fact is that Mr Fyfe of Air New Zealand called Simon Murdoch the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January and he said he would get back to him because there would be more information. But he got back not to Mr Murdoch but to someone else. I believe the human error and disconnect happened there. To err is human; to forgive divine.Hon Murray McCully: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. First I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters and received by the Opposition this morning containing the distribution list from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Combined Threat Assessment Group report—Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Murray McCully: Secondly I seek the leave of the House to table an email that refers to the request for a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to go to the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Crown Land—Sale Process11.HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to theMinister ofMāori Affairs:Mepēhearā a ia emōhiomēnā kataea e te kaupapahōuhoko whenuaKarauna te tiakingāpāngaMāori?[How can he be sure that the new process for the sale of Crown land will protectMāori interests?]Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister ofMāori Affairs):Ewhakaponoana au kawhakaahurutia e te kaupapahōumō tehokoingā whenua o teKaraunangāpānga o teMāorinō temea kawhakaratotēneiitētahi atuahurutangamō tewhānuitanga atu ongāngākaunuitanga o teMāoriarā tewhakataunga ongākerēme o Te Tiriti o Waitangingāwāriuahurea te tiakiingā taonga aPapatūānuku mengāwāriu tuku iho.[An interpretation in English was given to the House.][I am confident that the new process for the sale of Crown land will protectMāori interests because it provides an additional layer of protection that accounts for a broader set ofMāori interests including Treaty settlements and cultural conservation and heritage values.]Hone Harawira: Does the Minister stand by his comment: “Labour’sMāori caucus took a close look in the review to ensureMāori interests were accounted for and I’m pleased the new measures will achieve this.” when in fact the new process is entirely voluntary as opposed to the existing Office of Treaty Settlements land protection mechanism which was a mandatory scheme applying to all Government departments?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I stand by that statement and the two separate levels that that member is talking about.Dave Hereora: How canMāori be confident that the new process will adequately protect their interests in particular pieces of land?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA:Ehereaana etēnei kaupapahōungāmāngai ki teripoata ki teMinitairungaingāwāriungāahureangā tukuihotanga o te rohe mengāhākinakinaimua atui tewhaiwhakaarotanga ki te tukuingā whenua o teKarauna.Mātēnei ewhakarite kiamōhiongāMinita kingātāngata ewhaiwāhi maianatāpiri atu kingāpānga a teMāorii rotoi te whenuaimua atui tewhakaritenga ongāwhakataunga.[An interpretation in English was given to the House.][The new process requires officials to report to Ministers on a range of cultural heritage local and recreational values prior to the intended disposal of surplus Crown land. This ensures that Ministers are informed of all interests includingMāori interests in the land before making decisions.]Hone Harawira: Does the Minister stand by his claim that the new process adds a new layer of protection forMāori interests; if so what does he have to say about the advice that neither he the LabourMāori caucus his department nor local iwi were consulted before one State-owned enterprise advised the Government that it would not be complying with the policy of protecting land in whichMāori have an interest and that it had in fact already sold land under its control?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In moving on all State-owned enterprises have voluntarily committed to being part of this process.Hone Harawira: Would the Minister agree thatMāoridom will rightly feel that they have again been betrayed by this Labour Government when he tellsMāori people that the new process adds a new layer of protection forMāori interests but in fact under this new process the Government can still sell Landcorp land to the highest bidder for any public policy reasons that it deems appropriate at that time?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am sure that member would consider and concede as the co-leader of theMāori Party did who lavished support on the Government and theMāori caucus for getting to this stage. Certainly he did say on 24 September that he was pleased with the comments made by the Prime Minister Helen Clark and that the Government had to be sensitive when there were historical recreation and Treaty issues in relation to Landcorp properties that might be sold. This is an overarching issue. It caters for all vested interests in this land especiallyMāori interests including Treaty settlements.Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period12.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement regarding the regulated period contained in the Electoral Finance Bill that it “is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s and it seemed an appropriate and reasonable period on balance.”; if so why?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because it did.Hon Bill English: Why did he not tell the House that the UK in the first election after its law was passed did not in fact apply the 12-month period because it thought the rules were too complicated and no one understood them and in fact the regulated period was about 4 months; and why did he not tell the House when he quoted the Canadian Supreme Court that that decision was justifying a 6-week regulated period which puts quite a different slant on Canada’s repression of free speech?Hon MARK BURTON: Because as the member knows I have spoken at length on the detail of the length of the regulated period in both the Canadian and UK jurisdictions. That was not the nature of the question the member asked at the time. But I have given that information at length to the House.Hon Bill English: So can the Minister confirm that he has come to the House to justify the regulated period of the whole of an election year by using a CanadianSupreme Court opinion that applied to a 6-week period and a set of rules in the UK that simply were not applied at the first election after they were passed?Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm to the member that the case I specifically referred to yesterday from the Canadian Supreme Court was an appropriate reference because—Hon Bill English: No it wasn’t.Hon MARK BURTON: Of course it was. New Zealand courts draw very heavily on Canadian judgments when considering matters related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is a relevant reference. The key issue here is whether New Zealand’s electoral system can and should be protected from the sort of rort that we saw the National Party engage inin 2005. It can and it must.R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe as we do that the implementation of the Electoral Finance Bill will enhance fairness and free speech in future New Zealand general elections?Hon MARK BURTON: Indeed I do and I believe that the good work that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be continuing to engage in over the next little while will further refine and enhance the value of that legislation. But I am absolutely confident that it can improve certainly the protection for the right of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in their electoral system without the sort of corrupt practice we saw on the part of some in 2005.Hon Bill English: If the Minister is motivated by stopping rorts then why has he put a provision in a bill that explicitly legalises the rort the Labour Party carried out with the pledge card; and if it did not think that was a rort why did it pay the money back?Hon MARK BURTON: As usual the member fires wild unsubstantiated and largely unrelated assertions that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.Hon Bill English: Why is the Government persisting with legislation that legally bans the expression of political opinion during election year unless it meets strict legal criteria when every submission to the select committee opposed the bill?Hon MARK BURTON: Yet again the member makes a demonstrably inaccurate assertion in this House. That is factually incorrect. I have—clearly Mr English does not—considerable confidence in the value that select committees add to the work of this Parliament. One of my colleagues yesterday referred to them as the engine room of the parliamentary process and I believe they are. We have said from day one that the select committee process we anticipate will add considerable value and refinement to the provisions of this bill. I believe that to be the case and I look forward to the final enactment of the legislation when the select committee reports it back to the House.Question No. 10 to MinisterRON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking your advice. In your comments to me on the point of order I took you suggested that I should refer to the Standing Orders and understand them a little better. I am looking at Standing Orders 115 and 116 in respect of offensive and disorderly words and personal reflections. Paragraph 115 states: “If any offensive or disorderly words are used whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present the Speaker intervenes.” The next one paragraph 116 “Personal reflections” states: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” There is no further statement there giving a caveat as you had suggested. I have looked atSpeakers’ Rulings and I cannot find the statement that the offence must be taken by the member to whom the comment was aimed. All I can read is that the Speaker intervenes. If you can help me and steer me to the right Speaker’s ruling or the rightStanding Order then I might better understand these Standing Orders going forward. I would be extremely grateful.Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. There are no vicarious objections that can be taken on a personal reflection by others. I am happy to speak and give the member some guidance outside the Chamber on Standing Orders and of course Speakers’ rulings.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not querying your decision because I would like to know what your explanation to Mr Mark is in due course but it did concern me at the time. However I do have a written proposal to the National Party that if its members stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about them.Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.Questions to MembersElectoral Finance Bill—Oral Submissions1.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to theChairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters were invited to give oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on Monday 17 September 2007?LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): None. On 17 September the committee heard from submitters who had requested to be heard. The committee heard from 23 submitters who had requested to be heard at that meeting.Christopher Finlayson: Why was it that those submitters who requested to be heard were rushed through their evidence on Monday 17 September and the committee has had to meet outside normal sittings hours including during the adjournment yet only 15 minutes have been set aside to consider this matter at tomorrow’s meeting?LYNNE PILLAY: The member who is the deputy chair of the committee has misinformed the House and is either confused or deliberately being misleading. However the issue is committee business and those decisions will be made by the committee.General DebateHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. I think theSunday Star-Times—Madam SPEAKER: Before we get under way with battle commencing would those members who are leaving the House please do so quickly and quietly.Hon PHIL GOFF:—summed it up. Let me read from it: “Tony Ryall lost his smug smile last week”. There he was prancing down the catwalk that he thought led to National victory and the next minute he was bottoms up in the swamp. As unattractive as that analogy is it is undoubtedly accurate.There was the National Party 2 years into the term of this Parliament with a failure to release a single policy. National members were under pressure so there they were and they thought they would come up with a health policy. When they revealed their policy they revealed a lot more than they intended to reveal. Mr Ryall told the country that National’s policy was to take the cap off doctors’ subsidies. Now it was a televised press conference and there was John Key with the other National MPs around him and they were thunderstruck. They were appalled and they were staggered—not at the policy you understand because that caucus had approved the policy. They were appalled that Tony Ryall had actually revealed what was on National’s hidden agenda. There it wasThe Hollow Men all over again.Mr Ryall was telling the country that his party would hurl millions of dollars of subsidies into the health system but would not ask where the subsidies went. It is clear what would happen in that situation: the subsidies that are designed to keep doctors’ fees down for people on limited incomes would go into the business profits of the practices. Mr Ryall said “No the market will control it and you can trust the general practitioners.”Hon Jim Anderton: Yeah right!Hon PHIL GOFF: “Yeah right!” as my colleague has said. Actually theSunday Star-Timessaid something different. It said “At a stroke Ryall showed himself to be both shifty and silly.” So that was the first case of dropping the ball.But then there was the other one. Bill English came out with the policy that indicated that back on National’s agenda was the privatisation of community-owned assets. Poor old John Key was a bit shattered at that revelation too. He approved it no doubt. He knew it was there but was he going to come out and say that? No. So what do we have? We have John Key saying “No that isn’t our policy.” and we have Bill English saying “Yes”. There they are at it again with the struggle over the leadership emerging in the policy differences.The problem with regard to John Key was that he made his own slip-up—the first of many slip-ups. It was the one where he said that the private sector could and should own and build schools. Yes that reveals more than Mr Key intended to reveal as well. Katherine Rich did not know about it and when the media came to ask Mr Key about it he was nowhere to be found. He went to ground for 24 hours as did Katherine Rich. But there revealed to all of us was a National Party policy that says that is the top of the slippery slope for the privatisation of our public education system. We know National’s track record and we know its ideology—it isThe Hollow Men; “the shallow men” as Mike Moore said. That is what is on the National Party agenda.Then came the third of the policy revelations. It was on foreign affairs and defence but it was a total turn-round. Having spent 7 years criticising this Government’s defence and foreign policy and saying the scrapping of the air combat wing would leave New Zealand defenceless suddenly the National Party has had a revelation: the Labour Party was right all along. Then there is the nuclear-free policy. National members say “Yes we believe in the nuclear-free policy.” but that was not what was revealed in the foreign policy cable that stated the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. The National Party has decided that political expediency will govern and it has embraced everything that Labour has done but can we believe it? If a party like the National Party is driven not by political conviction or by principle but by political expediency it will do anything. National cannot be trusted; its agenda is revealed.JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition): It is always better when you get the vein-popper from Phil Goff. It is no more coherent but it is slightly more entertaining which I think is better. One place I can confidently confirm the war is not over is in the Labour Party caucus room. I will tell members something for nothing: those members were a down-in-the-mouth bunch of little puppies yesterday when they walked in there. You see the war is on. It is not about the next 12 months. It does not really matter that Helen Clark is off to the Pacific Islands Forum and then she will be back to send a third of the Cabinet to the guillotine; that does not actually matter. They are fighting over the shape of the caucus post-election when they will be in Opposition and Phil Goff needs his mates in there to get himself in as the leader. That is what he is worried about. He has been waiting waiting waiting for a long time and now he can see it coming coming coming towards him.His mate Steve Maharey did not have a very good last couple of weeks either because in his rush to make hysterical comments he forgot that the private sector built aschool under Labour in 2002 and Labour praised it. While he was at it he ruled out any use of private sector capital in any road construction in New Zealand. So if people live up the Kapiti Coast and use Transmission Gully then this is the message from Labour: it will never come. There will be no Transmission Gully under Labour; it is never coming.This is the big news for today: a surplus of $8.7 billion. Another way of looking at it is that it is the nice big kitty that Helen Clark has decided she will gather and finally dish out in election year. This Government over the last 4 years has collected $35 billion in surpluses. This is the message from Labour: it is OK if the Government takes more surplus and more tax from people than it needs because it is OK as long as the Government is fine so people should not worry. This Government does not care about New Zealanders who are struggling to pay the bills or that prices are going up; none of that matters!Over the last 8 years and for the last 5½ years that I have been in the House I have heard every excuse from Michael Cullen down for why tax cuts are not affordable. You see the reason Labour is on the slide and New Zealanders have given up on it is that they are sick of Michael Cullen’s excuses. Yesterday he came into the House and said that tax cuts were possible if one met the four tests. They were: do not borrow to pay for them do not cut services to pay for them do not implement them in times of inflation and do not do things that make for inequality.Actually there was a fifth one that he forgot to announce: tax cuts can happen only in election year! The only time we can have a tax cut under Labour is in election year. The other little one he forgot about was that Labour will never actually go through with them. The last time Labour promised a tax cut was in 2005 and it never turned up. Labour cannot be trusted on tax cuts and it cannot be trusted on the economy either. The interesting thing is that a while ago Michael Cullen answered a question in the House from Mark Gosche. He said: “I have seen reports of Australia’s experience of introducing large-scale tax cuts earlier this year. The result was higher interest rates and higher mortgage repayments leading to a slump in consumer sentiment.”Well from what I can see that is what we have in New Zealand and we have not actually had a tax cut. That is the point is it not? Labour came in when interest rates were at 5 percent and they are now at 8.25 percent. About a third of New Zealanders will be renegotiating their mortgages in the next couple of months and all they can rely on is Helen Clark’s telling them that it is more important for her Government to build up a kitty than for them to get their own money. That is the message. The message under Labour is that the Government can spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can spend it themselves.That is why the Government spends $1 billion of it a week that is why it has taken $335 billion in the last year and that is why it does not care. New Zealanders are angry because they are sick of working hard and they are sick of paying a lot of taxes. All their taxes are there just to be a political machine that can buy an election for Labour. It is “lolly-nomics”. Next year it will not be anything to do with whether or not tax cuts are affordable; they will arrive because it is an election year.Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I just want New Zealanders to know—the ones watching on Sky channel 94—that John Key who has just criticised the Prime Minister for making overseas trips that bring New Zealand credit is just about to leave on a 2-week European junket. It was to be rugby rugby rugby and wining and dining. The Rugby World Cup quarter-final result means he now has a pretty empty diary indeed.After a disastrous series of leadership changes the National Party believes it has finally found the man. National members have seen off Mr Bolger they have seen offMrs Shipley they have seen off Mr English and Dr Brash and now they have put all their political eggs in the Key basket. Mr Key is the new face of the National Party. He swept in announcing the abandonment of long-held National policies and principles and he quickly adopted Labour ones. He adopted many Labour policies to the extent that commentators are increasingly calling him “Mr Labour-lite”. “Mr Labour-lite” is what they are calling him now.With a series of nice photo opportunities Mr Key has deliberately positioned himself and the National Party as the answer to all New Zealand’s problems. Well if that is the answer we would have to ask ourselves what the question was. Of course there has never been any detail about National’s policies; there has been no detail about what those members would do. There has been lots of puffery and lots of promises but increasingly this side of the House the media and political commentators have put the squeeze on the National Party saying: “Give us some policy detail. Don’t give us carbon copies of Labour’s policy or New Zealand First’s policy. Give us some of your own policy. Give us your own thought your own words your own proposed action.”Well the National Party decided in the last 2 weeks that it was a great time to release a little bit of policy. After all Parliament was not sitting and National members thought they would not have to have too much scrutiny. The Prime Minister was overseas representing her country and the country was following the All Blacks so it was time for National to drop a few policy hints and hope that people would not notice them—but it would satisfy the critics who had been asking for a while.What those members did not reckon on was that they were not going to drop some policy hints; they were going to drop some policy clangers—and did they ever drop some policy clangers! There was a series of them. It started with Bill English onAgenda. He is the man who is supposed to know what the New Zealand public are feeling. He believes he has his finger on the pulse. So he announced to the people of New Zealand that he would like to sell off some of mum and dad’s silver—some of our State-owned assets. He thinks the public are thirsting to see their State-owned assets sold off yet again. What he did not reckon on was what the public thought of that and the bow wave of that has washed right over him and Mr Key. The public do not like it. They will not entertain it. I make this prediction: by the time of the election the sale of State-owned assets will be off the National Party’s agenda and its policy will be the same as the Labour Party’s.The next thing was Mr Key’s blunder his clanger on foreign policy. He said: “The war is over.” and then he tried to cover up by saying that he did not really mean that but was talking about something else. He has been caught out for misleading and it is up there on the website for every New Zealander to see. I say that New Zealanders should go and look at it. If they want to see a man who is trying to mislead them then they should just read that transcript. He said the war was over. But he forgot to make the phone call to Mr Bush—he did not know it was over—and he forgot to make the phone call to the Iraqi Government. They did not know it was over.Then Mr Key spoke about the privatisation of schools. That was clanger No. 3. [Interruption] Members opposite are enjoying this very much I can tell. National wants to privatise our schools. It wants to build them and the private sector to own them. That was something Katherine Rich did not know about; she has more integrity than that. She was not told about the policy—it was National’s social welfare policy all over again. But the doozy of them all has to be the bumbled announcement that National would take the cap off general practitioners’ fees. That will go down as the biggest blunder it has made.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki):Tēna koe Mr Speaker. While it is quiet I thought I would share with the House some views about Te AoMāori as an educational exercise. Ourtūpuna continue to amaze me with their insightfulness about life often explained inwhakataukīkīwahawhakatauākī; and for those who are not sure what I am talking about let me give a bit of an explanation. Mr Speaker you might have heard this one: e kore tepātiki e hoki kitōnapuehu; the flounder never returns to its disturbed sand. Have you heard that one? [Interruption] Yes now and again. Some of the tribes talk about it like this: e kore tekurī e kaiitōnaruaki; the dog never eats its own vomit or “chunder” in rugby terms! These are the sorts of encouragements that tell us today “If you do a job do it right first up; don’t stuff up and try to cover your tracks with excuses; and don’t excuse your incompetence.” There are some others such as ko tekōura hokiwhakamuri; the crayfish that walks backwards. Those in the know will be aware thatkōura have a sort of reverse gear. When they become alarmed or shocked they shoot back into shelter by flicking their tails pretty violently.I reckon ourtūpuna had a fairly insightful understanding about things and that probably explains some of the things we have dealt with in the last couple of weeks and indeed we are dealing with today. Firstly there was the unprecedented back-down covering the sale of Crown land. In February this year the Hon Mark Burton came out loud and clear stating: “The Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements.” TheMāori Party raised some alarm.Ngāti Kahu HaurakiTūwharetoa and other iwi andhapū spoke out publicly about the management of those lands by Landcorp and the Office of Treaty Settlements. Nationwide attention centred on the role of Landcorp in threatening to sell Whenuakite on the Coromandel PeninsulaRangiputa in Northland as well as Raurimu in the national park area. And then what do you know? Thekōura starts edging backwards and hey presto another new process is created. It is a major back-up; a 360-degree reversal if you like with officials now being specifically asked to consider whether there are cultural values in such properties as well as assessing potential claimant interest in the land for Treaty settlements.In talking of Treaty settlements let us go back to 23 and 24 August 2007. The main players are the Waitangi Tribunal the Federation ofMāori Authorities the New ZealandMāori Council and other central North Island iwi including Te Arawa andNgātiTūwharetoa who had been following legal action through the courts. On 23 August the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was reported by theNew Zealand Heraldas saying that despite the grave concerns expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal about the interests of overlappinghapū and the durability of future central North Island settlements “the Government would be moving ahead with the settlement and it was up to interest groups to organise their own hui.” Hello! Within less than 24 hoursi hokiwhakamuri tekōura thekōura retreated once more.The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Minister of Finance and the Minister ofMāori Affairs announce that they will meet with central North Island iwi who are not part of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi andhapū settlement agreement to discuss their concerns about the accumulated rentals for deferred purchase land arising from aspects of the settlement package. Not long after this the Ministers announce that they wantTāmaki-makau-rau iwi to have a workshop to advance their claims on the back of the Waitangi Tribunal report that said there were serious issues to be dealt with resulting from the failure of the Office of Treaty Settlements to act in good faith.Then there is housing. Our co-leader Tariana Turia says that there are major housing problems in Porirua—leaking homes no restoration work and the health and well-being of people is being seriously compromised. There are similar cases I might add in theRūātoki valley and the Waitahanui area in my electorate. The Minister is hot off themark and defends the ministry to the hilt but once again 24 hours later admits that there is a serious problem. Too much!One other fact about thekōura that might be relevant to the discussion is thatkōura are scavengers that feed off left-overs that float by in the water or settle on the bottom. Once the food is caught its sharp pincers push it into its mouth where it is ground to a pulp in order to digest it.So I turn to the issue of the status of tangata whenua. For 24 years tangata whenua includingMāori have been working with the UN working parties responsible for the current draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is an aspirational document—something to aim at—yet we have a Government that once said it saw the Treaty as the foundation of this nation. That is why theMāori Party is important in this House.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): Mr Assistant Speaker—Darren Hughes: Old “Fire Sale Bill”.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member forOtaki has just found out he will certainly lose his seat because today the Labour Government said there will be no private money for Transmission Gully. Dr Cullen has said he will not borrow a dollar. So the only way the people of Wellington and the Kapiti Coast can get Transmission Gully is with about a 50c regional petrol tax.Hon Maurice Williamson: At least!Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will probably be more my colleague Maurice Williamson tells me. So the member opposite should keep his head down. He lost his seat certainly today; if there was any doubt about it then yesterday.It highlights the way the Labour attack has fizzled out in its own incoherence. Those members have turned out to be not just a bunch of hysterics but also a bunch of hypocrites.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows he cannot use that word.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw. It turns out that Labour is doing public-private partnerships everywhere. Now the definition of a public-private partnership is that if it is built by the private sector then it is a public-private partnership. Well that means every school and hospital in New Zealand is a public-private partnership. The fact is that Labour is burdened by its clichés of the past and they are dragging it down.Over the next 10 years New Zealand needs billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for a growing economy and Labour has ruled out the main sources of funds for doing that. So I question how Dr Cullen will be able to cut taxes if he needs all the money to build Transmission Gully and to fund all the roading that is required in Auckland. How will he cut taxes if he will not borrow any money for infrastructure or use any private money for infrastructure? He will have to use cash surpluses.Hon Murray McCully: It will come from the tooth fairy.Hon BILL ENGLISH: He will get it from the tooth fairy and only the tooth fairy believes anything that Dr Cullen says about tax cuts.In October last year Dr Cullen said: “People who think there should be tax cuts on the back of big surpluses should be taken out and drowned.” Is that a suicide note; did he predict his own demise? You see Dr Cullen promises tax cuts in an election year and then after the election he cancels them because he wants the money. It is as simple as that and he will do it all again. But whose money is it?Well the massive surplus announced today is paid for by people on $39000 who pay 33c in the dollar—the rich man’s tax rate! When Labour came to office those people were on $32000. Did Labour promise them they would end up on the rich man’s tax rate under its Government? That is what has happened. What are those householdsdealing with? They are dealing with interest rates that have gone up by 4 percentage points since Labour took office and they are now paying 9.25 percent on their mortgages. They have seen electricity prices rise by 25 to 30 percent. In the last couple of months they have seen milk and butter go up by 20 percent.These people are facing a real squeeze on their household budget and what does Helen Clark say? She says: “We are building up the kitty. We are taking hard-earned cash out of your pocket we do not need so we can buy your vote.” and that is why those people have stopped listening. They do not believe Labour any more.Labour members do not care about those people on $39000 paying a rich man’s tax rate. They said yesterday that it is more important for the Government to get the money and decide how to spend it in order to win those people’s votes. That is what is going on here. The Labour Government is preying on middle and low income New Zealanders and wringing tax out of them. Those members are sitting in their flash offices in the Beehive and coming up with grandiose schemes about how to pull a rabbit out of a hat 2 weeks before the election.Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): We have just heard a spirited address from a man who has more positions on taxation than can be found in theKama Sutra. This man changes his mind in the course of a week in the course of month and actually has been known to change his mind in the course of a question time. This man wants taxes to be cut but he wants interest rates to fall as well.The truth of the matter is that Bill English gave a spirited speech full of anger but the reality is that no matter how angry he wishes to be he cannot hide and no matter how much obfuscation he wants to put into place members in his party cannot take back the words they have been uttering over the past couple of weeks. They can scramble them but they cannot erase them. The truth is out. We now have a sense of the emerging ideology of this party that would wish to be a Government one day. We also have a sense of its incompetence.It started of course on Wednesday 26 September. A health document was to be released. It was given to the media. There was a line-up of National Party spokespeople. The leader was there the National spokesperson on health was there and the National Party health team—which keeps changing—was there too. In the 45 pages of that document there was no mention of an increase in general practitioners’ fees—not one.Darren Hughes: Not a word.Hon PETE HODGSON: Not a word. Because and only because the media persisted with their questioning the following words were uttered by Mr Tony Ryall: “We don’t support Labour’s fee control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.”Darren Hughes: In that arrogant way of his.Hon PETE HODGSON: In that arrogant way of his. Did anyone see the television that night? Did anyone see the eyes of the caucus colleagues start to roll? A lot of people all of a sudden did not want to be there. They did not want to be in the room. They said to themselves noiselessly: “Oh dang! That was the bit we weren’t supposed to say.” But it was out. Mr Ryall had turned his press conference into a train wreck because he had tried to deny the position. That is what happened and I thank the media for their persistence.The truth of the matter is that the cover-up is where the farce really began. We saw Mr Key the leader of the National Party in a corner immediately reach for the market. We heard him immediately say: “Oh this is just like going to your accountant or your mechanic. If doctors put up fees people will go somewhere else.” Oh yeah! Will rural people go somewhere else? Will urban people go to an accident and emergency department instead? The point really is to ask why National would want to do that when we know that better heath outcomes follow cheaper access to general practitioners. Thisis not something that was made up by the New Zealand Labour Party; it is something that is found throughout the international literature. National members do not care about people’s health.Then the cover-up continued. Mr Ryall said: “Oh but I’ve been saying that for a long time. I said this in a speech. I’ve said it many times. This is settled policy and it shouldn’t be any surprise to any of you media people.” A question arises from that. If this was settled policy from the National Party and there was a 45-page document with photographs and graphs and things in it why was it not in the document? If it was settled policy why was it not in the document? There was comment in the document about universal primary health care but there was no argument in the document to say that it would be universal primary health care at a higher fee. That was not in the document.Then National started to go from bad to worse. Mr Key defended market forces as a means of keeping general practitioners’ fees at a reasonable level and then as ColinEspiner said in thePress he backed away from it. Mr Key then went on to say that he proposed the involvement of the private sector in both the building and the operation of State schools. Then he said he was talking only about construction. Mr Key denied talking to Macquarie Bank about a private-public partnership then he admitted talking to Macquarie Bank about a private-public partnership. Are members getting the pattern here? He backed away from Mr English’s suggestions that State assets should be sold and then he declared the Iraq war to be over. But what did he do the next day about the Iraq war? He said onbFM that the people on Radio New Zealand National had asked him about an invasion. They had not.KATHERINE RICH (National): The big question for the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Pete Hodgson is how he will explain to that woman on television last night who had attempted to get an operation to have a cancerous growth removed why she had her surgery cancelled three times. She was even at the point when she was getting ready and was gowned up only to be told for a third time that she could not get her hospital treatment. These are the kinds of examples we are seeing time and time again.It has certainly been a bad couple of weeks for Steve Maharey. For a Minister who is usually a cool calm and somewhat smarmy operator in this House in the last week we have seen him become the “Captain Panic Pants” of the Labour Party as he has reacted to some of National’s ideas that have been talked about in the last couple of weeks. His hysterical reaction to some of National’s ideas demonstrates I think that he is more interested in scaremongering and upsetting the education sector than actually looking at facts and ideas.I am glad that so many have come to the conclusion that the Minister has over-egged his pudding somewhat and overstated things. When he scuttled up and down the press gallery and took interviews and said he would die in a ditch over this issue he forgot that the Government already does not own the buildings of some 3000 early childhood education providers and over 300 State schools and 107 private schools. Even yesterday when Steve Maharey decided to serve himself the ultimate patsy question he forgot that that day he had announced additional funding to establish some new early childhood sector centres that the Government does not own and will not own once they are established. So as for dying in a ditch we are just wondering how he keeps managing to limp along to the House every day given that he has set such a high bar.In terms of what the Minister is actually looking at if he is going to die in a ditch why not use that kind of rhetoric over some of things that are really important in education right now? If he is going to die in a ditch what about the 40 percent of primary schools that were in deficit last year or the 50 percent of secondary schools thatwere in deficit last year? Yes the Government announced an $8.7 billion surplus today but I can tell the Minister that schools have faced increasing costs since 2000: their power prices have gone up by 30 percent their wages and salaries have gone up as well but more important so many of the costs of running schools have gone up and have not been kept in line with the operations grant. So if the Minister is going to die in a ditch why does he not talk about the $2.5 million he has just shaved from operations budgets for secondary schools or the nearly $8 million he has taken from primary schools? He has not given schools any time really to prepare for budget changes before the end of next year.He could die in a ditch about the 41 percent increase in the truancy rate just since 2002. Every given week some 30000 kids do not go to school and do not turn up for their classes. There is one simple thing that we all know—if they are not in class they cannot learn and they cannot get qualifications. That is why the statistics are bad particularly forMāori students who leave school with no qualifications whatsoever. The Minister announced the schools report in glowing terms but I do not think he has actually read it. If he had read it he would have read that some 46 percent of teachers were effective only sometimes when teaching writing. Only a fifth of teachers are effective when teaching social studies. I can tell the Minister that if it were my kids who were in those classrooms I would have extremely high expectations. Every parent in this country expects that the teachers in front of his or her kids will be effective at what they are teaching.How much of the $8.7 billion announced today will go to schools? Certainly there are some gaps to cover and changes that need to be made. I think that the Minister needs to focus on the things that are really important in education. We all know that it is the quality of education and the quality of teaching that are important not who owns the buildings. That is not the issue that a Minister should consider dying in a ditch over when there are so many other more important issues facing schools and teachers.I remember back to my economics class and I wonder how the Minister can stand there and say that tax cuts under National are inflationary but that tax cuts under Labour are not. Labour will probably announce tax cuts but it will be in an election year and people will see the tax cuts for what they are—just a bribe.DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): Over recent months during the Wednesday general debate it has been the habit of Labour members to ask National members one simple question: “What’s your policy?”. That has been the continual call from Labour members on this side to the Tory members sitting over there. We want them to tell us just one policy. They would get up to speak after us and ask why we were always talking about them and why did we not talk about ourselves. Of course the reason Labour members want to talk about policy is that so much of what we have done for this country and with this country in the last 8 years has delivered a real improvement in the standard of living of ordinary people. We have fairer employment law and sound economic management; Modern Apprenticeships and interest-free student loans; record spending on health and education; investment in our public services; and as we go into this third term exciting ideas for savings and lifting Kiwi homeownership rates across the community.We have always been a policy-based Government which is why we put the acid test on that lot of people sitting over there and asked them to be policy based as well. Every week they would fail on that charge but over the last parliamentary adjournment they came to the party—they turned up with policy and we are glad about that because now we are finally starting to see the whites of the eyes of National members. That is why sitting in this debate here today I was amazed to see the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the National Party take two calls between them and not mentionone time any of the policy they released over the adjournment. Is that the approach of people who are proud of the policy work they are doing—the hard yards they claim to be doing across health and foreign policy; Bill English’s view on privatisation and State assets? Not at all. I can describe the parliamentary adjournment only as a series of “Key-tastrophes” for the National Party. There were “Key-tastrophes” all over the show no matter what one looked at; whether it was the removing of caps on general practitioner fees it was a “Key-tastrophe”; whether it was the privatising of State assets it was a “Key-tastrophe”; whether it was the blasé view on who owns our public schools it was a “Key-tastrophe” or whether it was the continuation of this amateurish approach to foreign and defence policy it was a “Key-tastrophe” as well. We are now chasing National members to try to find out what their view will be on student fees. I reckon that when they are honest about that it will be yet another “Key-tastrophe”.It has been very interesting in Parliament in the last couple of days to see how the National Party has tried to shift its ground on the ownership question to the “PPP” question. Of course Labour has a very clear record on public-private partnerships which we put into law. On the National side of the House its members think that “PPP” stands for privatising public property. That is all it means to the Tory members because they want the private sector to own the asset. In Labour we say that we will work with the private sector to build things and that is where the Land Transport Management Act has sat on the law books since 2004 but National members want to sell those assets and put them into the ownership of the private sector. They do not care who owns the schools. They want the ownership to be put into the hands of people in the private sector. When it came to our State-owned assets Bill English went on television and said that we should partially sell them to mum and dad investors. But National members want only some mums and dads to own our State assets. We in the Labour Government want all mums and dads to own our State assets.I was delighted to hear theŌtaki electorate that I so proudly represent mentioned in question time today. I thought that was a very good thing. There was talk about Transmission Gully. I am glad that this Government is making the biggest advances on that project that have ever happened. Certainly when the National Party was in power nothing happened. Right now we have $80 million in the Budget to do all the scoping work necessary to build that road. The Government has already put up $400 million. We have put up the idea of a regional fuel tax and said that the law allows tolling to occur. We have no idea what the National Party thinks its view on it will be but under Labour we are making steady progress.Hon David Parker: They won’t borrow the money they will just get it from overseas.DARREN HUGHES: That is the kind of economic management approach that is taken by rising stars in the National Party like Mrs Dean. But of course Mr English had the cheek to talk for 2 days in a row about his concern for people on $39000 a year saying that they paid 33c in the dollar tax. He did not bother to say that the 33c rate is paid only on the last $1000 of income. The first $38000 is at the lower tax rate. It is only the last $1000 that is at that higher rate.That is typical of the spin of the National Party that we find so offensive.The Hollow Men is just as real today as when Don Brash was National’s leader. National members tried to bury that book when he left this Parliament but their attitude over the adjournment shows that every single page is still true. The ink is still not dry onThe Hollow Men. They talked about inoculating policies not fronting up to the public on what they really think and swallowing dead rats. All of those things were shown to be true over the course of the adjournment and no more so than in relation to removing the cap on general practitioner fees. Their attitude towards people is just to let them godown the road to another general practitioner. They want to let the invisible hand of the market overtake the provision of primary health services. National members are the unreconstructed right-wingers they always were and people should party vote for Labour to stop them.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): Today we have heard the greatest rewrite of New Zealand’s history that I have ever been involved in—that is the definition of what is a public-private partnership. That is what we heard from Annette King today in order to get herself off the hook after some stupid comment made by Steve Maharey that Labour would not let public-private partnerships occur even when building roads. Let us remember that every Labour Government in the states of Australia has involved public-private partnerships so it is not as if they are just for a Tory regime. The Labour Government in the United Kingdom built the M6 Toll with a public-private partnership. Socialist Governments throughout Europe have used public-private partnerships. But finally Steve Maharey who knows better than anybody else has said “No I have ruled them out.” He did that in a press release and Annette King had to get herself off the hook today so she redefined public-private partnerships. She said: “That is where the private sector—you know the chippies and the bricklayers—go in and they actually build it but the public sector the Government funds it.”Well I have news for Annette King—that is how it has always been in the history of this country. Under Michael Joseph Savage there were public-private partnerships under that definition. In other words the Government funded new schools but the private sector carpenters went in and did the actual work of building them.Dr Wayne Mapp: Sir James Fletcher.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Sir James Fletcher went in and did quite well out of them. I want to know from Annette King why the Government passed the Land Transport Management Act of 2003 which it said enabled public-private partnerships. Labour members said that that was great legislation. Darren Hughes said: “I welcome the public-private partnerships that are part of this bill.” But according to Annette King today the only thing that is a public-private partnership under Labour is a partnership when the State pays for it and the private sector contractors with their trucks asphalt and tarseal make it. Well I can tell Mr Hughes that that has always been the case. We did not need a Land Transport Management Act in 2003 because the Government has always funded the roads. Transit does not build a road; Transit actually manages it funds it and so on but it gets the private sector to build it. So what we have heard today has been the greatest rewrite in history.I want my colleagues in this House to know that every school that has been built in this country and every hospital that has been built in this country—in fact every prison and that will be of great interest to a number of people—has been built as a public-private partnership if we use Annette King’s definition. The State has put up the money but the chippies the carpenters the plumbers and the electricians working on those buildings have not all been Government employees; they have been private sector guys who came along and did the contracts to build them. This is the greatest obfuscation I have ever seen.But I want to cover one other issue today. Headlines in theNew Zealand Heraldtoday state: “Motorway work has not helped crawl”. It is not talking about the Labour Party; it is talking about the speed at which traffic now moves in Auckland. The article states that the average speed at which traffic now moves has dropped to 34 kilometres an hour across the whole 300 kilometre network of Auckland’s roading—the lowest ever. It is the lowest ever. The average speed has dropped to 34 kilometres an hour across the whole 300 kilometre network. Labour has perpetuated a couple of myths here. It says that it has put so much more money into roading. Well I think thateveryone knows that with inflation every year the amount of money spent on roading has gone up. When National was in power the amount spent on roading every year went up and even under Labour—sorry I do not want to mislead the House: under Labour there was one year when the actual amount of money spent went down.But everyone knows that as a percentage of the economy if that amount of money were to grow we should have seen it. If members look at the graph I have here they will see what percentage was being spent on roading by Labour as a percentage of our GDP. It was less. It was less than when National was in power during the whole of the 1990s—and those members opposite do not like that. If it were true and if they had solved the roading problem so Auckland no longer had the adoring drive time audience who are out there now listening to me—drivers who are stuck in their cars and will be for hours—then they would not have seen the article by MatthewDearnaly in theNew Zealand Heraldtoday stating that the average speed of the traffic on our motorway network has got to its lowest level ever.The reason is that this Government has not put anywhere near enough investment in. More important it has today totally ruled out any private sector money for roading. That is a disgrace.RON MARK (NZ First): I rise in this House today to ask a couple of questions. First what do GregCarvell Daniel Ball andShyan Ricky Hill all have in common? Indeed how do the names Steven Wallace and Stephen Bellingham sit with these names?Well GregCarvell we all know was a gentleman who defended himself whilst under attack. He shot a man and was subsequently charged by the police run through the courts and was acquitted. Daniel Ball was a 17-year-old youth who was doing nothing more than sitting at a bus stop minding his own business and talking with his friends when he was set upon and attacked by a passing group of young thugs. He ended up in accident and emergency care and very nearly lost his sight in one eye. His mother took the phone call late at night. It was the sort of call all mothers dread. Daniel Ball’s assailant some time later when he was finally caught—a man by the name of Michael CharlesBrunning—eventually ended up with a 21-month prison sentence.Shyan Ricky Hill is a young man who by the age of 5 had been admitted to hospital 44 times due to chronic asthma. He is ofMāori descent although he looks like aPākehā. He was raised in a law-abiding family. He did not steal he was not a thug and he was always told to get a job to work and to be a law-abiding young man. Indeed I know some of his family and they are all humble—not wealthy—law-abiding Kiwis.Shyan Ricky Hill was a trained chef who is described by his family as a gentle giant. He never caused trouble. He is a relatively sickly boy who is going blind in both eyes and suffers from dyslexia. He is on the waiting list for eye surgery. He is on numerous medications due to his asthma. He left his house little when he was young for the reason that he was often too ill. He was a hard-worker attending polytech in Christchurch during the day and working until 11 o’clock in the evenings.On a particular day in ChristchurchShyan Ricky Hill was at a bus stop when he was attacked by a group of skinheads. Due to his gentle nature he did not react to this assault. He simply extricated himself from the situation. He was very angry and upset and he told his parents. In some ways he reacted as an angry young man should act after a mindless attack. But he got on with it.On another particular day he was returning home from work late at night. He was sitting on a bus with hishoodie up and his earphones in whereupon he was attacked by a gang of six youths armed with knuckledusters spanners a flick knife and metal pipes. The youths began taunting him. He was wearing red. The young thugs who attacked him taunted him struck him and spat on him were members of a little thuggroup known as the Aranui TownMāori gang affiliated to the AmericanCrips who just happen to wear blue.Upon getting off the busShyan Ricky Hill was assaulted by one of the youths. He defended himself and in that defence he pulled out one of his chef’s knives from the bag he was carrying stabbed an assailant and put him down. The youth he stabbed was 6 foot 2 inches and weighed 16 stone. He was one of a gang of six. The youths attacked him because he was wearing red. They saw him as a member of a rival gang whose colour was red and he was nothing of the sort. He was not a gang member. Upon stabbing the youth he made no attempt to flee. He took instructions from the bus driver then eventually walked home. The police picked him up and took him to the cells. He had been working a late-night shift and the police kept him up until 5 in the morning taking information.The upshot of this is that at the end of the day—after depositions where the police tried to charge this young man and expressed the desire to charge him with attempted murder—Shyan Ricky Hill pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure. The sentencing judge sympathised with his predicament but gave him a 2-year prison sentence with leave to apply for home detention. His mother would have liked to defend the case vigorously and had she had an extra $50000 she would have done so.The question is: what price justice? The question is: what has happened to this young man’s attackers—these thugs these bullies these armed offenders? What has happened to them? We know that since then other young men have been assaulted. In fact the young man Daniel Ball was assaulted after that incident. The question for New Zealand is: how far are we going to go before we accede to the demands of the public that the laws of self-defence be tightened and that New Zealand citizens be given the right to defend themselves so that young men likeShyan Ricky Hill receive justice?MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am very pleased to take a call in this general debate. Has it not been interesting that all the contributions from National members have not been about how proud they are of the policies they espoused over the adjournment or about how proud they are of their vision for this country? No not at all. In fact John Key’s speech was incredibly flat. This was a man who suddenly realised that not everyone loves him and that as soon as he starts saying what he really thinks he is going to get himself into significant trouble particularly when he disagrees with his deputy leader Bill English on everything.Maurice Williamson is a man with an extensive knowledge of the transport sector and road-building. Unfortunately his knowledge is only theoretical because not a single new road was built during his time as Minister of Transport. He showed us a graph which apparently was about all the extra money he claimed to have got when Minister. Yet he is probably the only man in this House who is able to stand up and be proud of getting so much extra money without doing a single thing with it or having a single thing to show for it.But has it not been interesting over the adjournment? The “me too” mask of John Key has slipped and we have seen the cold face of the free market that lies behind it. When the rubber hits the road John Key does not have what it takes to be a leader of this country unless we want a Prime Minister who builds his policy on the last person he talked to especially when that person probably is Murray McCully.We have heard National members trying to claim that Labour is out of touch then they go ahead and copy all our policies. They have tried to say that this Government has no new ideas. This is a Government that has done more to prepare this country for the future than any other Government in recent history. We have KiwiSaver. We have the superannuation fund which means that New Zealand is now one of the most preparedcountries in the world for the baby-boom generation to go into superannuation. We have Working for Families which puts tax credits back into the pockets of families that need it most. We have increased industry training and Modern Apprenticeships and we have introduced a rates rebate scheme and paid parental leave. We have fairer industrial relations legislation. We now have every cent of money—and more—that comes into the Government coffers for transport spending going to transport. We have an independent foreign policy we are proud of our nuclear-free status and we did not go into the war in Iraq as the National Party would have.What does the National Party have—the new revitalised John Key National Party? It has the failed policies of the 1990s. Not one new policy has come out of the National Party that was not a resoundingly abysmal failure in the 1990s. National members have said they are going to sell our assets. They say they are only going to “partially” sell them but who really believes that National will only partially privatise assets? As Chris Trotter has said it is a little bit like being a “little bit pregnant”. But National is telling mums and dads that it is going to do this so that they can have an ownership stake in assets they already own. Well that is Tory generosity for us.Perhaps the most chilling thing about the announcements over the adjournment was the resurgence of the invisible hand of the market—the market will deliver for all of us. Well it worked great in the electricity sector. That has been a resounding success has it not? No one in New Zealand will say that the market has worked incredibly well for average consumers of electricity. But I say that when National pulls out of the public funding of health and when National pulls out of the public funding of schools the private sector will not flood into places like Wairoa GisborneŌpōtiki andWhakatāne to fill those gaps.The invisible hand of the market nearly destroyed our provincial communities in the 1990s. It was only because of the election of a Labour-led Government in 1999 that that process was halted and we have seen an absolute resurgence in the economies and the social cultural and economic well-being of our provincial communities. What happened in the 1990s under the privatisation agenda—which we are seeing being reborn here today—was that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The National Party delivered for its mates for its voters but everyone else was welcome to go to hell in a handbasket because they had not voted for the National Party.New Zealand deserves better than that—that should not be acceptable in this country in the 21st century. The Labour Party is here to govern for all New Zealanders. We are here to govern to ensure that the poorest the sickest and the most—well Chris Auchinvole thinks that this is boring. Chris Auchinvole thinks that this is a joke. He will never win that seat on the West Coast because of his Tory arrogance about the most vulnerable people. His party this week voted to say that rural and the poorest communities did not have the right to the same levels of safe drinking-water—that same certainty that Mr Auchinvole has at his house—or the right to expect that their drinking water was safe. Those members opposite are fine; Mr Auchinvole can afford a system that ensures that his drinking water is fine but a number of people in our communities cannot. Those are the people whom the National Party has never represented. Those are the people the National Party nearly destroyed in the 1990s so I urge people not to give them another chance.TIM GROSER (National): It would be tempting I suppose to describe the Labour Party’s reaction to the National Party’s external strategies paper as intriguing but I am afraid it would not be very accurate. The reaction we have had was exactly predicted and predictable. Rather than to understand that New Zealand foreign policy defence policy and trade policy should be guided by New Zealand interests which do not change with the flux of the electoral cycle every 3 years the last thing the Labour Partyactually wants here is an effective consensus between the two major political forces in New Zealand on key long-term external priorities and on how to pursue them.We have to ask ourselves how it is possible that the Labour Party could want to continue to draw controversy out of a large measure of consensus. Well we have actually had that demonstrated this afternoon by an earlier ludicrous attempt by Minister Goff to try to characterise the way in which we describe Iraq as a key issue facing this country. If the Labour Party really believes come the next election in approximately 12 months’ time that the New Zealand public will cast its decision about who will lead this country over an abstract debate about how we characterise the ongoing ghastly process in Iraq then I say good luck to the Labour Party. But I think the New Zealand public will be focused on the real agenda both internally and externally and fundamentally they are linked.We had a disappointment last week as a country at one World Cup. But every week there is a World Cup of an economic sort taking place around the world and New Zealand is not even qualifying. Next week 800 more New Zealanders will leave this country for Australia and 80 percent of them will be under the age of 40. We are not qualifying for that World Cup. That is the issue. That will be the decision that New Zealanders will have in their minds when they come to the crucial point in approximately 12 months’ time; not some abstract debate over false issues about how we describe the situation in Iraq.Let us examine a little more the “Labour-lite” accusation made about this paper. First of all when I was a young foreign service officer 30 years ago we used to talk about there being an effective bipartisan policy in this country on foreign policy broadly defined. I think there was such a policy but it was a fundamentally different bipartisan foreign policy from what exists today and it has taken about two to three decades to come into shape.The idea that this is a tango danced by only one player simply does not stand up to 5 minutes’ serious scrutiny. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Labour Party on these issues knows that it is inconceivable that the Helen Clark of 20 to 25 years ago would have committed SAS troops—as she should have—to fight alongside US troops in Afghanistan. It is inconceivable. Everyone who knows a little bit about the history of Labour’s foreign policy knows that it is equally inconceivable that the Helen Clark of 20 to 25 years ago—who espoused trade policies that were the polar opposite to the trade policies she is espousing today—would be out there now with the best of them negotiating free-trade agreements with China in spite of and sitting on top of opposition from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It is inconceivable.The Labour Party has made massive shifts I would argue quite correctly in response to the changed strategic environment facing this country. To pretend that this is only a one-way movement does not stand up to even elementary scrutiny.Let us look at the issue of defence. Labour’s front bench comes historically out of the left wing of the Labour Party in the 1980s which was a bunch of people who basically wanted New Zealand to adopt a non-aligned movement position on defence or even to move to neutrality—you know Sweden without the 3 percent of GDP spent on the armed forces. But I think those people have discovered—and I would argue “Thank goodness!”—to their astonishment that for foreign policy causes that they think and I agree with them are important to New Zealand such as intervention in Timor-Leste even that small country needs a highly effective military force. I think they have been astonished by their own changes. So the idea once again that this is a one-way movement does not stand up to any serious scrutiny.Let us move on to the fourth element which we did not develop in this paper because we had already addressed it in an earlier discussion paper put up by Dr Nick Smith. The fourth element is climate change.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Armed Forces Law Reform BillIn CommitteePart 1 Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Part 1 is the core part of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. National is supporting the bill. I want to acknowledge the members of the defence forces. Indeed I think all members of Parliament who spoke yesterday on this bill acknowledged that both Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs did sterling work for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I suspect that they may well have thought some of the questions were rather more complex than they had been expecting because after all this legislation is essentially non-contentious in the sense of a political contest. But this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this legislation right. So it was important that the select committee went through the bill pretty carefully using the legal knowledge of various members plus some experience of the armed forces themselves. We applied that carefully to the situation.I note given that the Minister Phil Goff is in the chair that the process on this bill was bipartisan. My colleague Mr Tim Groser has reflected very carefully on the bipartisan nature of many aspects of foreign affairs and defence. One would think the Minister would take that on board a little more.One would also think the Minister could take just a little bit of time and trouble to understand history. I am certain that this Government has issued medals with the word “Iraq” on them to recognise the service of New Zealand service people in Iraq. I wonder what that was for. Do members think service people were just handing out milk sachets or were they defence personnel? What were those television pictures I saw with heavily armed soldiers I guess going in to nail up schools and things like that? Do they need heavy machine guns for that sort of job? Do they need rocket launchers for that sort of job? That is how the New Zealand Defence Force operated in Iraq. So when the Government pretends we were there only for post-reconstruction—Hon Phil Goff: That is exactly what they were there for and the member knows it.Dr WAYNE MAPP: So why were the soldiers so heavily armed? Why did they have rocket launchers? Why did they have machine guns? The Minister needs to get off his high horse on this thing and recognise that the Government is on a bit of a loser on this one.Bipartisanship is actually quite important in defence and foreign affairs. I am pleased to say that National has taken a rigorous bipartisan approach to this bill. I acknowledge all members of the select committee and its chair Dianne Yates. We had a full opportunity to discuss the issues raised by this bill carefully. I acknowledge the role of the advisers who carefully went through the material.I want to say that this bill was very much initiated within the Defence Force itself. It is not one of those cases where the Government came along and said the bill set out what it wanted to do; this was the other way round. This was a case of the Defence Force saying it needed to update our armed forces law and this was the bill to do that.Nevertheless the bill raises a number of questions. Part 1 is quite complex; it covers many many different provisions. One of the issues that concerned us was the role and nature of the director of military prosecutions as outlined in new Part 4A inserted byclause 36 of the bill. The director is stated in the legislation as being primarily responsible to the Solicitor-General. That is obviously correct in terms of the legal aspects of that role. A bit like the Solicitor-General the director has to have an independent sense. But of course as we can see in this Committee today the director is a senior officer of the New Zealand Defence Force and therefore has all of the obligations in relation to command functions. So we thought it important to separate out those two points in the legislation and to make it crystal clear that the director is not so to speak completely divorced from the chain of command. The legislation had to reflect the dual role that the director necessarily takes.Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): I regard it as a privilege to be involved in this debate and I regret that I am not currently a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which is chaired by Dianne Yates. I was previously a member of the committee and I know that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp who has just finished speaking is one who takes a keen interest in legal matters having a doctorate in law. I am not legally qualified at all but I see the need for this legislation.Hon Phil Goff: You’re a bush lawyer.Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: As the Minister says I have pretty good qualifications as a bush lawyer though.To be fair in looking at this legislation I see that it is absolutely clear that it is due. It is absolutely clear that the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill which is shortly to be split up into other bills is one that the military establishment in New Zealand has certainly wanted. The military establishment has wanted modernisation of its statutes and of the law under which its criminal and military justice system work.The purpose of the bill is to establish or enhance an effective and fair system of military justice. Dr Mapp was quite right when he said we have the opportunity to look at these issues perhaps only once in a parliamentary career—maybe a couple of times if that. I have a few years under my belt as a member of Parliament now and there have been only three occasions that I can recall when bills involving the military and defence arrangements for our country the structure of the military and issues surrounding justice within the military have ever been brought to the attention of Parliament. One of those occasions was the Act of Parliament that provided a pardon for the officers and men—particularly New Zealand soldiers—who were court-martialled during the Great War and executed. That legislation was very trying for the families involved for the descendants of those soldiers and for Parliament to deal with. With the benefit of hindsight I guess—and several generations of families have gone since—we looked back and saw that perhaps the military justice system of the time was pretty harsh.This legislation is timely in that it brings the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 up to date and acknowledges the developments that have taken place in human rights laws both internationally and domestically as well as the passage in our Parliament some years ago—I think about 15 or 16 years now; maybe longer—of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Those developments have really meant that our legislation governing military jurisprudence has become a bit out of date. So it is very good that the select committee has worked through the issues in this legislation and that this bill when it is split up into its key components and becomes separate bills later will amend much of the legislation—the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990—that was the last substantive legislation involving our defence structure to deliver an enhanced military justice system for the New Zealand armed forces.The legislation which will be debated in the Committee part by part and perhaps even by individual clauses brings into effect many more modern provisions that are inline with the Human Rights Act changes and with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Our out-of-date legislation will be brought up to date in order to ensure that the same sorts of rights that we expect for the general public will also be applied to military personnel who for whatever reason have fallen foul of the law. The legislation will better serve our servicemen and women by applying the same rights that civilians enjoy in terms of the right to have advice and defence counsel etc. Those sorts of things will make a big difference to justice within the military.TIM GROSER (National): I rise to make a few points on Part 1 but before doing so like other speakers I recall the rather bigger picture involved here. Although the New Zealand public is hardly likely to be enthralled at this debate or even aware generally that it is taking place I think we are all very conscious of the fact that military discipline can become intensely controversial. As the previous speaker Harry Duynhoven has pointed out when it is perceived by the public that a major miscarriage of justice has taken place the public anguish can last 100 years.Once again I want to pay tribute to the professional staff of the New Zealand Defence Force who have been fantastic advisers to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Although this has been a deeply technical exercise of great complexity and sophistication I think the members of the select committee were very conscious that rooted behind this complexity is very clear evidence of deep-seated public concern that military justice must be seen to be done in a scrupulously fair manner or otherwise watch out! We spent a lot of time trying to get this bill right. We tried to bring it up to date with changes in society—not just in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in respect of broader societal changes in our community. I think with the aid of our advisers we have done I hope a job that will serve this country for at least the next 20 years when no doubt another generation of people will need to take a look at the same issues and reinterpret them in the light of changes.There is a very strong theme here and it is fairness. Fairness as we all know is hard-wired into the New Zealand DNA. Fairness has been the key hallmark of the examination of the amendments to the 1971 Act as this legislation has proceeded through the stages of the select committee process. I would like in a fairly mechanical sense to go through a couple of those issues to make that point. First of all with respect to giving greater clarity around the old issue of the commanding officer I think we have a much clearer definition here both in respect of summary proceedings and courts martial. It is quite clear that we are not going to tolerate a situation where people of the same rank or near rank will investigate each other’s misdemeanours. We know enough about human nature to know how dangerous that would be. The amendments to section 2(1) inserted by clause 4(11) particularly with respect to the superior commander and the issue of delegated authority to commanders down the rank should give the men and women in the armed forces a fair degree of assurance that fairness will be part of that process.There is also another theme I think that has underlain a lot of the work that has been done on this bill. We understand that there have to be special procedures in place to deal with the very challenging and specific characteristics of serving literally under fire at times and dealing with discipline that has a different order of importance from that in any other realm of life professional or personal in our country or in any country for that matter. Notwithstanding that qualification we have tried to ensure that we follow wherever possible civil procedures. For example I turn to the issue of time limits which is a very important issue in domestic law. Clause 12 deals with the elimination of time within which charges may be dealt with and covers a whole series of amendments to the 1971 Act which I think give greater clarity. In particular the prosecution of a charge that may be tried either summarily or by the more serious avenue of courtmartial has to take place within 3 years after the alleged commission of the offence. It is again a paralleling of a fundamental procedural point in civil law. Another extension of that philosophy or theme would be as in civil procedures that people may not be tried in respect of the same act or omission and there is some quite complicated drafting reinforcing that point.Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): First can I join with other members who have spoken in this debate in acknowledging the work done by the New Zealand Defence Force legal staff—in particular Brigadier Kevin Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Chris Griggs—to put together first of all the review and then in essence the bill that we have before us now. It was a huge task that took something over 4 years. We hope that it will outlast current members in the House. It is a bill that should stand the test of time. It is a bill that I think as Wayne Mapp has said is supported in a bipartisan way and I have tried to encourage that. The member will recall that right at the beginning I brought in members of each of the parties to have a chance to be briefed at firsthand by the New Zealand Defence Force and I think what we have seen at each stage of this bill is an effort by all members of the House to come out with whatever improvements might have been able to be made to the bill and a number of changes have come out of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. But there has been a wide-ranging endorsement of this bill and I am pleased that the Parliament has acted in a bipartisan way.I am however obliged to respond to WayneMapp’s wider comments of a political nature as he might expect me to do. Yes of course I say to Dr Mapp that I would welcome a bipartisan policy on defence but he should not pretend to this Committee that defence policy has been bipartisan over recent years. For heaven’s sake! That member amongst others on his side of the Chamber was saying that the scrapping of the air combat wing now so warmly endorsed by the National Party was going to leave us absolutely defenceless and bludging off our mates. That was the bipartisanship of the National Party up to a month ago. I welcome the miraculous transformation of those members and their sudden support for the sensible change in defence policy that this Government has introduced. But I remind that member too that through the 9 long years of the 1990s bipartisanship on defence policy was not possible as the National Government ran down the New Zealand Defence Force reduced its funding reduced its personnel sent our people out into the field in places like Bosnia with obsolete equipment and put their lives at risk. How could we have bipartisanship on defence policy when the National Government did that to the people who fought in the battles that are commemorated around this Chamber? It was a disgraceful policy.I am proud of the fact that this Government first of all put $3.4 billion into the long-term development plan so that we have decent equipment for our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force and then put $4.4 billion into the Defence Sustainability Initiative. If the National Party had nowhere to go at that point and had to come around to back the New Zealand Labour - led Government then I am not surprised and I welcome that but I hope that that bipartisanship is not like it has been shown to be in the past—simply a shallow disguise for a lack of policy a lack of commitment and an embarrassment at a track record that National was not able to defend. So much for bipartisanship. Yes this bill has been treated in a bipartisan way and I welcome that. I think that is very good.Mr Groser raised a number of points. I heard the comments he made on defence at the end of the last debate. He made the point that Helen Clark had changed her views over the last 22 years. I seem to recall a younger Tim Groser who had far more radical left-wing Trotskyist views than I have ever held in the course of my career. From Trotskyite to National Party member—talk about flip-flops! That is absolutelyextraordinary. I welcome Tim’s conversion to the parliamentary path. But it is not just 22 years ago I say to Mr Groser. I seem to recall that 2 years ago his views were somewhat different and miraculously changed on being offered a list position on the National Party. But so much for the politics of the issue.I agree with the points that Tim Groser made about fairness. He may recall that yesterday in the second reading of the bill I referred to the seven vital elements of a decent military justice system. Those elements in addition to fairness of course include the maintenance of discipline consistency in all strategic environments portability expedition efficiency and simplicity. I think those elements by and large have been incorporated in an effective way into this bill and that is why I mentioned before that I think this bill will indeed stand the test of time.I think there are a number of reasons why we had to have this reform before the Parliament. We need to have an effective and fair system of military justice just as we need to have an effective and fair system of justice right across the board in New Zealand. It was clear that because of the age of the legislation we had under the previous Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 we were vulnerable to being challenged on those principles of fairness impartiality and the independence of the process that was operated. In 1990 we passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Our military justice legislation in effect had elements that were open to be challenged on the basis of being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Fundamentally the principle that we have followed in this bill is I think the appropriate principle and that is that the military justice system today should apply to our armed forces personnel basically the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system to the greatest extent possible consistent with an efficient and disciplined operation of the armed forces.There are other changes that really did require new legislation. The Defence Force has changed quite radically over recent years and one of the critical principles of the New Zealand Defence Force today is the principle ofjointness yet we had a military justice system that operated differently for those in the navy in a number of respects from those in the air force and the army. It is important that we have a justice system that is common to all three services. That means that our military justice system with the passage of this bill will be consistent with the proper exercise of the joint command system within the New Zealand Defence Force.We went through this process very thoroughly in the New Zealand Defence Force. We looked at the experience of other States—in particular those States that we would most often compare ourselves with Australia Canada and the United Kingdom. I think we have learnt from the experiences there. We have come down with a system of military justice that has two critical components one being summary discipline and the other being courts martial. Summary discipline is of course the area that deals with the more minor charges and I welcome particularly the fact that now it will not be necessary to prosecute an officer under the courts martial system. He or she can be dealt with I think right up to the level of brigadier and brigadier equivalent under the summary justice system. I think that that is very appropriate.I welcome the fact that we now have a permanent and independent Court Martial of New Zealand in place of the rather ad hoc system that went before it. I welcome the fact that we have focused on the independence and impartiality of the key person who sits in that court—the Judge Advocate General. He or potentially she will now have the same security of tenure and retirement age as the Supreme Court judges. I think that is particularly appropriate.This bill has been carefully worked through. It did not attract a lot of submissions at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; I think there were only four. Some of those submissions including one from the Law Society were however very wellinformed. The bill has undergone some though not major structural changes in the select committee and I anticipate it will have the support and endorsement of all parties in the House.Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): My father who saw active service from 1940 to 1945 served in both North Africa and Italy. He went to his grave really resentful about a statement that had been made by a Governor-General in addressing defence forces. He started off by saying “Gentlemen of the air force men of the navy boys of the army”. Dad never ever forgave him for that.I mention that little anecdote because it demonstrates that we have moved on from archaic attitudes and therefore we have to move our structures and our legal procedures on a regular basis as a result of that. For example we no longer would even consider tolerating things like keelhauling or using cat-o`-nine-tails and those sorts of things. I think they have gone. Some people might advocate using them from time to time but even the gentleman beside me Ron Mark would not go as far as that. Nevertheless this is really what this Armed Forces Law Reform Bill does.It is worthwhile noting the age of some of the Acts that this bill amends and updates such as the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953—in other words it is 54 years old. So it is certainly timely that Parliament hasrelooked at how these things are worked out in terms of the modern world view. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 was also put in place quite some years ago and society has moved on enormously from that particular time in the way we consider how our citizens should be treated be they those on the main street or within the armed forces.I refer to the fact that comment has been made by a number of members about how the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked very much in a bipartisan way on this bill. The bill is of course non-controversial although one can see from the report back—and I was not on the select committee—that a lot of technical work and really considered thinking was done around getting the bill back to the House in the form it is in.I must admit the first select committee I ever served on was the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and in fact Dr Mapp was on that committee at that time. I can say if nothing else that he took the role extremely seriously in terms of trying to make sure the select committee came up with appropriate decisions. It really does beg the question that was raised by the Hon Phil Goff. If a select committee such as this one can work in such a bipartisan way in terms of getting the law around military discipline correct then why is it not possible to get the same sort of bipartisanship in terms of our defence policy?Dr Wayne Mapp will recall that at the time Derek Quigley was the chair of the select committee and we did a very very good report on the Defence Force theInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. The select committee concurred with most of that and I do not think members will find much in the way of minority reports but that was very much a bipartisan inquiry. It is disappointing that the two old parties particularly cannot put aside the adversarial nature of the first past the post system and be able to sit down and ask what the most important thing is that this country actually needs. It is to ensure the security of its citizens and I would say that we should work together on that. Members can still play games around public-private partnerships and agree to differ on those sorts of things. I applaud the members of the select committee because we can certainly see that they have done a very very good job in working on this bill to get it where it is and to achieve the ends of what the bill set out to do.I will bring up one or two other points. One is about media freedom. The bill still allows for the exclusion of the media where there is any potential danger of harm toNew Zealand or where the information might be directly or indirectly useful to any enemy of New Zealand and that is how it should be.I conclude my remarks on this call by saying this. Although things have changed and I have referred to some of those changes in attitudes and ideas one thing has not changed over all that time—that is the quality and bravery of our Defence Force members. I refer back to the very very appropriate awarding of the VC to WillyApiata. His bravery would have earned a VC at any time in the past.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call at this point. I want to refer specifically to a particular point that the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff raised about the whole issue of bipartisanship. We could bluff and bluster in this Chamber as various members are wont to do from time to time but there are some serious points to be made here.We need to understand why a certain level of bipartisanship which has taken a long period of time has emerged. I will not bear too much on this because I am conscious of the nature of the debate but the Cold War in essence ended 17 years ago. I think most people who were associated or connected with the armed forces understood the problems that the armed forces had in the deployment of Bosnia. They were well recorded by both the Government of the day and indeed the Opposition of the day.In 1996 when I was first elected I along with Derek Quigley who had been elected for ACT put together a proposal for the Minister Paul East. The proposal was that the select committee would conduct an inquiry called Defence Beyond 2000 and we did that for a very particular reason. We could see that world conditions had changed and we could see that some new thinking was required in defence.As has been well noted by Mr Donnelly the select committee worked very diligently on that project. In essence we came up with a structure of the defence force based on utility and it went something like this: a deployable army then aerial patrol and surveillance and naval patrol and surveillance so including an air component. A deployable army or land force obviously involves elements of all three services to achieve that outcome so one of the key recommendations made was for a joint service approach. We had looked at the 1997 review that had been done in the United Kingdom which talked about this a great deal. So the elements of a new approach to defence thinking were being formed and established in that select committee from 1997 onwards to rectify some of the transparently obvious problems that the Defence Force was having in being able to fulfil all the tasks that were being put to it at that stage.The current Government picked that up—and I ask members to bear in mind that this was before September 11—and used almost pacifist language whereby it saw a defence force as something akin to a constabulary and defence force personnel as really just police officers who happened to be in camouflage uniforms. After September 11 it became very obvious to the current Government that the role of the Defence Force and let us say an armed constabulary were very very different. I think the Minister would do the House and indeed the nation a service if there was some level of acknowledgement that the Government itself had to shift as well.So there has been a degree of convergence if you will of the parties in this House when faced with the contemporary challenges. As I said it is very easy to bluff and bluster on this to score political points but we need to look a bit more deeply at these issues and see why fundamentally this change has occurred. It is not only because different political parties have been elected or not. Rather it is because there have been some fundamental changes in circumstances: the end of the Cold War; a much greater use of expeditionary forces in nation-building or working in failed States; and the contemporary challenges around terrorism and so forth. Both parties have had to shift intheir respective ways. The National Party has certainly understood this well and we have been working on this for quite some time.I remind the Minister that by 2005 we had certainly formed the view that it was unrealistic to re-establish the air combat force in the way it had been established previously. That was actually clear in our policy from 2005. So it is simply wrong for the Minister to suggest that there has been some late discovery by National on the virtue of bipartisanship. This is something that has been emerging over a decade or so and that is an important point that I want to place on the record.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will call the member again but before I call him I have to tell him that he really has strayed from the bill. We have had a fair bit of leniency but he needs to come back to the bill.Dr WAYNE MAPP: Thank you Madam Chair. The point has been fairly made. I just wanted to put some points on the record as to how the debate has evolved.I want to speak briefly to two points. The first point concerns the new charges—essentially a modification of the charge of conduct prejudicial. This was designed in part to provide a better way of dealing with offences around unauthorised discharges. It is related to the way that summary proceedings can now be undertaken in relation to officers. This came about through a specific instance where an officer had committed an unauthorised discharge overseas. That is normally something that is dealt with in a pretty summary way but with an officer that was not possible. We understood that that person had to be brought back to New Zealand and tried by court martial which I think everyone thought was frankly an absurd process.So we were pleased to see that there has been a much more coherent way of dealing with that. I might just note that there was a reason why the proceedings did have to take place and that was that otherwise there was the risk that people who were not commissioned would be charged and if officers who did the same thing were not charged that would create serious disharmony within the military forces. So I certainly see that the Defence Force had no choice but to have the court martial but clearly it was a clumsy procedure to have to go down that path and I am pleased to see that we have provided a much more sensible approach to that.The other point I also want to bear on is the appeals from the summary proceedings. Most disciplinary issues that most service people will come across will be dealt with through what is known as the orderly room process. These issues range from soldiers not having their boots clean to I guess unauthorised discharges and the like and as Mr Mark—Major Mark I should say—indicated yesterday sometimes more serious things than those. One of the difficulties with this process—and it is inherent in a disciplined force—is that there are often tremendous pressures on individuals to plead guilty.Now I understand the reasons why those pressures exist but it does require a mechanism of review and National was very concerned about this. So one of the things we effectively put into section 128 is the ability for an independent entity—the Judge Advocate General—to refer a guilty plea to the Summary Appeal Court. This was because the individuals themselves may for one reason of another feel they just have to take it on the chin even though they feel unjustly dealt with. People might say that New Zealanders are not like that but I know for a fact that service people often feel put upon. I can see Mr Mark nodding his head to that effect. He has seen exactly the same thing both as a non-commissioned officer and as a commissioned officer so we know what we are talking about on this issue.So we felt it was very important that there had to be a mechanism so that if the individuals themselves felt they could not act—for whatever reason—then someone else could effectively act on their behalf. I was pleased that it was well understood by our advisers Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs that this was a changeto enable that fairness and that ability for someone else to act for someone who may feel disempowered. It was essential in the way we dealt with this legislation to provide a full measure of fairness in our armed forces law because we know the impact that disparity of rank can have on the way that people act within our armed forces. Actually there is not just the question of disparity of rank. There is also the importance of unity within an armed forces unit—be it a battalion or a company or a ship’s company or a squadron. There are enormous pressures for people to play their part and not create waves. That can of course sometimes—not always—run counter to giving justice in individual cases.So we spent a lot of time at the select committee trying to tease out these issues and amend the law where appropriate so those sorts of things would get proper consideration. I might add that the Sentencing Council was very much in that as well and my colleague no doubt will be talking about that.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I join my colleagues in speaking this afternoon on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. It is complicated legislation and I think the media will find absolutely nothing noteworthy in it but it is fundamentally important to the operation of our military services—army navy and air force—and it brings the military judicial system into line with our civilian law.The select committee process was as various speakers have said particularly rigorous. We had very useful input I particularly want to record from the Judge Advocate General’s committee. Two of the members came along spoke privately to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and had a significant impact on our final deliberations. I join with those who have commended the service of Brigadier Riordan and his assistant naval commander Chris Griggs. They did a very very fine job.If we take a slightly wider picture I think we can see the impact of having inadequate laws around the management of our military. We see the consequences of this in our region when people step outside the law. I am thinking now particularly of Fiji and of the situation a couple of weeks ago in Burma. While the opportunity presents itself I say that I am quite sure many people in this Committee are appalled at the actions of the Burmese military in shooting unarmed civilians. I hope that this legislation will prevent any of those sorts of circumstances getting out of hand in New Zealand.In respect of the bill I draw attention to the proposed Armed Forces Discipline Committee described in Part 1. The select committee made a contribution to this part of the bill in encouraging for it to be amended to provide for an Armed Forces Discipline Committee. That committee is provided for in a new section 160 in Part 8A which is to be inserted into the Armed Forces Discipline Act by clause 45 of the bill.In the select committee we also recommended that the Chief of Defence Force be required to cause notice of every sentencing guideline to be promulgated by defence orders. We recommended that in sentencing an offender under the Armed Forces Discipline Act the Court Martial should be required to impose a sentence consistent with sentencing guidelines relevant to the offender’s case unless the court was satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.We envisaged that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee would consider command issues arising from trials by courts martial. Every report submitted by a senior military member of the Court Martial under clause 38 of the bill would have to be laid before the committee at its next meeting. We required that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee meet at least every 6 months. That committee will be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and assisting him will be the Vice Chief of Defence Force; the three chiefs of the individual services; the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand; the JudgeAdvocate General; the director of military prosecutions; and a representative of the defence counsel.I think as members of a bipartisan select committee with the process that has resulted in this bill but I was rather astonished by the comments made by Minister of Defence Phil Goff recently in respect of his claims about Iraq. I draw attention to Saturday’s newspaper to an article written by Fran O’Sullivan in which she said—Hon Phil Goff: A well-known independent commentator.JOHN HAYES: The Minister may laugh at that but he might remember that I worked very closely in the ministry on these issues around the same period so I have some direct knowledge of what actually happened. As Fran O’Sullivan said—and I happen to agree with her—the Minister ought to be put out to pasture if the full-blown case of Alzheimer’s he has conveniently developed on Iraq exists for his other previous political positions. I am sure that would not be the case I say to the Minister. I remind the Minister that in 2003 he issued a number of statements foreshadowing that de-mining was one of a range of options that the Government was considering to ensure that New Zealand played its part in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in close conflict in Iraq.Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I am afraid I cannot let that sort of rubbish go unchallenged as the member probably expected when he made those comments. The Labour-led Government had a very clear position at the time of the invasion of Iraq: we were against it. National had a very clear position: it was in favour of it. Mr Hayes was not here then but Dr Mapp was and all members of the National Party including Dr Mapp voted for all practical support to be given to the coalition of the willing. So there is no suggestion at all that the Labour-led Government has been anything other than consistent—and history will demonstrate also right—in terms of the stance we took in respect of Iraq.Of course we welcomed the fact that the conflict at the time of the invasion was relatively short. We welcomed UN Resolution 1483 which stated that countries should try to help with reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq. We took that seriously and we committed our Defence Force engineers. But Dr Mapp made this point before: it is nonsense to suggest that those members of the Defence Force went there for any purpose other than for the reconstruction and humanitarian work that they carried out so effectively—rebuilding health clinics and rebuilding schools. They were not there as part of the coalition of the willing. It is not the Labour Government that has members who are guilty of hypocrisy in regard to their stance on Iraq. What the member has told the House frankly is totally wrong.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No I am sorry; the member cannot use that word. Withdraw the word.Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy” and replace it with the words “double standards” and “deliberate efforts to mislead and confuse the public” because that is exactly what that speech was.I pick up on something that the member said that is rather more sensible—he tries to say something sensible but then cannot help himself—in regard to the question of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We have repealed in this bill and I think rightly so the current provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act that would have allowed officers to interfere with or overturn the decisions of the Court Martial and that includes the abolition of the board of review. That was a very sensible thing to do because those powers should rest with the proper appellate body such as the Courts Martial Appeal Court. In our military justice system we have to reflect internationally recognised standards of independence and impartiality. That in fact is a requirement of section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.One of the members who spoke—and I cannot remember which of the two members it was—mentioned that the Judge Advocate General and I think the deputy had very helpfully appeared before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have their comments heard in private. One of the comments made was that senior members of the Defence Force could and should however still have the opportunity to make valid and useful contributions to the maintenance of service discipline in the new legal environment. To address that issue—and I support the committee in this regard—the committee recommended the establishment of an Armed Forces Discipline Committee to be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and to include senior commanders the Judge Advocate General the director of military prosecutions and a representative of the military defence counsel. They will consider reports and issues that arise out of the cases that are heard. I think that will be quite important in dealing with the wider issues so that this is not seen purely as a legal matter and we can learn the lessons from difficulties that might have arisen on disciplinary matters.I also say that I think one of the really important aspects of this new legislation is to ensure that New Zealand continues to have a well-trained and also a well-disciplined New Zealand Defence Force. We have seen in some of the deployments where we have worked alongside other defence forces how ill-discipline can create huge problems. Ill-discipline amongst defence forces can actually make a situation on the ground much worse—it can lose the potential support of the local community—and we do need to have provisions that allow our military structure to impose discipline where it is needed. I have to say that one of the things I have been really proud of in terms of the New Zealand Defence Force is that because of pre-deployment training and a good system of discipline and a good system of leadership our armed services personnel on the ground have generally done a superb job.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next speaker—the Minister responded to a previous statement which I had not called the member up for. I remind members that this bill is about the military justice system.RON MARK (NZ First): I guess though having opened the gate and allowed debate it would be disappointing if New Zealand First was to be treated differently and was unable to make some comment. I need to make a couple of comments.The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill seeks to modernise the Armed Forces Discipline Act. It seeks to modify the processes by which justice is delivered and discipline is maintained in the defence forces. That is in recognition of the changing circumstances in which our defence forces are operating the changing nature of our defence forces and the changing culture of New Zealanders in general. There are some things that people rightfully have an expectation of. It is good to see that the bill is delivering on those things particularly in respect of human rights issues which is one of the items the bill set out to address.I sit here as a member of New Zealand First—one of a number of minor parties that are represented in the House; parties like the Greens United Future Progressive the Independents the ACT party and theMāori Party. They should be here somewhere. Are they here? I cannot see anyone. Labour and National are here and it is a little bit galling to hear parties talking about bipartisan relationships. I did not go to university but the last time I checked the dictionary bi meant two unless it was referring to transsexuals or something like that—one of those sexual things that the Labour Party focuses a lot of legislation on. Being bi is the other meaning. But in this sense bi means two does it not?I say to Labour and National that there are more than two parties in the House. They need to take that message on board. No legislation gets passed through this place without the support of other parties—end of story. Indeed Government members are inthose seats enjoying the salaries and driving the cars they drive today only because other parties made it possible.Mr Cunliffe sits there and winds up his finger signalling to me that he is bored and that he finds this speech tedious. I have a message to him from New Zealand First: “You enjoy the job you’ve got and the privileges of office you hold because we put you there—end of story. Say ‘Thank you’ some time; don’t give me the ‘I’m bored’ hand signal.” Such contempt has repercussions. If he wants them then he should carry on.I say to National members that they should not go slapping the Labour Government around the head about its defence policies. If we want to go back down that path I remind the National Party that I was a soldier in the ranks in the army. We were running around saying “Bang bang.” because the National Government did not buy us blanks to fire out of our rifles. We played the classic old “Cowboys and Indian” game in reality as regular force soldiers shouting “Bang bang; you’re dead.” and “No I’m not; I got you first.”That happened because the National Government’s defence budget was so abysmal that we did not have ammunition to go to the rifle ranges and we did not have enough grenades to complete our qualifications at the end of each year. Each and every soldier was required to throw two grenades not one—this is where the word “bi” comes up again; a bi-grenade throw. I am not saying 22 52 or 102; all we had to do was each throw two grenades in 365 days. But we could not do that. We were so well funded that when I was deployed as an attached mechanic to Lieutenant Colonel David Maloney’s 1st infantry battalion to Australia I ended up unable to support my battalion in the field and unable to give them the mobility they needed because we could not get the spare parts. So what did I do? Well I swapped things I borrowed things I acquired things and at night I snuck into the Aussies’ bases and I stole them.Hon Member: What?RON MARK: I stole them—well acquired them; obtained them. We did whatever we had to do such was the lousy funding that the National Government was giving the defence forces. So National members should not give this House claptrap about how well National performs when it is in Government. If members want some real reminders they should check out who bought the Scorpions who bought theUnimogs and who bought theSteyr rifles—although we do not want to go there. Members should ask who made most of the major purchases and then ask who gave us the HMNZSCharles Upham.When National members want to talk about cross-party consensus let us talk about the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. That was an inquiry that most parties in this House signed up to whether or not around the fringes we disagreed that it was an issue. The one party that came out vehemently againstInquiry Into Defence Beyond 2000 was National. It came out with a counter-report and rejected our recommendation that it not upgrade theCharles Upham and that it buy a logistics vessel. I say that National members should give us less of the claptrap because the history books do not lie. The history books are quite accurate.At the end of the day despite New Zealand First’s agreement with the Labour Government over some aspects of the defence policy we say that most of the major procurements that have advantaged the defence forces over the decades—and some that Labour does not like to admit to like purchasing frigates—actually occurred during the Labour Government’s tenure.It is good to see that the bill has come forward at this point in time. Again it is part of the modernisation process. I do not think that it is deliberate that everything is going to be modified at the same time or that there is a deliberate modernisation plan. But it isconvenient and appropriate that the bill has come to the fore to modernise our legal processes and the development within the military.There is an interesting point to make here. I am very confused about National’s support for the bill given that it contains a clause to establish the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. Why would Mr Mark be confused? I did not sit on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but I have been reading the bill. As I read the bill I saw that it requires the Armed Forces Discipline Committee to do very similar things to the Sentencing Council. Do members recall the Sentencing Council? It is a newly formed body set up by the Criminal Law Reform Bill which was passed by the House recently. The National Party despite its members saying now that they objected to the bail provisions in the bill—which they did not; no objection was in the minority report—vehemently stood against the establishment of a Sentencing Council. But if I go through the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and look at the reasons for the establishment of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee one of the things I read—and I will leave it for the Minister to clarify and ensure that I am not misinterpreting this—is that the committee will promote consistency review sentences and give guidelines so that sentences will be consistent and there will be parity uniformity andoverridingly justice. I ask the Minister to confirm that because I think that is what the committee is for.Hon Phil Goff: That’s correct.RON MARK: That is what the Sentencing Council was for under the Criminal Law Reform Bill put up by the Government recently which the National Party decried bemoaned attacked vilified and voted against. But now it is OK. Well that tells me that something is a little shallow or possibly a little hollow. “Hollow” is a word that springs to mind. I say it is hollow criticism. It is hollow and feigned anger anguish and derision. It is opposition for the sake of opposition. There is no substance and no filling; it is simply hollow rhetoric from hollow men and women.In this bill there is a lot of ground to go over and I think the debate will be interesting as we go along. But I would prefer it if people stuck to the bill as opposed to straying into general issues of defence because let me tell members that for every shot there is a counter-shot. National needs to really go back and look at history before it goes down that path. I suggest it does not go down it.This bill is good in the sense that it brings some surety and refinement. Let me say to the House that I have been a private soldier in the Defence Force. I have been charged and have been in orderly rooms. I have been an NCO. I have charged people and put them into orderly rooms. I have been a subordinate commander. I have heard charges and delivered justice. I have also represented soldiers who I believe were served poorly by the military law. It is pleasing to see that such things as the right to have a court martial and the right to have legal representation will be cemented into the Act.Last night I started recounting a case of three soldiers who I believe were abysmally and poorly treated by the military justice system inWaiōuru in 1983. I could recount other instances where soldiers were ramrodded through. As a serviceman an officer and an NCO I understand—and New Zealand First knows intimately—the need for a robust expeditious military justice system to maintain discipline and standards. The standards demanded of the military are so much higher than the public would expect—so much higher than that—and that places extra constraints and requirements on the military. But justice must always be fair and injustice must always be able to be redressed.TIM GROSER (National): Madam Chair I am mindful of your directive that we must at least at some point in our speeches come back to Part 1—The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think everybody has had a fair go.TIM GROSER: —but I cannot entirely miss the Minister’s rather simplistic characterisation of my earlier political views.Hon Phil Goff: I think you should give us 10 minutes on that Tim.TIM GROSER: I might just take the member up on that. I just want to say that I am disappointed that the member did not go back to when I was 6 when for reasons both of principle and self-interest I used to believe in Father Christmas. I understand that the Minister could not possibly have grasped the complexity of student politics at Victoria University in 1969 which would by contrast make the internal politics of the Princes Street branch of the Labour Party at the same time look like a lightweight bunch of teenage socialites. We could perhaps discuss the complexities of that period on another occasion.I want to take up one point where there has been some debate between Mr Goff and Dr Mapp in relation to the strike force. I think the position here is pretty obvious is it not? There was room for a debate—where I might have stood is another matter—on whether we should have abandoned the strike force at the time the decision was taken. There was a range of arguments either way but I think the position that the National Party sketched out in its recent external strategy paper is based on one simple reality which is that it is impossible in any meaningful sense either technologically in terms of reassembling the human skills or in terms of the capital cost to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. It is utterly unrealistic to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. That is the basic reality.However as those who have read the paper with a little more care will have appreciated we still think there are some residual issues that need to be addressed and the recent debate over the future role of the Aermacchis I think is a case in point. There are some issues about the training of our troops in relation to the lack of a strike force that I think do deserve some serious consideration. That I think is the context of the change in position of the National Party. I think it is explained by simple realities. There was a case to debate at the time. Frankly to try to put Humpty-Dumpty together again now is just not a realistic position. National has accepted that and it has made its position very clear in this paper.In terms of the other theme of the discussion tonight by various speakers in relation to the role of discipline I just want to reinforce my own view about the absolute importance of maintaining discipline in this much more sophisticated role that the men and women in our armed services are increasingly playing in theatres of the world. They are exercising what I and others have called almost a quasi-political role. They are operating at the margin of politics one might say in societies that could not quite be described as failed States—although Afghanistan at a certain point certainly deserved that title—but where as in the South Pacific fundamental governance structures have broken down. Australian and New Zealand troops are working together in a very productive way and are playing one might say not just a stabilisation role in terms of law and order but a quasi-political role in that sense.I think our soldiers do a magnificent job. The National Party explicitly recognises that the multicultural nature of our army in particular is a huge asset. I was over in Sydney a few months ago speaking with some senior Australian foreign policy people who were absolutely explicit in their acknowledgment of the added positive dimension that the New Zealand defence forces play in these as I say quasi-political roles because of the multicultural character of our army in particular. Quite clearly maintaining discipline in this situation is a role that is not purely internal to the discipline processes of our armed forces but is crucial in maintaining the confidence of the local peoples in this situation. We know that there have been some appalling lapses—fortunately not involving our people—on this issue in other areas of the world which have raisedquestion marks about the whole suitability of having peacekeepers in certain roles. So we are asking a lot of our young men and women and our perhaps rather more mature commanding officers in very very murky situations sometimes and I think that military discipline is absolutely central to that. I hope our armed services will see this bill which brings up to date the internal procedures as fair and as reinforcing them in the right way.I have just a couple of minor points. I return to the theme of trying wherever possible to use civil procedures. I referred earlier to the provisions on time limitation for offences which principally model the philosophy of the civil process whereby one cannot be charged twice for the same offence. There is some very complicated drafting there about how to define the same offence given that in the course of proceedings additional charges may be laid. Some quite sophisticated thinking was done by the legal services of the New Zealand defence forces which I hope and trust will serve the test of time. Again on this theme there are provisions to deal with situations where personal interests have come in. That I think is in section 108 inserted by clause 37. There are some very careful words to recognise the difficulties that could arise. Members of the family may be involved. In a small community such as ours that may indeed be the case particularly where individual families have a proud and long tradition of service. There is a whole series of other consequential changes in Part 1 which are very much consistent with that philosophy.DIANNE YATES (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to speak during the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill as we discuss Part 1. As chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I regret that I missed the report back on the bill. I particularly want to thank the committee for the work that was done on the bill. For all members of the committee as has been mentioned by Ron Mark it was not so much a bipartisan as a multiparty committee because we have a Green member and an Independent member and Ron Mark from New Zealand First sits on that committee from time to time when we are discussing military matters. I thank him for his contribution to that select committee.I want to thank Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs for the work that has been done not only on the bill but on the review. The review itself is a doorstopper an enormous piece of work that was done over a long period of time. Their names do not appear on this legislation and that is a pity because of the work that has gone into it. A tremendous amount of interviewing study and legal review has gone into not only the review but also the legislation itself. I also want to thank them for the way they worked with the select committee. I found them extremely receptive to suggestions made by members of the committee and very thorough in the way they followed up those suggestions came back with changes and worked with the committee on producing the legislation with changes that we have before the Committee today.As has been said the bill makes amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990. As has also been mentioned by others changes are happening in the military in countries very much akin to New Zealand and there was a significant influence from the United Kingdom on this legislation.What is important as has also been mentioned by others is the balance between the modern way of looking at human rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the maintenance of discipline within our armed forces. Compliments have been paid today about the discipline of the New Zealand armed forces and I think it is largely because of the attitude of those who are in command in our forces that there has been not only through the legislation but also on the ground a good balance between humanrights and the maintenance of discipline in our forces. Our forces are held in respect by other forces throughout the world.I remind people that we are talking about Part 1. The debate has wandered over a whole range of issues from New Zealand’s military engagement in other countries to New Zealand’s military equipment but we are actually talking here about the law within the armed forces in New Zealand.Once again I thank all of those who were involved with this bill not only fellow members of the select committee but also BrigadierRoirdan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs. I also thank those who made submissions. It can be very very difficult to get submissions. One of the things the committee was concerned about was the level of consultation. Although public submissions were called for this is not a bill that members of the public feel highly involved in. Very few submissions were received—in fact there were four. We received submissions from the Law Society and we also considered a paper from the Legislation Advisory Committee. The select committee itself was concerned to ensure that through the review and the advertising processes people in the military forces were able to comment and that there had been thorough consultation throughout the process. As I have said this is not the type of legislation where large numbers of the public are involved in making submissions.Once again as has been mentioned by members I say a number of changes were made to the bill particularly in Part 1—some minor and some quite major—and particularly in relation to the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We were very pleased that that matter was able to be worked through with our advisers and that we have come up with an amicable solution that all members agree with.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Part 2 includes debate on schedule 3.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): This part relates to courts martial appeals. One of the important changes in this legislation which I think has been very well done is to change the very nature of courts martial. It is also referred to in Parts 4 and 5 and we will speak on it briefly at that point as well. Essentially the change is to shift a court martial from the traditional approach whereby the “judge” was merely acting in the role of an adviser and the presiding officer was a senior military officer. The new approach which I think is a much better approach is to have the judge acting as the presiding officer. I think that is very important.This is a legal process. It is very formally constituted. It is not rushed; it is not done under the stress and heat of battle or in operational circumstances. These things are done in a formal and considered way and therefore we expect the full proprieties around the legal observance of rights and duties and the rights of the accused to be properly protected. We know from deep experience extending over literally centuries that there is right way to do that: by having an independent judge and then in a sense by having a jury of the accused person’s peers to determine the finding on the facts. We will have as the presiding officer a judge from the Judge Advocates General all of whom are District Court judges or indeed High Court judges at the appellate level. Then we will have commissioned officers and senior non-commissioned officers acting as the board—or as the jury to use that analogy. It is not a perfect analogy but it is robust enough to enable us to see the importance of the change.I think this is a very important change. A court martial deals with serious offences. Many of those offences are also breaches of the civil law. Without going into the details of any particular trial there was a whole series of cases in the navy in particular several years ago relating to sexual harassment and the like that were very difficult for the navy to deal with and they were also very difficult for the court martial process to deal with. I think this new procedure will be much fairer both for the accused and for the complainant. In that situation the offence was not so much against service discipline but actually against particular fellow service people—mostly women obviously—so the complainant has rights and expectations as well as the accused. There has been a careful balancing of that and a new structuring of both the appellate system and under Part 5 the new court martial procedure.In legislative terms we have essentially borrowed the approach of the United Kingdom Canada and Australia but in principle terms we have really dug deep into the civil system. That is the real reference point as it was for those other Commonwealth jurisdictions. I believe this is a very important and significant change. It will be one that I think will give people in the defence forces a great deal more confidence in the process whether they find themselves in the role of the accused or the complainant or for that matter whether the service itself is the complainant. This is an important change.We heard some very very good submissions from the Judge Advocates General on these points all of whom are highly experienced people with roles as defence counsel as civil prosecutors or indeed as judges. I think that the legal services directorate has put a great deal of work into getting this part right. Members will note that this was not an area that we needed to change very much at all. In fact to be fair we did not have to change much of the bill but we did focus on some important parts. I commend the directorate for stepping back getting a much better system and gaining the confidence of people from other parts of the services who I suspect might have been a little wary of the new approach. I am sure that it was hard work to convince them that this procedure was a necessary thing but I commend the director of the legal service for achieving this outcome.National is pleased to support these new changes.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr WAYNE MAPP: I was taking the opportunity to talk about Part 2 which is on courts martial appeals and I was setting out why in this whole area of courts martial we have made important changes. I think these changes are fundamentally for the good because they provide a much fairer procedure and I think they will be transparently seen as providing a much fairer procedure by both the accused and the complainant whether that be effectively an individual complainant within the defence forces or if it is a broader offence against service discipline then the service itself. There is an important balancing of rights.As the Minister noted members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—perhaps more particularly those from the National Party—have taken a bit of an opportunity to talk about broader issues around foreign affairs policy and bipartisanship and I guess one would say that the Minister joined robustly in that kind of debate. I know that strictly speaking we are meant to stick to the part of the bill that is being debated but the truth is that we get very few opportunities in the House to discuss these things. In fact one of the recommendations made several years ago by the select committee was that there ought to be an annual 3-hour debate in the House on foreign affairs matters so that those issues could be properly discussed.Darren Hughes: We would welcome that.Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am very pleased to hear that the Labour junior whip welcomes that.I will take a minute or so just to set out a little more detail on how National arrived at the paper that it distributed last week. It has had a long gestation.Darren Hughes: It will take only 1 minute.Dr WAYNE MAPP: I just inform the member who was probably about 10 at the time when the Cold War ended in 1990 that that really is the genesis of the changes around foreign policy in New Zealand. The period 1984-90 was a difficult period for New Zealand; Labour members well know that. But after the end of the Cold War we had a new opportunity to look at these things again. In particular we had the issues of the deployment to Bosnia the ageing of defence equipment and the defence beyond 2000 investigation in the select committee from 1996-99 very much encouraged by the Hon Paul East and undertaken very much by Derek Quigley and myself. That I think laid the groundwork. The other crucial element was September 11 which I think was really a wake-up call in particular for Labour which realised—The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come to the bill.Dr WAYNE MAPP: I will be coming back to the bill because it does—and this is important—talk about bipartisanship. This is a bipartisan bill. I am sure that you Madam Chairperson will indulge me for another 30 seconds when my speech will be over. Essentially there has been a convergence. Both sides had to shift and that is actually the strength of bipartisanship. Both sides recognise the interests of the other side and incorporate them in their thinking. I think other nations have started to see those values and those strengths.I return now to courts martial appeals and I might just conclude on this point. New Zealand Defence Force personnel are incredibly well trusted. One of the reasons they are trusted is the fairness and the openness of our disciplinary procedures. When we are deployed internationally—Madam Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is going to stick to the bill?Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes I am. One of the important values when one is deployed internationally is that it is not just justice within the particular defence force that is important—it is obviously important to the individuals within that defence force—but it is actually hugely important for the people with whom one is deployed. They have to have confidence that the disciplinary procedures in place will ensure that if there are transgressions by members of the defence force or I guess by civilian contractors—and all defence forces use those I might add these days—there is a robust justice system that they can rely on to hold people to account.I note that the directorate of legal services is especially mindful of that in places like East Timor Bougainville and the Solomons. Part of the confidence building amongst the people with whom we are deployed—which I must say the New Zealand Defence Force truly excels at—is knowing that if there are transgressions within our own Defence Force we have a high-quality legal procedure that brings people to justice. It is an interest process. In a sense it works in two ways does it not? Those people have to know that transgressors will be brought to justice. They then have to see that the justice system that we apply is actually fair—not just fair to them but also fair to the accused because part of what we are doing part of the role of peacekeeping is inculcating the values of fairness and justice and those values need to be seen primarily in the justice system that we ourselves apply. It needs to be seen that there are no issues of favouritism no issues of bias and no issues of the offender knowing he or she will possibly get an easy ride for the sake of service unity or something of that nature. There has to be sufficient independence in the system for it to speak to people in the places where we are deployed that we have a fair system which is fair for everyone concerned.This bill is part and parcel of modern contemporary operations. Right from the summary proceedings through to the courts martial and through to the courts martial appeals system we are building into the system that sense of fairness. And fairness is essentially built by having an independent judiciary. The old court martial system and the appeal system related to it was always subject to the criticism that it was overly influenced by issues of command and did not take into enough account issues of judicial independence. The new system essentially rectifies those defects. We now have a system at the level of courts martial and courts martial appeals that is transparently independent. The judicial officers are independent from the military chain of command. The director of legal services who is present in the Chamber as we speak is in fact accountable in his legal capacity not his command capacity to the Solicitor-General and that is actually part of the strength of this new system.I want to close on this point. I do congratulate the defence forces and in particular the director of legal services—but also actually the superior command system—who could see the importance and value of this new system in building the approach that now is so integral to the quality of the defence forces that New Zealand provides. We are best at providing high-quality focused contributions and they are built very much around specialised patrol and surveillance. They are built around the special forces. I just want to share this point. In Afghanistan our special forces expressed their own concerns about the way the people whom they were capturing in the field were being treated. I think it is a tremendously important attribute of our defence forces that they have placed justice at the centre of the whole way they conduct business.RON MARK (NZ First): Again we get into the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and I thank Dr Mapp or should I say Captain Wayne Mapp formerly of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment for again expanding the debate just a little bit. In coming back to the bill I will follow that same pattern briefly and just comment on some of those expansions.My partner and I had an interesting discussion over the dinner break as we often do about what is happening and I commented on this bill. I was reflecting on the discussions that had happened in the Chamber prior to the break and on how some of the debate had sort of moved outside of the bill to talk about the modernisation of defence forces bipartisanship and all those wonderful things—and an agreed defence policy.I reflected on my comments and it gave me cause to remember something else from when I was serving in the New Zealand Army. It is very pertinent because when the two old parties start slagging and bagging each other as to who did the most for whom where and at what time it is often those who are serving in uniform at the time who know best. Well it is generally the case that they know best the reality of what is actually happening at the coalface of the defence forces.I recall a time when I was a corporal in the armoured regiment up atWaiōuru. I was going into a Q store and looking on the floor. There was an object that looked as if it were made out of plywood covered in camouflage net. I wandered over and looked at it and I saw that it had a big tube sticking out of the front of it. I wondered what it was. It did not look like military hardware. It had all the appearances of being the turret of a tank except that it was made out of wood. Then it was explained to me: “These are the tanks that we have when we don’t have tanks because we don’t have tanks that go.”! It reminded me—John Hayes: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The discussion we are having at the moment bears absolutely no relationship to the bill under consideration particularly to Part 2.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right but as the member knows he spent a good deal of his speech doing the same thing and so did Wayne Mapp. I do detect a certain enthusiasm for what we are discussing but I just ask the member to wrap it up and come back to the bill as soon as he can.Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know that part of that interchange was light-hearted but during the course of it the member for Wairarapa Mr Hayes interjected directly on you and then made an incredibly unparliamentary remark about your office. I think despite the debate’s light-hearted nature—and he is now interjecting on me during my point of order as well—there does have to be lines that we do not cross. I think that member did and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise if the remark was unparliamentary.John Hayes: I withdraw and apologise Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.RON MARK: Thank you Madam Chair.Bob Clarkson: Tell us the end of the story.RON MARK: Does the member want me to go right back to the start? Well there was a time when our New Zealand army was so well funded that we had to dress up armoured personnel carriers with plywood mock-ups of turrets and pretend they were tanks. That was at a time when I was posted to the armoured regiment in 1977 and I am trying to think of who was in Government in 1977.Hon Ruth Dyson: How many syllables?RON MARK: How many syllables? Well I think it is easy is it not? It was National I tell John Hayes which is probably why he took that rather spurious point of order and tried to intercept me and interdict me. But we need to be realistic and that is why I think it is welcoming to see the new philosophy of the National Party. It has simply given up trying to have defence policy and has decided to copy Labour just as it copied from New Zealand First’s manifesto all the way through the last election.It was nice to have that slight diversion in the debate as Captain Mapp did before coming back to the bill. We can keep taking these diversions as long as we like because the night is long and it is quite entertaining—like the time when an umpire was telling a soldier “You are dead—lie down.” This was at the time that we did not have blanks because the Government was not paying the Defence Force enough money and soldiers had to go “Bang bang! You’re dead.” An umpire was telling a soldier to lie down because he was dead but the soldier kept coming. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!” and the soldier who had shot him was saying “Sir I shot him; I said ‘Bang bang!’ ”. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!” but the soldier kept coming and said “No sir—clank clank; I’m a tank.” I think that was in National’s time in Government as well.We can throw accusations at each other all night long as to who spent more and when and what for defence or who did the most but I seriously have to say that legislation like this on the back of a long-term development plan and on the back of a range of things that have happened indicates that in actual fact the Government has not done too badly. We do have serious differences over some aspects such as the combat air support—which National has now rolled over on as well—and we do have serious differences over pay and salary. But at least the Labour Government has addressed that unlike National which would not do so when Jenny Shipley was here.This legislation is important to New Zealand First and it is important to me personally because it is only when people are actually serving in the military and get to be subjected to military law and get to administer military law that they realise thingsand find themselves questioning the rather archaic nature of some of the procedures systems and customs and the relevancy of those to the modern situation.It is always useful to go back to the very first briefing we received from the military. I am holding it right here—this colour print-out on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. When I look at it I can see the principles they strive to adhere to. It states that everyone charged with an offence has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer and that everyone who is charged with an offence has in relation to the determination of the charge the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. One of the difficulties with the legal system which I witnessed in my time in defence was that often there were rights bestowed on people or available to service personnel that were never taken advantage of or were reluctantly tried or applied for or sought. Sometimes the fear of the repercussions deterred and intimidated service personnel from taking some of those options.I will give members an example. As a junior officer based at Linton Camp and second in command of a unit I had occasion to find myself rather interestingly on a charge. I was on a charge in front of the camp commander—ColonelWedde I think his name was—and the charge had been laid against me by the officer commanding me. It was a rather curious situation because very very rarely does a commanding officer ever charge another officer but there I was. I was marched up in front of the commanding officer and the standard question was put: “Will you accept my punishment?”. A lot of defence force personnel will say yes even though they know they should say no. But the fear of an elevated set of repercussions coming down upon them will often intimidate them into saying yes. The fear that they are unable to articulate their case and the mitigating factors and the fear that they will be overawed by the circumstance will often lead them to plead guilty say “Yes I will take the punishment” and move on from there. Being the sort of chap I am—Dr Wayne Mapp: Probably less likely to be court-martialled.RON MARK: Right—but being the sort of chap I am I said no. The consequences of a captain in the army telling the camp commander “No” are quite severe. That immediately elevates to a court martial. So I was promptly advised of the consequences of my decision and asked whether I would like to reconsider. I said “No.” The matter was adjourned for a moment and I was taken outside and counselled and I was promised and assured that if I just accepted my punishment it would be easy going—it would go away. It was a bit of a nonsense situation. I said “No. I am fully aware of the implications and I want a general court martial.” Well matters were adjourned from there and we ended up with a court of inquiry which suited me down to the ground because it enabled me then to put my officer commanding in the witness box and question him and to call witnesses.The result of that court of inquiry was that all charges were dismissed and a certain officer was made to look a bit of an idiot which pretty much fitted the reputation he had garnered for himself anyway. And we moved on and lessons were learnt. But it has always troubled me that on occasions when soldiers and defence force personnel had options available to them they were often more prepared to stand firm keep their heels together bite the bullet say “Yes sir!” accept the punishment and march out. It was done dusted and gone and they got over it.Bob Clarkson: Why don’t you do that right now?RON MARK: I say to “Bob the Builder” “Mr What’s-his-name” from Tauranga that it is because I see things that are wrong and I challenge them. I see things that are not right that are improper and lack justice and I do not accept them. I see things as they could be and I strive for that. If the day comes when I lose that passion and that drive then I might as well lie down and die like that member has already and mycontribution to the nation will be equivalent to what he is providing right now. No! Some people have the strength determination understanding and confidence to go forward but some people do not. I see in this legislation a degree of empowerment and recognition that might not necessarily have been available to people in the past.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I am interested in the comments of the previous speaker Ron Mark which I think reflect the fact that the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill has not been read by him.I rise to speak on Part 2 “Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953”. First I would like to explain that one of the reasons the select committee had to address this issue was that there were different systems of disposal. Disposal means getting rid of a charge or dealing with a charge and the navy had a different system to the army and the air force. The system was far too complex and provided no consistency in all strategic environments.The second problem was that as summary disposals were conducted by officers in command rather than in the courts it was not contemplated that an accused be legally represented and there would be no appeal from a finding or punishment to a higher court. That provision was questioned by a number of people in my electorate who are retired military personnel. They were concerned that we would get a de-linkage between a person committing an offence and the officer imposing a penalty for whatever the offence was. Amongst some of the shall we say older guard there were some reservations about this.We also felt that there was no ability to deal summarily with minor charges against senior officers. The resulting requirement to convene a general court martial to try those officers for minor offences was considered to be both inefficient and unwarranted and an unnecessary amount of public expenditure was involved. Up until the enactment of this legislation that we are now passing including today the courts martial are convened by senior officers in command who approve the charges and also appoint the prosecutor and members of the court—that is the military officers who perform as a judge and jury might in a civilian court. In the minds of the select committee members this structure raised doubts about the independence of the court given the status of the convening officer as a member of the executive combined with the responsibility for the prosecution and the appointment of court members.The efficiency and effectiveness of the military system is affected by the fact that the Judge Advocates—read that in terms of being a military judge—have no power first of all to determine evidential and procedural matters or to grant bail. In a situation where a person was awaiting either a judgment or verdict or even charges he or she could not be offered bail. That was all pretty unreasonable. For the first time in our New Zealand military law this bill provides a common system of summary discipline that is far more efficient than the status quo and which at the same time complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will promote measures that should enhance public confidence in the disciplinary regimes of the army navy and air force.I think also that the proposed disciplinary system in Part 2 will maximise efficiencies in the trial process while complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and will promote measures that should enhance everybody’s view of military justice. The bill will also establish a permanent Court Martial here in New Zealand to replace the current ad hoc courts martial. The Court Martial will try those cases that are far too difficult for just passing off to summary trial.Finally Part 2 will make a number of reforms to military law that first of all will improve compliance of courts of inquiry with commonly understood principles of justice. Part 2 will also close the gaps in the application of military law to modern operational circumstances. Finally it will produce a modern military justice system thatin all respects is efficient effective and fair to New Zealanders who serve in the armed forces. Our men and women who do that deserve that situation as a very minimum. I particularly want to thank Minister Goff for arrangements he made in a bipartisan way for members of our select committee to visit HMNZSPhilomellast week. Thank you.DIANNE YATES (Labour): I thank the previous speaker John Hayes for actually addressing Part 2 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill which is what this part of the Committee stage of the bill is about. As he said the bill is very adequately explained in its explanatory note: “The Bill will for the first time in New Zealand military law provide for a common system of summary discipline that is more efficient than the status quo while complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and combining the best elements of the current naval army and air force disciplinary regimes. Following developments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere the Bill will also establish a permanent Court Martial of New Zealand to replace the current ad hoc courts-martial. The Court Martial will try those cases that are too serious for summary trial.”When we look at Part 2 we see that just one letter is changed in clauses 87 88 and 89. We have moved from “Courts Martial” to the “Court Martial”. It is a very simple change but very significant. The other points of Part 2 that we are concerned with are that we have moved to the “Chief High Court Judge” rather than the “Chief Justice” in section 4 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act through an amendment made by clause 92 and matters relating to bail and bail conditions and matters relating to appeal are outlined in new provisions listed in clause 93. We also have provisions on the rights of appeal against conviction or sentence. Part 2 is quite detailed and very significant in terms of the changes made.There are also provisions on the powers and supplementary powers of the court. Very few changes were made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in that regard. Part 2 gives the details that are significant in the establishment of the Court Martial of New Zealand as opposed to the ad hoc courts martial which is the major change and is very significant in terms of the bill as a whole. The details are there. I say for the benefit of those who are listening that one of the important things to know about legislation is that quite often a very small change in the wording has a very significant change in terms of how justice is actually carried out.Once again we thank those who worked on the bill. We thank the committee for its unanimity in its approach to this particular area. The fact is that this is not bipartisan legislation. As Mr Mark pointed out we are now in an MMP environment. We have multi-parties on the select committee including an independent member and for the sake of legislation around this area we have also co-opted New Zealand First whose members have contributed although they are not voting in matters dealing with the armed forces. I keep reiterating that we are in an MMP environment. It is a multiparty decision. Thank you.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Defence Act 1990DIANNE YATES (Labour): Part 3 is a very very small part of the bill and it is basically about the redress of complaints. It is barely half a page long but once again it is one of those things that is very important in terms of the working of the bill. It amends the Defence Act of 1990. That is a significant change; it is a very small one but nevertheless it is significant.Part 3 agreed to.Part 4 Preliminary provisions relating to Court MartialCHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): As I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered this bill it has been interesting to sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate concerning the provisions that have been reported back from the select committee. Clearly this is desirable legislation. The justice system in New Zealand’s armed forces is currently governed by legislation that is patently out of date. The armed forces’ justice system needs to be updated and made consistent with international developments in human rights law as well as of course with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It seems clear from the comments in previous speeches—and as Dianne Yates said earlier—from the evidence of the multiparty support that exists for the legislation that it will better serve our servicemen and servicewomen by applying to them as many of the same rights enjoyed by civilians as are compatible with the military environment.Mr Hayes described the regime relating to the summary procedure on the one hand and the court martial procedure on the other. I would like to speak about some of the significant provisions that appear in Part 4 that set out the preliminary provisions relating to courts martial. Subpart 1 sets out the purposes of Parts 4 to 6. It provides an overview of those parts defines the terms used in those parts and settles the relationship between them and the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. Supplementary Order Paper 151 recommends that Parts 4 to 6 be a separate bill the Court Martial Bill the purpose being as we have heard to establish the Court Martial of New Zealand as a permanent court of record and to deal with associated matters in stand-alone legislation.Subpart 2 establishes the Court Martial of New Zealand. It can be seen that the Court Martial will be a court of record. It will have all the powers inherent in such a court for the purposes of any proceedings. The Court Martial will sit in divisions each comprising one judge of the court. Each division of the court will be able to exercise all the powers of the court even though its other divisions are exercising any of those powers at the same time. The Court Martial is to comprise the Chief Judge and at least six other judges. The Governor-General is to appoint all the judges including any deputy chief judges. The status of the court is established clearly and consistently with its status as a court of record.Subpart 3 sets out the constitution of the Court Martial for proceedings for the purpose of any trial. It must consist of one judge and either five military members if the proceeding is in respect of an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment of 20 years or more or in any other case three military members. The Chief Judge is to assign a judge for the proceedings. The registrar is to assign the military members in accordance with certain specified eligibility criteria and in light of certain other factors—for example the seniority of the accused and the seriousness of the charge facing the accused. The accused may object to the registrar about the assignment of any person as a military member on the ground that the person might not act impartially or is not in a position to act impartially or is disqualified from membership as a military member. If in that case the registrar accepts the objection made the registrar may assign a substitute military member to fill a vacancy in the military membership of the Court Martial.Subpart 4 is of interest because it specifies the duties of the members of the Court Martial. For the judge those duties include responsibility for ensuring that the trial is conducted in accordance with the bill the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 and the rules of procedure in a manner that is appropriate for a court of justice. For the military members those duties include responsibility to consider all the evidence admitted by the judge at the trial and to vote impartially on the finding and if necessary on the sentence.Just briefly and to complete the call on this part I draw the attention of the Committee of the whole House to clause 146 which provides that the senior military member must report any command issues that arise during the proceedings to the superior commander who referred the charges to the director of military prosecutions. Clause 147 goes on to prohibit the taking into account of the manner in which a military member performed his or her judicial duties in that person’s career management. It is clear that this part contributes in a significant way by setting out the preliminary matters relating to the constitution of the Court Martial in this way so as to ensure that it is a properly constituted court of record in accordance with the general objectives of the bill.TIM GROSER (National): I will take just a brief call on Part 4 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Obviously in dealing with the procedural provisions of the Court Martial we are dealing with the more serious offences. I always recall a very experienced European negotiator saying to me years ago: “Those who decry the importance of arguments about procedure do not understand that behind every procedural argument lies a fundamental point of substance.”When we look at the procedures here the first point is that we are moving from a relatively ad hoc process to a permanent court of record. If we look through the other clauses we can see that in clause 122 there are minimum credentials set down for the members of the Court Martial. There are quite clear provisions indicating that a high level of expertise is required. Clause 123 indicates that the judge must have been a practising barrister or solicitor for 7 years or is a District Court judge.The independence of the judiciary here is crucial. I think a lot of members were quite interested in the personal story of Mr Mark. The dangers of what I would call a closed-loop system were very nicely illustrated by his personal story and I think it is very important that we are moving in this direction to end the closed loop. So we are in a situation where the independence of the accused and the independence of the process have a higher level of independence and I think that is highly desirable. The Chief Judge of course is appointed by the Governor-General and therefore does not owe his or her position directly to the military.There are important protections built into Part 4 concerning the security of tenure for the judge. In clause 128 we see that a judge may not be removed except by the Sovereign or the Governor-General acting upon the address of the House of Representatives and there is a specific set of criteria relating to that. That is quite important in terms of securing the independence of the process and procedure.Equally if we look at the constitution of the Court Martial we can see a gradation of the process depending on the seriousness of the offence. We have a situation where there is the one judge and then the serving officers. The serving officers from memory have to have served for a minimum of 3 years so they have to have at least some experience and in the case of more serious indictable offences carrying potentially very significant prison sentences—I forget the number of the clause concerned—there have to be five military officers of the Court Martial. For lesser offences I recall the figure is three.In Part 4 we have these protections built in for the more serious offences. Parallel to this we have the default option of civil procedure except where the special circumstance of the military require it to be varied in accordance with realities facing the military process. We also have in clause 139 provision whereby the accuser may object against the assignment of a person as a military member and there are various provisions set down. That is quite a rigorous process. The objection has to be lodged in writing and it has to be quite specific. It cannot be just some generalised “I don’t like the look of her or him.”We have in Part 4 the setting down of the procedures for the more serious offences that will be governed by the Court Martial a lot of additional precision and a lot of protection for the process and I think it will give rise in due course to something that is more independent something more rigorous and something that I trust will serve the test of time.DIANNE YATES (Labour): I wish to speak to Part 4 “Preliminary provisions relating to Court Martial” which contains the interpretation and the definitions. I want to refer to clause 146(1) which states: “The senior military member must submit a written report on any command issues that arise in the course of any proceedings before the Court Martial to the superior commander who referred the charges that are the subject of those proceedings to the Director of Military Prosecutions.”Also very important is clause 147 which prohibits the taking into account of the manner in which a military member performed his or her judicial duties in that person’s career management. Clause 147 is a very very important clause that relates to the promotion of people involved in the forces. So I just draw the attention of the Committee to the provision on taking into account information about the conduct of military members and that aspect relating to conditions of service and promotion in clauses 146 and 147.Part 4 agreed to.Part 5 Jurisdiction procedures and powersDr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I wish to take a call on Part 5 which relates to particular provisions in the legislation on courts martial. The issue I want to specifically turn my mind to is the issue of the open court and excluding personnel clauses 149 to 151. As a general rule and as should be the case a court martial will be open and that is in accordance with justice being seen to be done. That of course was unexceptional and we naturally expected that. The interest however was the circumstances under clause 151 where the judge may limit the scope of open court. This is clearly around the extent to which the press can report proceedings and I should just make this perfectly clear. An open court is one that can be freely reported in the press and indeed these days I guess one would expect to find television cameras in the court in much the same way as one would see in the District Court and the High Court. After all the judge is the presiding officer and will apply in essence the same rules as exist in civil jurisdictions. But unlike a civil court a military court can be dealing with issues that bear on national security.As the bill was originally presented to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the scope in which the judge could limit open court was quite broad and we considered on the select committee overly broad. So we sought reports in which that could be narrowed. We clearly recognised there were cases where for matters of national security the court should be closed. We in essence limited it and they are to be in a sense read together here.The first rule is if the information that would be disclosed would be “directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or any foreign country;”. That is clearly quite a tight set of rules. It is quite a high threshold to say that something must be of assistance to the enemy as opposed to say general issues of national security which is a much broader concept. National security covers things where there is no enemy. For instance it could be terrorism it could be operations of the intelligence service it could be just internal operations of the Defence Force which do not necessarily assist the enemy or the foreign country.The second test is “be otherwise harmful to New Zealand;”. I know that some people will say that that is a very broad exception—Tim Groser: Air New Zealand flights for example!Dr WAYNE MAPP: It could be Air New Zealand flights for example but in fact it is really intended to be limited at least to some extent—and I want to state this on the record—by the first test. The fact that we have a limitation that is useful to the enemy or a foreign country is supposed to be some level of guide to what might be harmful to New Zealand. I know that these things are not capable of perfect precision and if there ever were a test on this it is the sort of case one could imagine going to very high levels of our courts to deal with and they would obviously look very deeply into the questions and how other jurisdictions and so forth have dealt with it. But I just want to place the matter on record becauseHansard can be read into this as indeed can the report of the select committee and we turned our minds directly to this issue under the heading “Media freedom” in the commentary on the bill. The second paragraph under that heading recommends that a new clause 151 be inserted providing that news media can be excluded only on specific grounds and then we actually set them out. They are tied together in a single sentence in our commentary. That was deliberate.So I want to put in a formal way in concluding this point that this is intended to be acted upon in interpreting this legislation. The intent of passing this legislation today is to put a high test on excluding the media and it is intended broadly speaking to be related to assisting the enemy or a foreign country. It is not only that because we do have the second test. But the point I am making here is that it is a high test and it is intended to be a high test.The select committee had several reports on this. We asked numerous questions on it and we changed the bill as presented to this higher threshold test so that in virtually all circumstances there will be an open court. But we recognise in the military circumstance that from time to time depending on the operational situation or depending on the defence situation of the nation the media will need to be excluded.It is important that we place these sorts of things on the record. And this I conclude for the benefit of those people who might be listening is one of the reasons we hold these Committee debates—to put things like this into the formal record as part ofHansard and as an assistance to the judges when they come to apply a provision such as this.DIANNE YATES (Labour): I want to re-emphasise the points that have been made by Dr Mapp and refer to the importance of the commentary on the bill. Under the heading “Media freedom” the commentary states: “We were concerned that the bill as introduced removed the current provision in the Armed Forces Discipline Act that allows media access to courts-martial under section 131(4). We”—that is the committee—“therefore recommend that this right be included in the bill. We recommend that a new clause 151”—which is in the part we are discussing—“be inserted providing that an order to exclude an accredited news media reporter under clause 151(2)(c) may be made only on the grounds set out in clause 151(1)(a) specifically that the disclosure of the information would or might be ‘directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or any foreign country’ or ‘might otherwise be harmful to New Zealand’.”I think Dr Mapp is perfectly correct in the way in which he has spelt out the importance of that particular clause that the committee had included. Once again we thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its attention to that matter in relation to the media.CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): It was interesting to hear the two previous speakers speak about the provisions of clause 148 and why the rationale for the exemptions they propose should apply to the jurisdiction of the Court Martial concerning the principle of open justice. We heard from both previous speakers aboutthe exemptions that might apply in respect of disclosure of information that would or might be useful to the enemy or to any foreign country or otherwise be harmful to New Zealand. There is of course another exemption proposed in the legislation and it does seem to be a sensible one—that is if the judge considers that the reputation of the victim of an alleged sexual offence or an offence of extortion needs to be protected or if the order is desirable in the interests of public morality then an exemption to the principle of open justice will be permitted given the unique circumstances of the military environment. It seems to be an appropriate exemption. That really deals with Subpart 1 of Part 5.Subpart 2 is restricted largely to machinery provisions empowering the registrar in certain matters allowing the administration of oaths and covering other such issues. Subpart 3 is interesting though because as a previous speaker indicated the issue of bail in the military environment is not one that has been previously been dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. Under Subpart 3 the bill provides that a judge may grant bail to an accused pending trial in a court martial or to a person pending that person’s appeal in the event there is an appeal against sentence or conviction or both to the Summary Appeal Court or to the Court Martial Appeal Court. It is interesting to note that the provisions relating to bail appear to be aligned quite closely to those in the Bail Act 2000 with obviously the modifications necessary to take account of the different legal framework and of the seven vital elements of the military justice system the Minister referred to in his second reading speech in the House.To conclude my remarks on this part I tell members that Subpart 4 relates to the findings of the Court Martial. This reflects the interesting division between the judges on the one hand and the military members on the other. The judge is responsible for ruling on every question of law or procedure that arises during any trial in the court martial but the military members are responsible for determining the finding of the Court Martial on a charge by unanimous vote—and that is an important point—between themselves. The sentence of the Court Martial must be passed by the majority of the votes being counted together of the judge and the military members. So it seems there are very sensible machinery provisions relating to the Court Martial and the Committee will agree that the select committee has done a good job of aligning the requisite procedures with those applicable in the civil jurisdiction.Part 5 agreed to.Part 6 Miscellaneous and administrative provisionsDIANNE YATES (Labour): I rise to speak briefly on Part 6 which once again deals with rather miscellaneous and administrative matters. It deals with some of the powers of the Chief Justice to delegate matters to the registrar. It deals with the responsibility of the registrar in the role of inspector to service penal establishments and points out that in that role he or she will be responsible for ensuring there is no potential for torture or ill treatment to occur or go undetected in New Zealand’s service penal establishments. The matters that are included in Part 6 deal once again with fairness justice and administrative matters and clear up matters around delegation. Thank you.Part 6 agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3agreed to.Schedule 4agreed to.Schedule 5The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 5 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2TIM GROSER (National): I rise to speak to the title of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. This debate provides National with an opportunity to reflect on the context within which this very detailed elaborate and sophisticated process has taken place. I think it is quite convenient particularly from our perspective given that we have put out for discussion to New Zealand a paper covering the three main areas of external strategy.In this context I would like to focus just on defence. There has been a lot of discussion from various parties in the course of the proceedings of this bill on how we have arrived at a situation where there is essentially a bipartisan—or multiparty perhaps with some exceptions—basis to proceed and how important that is when it comes to vital strategic interests of New Zealand that clearly do not fit into any electoral phase. I do not think any member of this House could put hand on heart and say that this has been easy to achieve but I think we are in that space now.There are a couple of themes that I would like to focus on. First of all I think one of the difficulties we have had historically in coming to this—I would say new—consensus was because like everything in New Zealand the dominant culture was to try to set up a mini-British system here across all fronts. When it came to defence forces this meant setting up a mini - balanced force as is entirely appropriate for a major military power such as the United Kingdom. Indeed in the time we were trying to replicate British military culture here in New Zealand in the late 19th century the United Kingdom was the world’s largest military power.As the decades have rolled on I think it has become slowly apparent to people across the spectrum of political views that such a system is becoming less tenable and indeed less useful for New Zealand. So we are moving—partly by design partly by hazard—towards niche armed forces in which the principle is quite clear: we do some things historically extremely well even though I acknowledge that in some cases we have not given the men and women in the field all the tools to do it. Like other New Zealanders I recallRommel saying that with two more battalions of Kiwi troops he could have won the war in Africa. That was praise indeed from our enemy.I believe that there are other things that New Zealand troops have historically shown an extraordinary aptitude for but it is quite clear as the revolution in military affairs hasprogressed that the difficulties of a small country like ours will be a drop in the bucket by world standards no matter what figure we finally settle on politically for defence. It is becoming immensely difficult for our New Zealand armed forces to play in all games across the front of military activities. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate we have had over the strike force. Even the Australians with their far greater resources—and in some respects one could say greater public acceptance of the need for defence expenditure—are struggling to keep up with the implications of the revolution in military affairs.This is the background behind National Party thinking. We have borrowed ideas over the years and tried to put them down in some fairly general terms in this paper foreshadowing if we become the Government a defence white paper that will be used as a basis for a consultation process both within the country and with countries we have worked closely with historically starting obviously with Australia.We also think we need some fresh thinking. The roles our defence forces are playing are increasingly sophisticated. They are closely enmeshed with key foreign policy interests in the Pacific. I think it is going far too far to describe the Pacific as a train wreck but quite clearly there are some fundamental problems that have grown in intensity over the years. In a number of cases New Zealand along with our Australian friends has been called reluctantly to play a stabilisation role in an increasing number of these States. That is a very sophisticated demand on our armed forces.It is a new environment that we are describing although it has not come around in just a year or two. It is a slow evolution of opinion in New Zealand as we have broken free from essentially a colonial mentality of trying to replicate the entire British imperial system in miniature to where we are today. I think it is a good basis for coming forward.We in the National Party of today want to see—very much taking account of the point that Mr Mark made about the absurdity of his two-grenade experiment—that in the areas where we have superb New Zealanders we give them the capacity to do their job superbly. I suspect that is where we all want to go and we want to concentrate our expertise and our spending in those areas where we know we are good and where it actually matters to material New Zealand interests.The military justice system is a component of that. We clearly need to have a such a system given the extraordinary demands that we make on people who are prepared literally to put their lives on the line for their country. The discipline process for the armed forces which is essential to their effectiveness has to be backed up by a highly credible military justice system. I think we have had a good basis in the past but the strengthening of the procedures that takes place through this bill bringing the system up to date with contemporary thinking and with both formal provisions such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and informal changes such as the greater role of women in the armed forces should give our men and women a feeling that this Parliament values them that it knows they are a vital part even of a small society like ours and that it is ready to back them in the future perhaps I would hope in a more rational and consistent way. We will have a military justice system that is cutting edge up to date and above all irreproachable in terms of the fairness integrity and coherence of the judicial system.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): This closing debate in the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill is an opportunity to reflect upon not only the military justice system but also broader issues. This legislation is intended to endure for let us say 30 years—one generation. That is why the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee knowing that fact took the time and trouble to do a detailed and thorough job in developing the legislation. We realised that thelegislation was unlikely to be revisited any time soon except perhaps by way of technical amendments through statutes amendment legislation.I will reflect on that point about this being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We do not get many opportunities in the House to talk about foreign and defence policy.Darren Hughes: Lucky for National.Dr WAYNE MAPP: My colleague Tim Groser has been expanding a bit as to why we have arrived at a more bipartisan approach. I say to the junior Labour whip that that has involved a degree of convergence by both the major parties. I know that from experience having been involved in theInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 process. The select committee members including Major Mark worked very hard on that report and I think we laid the groundwork to get us to the current position. There have been a few jigs and jags if you will to get to that position but that report laid the groundwork. I can say to members on the other side that various members of the National Party took an extremely active role in developing that paper including the sense of priorities within it.I should note that I was on that select committee with Derek Quigley. We discussed these things at length and we discussed with the Minister at the time Paul East why we were doing the project. We needed his support for the project. Things perhaps got slightly more fractious thereafter.September 11 was a little bit of a wake-up call for everyone in this Parliament. As Mr Anderton noted at the RSA conference he actually lost his party on the issue. He took a realistic view as a senior Minister at the time as to what New Zealand’s interests actually were. That was a very important point of principle. It is extremely important not only for our own country but also for our partners to know where we stand as a nation what kinds of relationships we believe in and where we can add our best value.We make it very clear in our report—which builds on work done by a number of others including most recently Mr JimRolfe for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute—that in essence New Zealand has two prime interests. The first is built around the South Pacific and extends essentially out to East Timor. With Australia we are the two most capable nations in the region economically militarily and diplomatically.We always want to act in a way whereby the other nations in the region that have deep contacts with us trust us. They should trust us to provide the right set of skills the right development assistance and the right support when they are in difficulties as some of those nations have been. The Solomons Bougainville and Tonga are cases in point. They should trust us that our interventions will be beneficial and to their advantage. That has taken a lot of skill.It may be of interest to some members that in the paper we make specific reference to New Zealand’sMāori and Polynesian heritage to the particular insights that that gives us in the South Pacific region and to the way it helps us to build trust with other cultures. The New Zealand defence forces are particularly good I might add at interacting with other cultures. Because we are small in part and because we cannot rely on firepower or anything like that we actually have to rely on human skills in order to build trust with the people whom we are dealing with. The era of great power conflict I think for the foreseeable future is past but there is still a great deal of conflict in the world. New Zealand has a challenging role to play in that respect.The second component of our paper talks about New Zealand’s role outside of our immediate region which I might add is an immense region. It covers one-fifth of the globe. We sometimes forget just how big the Pacific Ocean is and what a tremendous demand that that places on the shape and nature of the defence forces. Of course I understand the value of Project Protector in that respect.We are a country of 4.5 million people. We are not a large country but we bring certain types of expertise which are well respected. It is also true and it is self-evident I think to every member certainly every major party—all parties actually—in the House that we have a particular set of relationships with nations which have been built up over many many decades. To a very large extent they still flavour the way we do things. For instance we are in Afghanistan essentially on a multiparty basis I guess. I think everyone accepts the importance of the work we are doing in theBagram province and people understand also the vital importance of the work of the special forces. We have only to reflect on the courage and heroism of Corporal WillyApiata VC to know the value we bring.These demands are not placed on a country like Uruguay or Chile because countries like that do not have our history and traditions. We are an internationally engaged country. We have international interests. We have had a long tradition of being active in bringing peacekeeping and stability to the world’s trouble spots. We are increasingly recognising—and this is the point about bipartisanship—that we need to be a little bit selective about that. We are a country of 4.5 million people so there is no point offering a complete smorgasbord of skills; that is better left to larger countries. But in the things that we are going to do—and they need to be selective—we must do them well and we must do them with excellence. Only in that way can we get respect and appreciation from other members of the international community.I suppose one of the reasons why there has been a bit of a shift by National is a recognition that continuing on the traditional path was not going to build that level of expertise and quality that frankly we expect of ourselves and that other countries expect of us. There is no point going in internationally if we end up being a burden. We must add value and skill to an international deployment for it to be worthwhile.I conclude on this point: the bill is a long-term project. The development of defence policy and foreign policy is a long-term project. It should not swing sharply and abruptly on a 3-year cycle. I note that there has been an important point of convergence of both the major parties and indeed some of the other parties in Parliament in bringing us—Ron Mark: Yes.Dr WAYNE MAPP: —yes the other parties in Parliament—to a more sensible approach to defence and foreign policy.RON MARK (NZ First): The reason I laughed out loud at the end of that speech by Dr Mapp—please forgive me—was that although I agreed with everything he said about the National Party I thought he was absolutely ludicrous to suggest that some other parties in the House might agree with this bipartisan bisexual relationship that now seems to be going on between National and Labour. Accepting that there is this sort of love-in between National and Labour on defence policy some of us were at this point 10 years ago. I tell Dr Mapp that it just so happens that I keep in my House box theInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report—Sandra Goudie: But have you read it?RON MARK: There goes the fishmonger’s wife again down the back. Someone should hang on to the varnish on the walls; Sandra Goudie has something to say. The children in the gallery should block their ears. This lady is pretty caustic. She has not got a lot of intelligence and does not have a lot to say of any value but if one wants to hear a parrot screech—Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member knows full well not to address members of the audience. It is inappropriate and I suspect it is leading to his rather overblown rhetoric in this speech.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point has been made. The member knows he should not address the gallery.RON MARK: TheInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report which Dr Mapp seems now to embrace to the very bosom of his being makes clear that most of the parties in the House—ACT New Zealand First and Labour—signed up to this view and philosophy a long time ago. I know that theMāori Party had it been here would have signed up. In fact Tariana Turia was a Minister in the Labour Government around that time.It is great it is endearing and it is wonderful to hear Dr Mapp speaking. I respect Dr Mapp because he has worn the uniform. Dr Mapp does not just talk the talk; he has done the walk. I respect him immensely and I know he has played a huge part in swinging his party to take up the position it has now. But for him to suggest that the National Party now realises that New Zealand punches above its weight and that we are more effective in this niche role and that this is something new is ridiculous. Some of us have known for years and have pointed out the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the New Zealand Defence Force due to the heavy contribution to it byMāori and Pacific Islanders. Hello! Some of us knew that a long time ago.I remember being in the desert in 1982 in the Sinai peninsula. We were performing thehaka. We were distinctly Kiwi but what was interesting was that being an Anzac unit and as an officer put in charge of organising the kapahaka group I actually brought in Australians because we had to make up the numbers. They were only too pleased to be Kiwis for kapahaka purposes. It evolved into a stronger relationship.We know that we work well with indigenous people from other nations. We have known that for a long time. I embrace and welcome National’s new-found position on our independence which National now recognises as being valuable. Some of us have known about it for a while.I could go on and address these issues blow by blow. This bill in the final wrap-up has greater consequences than simply just the purpose for which it was brought to the House. I would like to round off on a couple of those points if I may.The calibre of a defence force and the way it is viewed internationally when it is operating offshore and amongst other nations in a tri-service environment with people of different ethnicities cultures and religious beliefs is so often determined by the manner in which it conducts itself. It is so often determined by the way in which the defence force treats other people and by the way in which it monitors and holds itself accountable for transgressions that may occur.It is clear and understood by the military that if it is to uphold the traditions and values that give it the core base from which it can then lead then it must have robust legal systems. If young men and women are to put on a uniform pick up a rifle go to war and follow their officers and NCOs then they need to know a number of things. They need to feel confident themselves that their best interests are catered for. They need to firmly believe that their leaders truly are professional that their leaders would not put them in situations that were untenable that their leaders will do their level best to put them into situations in the most fully prepared position they could be in and resourced as best as possible to do the task and that their leaders will stand by them and lead them through to the completion of that mission. Those needs require a whole range of new considerations in a peacekeeping and peacemaking environment.I noted some time ago when I was in the New Zealand Defence Force that the legal fraternity was considered a little bit like thechalkies the whip-wingers—educationalists. Thechalkies were over there. They were the education officers. They were not real soldiers. They had different badges on but they were teachers primarily—specialist officers. Legal beagles were sometimes viewed in that way.That is not the situation today. We now understand the complexities of peacekeeping and peacemaking and the interaction between sovereign nations. Before soldiers go into a mission and take on a task those complexities have to be very clearly understood. They have to be very clearly understood before anyone embarks from these shores.That work so often falls at the feet of the legal officers in the New Zealand Defence Force. If that work is in any way tardy or deficient the repercussions can be huge. If our troops are not adequately prepared not fully briefed and are not fully understanding and if our officers and junior leaders are not fully understanding of the boundaries and limitations of their mission and their responsibilities and powers then there can be huge political repercussions that would leave a Government in an embarrassing position having to fight rearguard political actions to justify or rectify a problem that has arisen.So much of the standards of leadership demonstrated by our officer corps across all services and so much of the standards of leadership and the expectations placed on our junior NCOs at the corporal level down at the section are set and predetermined by the professional standards we set ourselves at the higher level. This document this bill is very much part and parcel of that.Many of us who have participated in operations offshore have seen unruly defence forces and have worked alongside defence forces that were known to be corrupt. I will not name them but I have been on some peacekeeping missions in parts of the world where we would not turn our backs on certain officers of certain ethnicities unless someone else was watching our backs for us. One would be very hesitant about accepting certain people’s word as to what they had done or what they had not done because one knew the nature of the defence force from which they came its levels of professionalism and expertise the culture that underpins their ministry and the reflected culture upon which their military is derived in the civil circumstances of their homeland as a result of the type of Government and governance they have.New Zealand has set very high standards for itself. New Zealand has consistently demonstrated a commitment to those high standards. That I guess is why we sometimes hear funny stories coming out of places like Iraq where security operators are operating. New Zealanders who have left the New Zealand Defence Force but who are now engaged with security companies have told us of things they have seen that they absolutely abhor do not tolerate and do not accept. Where does that culture come from? Where does that ethos come from? Where does that standard come from? It comes from the men and women who command and lead our defence forces here at home and is embodied in those young men and women who have since chosen to leave our defence forces and go to work for other people.The pleasing thing the satisfying thing is that we know they still carry that ethos that culture those sets of values with them and that is precisely what we are trying to encourage with this legislation in the Chamber tonight. We are trying to modify upgrade rationalise and improve and we are cementing in some very firm values which New Zealand First is pleased to see cemented in.I am starting to sound like I am making a third reading speech but I say to the committee: “Well done; thank you for your work.” I saw the recommendations and I see that the Minister has picked up on them. I say well done to the defence forces for their work. Let us get moving on.SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am looking at Speaker’s ruling 36/4. I want to correct a claim made by the previous speaker Ron Mark. My husband is a dairy farmer not a fisherman.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order.DIANNE YATES (Labour): I just remind the Committee that we are discussing the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill.Dr Wayne Mapp: An opportunity to think more broadly Dianne.DIANNE YATES: I thank Dr Mapp and I notice that he has been speaking very broadly on what he seems to define as bipartisan foreign and defence policy. As has been said we have seen the road to Damascus conversion of the National Party. I think it is almost a little bit sad that Keith Locke has not taken part in this debate. I think he suggested that the National Party might achieve world peace by lunchtime.Darren Hughes: Now that TimGroser’s in Parliament that’s possible I guess.DIANNE YATES: Did the member say that with Mr Groser in Parliament that might be achievable?Darren Hughes: Oh yes.DIANNE YATES: Especially as he has changed over the last 20 years as he has confessed to doing during the debate.We are here to discuss clauses 1 and 2. The purpose of the bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. There has been a 4-year review before this legislation came through the House and the whole legislative process has taken a year. So the bill is the culmination of 5 years’ work. It is the modernisation of the justice system within the military in New Zealand.I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this bill. We note that the Supplementary Order Paper will divide the bill into four bills: the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Bill. That will be done as we progress through to the final reading of the bill.Once again I thank all parties and the Independent member on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their work on the bill. I thank everybody for working on the close detail which as I said was about the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and not about the foreign policy of New Zealand. I commend the committee for concentrating very much on the detailed content of the bill and I thank the committee for the way in which everybody worked so well together.Once again we look forward to the legislation coming into force once it has been signed by the Governor-General.DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I want to take just a brief call on the title and commencement clauses clauses 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill in response to some of the comments made by Dr Mapp. It was not my intention to do so but Dr Mapp made a number of points that I think are worthy of consideration reflection and maybe a brief response if he is so minded.Bob Clarkson: Sit down!DARREN HUGHES: Bob Clarkson will learn a lot because I will talk about some of the history of defence policy on both sides of the House. I suspect that Mr Clarkson does not know a lot about that so I think he should get out his pencil and his pad and take down as much of it—John Hayes: What are you filibustering for?DARREN HUGHES: I do not think it is filibustering; I think it is very very important to reply to some of the points Dr Mapp made.Dr Mapp said there had been some convergence between Labour and National on defence issues. He implied that somehow Labour had moved closer to National’s position in terms of defence policy. Nothing could be further from the truth in that regard. In his speech he made it sound as though he had made some great gesture towards the Government on defence policy but he did not tell the Committee about all the positions he personally had taken on defence policy over the years. He had spoken vociferously and with great and absolute conviction about the terrible direction thatLabour’s policy on defence was taking but he managed to miss out that part when he talked of the convergence that was going on.We remember the history. We remember Bill English coming down to the Chamber and saying that the SAS should be withdrawn from Afghanistan after the invasion that was part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Do National members recall that their defence policy was that the SAS should be brought home? The morning statement was that they should be brought down under but that policy was gone by lunchtime too actually because by lunchtime the then foreign affairs spokesperson had shaken some sense into Bill English in that regard and that policy was gone.Then there is National’s defence policy in relation to Iraq. The National Party leader at the time—again Mr English the defence and foreign policy expert—said that National had voted in Parliament to support the coalition of the willing and to commit New Zealand Defence Force troops to that operation. Then during the election campaign Dr Brash was not sure what National’s defence policy was in regard to that and he could not answer a question on it.Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member is getting carried away. As interesting as it might be for the junior Government whip to expound history I ask that he relate some of his speech to the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just say to the senior Opposition whip that the National Party had four wrap-up speeches that had very little to do with the bill. Members had requested that—[Interruption] I am on my feet. This has gone on throughout the debate on the bill with some agreement of the wider Committee. All speakers have done that. The member who is speaking now is making a wrap-up speech and I think that is quite fair in relation to the debate we have had on this in the last few hours. I am going to allow him to continue. I also ask that the level of interjection be kept down. We have had a very good debate over the last few hours. I ask Mr Hughes to continue.DARREN HUGHES: Thank you very much Madam Chairperson. The only point I make is that I welcome the interjections because they are nothing more than embarrassed people trying to scream their way out of their misery. The point I am making is in direct response to the views put to the Committee by National’s own defence spokesperson whom the senior Opposition whip is trying to bail out. He cannot argue that this part of the bill is a convergence between Labour and National. It is National that has abandoned its own previous statements—all the various forms of them—to adopt Labour’s position on these defence issues. That is fair enough those members can do that but the member should not then try to argue that somehow Labour is moving its position.As to whether the New Zealand Air Force should have a strike capacity Dr Mapp argued very strongly for that and it was National’s policy at one point. National said that Labour was really letting down the country by not having a strike capability in the air force but that is now National’s policy as well. That is welcomed by Labour but it is hardly a convergence caused by Labour’s shifting.The debate has been an opportunity to put some of those differences directly on the record to make sure that members are aware of them. As members have said the bill has been worked on well by the select committee—[Interruption] David Bennett pipes away the entire time. I wonder what he knows at all about these kinds of issues particularly with reference to his own party. He is now being silenced by his own side. [Interruption] Mrs Goudie is piping up as well. It is good to have a little bit of silence because every time those members interject they show the folly of their own policy position on these matters. That is absolutely correct. I see that David Bennett is again being told off for the fact that he cannot control himself in the Chamber. Nationalmembers do not have any discipline whether it comes to sitting in the Chamber or to coming up with decent consistent defence policy. Maybe a stint in the army or any of our armed forces would do some of them good in terms of getting some discipline.Labour supports the title and commencement of this bill. It has been a thorough debate and a good debate. I think that the work that has gone on to bring the bill to this point will be welcomed by all those whom it has a direct effect on. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Billpursuant toSupplementaryOrder Paper151.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 9 October.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I am delighted to take the call. It may not take the 9 minutes I have remaining but there are three points that I want to make tonight. Firstly I want to take a brief look at the current law; secondly I want to go through the various reasons for its repeal; and thirdly I will make brief reference to evidence given by the police force.Part 5 of the Crimes Act deals with offences against public order and sections 80 to 85 deal with the category of seditious offences. It is proposed by this bill that sections 81 to 85 be repealed. Section 80 will remain. It deals with an offence that I have never thought was a seditious offence—that is the crime of persuading someone to take an oath to commit an offence and there are various categories of that. [Interruption] It does not come within seditious offences—I can hear Dr Mapp interjecting on me—but rather it is a stand-alone offence and it will be retained after this legislation passes.At the moment seditious offences are defined in section 81. The most well-known one is a seditious intention to bring into hatred or contempt Her Majesty Her Majesty’s Government or the administration of justice. But when one looks at section 81(1)(d) one sees that the terminology of what is a seditious intention is very vague because it includes inciting procuring or encouraging the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order.Indeed in the 20th century a large number of charges were brought against a variety of people under that subcategory of section 81 as a means of trying to shut them up. An obvious example would be the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland BishopListon and various members of the Labour Party. In the 19th century of course as I said in my first reading speech the victims of the sedition charges wereMāori. The other sections deal with seditious conspiracies seditious statements and the publication of seditious documents. Section 85 refers to the use of an apparatus for the making of seditious documents or statements. That is the current law and it is proposed that it all be swept away.The rationale for the repeal emerged strongly from submissions heard by the Justice and Electoral Committee to which I referred last night. I will briefly refer to them. Essentially there are five reasons why the Government introduced this legislation and five reasons why submissions in favour of repeal said that these sections of the CrimesAct should be repealed. The first one—and it emerged from for example section 81(1)(d) which I have read out to members—is that the legal profile of the offence is very broad variable and uncertain and the meaning of sedition has changed over time. As I said a little earlier in the 20th century it was used against Roman Catholic bishops. Of course it is used by Labour Party members these days against those who speak out against the Labour Government.The second reason—and it is an important matter of policy—is that the present law invades the democratic value of free speech for no adequate reason. We should be able to debate issues not only in this place but in the community and stand by our words. If our words are not good enough we will be defeated but democratic debate should not be shut down by seditious offences and it is good to see that the Government recognises that in relation to the repeal of seditious offences. However it is not quite so strong on that issue is it I say to Dr Mapp when it comes to the Electoral Finance Bill because it certainly intends to shut down debate when it comes to that legislation.Another very interesting reason advanced in the course of submissions and also referred to in the bill itself is that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. We know that this Government is very good at referring to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits it. So on occasion we have the Attorney-General making reports to this House under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but he singularly omitted to provide a section 7 report on the Electoral Finance Bill—the most egregious example of legislation that falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Dr Wayne Mapp: Does Mr Chauvel care? No he does not.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Mr Chauvel does not care because like all Labour Party members he invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits him then falls silent when it suits him because that is the sort of person he is.The next category I want to refer to is that seditious offences can be inappropriately used to impose a form of political censorship. Time and time again through the 20th century that is exactly how the seditious offences regime was used—to shut down public debate. Even poor old Walter Nash got done for possessing a pamphlet that was later found to be in the Parliamentary Library. So who needs sedition law these days with the Electoral Finance Bill on its way because the Government will use that for the same end.Finally the law is not needed because those elements of it that should be retained are more appropriately covered by other offences. That is certainly the case in the post - September 11 world we live in with for example specialist Acts dealing with terrorism offences. So sedition is a crime that has outlived its usefulness and it is time to move on. The rationale came through all the submissions which as I said last night were overwhelmingly in favour of repeal with the exception of two rather weak submissions in my opinion.The third point I want to refer to is the select committee’s report which succinctly states and summarises what those submissions were all about. We were very keen to hear from the New Zealand Police on the subject because the police had used it on a number of occasions in the not so distant past. They emphasised—and Mr Chauvel was most anxious that the report record this—that prosecutions for the offence as for others are a matter of independent judgment for the police. Mr Chauvel as I said was anxious that that be recorded and it is only fair that we record it inHansard—that those decisions by police to use the seditious offences provisions against New Zealanders were independently reached by them and were not a result of political influence. So there we have it.The second reading debate is timely. I cannot understand why the junior whip for the Government was so anxious to avoid this debate. I can only conclude that the Government had decided that this is in fact excellent legislation with which to oppress its opponents and that it goes hand in hand with the Electoral Finance Bill and that it had decided like St Paul on the road to Damascus to change tack and keep the legislation in force. But the second reading debate is timely and National supports it.LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I see disappointed people over there on the other side of the House. I want to congratulate ChrisFinalyson who was very confused at question time today but now seems to have got his brain back into a little bit of order. He is certainly saying the right thing when he says he supports the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill as do I. In rising to take a call I would very much like to congratulate the hard-working members of the Justice and Electoral Committee—probably in times when they had less of a chip on their shoulders. None the less they worked very hard and it was very good to get unanimous endorsement from the committee on this bill. I am not sure that we will be able to do that with work currently before the committee because I think that a little bit of self-interest is entering there.A seditious offence as outlined in the Crimes Act 1961 is the making or publishing of a statement with seditious intention. But that can range from exciting dissatisfaction against Her Majesty or the New Zealand Government—that happens quite frequently with the Opposition—or exciting ill will between different classes of people such as may endanger public safety. The Law Commission worked on this bill and published a consultation document on reforming the law in October 2006. Its report which advocated for repeal was published in March 2007 and I am proud to say that the Labour-led Government agrees as indeed I believe all members in this House do with the sentiments of that commission’s report.The heart of the case lies in the protection of freedom of expression particularly political expression and its place in our democracy. Democracy is something we hold very dear and value very much. That is why we have the Electoral Finance Bill which will be coming back to the House in the near future. People may hold and express dissenting views. That is something that no matter how unpopular and unreasonable those views are—and we certainly hear those often enough in this House—we recognise the right for such expressions to be made without their being branded as criminal expressions simply because they involve political opposition to the Government or authority or lack any real credibility as happens with the Opposition.I would like to talk a little about cases of sedition that have been brought in the past. In the late 19th century sedition charges were laid against leaders in relation toMāori resistance. What was it about? It was actually about establishing a movement forMāori peace. There was a campaign of passive peaceful resistance toMāori land confiscations. That was deemed sedition. The next case was in World War I in relation to conscription when sedition charges were laid against some men—men by the name of Bob Semple Fred Cooke James Thorn Peter Fraser and Tom Brindle—for speeches made in relation to their opposition to conscription under the Military Service Act of 1916.Hon Harry Duynhoven: Were any of them Tories?LYNNE PILLAY: They may well have been. It is time to reflect that if that happened now it would be par for the course. Certainly in terms of the Bolshevik resistance a young woman student was charged with sellingThe Communist. That was deemed to be sedition and on the basis of that she was convicted and fined £10 and her studentship at Wellington Training College was terminated. I ask this House what it would be like if our students today were actually charged for daring to speak against theGovernment or for any political position they supported and lost their ability to be a student and to learn in this great country—with of course interest-free loans under this Government but opposed by the Opposition.So in 1968 Sir Kenneth Keith cited the law of sedition as the prime example of an attempt to control all expressions of political ideas and their consequences. I think that that was very visionary in those times and I am very pleased now that this House has come in unity in a collective spirit to actually support this bill. I think that is commendable. Where the protection of public order or the preservation of the constitution or the Government is at stake other more appropriate criminal offences can be used to prosecute offending behaviour. Many many laws can be and are used if there is danger to people or if people go beyond what is reasonable.However in a democracy which we enjoy today where we govern ourselves—and New Zealand is indeed a proud democracy—it is hard to see how or why speech—[Interruption] I can hear the Opposition babbling but we believe in a democracy where it is not just the size of people’s bank balances that determines their campaign; it is the ability of all people in New Zealand to have a voice. That is something that we in the Labour-led Government hold very dear. I know that the National Party gained tremendously from the contribution of the Exclusive Brethren. I think it is quite significant that that party’s former leader a self-confessed agnostic had some quite long meaningful meetings—Hon Member: Atheist.LYNNE PILLAY: He is an atheist not an agnostic but he still thought it was very very important to meet with the Exclusive Brethren.Sandra Goudie: What about the unions?LYNNE PILLAY: The unions were upfront. The unions spoke and said: “This is what we believe. We believe that the National Party deals to workers in New Zealand and we are quite happy to put our name to it and say it.” Frankly I say that they are right. But I will not allow Opposition members to distract me. We are here today to talk about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill so I just ask that they stop distracting me so that I can continue.I am really pleased as I said before to have chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee. It would be fair to say that it was in happier times. We were a smaller happier group I have to say before we had those other members join us for another bill before us. But of the 17 submissions we received only two were opposed to the bill. I think it is really important that we listened to what people said. Chris Finlayson was a little scathing about those who dared to oppose but it is important in the spirit of free speech that they came and had their say. It was really good that the committee unanimously agreed that this bill was a good bill and I am very pleased to stand in this House and commend it at the second reading. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. Sedition is a term of law that refers to covert conduct such as speech and organisation that is deemed—wait for it—by the legal authority as tending towards insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes suppression or subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent or resistance to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion—though not aimed at direct and open violence—against the laws. Sedition can include words in writing that are seditious libel. In a modern sense it comes from the Elizabethan era of 1590. Henry VIII and subsequently his daughter improved on it and that time is remembered as a remarkably litigious period.Christopher Finlayson: Which daughter—Mary or Elizabeth?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Elizabeth—oh yes it was Elizabeth definitely. Another feature of this period was the remarkable intrusiveness of government into the private lives of citizens. In fact it is largely ironic that the select committee that has considered the repeal of seditious offences the Justice and Electoral Committee is also considering another bill that will create a whole new level of offences during elections. But we will have more of that later.There is a quote which is unattributed from the Elizabethan era that describes sedition as “the notion of inciting by words or writings dissatisfaction towards the State or constituted authority” and “Sedition complements treason and martial law while treason”—I ask Mr Finlayson to listen to this bit—“controls primarily the privileged ecclesiastical opponents priests and Jesuits as well as certain commoners.”; and “Martial law frightens commoners sedition frightens intellectuals.” Hear any echoes from the past?The law in New Zealand has been reviewed by the Law Commission. The Law Commission report as commented on by the current Minister of Justice found that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic values of free speech for no adequate public reason. Let us repeat that: the present law attacks the democratic value of free speech for no adequate reason. It is interesting that Mr Burton said that in his speech on the first reading of this bill on 14 June this year. He went further—and I am sure this point will be noted; in fact it already has been noted by my colleague Mr Christopher Finlayson—in saying specifically that the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That is exactly the point that was made earlier—that when it suits Labour it invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; when it does not suit that Act is surprisingly absent from consideration.During the select committee’s call for submissions it was confirmed by law enforcement authorities and other legal bodies that there are ample opportunities to charge perpetrators of criminal acts under existing law without relying on the arcane measures of the particular legislation we are considering at the moment.I note from the speech made by the Hon Peter Dunne leader of United Future on the first reading of this bill that he wanted to acknowledge the support of MMP parties for this bill. He specifically mentioned his own party the Greens theMāori Party and ACT all working in unison in the interests of the value of free speech. In connection with sedition he instanced a couple of times when it had affected his Irish forebears. He spoke of the mild nature of acts of civil disobedience or the expression of views that could rapidly bring one under threat of charges under the act of sedition. Mr Dunne stated: “A country that is confident about itself and its direction does not need laws of this type to regulate its behaviour.”I agree with the sentiments he expressed. As a free-born Scot with a great pride in my New Zealand nationality and citizenship I place high value on free speech. Like most members in this House—I would hope like all members in this House—I have a deeply held commitment to being able to speak out not only for myself but also for all the others around. I live in a part of the country I am very proud to live in on the West Coast of the South Island at Moana in the ever-increasingly marginal seat of West Coast - Tasman and we celebrate free and open speech down there. Indeed I fully support the report of the select committee and endorse the bill on that basis. I take particular note of the part of the report that states: “the need to ensure that free speech and impartiality in censorship are protected.”To conclude I have to express surprise and astonishment to find that the Justice and Electoral Committee having worked so well and so sensibly together on removing legislation that reduces the value of free speech is now embarking on the consideration of a bill that puts all the frighteners back in again. There seems to be a thunderingsilence towards all who speak against it—a thundering silence from the very parties that Mr Dunne commended for speaking out against the Sedition Act.The Electoral Finance Bill in the minds of an ever-increasing number of people fits in the category of the Elizabethan description by being designed to control suppress prosecute and frighten people out of expressing their personal views towards the current Government. I am happy to support the sedition laws being chucked into the frying pan of discarded bills but I note that the proposed Electoral Finance Bill will take us into a fire of democratic discontent disquiet and dispute. The present Government will only live long enough to be ashamed by it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.KEITH LOCKE (Green): It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. It is a most pleasant experience.The previous speech by Mr Auchinvole indicated the importance of the bill. I was very pleased that the two speeches that began the debate the other night—by the Minister Mark Burton and Chris Finlayson leading off for National—both mentioned the role of the smaller parties in hurrying this bill into being and into Parliament and I thank them for that. This bill in the way it has proceeded is a victory for MMP. The Greens United Future ACT and theMāori Party all got together some months back and had a combined press conference. It is good to see that people took notice of that. Parties from different ideologies have combined on this democratic issue and I think it struck a chord in the community and in this Parliament. What is happening in the debate on this bill is a step forward for MMP politics.Coincidentally we have had another example of that today with the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill. Again a number of parties from different parts of the spectrum and with different ideologies were against closing off those records which have been kept open since—Shane Ardern: What’s the latest report? Give us an update. How are we doing on that?KEITH LOCKE: What is happening with that particular bill?Shane Ardern: Yes. How are the numbers gathering?KEITH LOCKE: The reason I mention it now is that this afternoon the Minister Rick Barker issued a press statement about the closure of the records which was opposed by genealogists historians biographers and journalists from around the country. The Minister essentially stated that the Government has taken heed of those objections and of the fact that the numbers across all the parties—a bit like the numbers for the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill—do not stack up in favour of closure. So that is another victory for MMP and for parties working together that might not be traditionally aligned.We have had a discussion in this Parliament on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which the Greens opposed. A lot of the legislation we see in this Parliament that the Greens have been opposed to is going in a more restrictive direction reducing free speech or rights and in some respects reducing the power of the judiciary and increasing the power of the executive. That has been the theme of our criticism of a lot of the legislation. But a particularly good thing about this bill is that it is going in the other direction. In one sense it is going against the international current in this respect; I think it is New Zealand standing up for democracy.If one looks at the whole question of free speech and at what has been happening in Britain and Australia since September 11 one sees that those countries have gone in the direction of criminalising free speech under the guise of the war against terrorism. They have new provisions coming in stating that people are not allowed to glorify terrorism.They have used all sorts of vague formulations but they are not making the distinction that speakers in this debate are making between the advocacy of general ideas—however objectionable one might think those ideas are—and the advocacy of incitement directly to criminal activity. That distinction is what we are talking about here.A lot of ideas that have historically been advocated in New Zealand have been caught by this sedition law in the past. Some of them were objectionable ideas such as fascism Stalinism or whatever which sometimes represented quite anti-democratic and violent ideologies. But if people are advocating just on the level of ideas then they should be dealt with in public debate and not be criminalised. In that way the ideas are reduced in their power as those that I just referred to fascism and Stalinism have been. Those ideas do not have much traction in New Zealand society because they have been largely debated out in the open and discredited. It is the same with terrorist ideology—“binLadenism” or whatever one wants to call it. We have to debate the general ideology out in the public arena but of course if anyone incites directly to a terrorist or a criminal act then that is caught under other provisions of our legislation. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand’s submission to the select committee on 15 February 2005—and they were a bit worried about being caught themselves—quotes the Monarchist League of New Zealand as stating that debating whether Prince Charles is to be King is possibly seditious.Rodney Hide: Quite right!KEITH LOCKE: They were getting a bit worried about that and some people in this Chamber might think that too. They might think some of my advocacy in that respect is a little bit beyond the pale but there we are. If we pass this legislation I might be safe.The Republican Movement made the point in its submission that there are a lot of other provisions and sections of the Crimes Act that can handle actions that are injurious to the public good without the need for the sedition sections. They are treason attempted treason inciting mutiny—I did not know about that one—sabotage unlawful assembly riot criminal nuisance threatening to destroy property threats of harm to people or property threatening acts and conspiracy to prevent collection of rates or taxes. I think Mr Hide might come under that one. It was a good submission by the Republican Movement and it showed the importance of passing this legislation.Actually I thought this legislation could be a little bit broader. I mentioned that in my first reading speech. It could cover the offence of blasphemy. That offence seems a bit archaic really but perhaps we will get on to that at a particular time in the future. But the Green Party is very strongly for this legislation. We have been advocating against these offences for some years. It is great when although we started off in Parliament apparently in a minority on this change in our legislation because of debate discussion in Parliament and discussion in the community we end up with a situation where we have support right across the House. I think that is fantastic. Thank you.RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): It is a great pleasure to follow Mr Keith Locke who is largely responsible for putting this Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill on to the parliamentary agenda. I also think we should acknowledge the work of the Law Commission which did the original research.It raises an interesting point because we have a lot of law on the statute book that does not actually get reviewed and looked at systematically. Once we do have a look at the sedition laws we think that they are wrong and they should go. But it requires some effort to go back and look at the basic structure of our law so bodies like the Law Commission do a good job in drawing parliamentarians’ attention and indeed the public of New Zealand’s attention to it. Mr Keith Locke then got hold of the issue and talked to the other MMP parties which are all agreed and thankfully the Governmenttook the opportunity to put this bill before Parliament so that we could end this crazy idea that speech or thoughts can somehow be undermining of a Government. It is shocking that what one says could be a criminal offence even if it does not infringe anyone’s rights.It is nice to be in our Parliament and have agreement about freedom of speech. We look around the walls of this Chamber and we see memorials dedicated to the men and women who surrendered their lives for freedom of speech. I want Mr Locke to reflect on this point: yes we can debate fascism and Stalinism in New Zealand and that is a good thing but of course under a fascist regime a Stalinist regime or a totalitarian regime we could not debate anything. What we talked about or indeed even thought would be dictated by the State. What a horrible world that would be. Men and women gave their lives fighting against fascism and because they gave their lives we in New Zealand can advocate fascism. That is extraordinary if we think about it because if the Fascists had won I do not think we would be here debating democracy or free speech.But I want Mr Keith Locke to reflect on this. He said it is important that in a free society in a democratic society even people who want to advocate hateful ideas like “binLadenism” should be entitled to do so. I agree with him. I ask him to reflect on the outrage that people in New Zealand poured on the Exclusive Brethren. I do not want to argue whether what they said was right or wrong or whether they should have done what they did but it seems to me that people should be able to print any pamphlets they like and they should be able to put in them any political idea that they like even if they are wrong. It is a different story if we defame someone because then we are taking away a property right. But to be debating a political idea as the Exclusive Brethren Church did seemed to me to be entirely consistent with free speech. It was not even sedition. As it turned out it was not even against our current electoral laws. Yet there was moral outrage from some members of Parliament against people exercising their right of freedom of expression which includes operating a printing press does it not and includes the publication of pamphlets. Where was their right to freedom of speech? So we could have a situation where we stand up and say that yes it is OK to advocate fascism and yes it is OK to advocate “binLadenism” but the Exclusive Brethren who attacked the Greens broke the law and we are going to change the law so that they cannot do it.I have to say that ACT gets attacked a bit but I do not think about changing the law so that people cannot do that. I do not think of changing the law so that people cannot spend X amount of dollars because we have to have a level playing field for freedom of speech. I do not remember the men and women who gave their lives for our freedom saying that it does not apply if one spends over a certain amount of money on a printing press. No it was a principle.If members are prepared to stand up in this House and say that it is OK to advocate fascism Stalinism “binLadenism” and every other ism that we can think of—and then some—I agree. So what is special about election year? Suddenly in election year we are going to pass a law saying that a person would not be seditious; he or she would just be in breach of our electoral laws. Where is the sense in that? Tonight we are passing a law here quite rightly so that people can advocate what was commonly called sedition but we are also contemplating passing a law that says people cannot put out a pamphlet saying they do not like the Government they do not like the National Party they do not like theMāori Party or they do not like the ACT party. It does not even have to be untrue; it just becomes unlawful.Have we not got this a bit skew-whiff? Stalinism and fascism killed millions of people but I do not think the Exclusive Brethren have hurt a flea actually. I do not think that what they were advocating was dangerous. It was just their political views. Itmight be wacky. It might not be what one agrees with. But if we can stand up in this House like Mr Locke and say it is OK to advocate fascism it is OK to advocate Stalinism and it is OK to advocate “binLadenism” then surely it is OK to criticise the Greens surely it is OK to criticise Helen Clark and surely it is OK to criticise the National Party and the ACT party. Surely it must be OK to run off a few pamphlets and put them in a grateful nation’s letterboxes so that people can say “Absolutely!”. Because one would not read this in theNew Zealand Herald. One will not see this on TVNZ.Now we have a Government and a Parliament that want to dictate to the media what is OK.Hon Member: They’re scared of the people!RODNEY HIDE: Now they are scared of the people. They are scared of allowing New Zealanders to advocate their ideas to spend what little money they have after the taxman has been—and Michael Cullen has spent it—on printing a pamphlet and sticking it in a neighbour’s letterbox. That is an outrage. So yes let us rejoice that we are passing a law to end the heinous abuse of State power that the law on sedition is. But let us reflect that if we stand here for freedom of speech then that is a principle that should stand unsullied. Talking about level playing fields and democracy will not wash and talking about what is done in other jurisdictions will not wash because we should be consistent and allow people to advocate all ideas and to produce whatever pamphlets they like. That is what living in a free and democratic society actually means.TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koeTēnātātou katoa. In November 2005 a group described as “concerned Pakeha” claimed responsibility for an attack on the Prime Minister’sSandringham Road electorate office. Flyers were found circulated around Ponsonby Road that stated what the attack was a protest against—and I want to quote from that text entitledConfiscation Day.“This morning concerned Pakeha vented their anger and disgust at the Government’s attempts to steal by confiscation Maori land in the form of the Seabed and Foreshore Bill that is currently being disgracefully rammed through Parliament as part of a desperate back-room deal. By attacking the electorate office of the chief instigator the Prime Minister—who is due to abandon the mess she created by fleeing the country—we signal that a threshold has been crossed. The broken glass symbolises the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice; our axe symbolises the steadfastness of our determination.The ruthless Prime Minister will leave behind a vindictive law that will haunt this nation should the MPs be mad enough to pass it. Maori MPs complicit in this farce will never live down their betrayal. If this is destined to be Confiscation Day then we have marked it. We call upon all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar actions of their own to send a clear message that such a gross blatantly racist injustice to the Maori people will never be accepted.Ake!Ake!Ake”.Well unfortunately we did not have many like-minded New Zealanders in this House. A month later Tim Selwyn was arrested and charged with making a seditious statement seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.I have taken the time to share the statement of these “concerned Pakeha” because it raised in my mind the vital issues at the essence of this bill: what is the nature of justice the injustice and the criminal offending that we are debating here tonight? Is it the call for peaceful resistance? Is it the concept of civil disobedience? Is it the suppression of political expression? Or is the real crime that of a desperate Government a universally unpopular bill and the tragic consequences of “Confiscation Day”? The seditious statement of Tim Selwyn in calling for “all like-minded New Zealanders” to vent their anger in disgust has eerie similarities with another challenge made to another Labour Government decades ago. The statement to the Labour Party came with conditions thatthe Treaty should be embodied in statute there should be protection from sale of our lands no more land confiscation and compensation for stolen land. That statement came fromTahupōtikiWīremuRātana and it arose in the context of negotiations with Michael Joseph Savage in 1936. In his negotiations with SavageRātana placed four objects on the table: a potato a gold watch a greenstonetiki and ahūia feather. He explained the potato was the ordinaryMāori needing his land because “a potato cannot grow without soil.” The watch which was broken represented the broken machinery ofMāori land law. Thetiki representedMāori mana and thehūia feather was a sign of chieftainship which Savage could wear if he were to take on the resolution of these issues so important to theMāori.Over 70 years later manyRātana supporters have asked whether indeed it is timely once again to bring these four objects—if Labour can find them—out on the table and to assess whether the advancement of the people has occurred as anticipated so many years ago. This is the lesson of history that this archaic and outmoded legislation reminds us of. Whether it be the broken glass of the window or the broken glass of the watch the core component remains—the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice. One has only to look at the comments of the public submissions to see ample evidence of the way in which the restrictions on freedom of expression have led to broken trust.MalcolmHarbrow drew on the judgments of Sir Kenneth Keith in concluding that strict interpretation of the law could outlaw in effect all political dissent and we have heard some examples tonight from Mr Hide. Sir Keith had argued that the law could be used to target peaceful protest or those advocating civil disobedience including those whose political opinions were outside the mainstream. Another submitter Ashley Clarkson summarised the concerns of the 17 submissions. He stated: “The crime of sedition is an archaic law which is clearly incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression in a democratic society should not be limited in any reasonable way particularly not in such a way as to suppress legitimate dissent against the actions and policies of the Government of the day.”It is of course highly fitting that as we debate this bill tonight we remember that 40 years ago in the south-eastern Bolivian scrubland the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara was executed. Che Guevara rebelled against the onslaught of poverty oppression and disenfranchisement throughout Latin America. He stood up and he spoke out; he acted for the people. Indeed his life serves as a reminder of the value of robust uninhibited and open debate—as we would expect in a healthy democracy.When we joined with the Greens United Future and ACT—and I thank members of those parties for that—to appeal to the Government to scrap these outdated archaic laws it was the principle of the freedom of expression that motivated our actions. It was the call for justice that has been provoked by more than a century of previous prosecutions that act against this principle. We recall the charges of sedition being laid on theTūhoe prophet RuaKēnana for his simple statement: “This country belongs to us theMāori.”Sedition charges were also forced on Te Whiti oRongomai andTohuKākahi for daring to encourage passive resistance. And amongst their seditious evidence was a statement: “Nāku te whenua.”—mine is the land. For this comment Te Whiti was charged with “wickedly maliciously and seditiously contriving and intending to disturb the peace”. Sedition charges were also thrown at my very good friend and life member of the Labour Party the lateNiko Tangaroa and at Annette Sykes Mike Smith and Tame Iti in 1995 for daring to share their views in a free and frank manner at the Asian Development Bank conference. It was interesting to look back at news reports of the time and to learn the views of the then Labour leader Helen Clark who suggested: “Itis vital all political parties committed themselves to resolving the grievances which were behind the threats.”It is not usually my practice to come to the House and ask that all parties pay heed to the advice of Helen Clark but I will on this occasion make an exception. For when one thinks about the charges that have incurred sedition prosecutions forMāori we think about the Foreshore and Seabed Act we think about land confiscation and alienation and we think about maintaining our right to our own cultural integrity. It is indeed vital that all political parties commit themselves to resolving the grievances. When we think about the broken watch tended byTahupōtikiWīremuRātana the broken glass that arose from the actions of “concerned Pakeha” and the broken faith broken trust and shattered justice it is obvious that repealing the seditious offence provisions are not the only actions this Parliament must take if we are truly to restore and rebuild the values of democracy. Kia ora.NICKY WAGNER (National): National like all other parties in the House supports the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. We agreed with the Law Commission when it concluded in its report earlier this year that seditious offences should be repealed and it gave good reasons to repeal sedition. The meaning of the word “sedition” has changed over time and the current legal profile of seditious offences is overly broad and uncertain. Because of this there is a real danger of abuse of the principle of freedom of speech that New Zealanders quite rightly hold dear. We also believe that the law is not in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Finally we believe there are other offences that can cover any areas of the law on sedition that should be retained.There have been times in our history—as we have heard from Tariana Turia—that this bill has been used in ways that today we would consider grossly inappropriate. It has been used in the past to impose political censorship to stifle political discussion and to suppress individual opinion. That is not the sort of behaviour that we want to see in New Zealand in 2007.A number of sedition charges were laid in the late 19th century and they continued to be laid until the early 1920s. It is true that most were laid in times of political unrest or war. They included charges againstMāori in land disputes cases—as we have also heard from Tariana Turia; against striking workers; against people opposing conscription in World War I; and even against people possessing Communist literature.The law then fell into disuse until 2006 when Timothy Selwyn was prosecuted for sedition—we have heard this story too from Tariana Turia. His crime was to disagree with the Government about the foreshore and seabed legislation. He threw an axe through the window of the Prime Minister’s electorate office and he left pamphlets around urging the public to take similar action. There have been only two other recent cases.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.