Volume 634 Week 29 - Thursday 26 October 2006 
Volume 634 Week 29 - Thursday 26 October 2006 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
Thursday 26 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House is in adjournment next week. When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 November priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill and any first readings of Government bills that appear on the Order Paper. 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Ejection of Members 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On Tuesday of this week a large number of National Party MPs were ejected from the House for various reasons and the penalty on that occasion was that they were to stay out of the House for the rest of the day. Yesterday an equal number of Labour members were required to leave the Chamber but the penalty it seemed was commuted to be just until the end of question time. Madam Speaker we would appreciate knowing whether there will be some consistency applied to members regardless of which side of the House they are on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The members who were ejected from the National side of the House were also out of the Chamber until the end of question time. 
Questions to Ministers 
Mathematics—Teaching Skills 
1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to further improve the teaching of mathematics in New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I announced that from next year the Government will fund tuition fees for 600 primary teachers per year to allow them to undertake postgraduate study in mathematics. This is the first stage in a scheme that the Government plans to extend to such areas as English science social studies and technology to ensure that teachers have more opportunities to enhance their knowledge and expertise in important subject areas. The new scheme recognises that the most important factor in lifting student achievement is effective teaching backed by strong investment in professional development. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to support professional development for teachers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government will invest around $110 million this year in the professional development of teachers along with $58 million for projects that are giving teachers the skills to lift numeracy and literacy standards for all students. As a result of this investment our evaluations are showing major improvements across all of the 1700 schools involved with the highest improvement amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers and a lift in achievement across Maori and Pacifica students. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister tally that rosy view of schools with the Education Review Office annual report that yesterday told the nation that 30 percent of schools do not have any meaningful or useful information about the achievement or the progress of their students; and will he take any action on the back of that startling piece of information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know the Education Review Office is a Government agency paid for by the taxpayer and of course we take all of its reports seriously . 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How do New Zealand students currently fare in international studies on mathematics achievement and does the Minister believe that the announced investment will increase our relative rankings? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an excellent question. Our results show that in fact we are amongst the best in numeracy and mathematics. In the study of trends in international maths and science or the IMSS study as it is known conducted in 2002-03 New Zealand was one of only six countries to report a significant improvement in mathematical achievements between 1994 and 2002. New Zealand’s year 9 mean performance in mathematics was significantly higher than the international means for 46 countries participating at that educational level. Increases in maths achievements between 1994 and 2002 were particularly notable for Maori and Pasifika boys. 
Moana Mackey 
: What gains to the New Zealand population would there be if everyone reached a high standard of basic numeracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It would for example allow the leader of an organisation that contracted for services with a broadcaster to understand that the organisation has to pay GST. If the GST added up to $115000 and if there were a fine of $100000 attached to it that leader would know that the organisation had to pay back $215000. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect to the comment the Minister just made has he received any reports as to the wisdom of attending a reception being put on by Minister Dunne titled “Twenty Years of GST: The Best Path Forward”—one of the architects of GST being the leader of the National Party and the reception being one he could possibly attend and explain why he has not paid GST back? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry but that question was very wide of the original question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the original question was on the issue of mathematics as was the secondary question. But the point at issue was the use of mathematics when it relates to things such as taxation. Right then it was on the floor and I am begging your indulgence Madam Speaker because a very very important occasion is coming up there with a celebration of 20 years of GST. You will remember that it had to be “good for you” which was the Labour slogan but my real issue is that if it has to be “good for you” then it has to be paid. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I have ruled on the matter. The member’s question was far too wide of the original question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has to be a different point of order. My tolerance for questioning my rulings is at zero today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well Madam Speaker you should not presume that that is the object of the point of order. I want to seek the House’s leave including your own to table this invitation with particular reference to some members who should be there. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ingram Report—Immigration Minister’s Statement 
2.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he still rely on the Ingram report because it is an authoritative comprehensive report written by a Queen’s Counsel as he confirmed to the House on Wednesday 30 August 2006? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I still believe that it would be inappropriate to question the integrity of a Queen’s Counsel who has produced a report based on the information available to him. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How wise is the Minister to rely on the Ingram report when Noel Ingram states: “I have found no evidence to support an allegation that Mr Siriwan or Ms Phanngarm were promised work in New Zealand.” when Sunan Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “Taito told me while I was at his house at Mangere that if I come to Samoa to work as a tiler at his house at Afiomalu he will get me back to New Zealand with a work permit.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As has been noted to this House there is clearly a conflict of evidence and that matter will need to be investigated by the New Zealand Police. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How wise is the Minister to rely on the Ingram report when Noel Ingram QC concluded that “the evidence does not support a finding that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on his house at the time he wrote that letter.”—the letter Mr Field wrote to the Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor on 18 May 2005—when Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “Taito said to me … he will give me WS$200 per week for food and I could live at his new house in Afiomalu where I was to work.” and that “Taito had come to the house at Afiomalu and he saw me on my knees sanding and levelling the floor to have the floor ready for tiling. … This was approximately the end of March 2005.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Those are matters that the police will no doubt investigate. I note that Mr Siriwan had the opportunity to speak to the inquiry and did not make those allegations then. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How wise is the Minister to rely on the Ingram report when the Ingram report failed to uncover the facts contained in Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit that in addition to the “four months to put tiles in Taito’s house” he was “asked to do painting in the whole inside of Taito’s house. This took two months.” and that as well as confirming that he was never paid for the 4 months’ tiling work he said: “I confirm that I was never paid for this painting job”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that it would be an error of judgment for the member to place reliance upon contested evidence when the matter is still under investigation by the New Zealand Police. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How wise is the Minister to rely on the information in the Ingram report when Noel Ingram failed to uncover the fact not only that Taito Phillip Field had done a deal with Mr Siriwan to go to work on Mr Field’s house in Samoa for no pay but also that in respect of paying for his air ticket to Samoa Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that he went to Taito’s house and gave him $400 towards his air fare and “I told Taito that I had already spent $360 to buy silicon and other water proofing materials to take with me to Samoa for Taito’s house.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be an error of judgment for the member to describe as fact matters that are the subject of a conflict of evidence. To allege so would be to undermine the police inquiry and to question the integrity of a Queen’s Counsel. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How wise is the Minister to rely on the Ingram report when Mr Sunan Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “we have not been free to speak the truth about our situation. … I have never been free to speak out. I was told what to say to the lawyer who came from New Zealand to talk to me.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Those recycled press clippings are now old news but— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Again we are falling into barracking. The Minister is entitled to be heard and other members in the House are entitled to hear him. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that those matters are the subject of a police inquiry. The member may well ask why the person alleging those matters feels free to speak now when he did not feel so free earlier. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the sworn affidavit of Sunan Siriwan dated the 26th day of September 2006 and sworn in front of a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Samoa. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Police—Assaults on Officers 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she share the concern expressed by Commissioner of Police Howard Broad regarding the increase in attacks of a serious nature on police and what does she consider to be the reason for the increase in attacks on police? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Police) 
: Yes I am concerned by any assaults on police but I am particularly concerned about the serious assaults. No one can say definitely why there should be an increase in any particular year but I know that the police themselves are concerned about alcohol and drug use and abuse in society. It is difficult to quantify such factors though it is well known that alcohol features in around 70 percent of incidents requiring police attention. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister of Police agree with the President of the Police Association Greg O’Connor when he states that focusing the deployment to the front line of the 1000 extra police recruited over the next 3 years will help cut assaults on police and has the Government considered the possibility of increasing the penalties for assaults on police officers as suggested by New Zealand First as another means of deterrent? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I know the Government has considered the proposal put forward by New Zealand First regarding penalties. We are very happy to work with New Zealand First to ensure that the 1000 new police are indeed on the front line doing a very good job in trying to reduce violence in this country. 
Ann Hartley 
: What is the Government doing to make the job of police safer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No Government can make the job of police safe. There will always be risks associated with policing. But a number of initiatives are being taken that aim to mitigate these risks. These include the roll-out of the stab-resistant body armour scheduled for implementation later this year the current police Taser trial and the recruitment of the extra 1000 front-line sworn police. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister of Police concede that there is a connection between the 53 percent increase in serious assaults on police since 1999 and the 26 percent increase in total violent crime under her watch in light of the statement by Detective Inspector Steve Rutherford of Counties-Manukau that “The reality is that violence has escalated.” and the fact that police officers are the ones who deal with these incidents face to face; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The facts are that recorded crime per 10000 population is nearly 20 percent down on that which it was 10 years ago. We acknowledge that we have been particularly focusing on the area of domestic violence. We have been catching and convicting more people for violent offences and we will continue to do that. The sad reality is that drugs and alcohol play an increasingly harmful part in this process and we hope to do everything we can to reduce that. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be no general arming of the police with guns and that she will not leave this issue of whether we end up with Tasers to internal struggles within the police force? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There is no enthusiasm and no intent to arm our police force. We are however going through a trial with Taser equipment to try to offer better protection to police in difficult situations. That will be an objective assessment and we await the outcome of that trial. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister accept that the high number of reported serious assaults on police is not a true reflection of how many officers are injured on the job as many officers who are assaulted do not report their injuries and if the Minister is not aware of that why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of any officers not reporting incidents. If the member has any information I am sure that the Minister of Police would be happy to accept that and to follow up on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware of what Mr Broad was referring to when he stated that strong forces wanted police to carry guns if the Taser trial proves unsuccessful and if the Taser does prove to be an effective countermeasure will she be recommending that Tasers be deployed in every police car? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I spoke directly with Howard Broad the Commissioner of Police over those words. He regrets using the words “strong force”. However he does acknowledge that the police are hoping the Taser trial is successful. If it is I am sure the Minister or the commissioner will look at deployment of that useful tool across the country. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a chart from this year’s annual report of the police showing that the recorded assaults on police have not increased over the past decade. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ingram Report—Work Permits 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has the New Zealand Immigration Service received an application for a work permit from Mr Sunan Siriwan and Ms AumpornPhanngarm? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If such applications were received would it be relevant information in considering them that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “My partner and I wish to apply for work visas to go to New Zealand as set out in the Minister’s letter. … We waited and waited and nothing was heard from Taito in regards lodging of our applications for work visas.”; is it correct that there was a time limit in the then Associate Minister’s special direction that the Thais be granted work visas for New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that no application for a work permit has been received from Mr Siriwan and Ms AumpornPhanngarm. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister might choose to repeat what he likes but the Standing Orders require him to answer my question. My question asked for information far beyond whether a work permit application had been received from Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot require a specific answer to the question. The Minister is obliged to address the question. His answer did relate to the specific question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be relevant information in consideration of applications for work visas for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “In December 2005 I asked Taito when he was in Samoa to lodge our visa applications. He told me to hold off because there have been problems in New Zealand. … Taito told me not to lodge my work visa just yet until he says so.”; has that delay demanded by Taito Phillip Field put the Thai couple beyond the 6-month visa eligibility period authorised by the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member has now corrected himself and addressed the question to a work visa application. I can confirm that a work visa application not a permit application has been made. As a former Associate Minister of Immigration he should be able to tell the difference. No doubt the Immigration Act review will assist by simplifying that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders actually do require a Minister to answer a question and the nature of that answer must be that it addresses the question. For the Minister simply to give any answer that he may choose is not within the Standing Orders. I can absolutely assure you Madam Speaker that if you check the Standing Orders you will see that that is correct. Standing Order 377 states: “(1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” It is a Standing Order that is often overlooked in this House but an answer that seeks to address the question must be given. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I understand that it is accepted in this House that a Minister is not responsible for the accuracy or veracity of the question that is being posed. These matters are matters of law and policy and it is incumbent upon the member to get the accuracy of his question right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is obliged to address the question consistent with the Standing Order the member quoted. However the Minister did address the specific question that was asked and the subsequent questions he also addressed. So would the member like to continue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When considering the applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm will consideration be given to the fact that Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm followed the directions set out in then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor’s letter of 23 June authorising that they be issued with work visas and obtained their police clearances from Thailand got their medical checks paid Taito Phillip Field $2000 in cash for Ms Phanngarm’s removal costs but held off lodging their visa applications because as set out in Mr Sirirwan’s affidavit: “Taito told me not to lodge my work visa application … He told me to hold off because there have been problems in New Zealand.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be quite inappropriate for a Minister of Immigration to comment on an application that was still under active consideration by the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be relevant information in considering the applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that after Taito Phillip Field recently gave him 1000 tala in cash: “Taito told both of us twice that day that if police from New Zealand come to Samoa to talk to us we must tell the police from New Zealand: that Sunan and Aumporn did no work at Taito’s house and did no tiling. Taito told us to tell the New Zealand police that we never worked at Taito’s house; we must tell police that we worked outside; we must tell the police that we did not see Taito at his home.”; would that kind of manipulation by a Labour member of Parliament be helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s or Ms Phanngarm’s applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Without wishing to pre-empt in any way the consideration by the department I observe that it may be pointless for Ms Woodroffe to be representing the people concerned when Dr Smith is attempting to prosecute the case through the House of Representatives. His attempt to do so reminds me of a comment in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 25 October 2003 describing as amateurish the attempts of Dr Lockwood Smith to support Dr Don Brash in his coup attempt. It stated: “National values competence”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Would the Minister please be seated. That was not relevant to the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When considering the immigration applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm—in addition to their New Zealand - born child—would it be relevant information that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that as a result of working for Taito Phillip Field for many months for no pay he now has nothing: “I gave Taito my last NZ$2000 that I had from New Zealand. I sold my gold chain before I left New Zealand so I had money to bring with me to Samoa. Now I have nothing.”; would that kind of exploitation by a Labour member of Parliament be helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s and Ms Phanngarm’s applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be inappropriate of me to comment on an application still under consideration by the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the affidavit of I’o A Tuakeu-Lindsay confirming the Thai translation services received by Mr Sunan Siriwan and AumpornPhanngarm sworn on 17 October 2006 in front of a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Samoa. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change Policies—Reports 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What recent reports if any has he received on increasing support for the Government’s climate change policies? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I have had reports that the Labour-led Government has gathered significant support for its approach to climate change. We welcome the consistent and principled support of the Greens of United Future and of the Maori Party. We also welcome the recent conversion of the National Party which despite stridently opposing the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill at its first reading at the Commerce Committee and during the election campaign has done yet another flip-flop. Last night it supported the essentially unamended bill in its second reading in the House. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister explain why the Government’s policies are garnering public support at this time? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Because they encourage Kiwis to do the sensible things they believe are good for them and our country: initiatives like improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles improved insulation and solar water heating to name but three. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative ties in with the policies the Government has in place to respond to climate change. That initiative will also improve water quality and give new business opportunities for landowners. If however the member is asking me how National could have credibly opposed that bill previously I am afraid that I cannot supply the answer to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister cannot comment on National’s policy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can he claim that there is increased support for the Government’s climate change policies when everyone from Government officials to Greenpeace to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says that the Government has no policy and has no idea how it will meet its Kyoto Protocol targets and when its key policies on the carbon tax the “fart tax” the energy efficiency strategy the negotiated greenhouse agreements and the projects to reduce emissions in forestry have all been put on hold or canned? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: How that member would love that to be true and for the situation to be as grim as that. It is not. We are taking a principled approach to it. I remind the House— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I remind the House that in the first reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill John Key said: “I rise on behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand—that is the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it for very very good reasons indeed.” Well it looks as though John Key is another member of the club of climate change “Donny-come-latelys” or perhaps he is the next johnny-come-lately but nevertheless we welcome— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is this in order? I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be silent. I cannot hear the answer to the question I say to Dr Smith. So if that is his point of order—I do not want to pre-empt it but if it is—I would ask the Minister to address the question without editorialising. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will read from  
Hansard 
 in respect of the first reading of the bill when John Key said— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Order requires that the Minister address the question. I would love to quote the full brilliant speech of my colleague John Key but that was not my question. My question was—and perhaps you would like me to repeat it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes please. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —how can he claim that there is increased support for the Government’s climate change policies when everyone from his own officials to Greenpeace and even to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says that the Government has no policy and has no idea how it will meet its Kyoto Protocol targets and when its key policies on the carbon tax the “fart tax” the energy efficiency strategy the negotiated greenhouse agreements and the projects to reduce emissions in forestry have all been put on hold or canned? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister’s reply was that in the previous reading Mr Key described the bill as very stupid and useless etc. and that last night the Opposition voted for it. Therefore of course support for the Government’s policies has increased. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister was attempting to address the question. If we have a new supplementary question I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you clarify for me whether Dr Cullen is the “Minister of Everything” or whether David Parker is the Minister because we on this side of the House are a bit confused. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order as the member knows. The Minister was talking to the point of order. Would the member please be seated if he wishes to remain in this Chamber. The Minister was clarifying a point; it is not unusual to do so through points of order. Can we start again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Smith has already had the number of supplementary questions that would require you to invite my colleague to ask the next supplementary question. I do not want to make a complaint here but if I thought for a moment that someone regarded the National Party as having more rights than my party does then I would protest. I am not at that point now but I am just making the issue very clear that my colleague Peter Brown should be the next person to be called. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is quite right; I apologise. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that four of the world’s worst offenders when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions are the USA China India and Australia all of which are building or planning to build more coal-fired power stations two of which will not sign the Kyoto Protocol and the other two of which are exempt until 2012; if he does accept that does he believe we must keep things in perspective and inform the public of New Zealand that anything we do down here will on a global basis have only a minimal effect? 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In relation to my colleague Nick Smith having his call taken away I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 25/4— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much. I do not need any assistance on this matter. I called the member; I saw him. The matter is over. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I agree with the member to the extent that it is true that countries like China and India are building thermal electricity generation capacity and that in order for the world to get over the challenge of climate change it will be necessary for countries like China and India to also moderate their emissions. None the less it also remains true that countries like the United States are taking measures to reduce their emissions. Countries like New Zealand actually have higher emission rates than developing countries and it is important that wealthy countries like ours do our bit. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government’s policies on climate change have been so successful why have New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions increased under this Government at a faster rate than that of any other OECD country at three times the rate of Australia and at four times the rate of the United States and why has New Zealand simultaneously achieved in 2005 the first year of net deforestation in 46 years; if that is success for God’s sake will the Minister tell me what failure would look like? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: One of the mains reasons why New Zealand’s emissions have grown since 1990 is that the thermal power capacity that the country had already built has been utilised more of the time instead of New Zealand building more hydro capacity. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Government in developing its climate change policy given any thought to a humanitarian resettlement plan for countries such as Tokelau Tuvalu and Kiribati which are likely to disappear as sea levels rise; if so what is that policy; if not does the Minister agree that it needs to happen in association with our Pacific neighbours? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government is beginning to give consideration to those issues. They are still away from us in the future but the Minister of Foreign Affairs is taxed with them. They are difficult issues; they are real potential consequences of climate change. Indeed recent reports out of both Australia and the United Kingdom are making increasing reference to the security implications of climate change if we do not get it under control because the number of people who could be on the move worldwide as a consequence of increases in sea levels is measured in millions not thousands. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on 10 October this year which states: “It is our view that there is currently a policy vacuum in climate change.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware of the repeated calls particularly since March this year of the climate change science community the academic community the non-governmental organisations and the general public for this Parliament to reach a cross-party agreement on the fundamentals of climate change policy so that we can take the country forwards rather than look backwards; if he is aware of that what steps has he taken to attempt to reach some cross-party agreements and what response has he had to his efforts? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Following the recent change of heart by the National Party in respect of climate change issues those questions have been put to me both in the House and outside the House. I respond now as I have responded previously: we believe we are developing sound policy in response to the climate change challenge. I think it reflects well on the National Party that it backed the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill yesterday in the House. I think we are getting closer to reaching agreement across the House as to what the appropriate price-based measures are in the electricity sector. I look forward to the contributions of all parties to the development of these policies and of course to the processes of Parliament including select committee processes and the very extensive consultation processes that we have running around these policies. Those avenues enable parties to come together. 
Ingram Report—Prime Minister's Statement 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still maintain that the Ingram report was “very comprehensive and thorough”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister tell this House and the New Zealand public why they should have any confidence in her Government and the findings of the Ingram report given the evidence that Sunan Siriwan was told by Taito Phillip Field to lie if he was questioned by the New Zealand Police; and is that acceptable behaviour for a Labour member of her Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any allegations can be considered by the police. Mr Siriwan was of course interviewed by Mr Ingram. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister now accept that Mr Siriwan did not speak to Noel Ingram QC because he was under such extreme pressure from Taito Phillip Field not to speak to Noel Ingram QC? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Siriwan had the opportunity to speak to the inquiry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Ingram report is full of gaping holes because she refused to give Noel Ingram extra powers of investigation when he asked for them and because potential witnesses were not assisted with independent legal advice; and was that because the last thing she wanted was for the truth about Taito Phillip Field’s activities to be uncovered by the investigation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No no and no. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she think it is acceptable for Taito Phillip Field a member of her Government to attempt to obstruct the police investigation into his activities; if not what specific actions will she take as a result of the information that has become public today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any new allegations and evidence can be referred to the police and considered by them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why despite all of the information that has now come to light does the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in Taito Phillip Field as a member of Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Field is on leave and the police are undertaking an investigation. Unlike the members opposite we are not going to direct the police as to their conclusions. 
Dioxin Serum Study Paritutu—Errors 
7.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice has the Minister received about the nature of the significant errors identified by independent forensic accountant John Leonard in the Ministry of Health’s Paritutu dioxin serum study? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received advice that the report of the forensic accountant contradicts the findings of the study conducted by Environmental Science and Research that was peer reviewed by scientists at the United States Centers for Disease Control the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Massey University New Zealand and Hatfield Consultants in Canada. However John Leonard has made serious claims and I have instructed the Ministry of Health to have his report independently reviewed. I can advise the House that this review will be carried out by Dr Allan Smith of the University of California at Berkeley. 
Tariana Turia 
: Why did the Minister fail to investigate the serious anomalies with the Paritutu dioxin serum study 1 year ago when they were brought to his attention in a letter dated 7 October 2005? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I receive some thousands of letters a year and I am afraid I do not recall that one. But I will say that the Government has every interest in making sure that accurate information is made available to the people of Paritutu and indeed to the wider public. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has his ministry considered carrying out DNA tests similar to those on Agent Orange victims in order to conclusively identify the effects of exposure to the dioxin; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My understanding and I am going from memory is that Dr Neil Pearce from Massey University is conducting further investigations into various chemicals including dioxin and that attached to his study are some DNA disruption studies. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister respond to claims that anonymised data from individual patients was withheld from the international peer reviewers of the Environmental Research and Science report and does he agree that these claims are very serious? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do agree that they are serious claims and I am pleased therefore to inform the House that they are wrong. The anonymised data in question was provided to the international peer reviewers. It has so far been withheld from public release due to privacy concerns from some in the community and from the ethics committee that approved the study. Regardless serious claims have been made about the Environmental Science and Research report and I have as I said in my primary answer instructed the Ministry of Health to analyse them and respond as soon as possible. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Would he like to use this as an opportunity right now in the House today to offer an apology to affected New Zealanders for the physical and emotional suffering they have endured as a result of successive Governments subsidising 245-T encouraging its widespread use and long after it had been banned in most other countries of the world for allowing it to be manufactured right next to a residential area and for downplaying denying and falsely reassuring residents about the health effects of dioxin; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The events over the past four or five decades have certainly been a chapter of interesting changes of viewpoint and indeed probably reflect not only changes in New Zealand society over that time but also changes in our view of what is an acceptable risk. Clearly what happened then is not acceptable now. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I explicitly asked the Minister whether he would apologise to the affected residents. The Minister did not answer my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think he addressed the question but if he wishes to make his answer explicit he may do so. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me say uncomplicatedly that I do not feel entitled to apologise for 4 ½ decades of activity by a series of industries—that is to say the primary sector a series of chemical companies such as Dow and its variously named subsidiaries—and a series of Governments. I am myself a person who got through university by spraying an awful lot of gorse. I have no idea what my dioxin level is but I bet it ain’t that good! 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Government felt able to make an apology to Vietnam veterans— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order as the member knows. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Can the Minister confirm that an independent review as he has outlined will be done and that if that review of the existing data shows a need for further investigation a longitudinal study tracking down the residents who were in the Paritutu area at the time of highest exposures is likely to follow? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is such a study that is under contest; that study has already been carried out. What I am reviewing—as I am sure the member would want given that he represents the residents in question—is whether John Leonard’s independent forensic accounting expertise was accurate. In either case I will happily make that information public. 
Tariana Turia 
: What has changed between October 2005 when the Minister denied in writing that there was any evidence of data manipulation to cover up dioxin exposure levels and the New Zealand Press Association’s report of Tuesday 24 October in which the Minister is quoted as saying: “It's clear that there's room for doubt so we better have another look…”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What has changed is that there was a very long television programme which spent a very long time telling the public of New Zealand that a gentleman thinks there has been a mistake. The gentleman raises valid questions. The fact that he did not know that this stuff had already been peer reviewed several times is perhaps a reflection on the television company. None the less valid questions have been raised and we will take another look at the issue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government now honour a promise made by Don Matheson a public health official at the Ministry of Health to residents at a public meeting in New Plymouth 4 years ago that if there was proof that Dow caused the problem the Government would initiate legal proceedings against Dow; if the Government will not does the Minister acknowledge that that will send a terrible message to multinational corporations that they can come to New Zealand pollute our local environment poison our local residents and get away scot-free? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry that I am unable to confirm that that undertaking was made 4 years ago. As to whether the Government should take anyone to court an immediate question is what we can charge them with. As I recall in my legal advice to date I do not know of any law that was broken at the time. If on the other hand the member has legal advice to the contrary I would be pleased to receive it. 
Tariana Turia 
: Will the Minister now undertake to review the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Even you heard that outrageous comment from Nick Smith. In light of what he said he should be asked to leave the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. I notice that he has the next question and he should stay—[ 
Interruption 
]—no that was a disorderly intervention and the member knows that. The member should stay until his question is answered. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you just explain to us the basis on which that intervention was any more disorderly than any number of interjections that have been made during question time today? It was not made during a question it was not made during a point of order it was not unparliamentary but I suppose it could be said that it was personal because it was aimed at one member of Parliament. But I would say that in the common sense of almost all members here today that intervention was no different from any other today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point and it was raised yesterday which is why I am making this ruling. A member was on her feet asking a question and there was an interchange across the Chamber that was not directed to the question but that was interfering with the person asking the question. That is the basis for that ruling. I want members please to show courtesy and respect. Interjections are fine when on the question but that one was not on the question. It was a gratuitous comment that was put across the Chamber. That is the basis of that ruling. 
Tariana Turia 
: Will the Minister now undertake to review the Taranaki District Health Board’s August 2002 birth defects study as was recommended in light of the new evidence in John Leonard’s report? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the evidence in John Leonard’s report stacks up when reviewed by Dr Allan Smith of the University of California at Berkeley then I think that the Government does need to consider Dr Smith’s report when it is received. 
Tariana Turia 
: I seek leave to table a letter of 7 October 2005 from Andrew Gibbs to the Hon Pete Hodgson and a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson to Andrew Gibbs in response to Mr Gibbs’ letter of 7 October 2005. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Annette King to Andrew Gibbs where the Minister says that all the monitoring and investigation carried out around the Ivon Watkins-Dow issue showed there was no significant exposure of dioxins into the local population which is completely erroneous. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Whangamata Marina Decision—Conservation Minister's Statements 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he stand by his answers to questions in the House on 14 March 2006 in regard to the Whangamata marina in which he stated “I followed due process” and “I followed the legal process under the Resource Management Act”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 In general yes but I accept the court’s advice. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister possibly tell the House that “In general yes” he did follow the law and due process when the High Court found his decision “unfair” and “in breach of the common law standards of natural justice” and that there was more than one error of law; will he now apologise to the Whangamata Marina Society for his repeated breaches of the law? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to hear the Minister’s answer would they please enable him to be heard in silence. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I too would like to quote the court. Justice Fogarty stated: “There are no findings in this judgment which would warrant an extraordinary direction by this Court that the present Minister of Conservation should not continue to be seized of this case. The errors identified can be corrected … clearing a way for reconsideration by this Minister.” 
Charles Chauvel 
: Who will make the final decision about whether to grant the two restricted coastal activity permits required under the Resource Management Act for the Whangamata marina? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would note that Judge Fogarty said in his judgment that my decision was not biased predetermined or irrational and he directed me to remake my decision using a better process. After careful thought I decided it was important to remove any suggestion of predetermination in a new decision taken by me. Accordingly I have delegated the authority to make a new decision to my colleague David Benson-Pope the Minister for the Environment who is in charge of the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister in his statement on 19 September following the High Court decision say that he would be making the final decision on Whangamata but then on 12 October in the exact hour in which the Auditor-General dropped his explosive report on Labour’s illegal campaign spending announce he would pass the decision to David Benson-Pope; why did he hide the decision that way—was it that he was so embarrassed that he had been rolled by Dover Samuels and his caucus? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: At no point during the period before I delegated the decision did I say I had come to a decision. I said I was considering it. And of course unlike that member I do not have a contempt of court ruling against me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should mum and dad taxpayers have to foot the bill of up to $250000 awarded by the High Court in costs to the Whangamata Marina Society on top of the $150000 his unlawful decision has cost Crown Law in its defence; and if the taxpayer is to foot this $400000 total bill for his illegal conduct is not resigning the honourable thing to do? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Once again that member illustrates his freedom with terminology. At no point did Justice Fogarty say my decision was unlawful. I guess that is why that member is currently before the courts being sued for $15 million for libel. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can he tell the House that the court did not find he had acted unlawfully when it said that he had made an error of law; what is the difference? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat that Justice Fogarty said that I was still able to make the decision and that I had not acted unlawfully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will his Government support National’s proposition to remove the Minister of Conservation’s veto over such consents noting that in over 400-plus consents considered by Ministers since 1991 only once has a Minister overturned a decision of the Environment Court—and that was subsequently overturned by the High Court—and further that this High Court decision makes the Minister’s discretion very narrow and that this additional ministerial step just adds delay to the consenting process; would it not be better just to respect the decisions of the Environment Court? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What an extraordinary question that is from a member of a previous National Government that brought in the Resource Management Act and put these very provisions in it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House—noting that the Minister has tried to tell the House that he did not act unlawfully—to table in order that members may read it Judge Fogarty’s report in which he found the Minister of Conservation breached the law on three different counts. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Local Government—Youth Involvement 
9.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to increase opportunities for young people to be engaged at a local government level? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The Youth in Local Government conference recently held in New Plymouth is just one example of initiatives supported by the Government— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is chipping across the Chamber. David Bennett you are on your last warning. It is what causes disorder in this House and I have been asked to keep order. [ 
Interruption 
] It was not to the Minister; it was across the Chamber. The member is on his last warning. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been asked to exit the House because during a question from a member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. Please go David Bennett in the interests of consistency— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No that is not the point Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well he should go anyway. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No Madam Speaker you seem to have a bias whereby you are very keen to kick National members out. The reality is that Winston Peters while a member was asking a question in circumstances identical to mine made an interjection and he should be asked to leave the House on the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. If he did that then he should go too. You both should go. That is what is causing disorder in this House. It is not related to the debate at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I most certainly did not. Nanaia Mahuta is the answerer of the question. She was on her feet when I said “See you Nick.” The reality is that that is not offensive under the Standing Orders or any prior rulings. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I want to raise that Dr Nick Smith is still in the House. He left the House having been told to do so and came back in to raise a point of order. Members cannot come back into the House having been ordered out because they feel like having a point of order. I am afraid that he is not here on a legal basis at the present time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. No he is not. Would the member please leave until the end of question time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When Dr Smith was exiting the Chamber as you required him to do there was an intervention by Mr Peters who said “See you later Nick.” That is a complete contradiction; he has just admitted he said it and he is still here. He should go too. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry but I have ruled on this— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No hang on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No do not challenge my ruling. Do that at your peril. I want both the Rt Hon Winston Peters and David Bennett to please leave the Chamber. The only way we are going to get order here is if in fact we stick to the Standing Orders. It is this chipping across the House that is causing the problem at the moment. Please leave the Chamber until the end of question time. 
David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a new point of order; I will leave but I want to make this point of order. Is it your precedent now that one cannot make a comment when a speaker is on his or her feet as a Minister in reply? Because that is new. That is the offence with which I am being charged now falsely by Mr Tisch. He knows full well that when they started out the allegation was that I said what I said during a member asking the question. That was wrong. Nanaia Mahuta had well started her answer when I said what I said—and I do not deny it. But you will remember this: as he walked out he said “Stay awake Winston.” which is where the whole thing started in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the problem in this House. It is people having private conversations and exchanging abuse across this House. We have to get some semblance of order and I have been asked to do it. The Standing Orders state that we respond to questions and answers. I will ask the Minister the Hon Nanaia— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have asked you a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you are going out for—not that. It is because of the chipping not because of being on your feet. But please leave the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Youth in Local Government Conference recently held in New Plymouth is just one example of initiatives supported by the Government that encourage young people to have a real and positive role in decision making in their community. Sixty-eight young people from youth councils at least nine mayors and several councillors from all over New Zealand attended the conference. It was an opportunity for young people in councils to share information and ideas concerning young people. 
Sue Moroney 
: How does this contribute to the Government’s vision for young people contained in the Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: This strategy is about supporting opportunities for young people to be the best they can be: healthy confident connected vibrant and resilient. The Youth in Local Government Conference is an example of how young people develop the skills and attitudes they need to make a positive contribution to their community. By encouraging young people’s participation at a local government level they are valued and they have an opportunity to express their opinions and ideas and to contribute to community decision-making. 
Question Time 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise an issue which is I think a very important one for the House to consider and that is the events that just happened during the past question. I did not want to interrupt my colleague the Minister in her answers but I think there is a really important issue of order here that is worthy of your consideration and the consideration of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The point I am making is this. Last week I was asked to remove myself from the House because I apparently had interjected on what I had thought was a speech but actually was a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are heard in silence remember. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I left immediately but on my way out let the whip know that I was the duty Minister. Later in the afternoon because I apparently had delayed leaving it was asked that I be named which was a complete and utter surprise to me. I find it absolutely incredible that a member goes to leave the House then comes back to argue the point with you on a point of order. I know that you have dealt with it but I think it is an issue in terms— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the point—I have dealt with it. Please be seated. 
High Country—Farming 
10.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Does he stand by his statement that “The government is committed to high country farming that is environmentally sustainable and economically viable”; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Carter 
: As the Armstrong report is an interim report and has been disregarded by the Government will Donn Armstrong now be asked to present a final report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I do not envisage engaging Mr Armstrong any further. The Crown charges its high country lessees at an annual rate of 2 percent if paid on time on the land value excluding improvements. The 1982 Clayton report dealt with Crown pastoral leases and stated that that rate of return to Crown was more than generous to lessees. It noted that discounts are often capitalised into value by the farmers who get the discount and it also stated that charging on the basis of land value excluding improvements and a percentage thereof was preferable to a rental based on livestock carrying capacity. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Why is the Government having discussions with high country farmers about the impacts of rent increases? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Because the Crown wants a fair financial return on its high country land both by way of rent and in valuation of its interest during tenure review. But it is not the intention of the Government to make rents unaffordable which is why the Government is discussing with high country farmers ways to achieve rental outcomes that are fair reasonable and durable for both parties. Rents set in accordance with the law at higher levels will be affordable for many but may be unaffordable for some. Possible options for those for whom it is unaffordable include rent reductions in return for additional sustainable management contributions such as pest and weed control or improved public access. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Is he satisfied that the high country farmers in the South Island have been good custodians of the land since 1948—yes or no? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Overall yes. But that does not mean to say that they should get it for nothing. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Minister aware that under current leases farmers’ income can be derived only from grazing and does he argue that a sheep with a view will grow more wool than a sheep without a view? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am aware that that is the restriction on land use but I am also aware that the bundle of rights that is enjoyed and protected by lessees goes further than pure pastoralism and includes rights of exclusive occupation which is why one of the remedies for those lessees for whom rents may be unaffordable is that they give up some of those rights but retain their rights of pastoralism. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister confirm today that the valuers acting for Land Information New Zealand were instructed on 13 October this year to immediately apply amenity values to valuations and if that is the case what is the purpose of the Minister’s sham consultation round that he now promises the high country farmers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The round of consultation is not about what the law requires me to do; it is about the consequences of that for lessees. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why does the Government want to set high country rents according to their views and not income yet sets State house rentals for a multimillion-dollar house in Orakei with views over Auckland harbour on the basis of income and not its views? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member makes an interesting comparison. It does seem somewhat strange that a property of thousands of hectares would have the same rent as a State house. 
Physical Activity—Push Play Day 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: What action is being taken in the lead-up to national Push Play Day on 3 November to get more New Zealanders physically active? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Sport and Recreation New Zealand is currently running Push Play Nation a campaign that aims to increase awareness of physical activity and to encourage New Zealanders to form a habit of being physically active. The media campaign provides ideas on how to be active including in the workplace. It culminates in Push Play Day on Friday 3 November with activities running in regions around the country. Of course members opposite believe that if people get a tax cut they do not need to engage in physical activity. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has he seen on initiatives to encourage greater physical activity in the workplace? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A number of such proposals are around but I have also heard a suggestion that in this workplace—Parliament Buildings—attempts to make exercise facilities available to all staff are being frustrated by members opposite particularly by one who reportedly used to coach rugby at St Bede’s College by driving his car along the sideline in order to avoid walking. 
Child Support—Highly Paid Debtors 
12.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: 
Can he confirm media reports that state that almost 400 dads on salaries of $100000 or more owe $6.3 million in child support? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I can confirm that 387 persons are in that category. They owe around $4 million in child support payments with a further $2.25 million owed in outstanding penalties. 
Judith Collins 
: What estimates has the Minister been given of the number of wealthy fathers who are hiding their income and assets to avoid supporting their children? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not have an estimate of the actual number but I can tell the House that the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) which was recently passed and which the member’s party opposed gave us the capacity to initiate reviews of people’s affairs in order to catch people who employ trusts and other devices for precisely that purpose. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister confirm that three-quarters of all liable parents are currently not meeting their child support commitments and that his way of reducing that debt is to write it off? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The answer is yes and no. Three-quarters of people are not meeting their commitments. We made a change that gives us the capacity if they enter into arrangements to write off the penalty owed not the principal payment owed to the custodial parent. I need to make the point for the benefit of the member that the penalty payments have never been paid to the children concerned. It is actually revenue if one likes that is collected. It is far better to enter into arrangements where some child support is paid to those who require it rather than continue the situation where we were getting none at all. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why would wealthy people who have never met their child support commitments in the past suddenly become responsible parents once those penalties have been written off? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member is getting it back to front. The position is that their penalties will be written off only if they enter into arrangements. She seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The point I made in response to an earlier question is also relevant here. For the first time now Child Support and the Inland Revenue Department have the capacity to look into people’s affairs in that situation if they are using other mechanisms to shield income and thereby reduce their liability. 
Judith Collins 
: Has the Minister considered stopping indebted liable parents at the border before they go on their overseas trips to prevent them from leaving the country when they have outstanding child support payments; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I have asked officials to look into that for me and give me a report which I am expecting to receive fairly shortly. 
Judith Collins 
: When is the Minister going to get tough on the delinquent fathers who turn up in our electorate offices whingeing on because they have to pay $14 a week for their three children and telling us that their rights come first; when will he get tough for those kids? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I have no tolerance at all for people who abscond from their responsibilities. The legislation that was passed recently gives us a mechanism to get tougher with them. I have indicated in response to questions this afternoon that other measures are under consideration. I simply say to all liable parents that they have obligations and we expect them to meet them. 
Insolvency Bill 
Companies Amendment Bill 
Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Insolvency Bill the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills repeal and replace the Insolvency Act 1967 amend and add to the corporate insolvency provisions in the Companies Act 1993 and create new legislation on cross-border insolvency. These bills are designed to provide for an insolvency regime that is simple predictable and efficient to administer without imposing unnecessary compliance and regulatory costs on its users. It is designed to promote innovation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member trying to address it. It is common courtesy. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: These bills are designed to promote innovation responsible risk-taking and entrepreneurialism by not excessively penalising business failure. They are designed to distribute the proceeds to creditors in an equitable manner and in accordance with their relative pre-insolvency entitlements. They are designed to maximise returns to creditors by providing flexible and effective methods of insolvency administration and enforcement that encourage early intervention when financial distress first becomes apparent. They are designed to enable individuals in bankruptcy to participate fully again in the economic life of the community. Finally they are designed to promote international cooperation in relation to cross-border insolvencies. 
These bills represent an important step in the Government’s economic transformation agenda. They promote business investment greater innovation and economic growth by providing effective and efficient ways to deal with the financial failure of both individuals and companies. More specifically the Insolvency Bill makes the personal bankruptcy procedure undertaken by the official assignee more administratively efficient and cost-effective. It is also designed to provide debtors with better access to the bankruptcy regime and alternative bankruptcy procedures in times of financial difficulty with the ultimate goal of maximising returns to the creditors. 
The Insolvency Bill also introduces an alternative to personal bankruptcy known as the no-asset procedure which is aimed at consumer debtors. Many of the punitive aspects of bankruptcy such as restrictions on overseas travel and on owning a business are not applicable to consumer debtors. This 12-month procedure for forgiving debt is a once-only chance for consumer debtors. I believe it will make those who offer credit to individuals who are unlikely to repay it much more cautious about doing so. I am disappointed that the National Party extends the principle of personal responsibility only to those who end up in unmanageable debt and not to those who extend credit without undertaking appropriate steps to secure their interest. 
The Companies Amendment Bill adopts the Australian voluntary administration regime for companies in financial distress. This regime is an alternative to liquidation. It allows for a moratorium period for the administrators to assess the viability of the company to continue trading before making a decision to either rehabilitate the company by placing it in voluntary administration or enter into liquidation proceedings. If a decision to rehabilitate the company is made a deed of company arrangement is executed between the company and its creditors which forms the basis of the administration and contains details of creditors the amount of debt and the time over which the debt is to be repaid. Essentially this allows a company to have a voluntary plan to continue trading while managing its debts. Even if that is unsuccessful in terms of resolving the matter and a liquidation follows evidence from Australia shows that the returns to creditors are indeed greater than they would be otherwise. 
Opposition members spent most of their time on the involuntary administration sections of the bill due to the provisions that maintain the Crown’s priority as a preferential creditor in the bill. I wish to reiterate a couple of points. First the Inland Revenue Department is an involuntary creditor. It does not have a choice about which entities it deals with. It cannot secure its interests in any way other than through the preference. Secondly PAYE GST resident and non-resident withholding tax child support and student loan payments are all collected on behalf of the department. 
Opposition members did not spend time talking about the Australian-style director penalty notice provisions that have replaced the Crown’s preferential creditor status in Australia. I can only assume that they agree with making the director of a company personally liable for that company’s tax debts if he or she does not take appropriate action to pay the Inland Revenue Department within a certain time period as occurs in Australia. I believe that the case has not been made to warrant such a significant increase in directors’ liability because it would further erode the fundamental concept of limited liability that underpins our company laws. 
Provisions have been introduced in the bills to restrict the abuse of phoenix company structures by directors of failed companies with the intent to defeat the legitimate interests of creditors. The Companies Amendment Bill proposes to restrict the reuse of the failed company name and provides for criminal sanctions where the director has acted in bad faith to defeat creditors’ legitimate interests. The changes proposed in the bill eliminate the potential benefits to directors and therefore provide fewer incentives for directors to abuse phoenix company arrangements. 
Improvements to the law relating to cross-border insolvency are included in the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill. The bill adopts the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law on cross-border insolvency. The model law will provide effective and efficient mechanisms for dealing with cases of cross-border insolvency and debt recovery particularly where assets of the insolvent company are held in an overseas jurisdiction. The model law will not come into force in New Zealand until it is adopted by Australia given that Australia is our largest and closest trading partner. Australia has announced that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law will be included in its corporate insolvency reform bill which is intended for introduction late this year. 
Further changes were made to these bills at the Committee stage in response to issues raised by businesses and other Government departments. Those changes are largely technical in nature and will improve efficiency for those administering the regimes. A number of minor amendments that were necessary to better target some of the provisions and to ensure the efficacy of others are included—for example consequential amendments made as a result of the enactment of the KiwiSaver Act and the extension of the jurisdiction of associate judges to all personal and corporate insolvency matters. 
I commend again the Commerce Committee for its tremendous work in fine-tuning these bills and I thank those who made substantive submissions on the bills. I also thank the officials for their tireless efforts in engaging with the sectors throughout the process. They made it a very open and transparent process and at the same time delivered a discussion document on whether to regulate insolvency law practitioners. And just to use this speech as another little advertising opportunity submissions for the discussion document close on 2 February next year. 
These bills are an important part of the Government’s wider business law reform programme and its economic transformation agenda. They create an appropriate business environment for attracting investors enhancing the integrity of insolvency practitioners and ultimately assisting in economic growth by providing confidence to business investors that sound insolvency regimes are in place to deal with business failures. I commend these bills to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Business failure is a difficult time for all concerned but unfortunately it is an integral part of operating a business. National agrees with the objectives as outlined by the Minister of Commerce of the major review of insolvency law that has been carried out since May 1999 and that has resulted in this current legislation. The objectives—rightly so—are to make a simple and predictable regime to maximise the returns to creditors to not stifle innovation and also to encourage businesses to work their way back. The Minister credits this legislation as complementing the Government’s objective of economic transformation. Business recovery has to be a major part of that and that is why National has spent so much time discussing the centrepiece of the original Insolvency Law Reform Bill the voluntary administration scheme. This scheme is aimed at giving people who have taken responsible risks but have ended up in the unfortunate position of being insolvent an opportunity to recover their businesses. 
During the review undertaken by the officials they concluded that New Zealand’s current business rehabilitation law is seldom used and seems to serve little real purpose either in terms of salvaging businesses that are essentially sound but have got into difficulties or in terms of increasing the returns to creditors. They found that assisting business recovery was difficult. The reasons are that at the moment during a situation of insolvency only four options are available. The first is that the bank appoints a receiver. Usually that means the business assets are sold the bank calls on the directors’ personal guarantees and nothing is left for anyone else. The second option is to appoint a liquidator. Once again the business assets are sold and usually the amount recovered is quite insignificant in terms of benefiting other creditors particularly unsecured creditors or in terms of enabling the business to work itself out of that situation. Option three is to attend an out-of-court restructuring which is always difficult because it requires all creditors to agree. The last option is to attempt a creditors’ compromise. Unfortunately because there is no provision at the moment for a moratorium—during which the creditors do not enforce payment—it is quite difficult for all the creditors to adhere to not enforcing payment. 
So we know that the current law does not help businesses get out of a difficult financial position. But the Commerce Committee members learnt during the very useful and informative submissions from the many submitters that in many instances the major creditor is the Inland Revenue Department. 
At this juncture I would like to pause to acknowledge formally the generosity of the submitters who largely were involved in insolvency practice. They provided sound and technical submissions with practical illustrations to the committee. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all its members when I say that we found them very beneficial and we are indebted to them. I also acknowledge the work done by the officials and the support they gave because the original bill was very large and technical. 
Many submitters quoted examples that they had seen of the Crown preference for outstanding PAYE and GST being of such a substantial amount that it would not allow the company to trade into the future. The Minister tries to defend the Inland Revenue Department by saying that it is not a voluntary creditor but one has to question why the department allows individual businesses to get behind with that money which they hold in trust for and collect on behalf of taxpayers. Why does it allow a business to hold on to it for so long that it becomes a problem for that business and for other people? The department should be more proactive in enforcing the collection of those deductions which technically are trust money held by the business. 
The slackness of the department’s attitude has a lot to do with it. The fact that the department knows that it enjoys preferential creditor status is the reason it was suggested by many submitters the department is a bit relaxed about enforcing those payments. The department knows that it enjoys preferential creditor status if a business gets into trouble. Therefore it allows the directors or proprietors to start to use that money which does not belong to them as cash flow in order to cover the problems of the business. One could argue that if the Inland Revenue Department were to take action more promptly it either would minimise the losses of all the other creditors or might force the company to take action in those difficult times. 
One high-profile reported business failure concerned a Wellington restaurant. The Kopi restaurant went into liquidation and it was reported that it had not handed over PAYE deductions for 3 years. It took another 3 years for the Inland Revenue Department to take any action. One supplier who was owed $28000 by that restaurant has described his chance of recovering his debt as being less than that of winning a first division lottery ticket. One has to be fair to unsecured small creditors. They do not have the benefit of being able to refuse to give credit to a lot of their customers. So who is looking after their interests? Certainly we know that the Labour Government does not care about them. 
In another court case in Greymouth Judge Christiansen described the Inland Revenue Department as “lurking in the background like a shark waiting to consume failing companies”. The reason he made that statement was that the failed company that was the subject of the case had initially owed the Inland Revenue Department $90000 but eventually penalties etc. took that debt to $200000. There was nothing left for any unsecured creditors. 
The conclusion is that the current business recovery options do not work. One of the key decisions that the officials recommend is to introduce voluntary administration. The Minister continues to misrepresent the situation. The voluntary administration scheme is not modelled completely on the Australian case and it is not true that National would jump on the idea of increasing the directors’ liability. The Commerce Committee was presented with the option of limiting the Inland Revenue Department’s preferential creditor status to a time period or to a certain type of deduction and I found it offensive that some Labour members stopped the select committee from continuing to debate a real viable option. 
I also want to pose a question to United Future which claims that it is looking after small-business people: why is United Future choosing to protect the Inland Revenue Department ahead of small businesses—and the same goes for New Zealand First? We understand that Labour of course is trying to protect the inland revenue. It is famous for grabbing as much tax as possible which it can then use to bribe all sorts of sectors or even to produce its pledge card for electioneering purposes. National opposes the legislation because we believe that the Inland Revenue Department’s interests should not be placed ahead of small-business people. Unsecured creditors and business people who genuinely get into trouble should be given a real chance of working themselves out of those financial difficulties. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to make a contribution to these third readings I would first like to thank the officials who I think worked very studiously and thoroughly with the Commerce Committee. As chairperson of the select committee I thank all the members who partook in the process. We are very fortunate that there are no duds on the Commerce Committee and that all its members are very thoughtful capable people. 
I would like to make a few comments about some of the changes that the select committee was not able to make. One of the aims of this legislation was to look at different ways of encouraging business rehabilitation—to hopefully save more businesses from difficult times and to allow for situations where businesses have run into problems of failure. The select committee spent quite a lot of its time working on the voluntary administration regime which we have virtually adopted from Australia and of course which we also took some guidance on from the United Kingdom. I have real concerns about the implementation of a voluntary administration procedure because I believe for two reasons that it has been nobbled before it has been implemented. 
The first reason is that because of ideology the Government has refused to reconsider the issue of preferential treatment for the Inland Revenue Department. We heard some very good arguments from submitters who came along to the select committee and said that the voluntary administration regime would be hampered if that issue were not dealt with because the Inland Revenue Department would have no motivation to agree to a deed of company arrangement. In fact submitters said that the Inland Revenue Department would be motivated to vote against a deed of company arrangement because it would be likely to get more money as a result of its preferential creditor status than if it were part of a deed of company arrangement where it would have no special treatment and in fact would be lined up with everybody else. 
When we looked at the Australian and the UK models we found that both those models had given away the Crown preferential status and had seen no ill effect. In fact in Australia in particular the voluntary administration regime has been successful and very little money has been put at risk on behalf of the Crown. When we asked officials who came to talk to us how much money was actually at stake they told us that the figure was $5 million. I do not think that that is a large amount of funding when we weigh up the issue of trying to save some businesses from liquidation and moving them into an alternative regime where they can hopefully trade out of their difficulties. So that issue could potentially affect the success of this regime and we will be watching very closely to see whether that is the case. 
The second issue relates to some concerns about the qualifications of liquidators. This concern has not been addressed properly at the select committee level or during the Committee stage. One of the major accountancy firms put in a submission that said that if a firm satisfied the definition for being a liquidator as written in this bill that would basically lock out the major firms from undertaking some of the more complex and large liquidations in New Zealand. The bill is worded in such a way that the definition relating to firms having an ongoing business relationship with any of the secured creditors is so vague that many of our best larger firms would not be able to undertake that work. 
 One of the firms argued a recent case—that of Feltex. The major secured creditor for Feltex as we all know was the ANZ. If we look at all the major accounting firms—like Deloittes PricewaterhouseCoopers etc.; I am sure members know the list—we will see that very few will not have some kind of continuing business relationship with the ANZ. We are a country of 4 million people. We have only a small number of banks and a small number of accountancy firms. They work together very closely in a continuing business relationship but by the way this bill is worded potentially they will be locked out from taking on the role of liquidator in some of our larger and more complex cases. As a country we cannot afford to have that situation because we suffer from a skill shortage as it is without making the pool of talent even smaller. 
I understand that accountancy firms will be watching very carefully the interpretation of this definition and those firms have an intention of challenging some of the law in the event that they are precluded from undertaking that work. It is quite a serious omission and could undermine the voluntary administration regime. The last thing I think the Government wants as we enter into a voluntary administration regime is for there to be some high-profile court cases and challenges and for the regime not to be successful. So the Government has taken a real risk by refusing to listen to what was good reasonable common-sense advice from the sector—that is from those involved in undertaking this kind of work on a day-to-day basis as opposed to some of those who advised us and who look at it from a less practical point of view. That is something we should be concerned about. 
The second area and it relates to the Insolvency Bill is the introduction of the no-asset procedure. Although I can understand why the Government sees this procedure as a method of tidying away some of the administratively burdensome cases where New Zealanders have racked up huge amounts of debt but have no ability to repay—no money coming in and no prospect of ever delivering any payment to those to whom they owe money—we think this bill sends exactly the wrong message to New Zealanders who put themselves in that situation. This bill actually says that if someone wants to enter into a hire purchase agreement or some kind of debt arrangement up to $40000 that person can potentially get a “get out of jail free” card or a “get off the hook” card. We think that that sends entirely the wrong message. 
But it is a message we are also seeing delivered from this Government in a number of other areas. The child support area is just such a one. The grand solution for dealing with child support debt being well over $1 billion was not to get the money but to let people off the liability. We are seeing a version of that approach in this bill. 
So I think there will be teething problems with this legislation and certainly we will be watching very carefully the behaviour of the Inland Revenue Department because it has the power and the ability to undermine totally the success of the voluntary administration regime. If the department is to vote continually against a deed of company arrangement so that companies cannot enter into that kind of regime and instead just send companies to liquidation where the department thinks it can get more money then basically it cuts out from underneath the regime its potential for success before it even starts. So we will be watching that matter very carefully. 
We will also be watching the interpretation of the provisions relating to the qualifications of liquidators because the last thing that National wants is for major accountancy firms—firms that have the skills and the understanding to do the complex liquidation work and take on larger cases—to be locked out of working in some liquidations simply because they have ongoing business relationships with banks. I think that the Minister would be being naive if she did not think that some people will question the position of some liquidators in any way they can and this might be a provision in the legislation that causes all sorts of difficulties for those firms engaged in that area of work. It is a major omission and one that could potentially undermine the success of the whole regime. In terms of the National Party’s position I say that we of course will not be supporting this bill given there are so many unanswered questions. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the insolvency law reform legislation with pleasure. It has been good to watch this legislation go through the select committee process in the Commerce Committee and emerge in the way that it has. I congratulate Katherine Rich the chair of the committee on her expert handling of the legislation despite the fact that in the end the National Opposition has chosen to oppose the legislation. In fact National takes exception to only two measures. The first is the no-asset procedure in Part 5 of the Insolvency Bill. The second is new Part 15A “Voluntary administration” in the Companies Amendment Bill. 
I wish to respond to some points that Katherine Rich has just made. The first is on the no-asset procedure. Indeed more than one National Opposition speaker has been concerned about the kinds of messages that a no-asset procedure may send to people by forgiving debts of up to $40000. They have said it could be open to abuse and is not a good signal to send out to the market. But I want to reiterate that debtors will be required to meet stringent criteria for entry into the no-asset procedure. Those criteria include the debtor having no realisable assets the debtor not having previously been admitted to the no-asset procedure—in other words it is a once and once only procedure—the debtor not previously having been adjudicated bankrupt and the debtor having total debts excluding student loans of between $1000 and $40000 and also under the prescribed means test the debtor having no means of repaying any amount towards those debts. So with the debtor having no realisable assets with which to pay his or her debts the creditors do not have anything to gain if he or she were to be made bankrupt. 
It is important to note also—because some of the concerns have been that this measure sends out the wrong signals to young people—that student loan debt is not included in the calculation of the $40000 threshold. It is not written off under the no-asset procedure. That is because it is assumed that a no-asset procedure debtor has no cash assets or ability to earn. If he or she did have cash assets or earning ability that person would not be considered for this procedure to begin with. In addition to those eligibility criteria the official assignee has the overall discretion to allow a debtor entry into the no-asset procedure. Similarly if the debtor has misled the official assignee or concealed assets the official assignee can immediately terminate the no-asset procedure and apply for a preservation order over the assets which would be in force until the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt. We consider those provisions to be perfectly satisfactory for the particular circumstances where the outstanding debts are not the kinds of debt that are incurred by multinationals or corporate clients in any way. 
The second issue that the National Opposition members have taken exception to is the process of voluntary administration set out in the Companies Amendment Bill. In particular they take exception to the preferential creditor status of the Inland Revenue Department. There is an important principle here and at the risk of repeating something that the Minister said in her third reading speech I do want to reiterate this important principle: the Inland Revenue Department is an involuntary creditor. It does not have a choice about whom it deals with. Firstly it cannot secure its interest in any other way than through preference and secondly PAYE GST and all of the other things that are extracted by the Inland Revenue Department on behalf of the people of New Zealand like child support payments and student loan payments are collected on behalf of the Inland Revenue Department. 
One of the things that Opposition members have not said when they have talked about their opposition to the Inland Revenue Department’s preferential status is that the alternatives in the UK and in Australia were as I understand it to make directors personally liable for all debts including debts to their equivalents of the Inland Revenue Department. If the paripassu principle were to be applied without the Inland Revenue Department having priority creditor status then the Inland Revenue Department would be lining up along with everybody else but in the meantime the directors of companies would be made personally liable for that liability. 
It may be that in Australia and in the UK there is a large enough pool of director talent for that not to be an issue of concern but in New Zealand we struggle to find capable and competent directors of companies without simply recycling the same people over and over through the corporate structures. If our small pool of director talent was suddenly to be made personally liable for Inland Revenue Department takings as well then I think fewer and fewer people of ability and insight would put themselves forward for directorships in New Zealand. That would not be to anybody’s benefit because what we are trying to avoid here is companies going into bankruptcy and into liquidation. We are trying to apply a process that allows them through voluntary administration to work their way out of their current predicament and in fact to get back into a trading arrangement that allows them to continue to pay tax and therefore meet Inland Revenue Department liabilities. 
In fact the Opposition had no amendments to make to this part of the legislation. It is reported in the select committee’s commentary on the Insolvency Law Reform Bill at the front of the bill that the majority considered it appropriate to retain the Crown priority and recommended no amendment to the legislation. The fact that no cogent alternative has come from Opposition members leads me to think that their opposition on the grounds of the voluntary administration procedure and the Inland Revenue Department’s preferential creditor status is simply a hollow gesture and not one that they seriously wish to take up. Without mentioning in detail the law that covers Inland Revenue Department activity I say there are critical principles about the payment of dues on behalf of New Zealand people that need to be maintained in the voluntary system. We have heard of methods by which the Inland Revenue Department could improve its performance and those were registered by the department which was only too willing to mention them in the course of the select committee’s consideration of submissions. 
The voluntary administration system is a very good system. We have modified it unlike Australia and the UK to fit our own circumstances in New Zealand and I commend this legislation to the House. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tenatatou katoa i te Whare. The other day I was reading an article about Frank Acheson judge of the Tokerau district North Auckland and president of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board back in the 1920s. The article provides a good starting point for discussion on these bills. Judge Acheson had a whole host of ideas with which to address Maori poverty in the north. He believed that the only way to deal with poverty was to establish long-term development schemes through which Maori could develop their remaining tribal lands. One such scheme was a dairying project up Shane Jones’ way in the far north. 
Acheson’s decisions as a judge were variously described as being innovative and alarming. He was involved in a series of Maori claims to the foreshore and ruled that the Native Land Court could issue title a decision backed by the Court of Appeal in 2003. He prepared a report for NgatiWhatua in which he concluded that the Orakei block should have been protected from alienation. He insisted that he could take judicial notice of the Treaty of Waitangi in the case of Lake Tangonge near Kaitaia. In his 1929 judgment on Lake Omapere he ruled that Maori customary law recognised the ownership of lakes that in 1840 Lake Omapere was the property of Ngapuhi and that Ngapuhi’s rights were protected by the Treaty of Waitangi. Judge Acheson had his flaws—we all do. But for all that he was a far-sighted and exceptional New Zealander who did his bit to create a history we could all be proud of. That is of course until 1943 when he was suddenly inexplicably and compulsorily retired. Why? Because of the alleged insolvency of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board. 
The case of Judge Acheson shows us that being innovative progressive and enterprising is no guarantee to a positive business outcome. It also proves that if one’s spirit of enterprise takes one down the road that is scorned by the mainstream then that mainstream will happily use any shaky financial situation to close one down. These bills are supposed to enable people like Acheson to deal with financial difficulty and to still be open and innovative. The Maori Party welcomes the opportunity for people to bounce back from insolvency and fully participate again in economic life. It was an opportunity Frank Acheson was deprived of. His efforts to protect Maori customary land were right and will be remembered through the commitment that the Maori Party has made to repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to giving the Maori Land Court the right again to consider Maori land title applications. 
That opportunity to start again is a vital part of these three bills. Of course it is better if we can stop people getting into strife in the first place. We note the advice from the Federation of Maori Authorities which has spoken out continually about how business success is limited by our Draconian tax laws which are so costly and cumbersome that small businesses just cannot keep up. The Federation of Maori Authorities also suggested that the Government set up some early intervention strategies for businesses in difficulty. I cannot help but recall the findings from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor that although Maori are innovative and enterprising only 37 percent of Maoribusinesses survive beyond 3 years compared with 62 percent for non-Maori. If the Government were to adopt the Federation of Maori Authorities’ proposals for early intervention Maori businesses and thereby the whole economy would benefit. The Maori Party would be keen to see how the Minister responds to this positive suggestion. 
On top of that of course there is the dreaded Inland Revenue Department which likes to tax poor people for every dollar they earn while allowing the corporates to get away with their tax scams. The department has placed itself at the head of the creditors’ queue that forms when companies go belly up. The Commerce Committee also recommended a number of options to make for easier wind-ups such as allowing judgments to be handled electronically rather than in person—which kind of reduces the human dimension the kanohi ki te kanohi but provides another choice. 
 I would like to return to the idea of Crown priority whereby the Inland Revenue Department gets first cut in insolvency cases. I raise this in the context of the Government’s recent victim Te Wananga o Aotearoa. It was said to be near bankruptcy last May when the Minister of Education said that the wananga was in danger of not being able to pay its staff and a lot of its creditors. In announcing the crisis the Minister said: “the financial situation at the wananga is so precarious that I am obliged to take all action available to me under the Education Act for the sake of the students staff and creditors. To not do anything would be irresponsible.” 
Yet just a few months later the Waitangi Tribunal found that in fact the Government had breached its Treaty obligations by forcefully limiting the type and range of education that the wananga could provide by undermining the wananga’s authority by failing to ensure that partnership agreements were concluded by taking control of the institution and by failing to ensure continuing consultation. I raise the wananga case because to have instituted Crown priority would have only made the problem worse and ignored the real issue—the breach of the Government’s Treaty obligations. 
Crown priority was dropped in the UK in 2003 to encourage businesses to get back on their feet and to ensure that creditors were paid out as well—moves that the Maori Party wholeheartedly supports. Our emphasis throughout this whole debate has been based on our kaupapa of manaakitanga whanaungatanga and kotahitanga in order to limit the damage to positive business relationships to support business rehabilitation and to encourage people to get back on their feet rather than punish them for their efforts. We welcome the introduction of more flexible ways of dealing with insolvency. We encourage consideration of positive early intervention. We support a review of business tax to facilitate greater employment better wages and higher investment research development and innovation. 
We urge the Government to heed the call of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor to provide support to Maori businesses after the initial flush of business start-up has worn thin. As Pita Paraone has often said what is good for Maori has to be good for the country. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased on behalf of United Future to take a call on the third reading of these three bills: the Insolvency Bill the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill. They are significant third readings because the original bill was some 328 pages—one of the larger bills that has come before Parliament this year. 
As is well known this legislation sets out really to rewrite and update the law in New Zealand around issues of personal failure through bankruptcy and company failure through insolvency receivership and liquidation. It is timely that we are bringing that law up to date because as other speakers have mentioned it is important for the sake of the prosperity of New Zealand that we do all we can both to limit the occasions on which businesses come under stress and failure and to ensure that those that do are given a reasonable chance to get back on their feet quickly to carry on and to become successful companies. 
The history of entrepreneurship in the international business community is resplendent with examples of people who have gone through a personal bankruptcy or a personal company failure have learnt—the hard way—through that experience and have gone on to be very successful business people later on. So that is the spirit I think that underlies the Insolvency Bill in particular—that we recognise that very often if people are able to be given a second chance they can go on and be successful long term. And to the extent that those people are successful long term of course our country itself becomes more successful in terms of its economy. 
I want to mention a few things at this third reading debate. First of all voluntary administration provisions have been introduced. As others have said this legislation marks a new path that New Zealand is following. It is a path that has also been introduced in Australia and it is a path that we think can usefully contribute to those goals I have already outlined in terms of making our businesses successful long term. 
In the course of examining the original bill the Commerce Committee looked at the Chapter 11 arrangements that apply in the United States of America. We have of course seen some famous examples of companies going into Chapter 11 situations and coming out the other side. I remember the Chrysler resurrection story and the famous television photograph of Lee Iacona— 
Craig Foss 
: Iacocca. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: —yes I will get the pronunciation right thanks to the member Craig Foss—handing over a cheque to the US Government for I think about $385 million and saying: “Chrysler is an old-fashioned borrower; we actually repay our debts.” We looked at Chapter 11 arrangements and concluded that they are actually designed for large corporations. New Zealand on the other hand is a country of small businesses with something over 90 percent of our businesses employing fewer than 20 people and I think about 84 percent employing fewer than five. So we really are a country of small businesses. For that reality we felt that the voluntary administration approach is a better one to take given our circumstances. 
The hope of course is that through this new law people will be able to recognise problems quite early. In response to the member Hone Harawira I say that I do not see any practical way in which the Crown can get involved in businesses coming under stress. I do not think that is a practical reality. I do not think that is something the Crown should do; it is something rather that the directors of a company under stress and the owners themselves should take some action on as early as possible. One of the aims of this legislation is for people to identify problems early go into voluntary administration and hopefully go through that and come out the other side stronger and go on to have successful companies. 
I think the answer to Hone Harawira’s statistics about the failure of Maori businesses—their very high failure rate after 3 years—is actually the United Future policy which the Maori Party might join us on of giving business start-ups a conditional tax holiday for the first 2 years of their operation. Very often it is the cash-flow impost of that first 2 years of taxation that actually tips a company over the edge into failure. I think that would be a much more positive way of addressing the problem rather than looking for the Crown to get involved. The Crown fundamentally should not be involved in trying to run businesses or anything of that sort. We have the whole history of the 20th century to prove that fact unambiguously. Indeed if United Future had its way we would also apply that policy to our State-owned enterprises. 
However I diverge from the insolvency legislation and I will come back to it. I want to touch on the question of Crown priority. I do not know whether there is much more to say about that except that as others have said the Commerce Committee gave this whole matter very very serious consideration. We had to do that because virtually every experienced insolvency practitioner in the country came to us and said that that provision had to go. We therefore went back to the Inland Revenue Department time after time after time. I think we had about four reports from the Inland Revenue Department in trying to get round the problem. But as Maryan Street has advised the House in the end we really thought that no it would not work. To remove Crown priority would be to attack the basis of entrepreneurship in this country. Entrepreneurship depends on our encouraging people to become directors of companies. That is what drives company growth. 
As well limited liability means exactly that for directors—they have limited liability. To give them unlimited liability or to impose on them unlimited liability in respect of unpaid taxes would simply be to scare them away. We would put our business growth backwards which is contrary to the intent of the legislation. We also asked in our report back to Parliament why target just companies if we are going to go down that road. We would probably see the growth of trading trusts trading cooperatives and other structures if we were to single out just companies for special treatment and to hold their directors liable for unpaid taxes. 
 However in our report back to the House we suggested that the Inland Revenue Department itself should intervene once two consecutive payment periods in respect of PAYE GST or child support have passed. There are different timings for the payment of those taxes in different organisations but when two periods have passed in which the taxes have not been paid at that point the Inland Revenue Department should be obliged to notify company directors that those taxes have not been paid. We sought—and received—assurances from the Inland Revenue Department that it will adopt those procedures. It is important that it does and Parliament needs to monitor that. We need to look at this again to see whether it is actually happening because it was part of the balance that we put into this whole mix. 
The majority of us were saying that yes the Crown priority should be retained but we want it balanced by Inland Revenue Department intervention to notify directors. I personally know of situations where taxes were not paid and the directors of the company did not know that that was the position. If they were to be advised of that position which we are suggesting should happen then at that stage they would have the opportunity to intervene to sort out the problem or go into voluntary liquidation. That was part of the balance we came to. 
It is similar with so-called phoenix companies. I wonder where that terminology came from. “Phoenix” means something that rises from the ashes. These companies are not designed to rise from the ashes; they are designed to go out of business deliberately through voluntary liquidation at the expense of all the creditors. That is what a phoenix company is. It is a rort. It needs to be brought to an end and this legislation is an advance from that point of view. 
Overall in conclusion I just want to say that I think the select committee and this legislation have struck a fair and balanced approach between a number of competing interests. I think it is a job well done and United Future intends to support it through to enactment. Thank you. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As other National members have said we oppose the third readings of the legislation arising from the Insolvency Law Reform Bill because we say there are a number of flaws in it. We think there is a lot of good in it too—and I will cover some of that good material as well as the bad—but the failure to address two key issues means regrettably that we have to oppose it. 
Maryan Street in her third reading speech said that National members’ opposition to the legislation was hollow. Well it is not so. We have major concerns about voluntary administration as it is to be enacted because of the position of the Inland Revenue Department. If that member wants an example of hollowness she could have listened to the Minister Lianne Dalziel’s third reading speech. In it the Minister regurgitated the usual Labour Party tripe about economic transformation. It is one of the unfortunate aspects of this year—and I am sure Mr Chauvel will learn it if he stays in this place a while—that there is constant repetition of a Labour Party litany: economic transformation national identity and I think the third one is welfare for families. Well economic transformation will be impeded because of the flaws in this legislation. 
In my first reading speech I mentioned those who have contributed over the years to the reform of insolvency law. I mentioned the Law Commission and Justice Blanchard. I also mentioned Peter McKenzie former chair of the Securities Commission and probably New Zealand’s leading expert in this field. Now that the legislation looks as though it will come into effect I hope Mr McKenzie will find time to re-write Spratt and McKenzie’s  
Law of Insolvency 
. As a former law clerk staff solicitor and partner of Mr McKenzie I grew tired of listening to his excuse for not updating his book which was that the law was shortly to be changed. That can no longer be regarded as an excuse. It is one he ran for about 20 years. 
A close analysis of this legislation shows that the reform is not all that dramatic. For example in the Committee stage I analysed Part 3 of the original bill which comprises 10 subparts. Very few of the clauses in those 10 subparts actually introduce new provisions. Rather they re-enact the existing law and practice from the 1967 Act or adopt provisions that have their genesis in the Companies Act 1993. I must say that one reform I can live with is that the procedure for bankrupting debtors is finally to be updated. For 20 years we have been awaiting the abolition of the bankruptcy petition procedure and now it finally goes. I suppose it is better late than never. 
As I said very few points of contention in regard to this legislation exist between the National Party and other parties but they were not properly addressed by the Committee. Other than the contribution by Mr Fairbrother on the no-asset procedure no Labour MP made any contribution. It makes one wonder whether there is any point to a debate in this House. Certainly for Labour not to join issue on in this case two points of principle is very disappointing indeed. So what were the two contentious issues? As my friends on the National Party side have said there were two. The first relates to the no-asset procedure and the second to voluntary administration. 
The first the no-asset procedure is to be found in Subpart 4 of Part 5 of the original bill. Several of my colleagues at the Committee stage questioned how this procedure was consistent with notions of individual responsibility and we have heard some of those arguments again this afternoon. But I also questioned the usefulness of the procedure especially given the other procedures in Part 5. I also noted that bankruptcy is in fact a discretionary remedy and I refer members to clause 37. So in some cases the court may decline to bankrupt the debtor because it would be pointless to do so. One wonders why the debtor would bother to go through the no-asset procedure rather than simply oppose the application that he or she be made bankrupt. 
The second one which is of major importance is Part 8 of the original bill which introduces Part 15A to the Companies Act 1993. It is called the voluntary administration procedure and essentially adopts the equivalent Australian legislation but fails to deal with the critical issue of the Inland Revenue Department’s position. The Inland Revenue Department status could undermine the effectiveness of voluntary administration. Members have heard the various arguments from other speakers this afternoon and I will not repeat them. But I will say this: every submitter on this provision was very very clear that unless the Government addressed the issue of the priority status for the Inland Revenue Department the voluntary administration scheme could be compromised. 
 As Katherine Rich said National is going to pay very close attention to this particular innovation in practice to see whether some amendment will be required—and I think it will be needed sooner rather than later. I think it is a very unfortunate situation where every submitter on a bill thinks something in it should be altered the Opposition agrees and tries to engage the Government in a principled debate on the issue and not one Government member actually addresses the issue in the Committee stage. 
Hardly any mention was made in most stages of the original bill of Part 9 which concerns cross-border insolvency. It is now a separate bill. It really is one of the most interesting aspects of the legislation. The Law Commission published a report on cross-border insolvency in 1999 and I think it even went to the last National Minister of Justice of that period the Hon Tony Ryall. Obviously in an election year there was no time to act on the report but I am surprised that it has taken about 7 years for this Government to act on it. It was a good report and frankly it could have been acted upon within about 12 to 18 months. That report sets out some very useful reasons why we need the model law and why we need this kind of private international law reform. 
The report noted that there were three broad policy factors in favour of reform: the globalisation trend factor the fiscal factor and the efficiency and fairness factor. Factors that weighed against reform were the sovereignty factor and the adequacy of the existing law. Well there is no doubt that the existing law is not adequate and with globalisation and greater interaction between New Zealand companies and individuals and overseas companies and individuals there does need to be a move in this area; this is one part of the insolvency law reform package that National is happy with. 
I am also pleased and it is just a very minor point to note clause 493 of the original bill. It is a minor amendment but one that is being replicated in other legislation these days. This highly artificial distinction between Commonwealth countries and foreign countries now goes and we simply refer to the jurisdiction of the High Court to act in aid of overseas courts. It is a distinction that has been hanging around for many years and makes very little sense at all. 
So at the end of the day this reform is long overdue. It represents the fruits of the labour of the Law Commission over many years. I have mentioned the good work of many speakers. Much good is achieved in this legislation but as usual with this Government it contains mistakes in certain respects. It is very disappointing that these mistakes were pointed out by the Opposition and by many submitters but simply ignored because as usual this Government knows best. It ignored what it was advised and simply failed to debate the issue. That is the reason why National will be opposing this legislation and why we oppose the third readings. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this legislation. I joined the Commerce Committee on 3 August only a week before the committee reported back the Insolvency Law Reform Bill so unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate deeply in the consideration by the committee of the legislation. But my having joined the committee and having taken an interest during my time in the House in these matters and in the business before the committee it is something that I have had the chance to consider somewhat. 
I think it is a great shame that the National Party is not supporting the legislation. It is apparent from the report back from the committee that there are really just two rather thin pretexts for this lack of support and they are as the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson said an objection to the no-asset procedure scheme and also objections to the fact that the voluntary administration regime will not do away with the Crown priority for the Inland Revenue Department. 
It was interesting to attend a meeting in Christchurch with the Minister Lianne Dalziel last week of the Insolvency Special Interest Group practitioners—a group of accountants and lawyers who came together and wanted to discuss provisions of the legislation and associated matters. The interesting thing was that almost to a person those practitioners were highly supportive of the legislation and were quite happy to acknowledge it as the most thorough reform to be attempted in this area for some time. They really did welcome it and they also welcomed the Minister’s announcement made to them that there would be a proposal to regulate the insolvency practitioner profession. Obviously it is important particularly with the advent of the voluntary administration regime that only the most ethical and capable practitioners be they accountants or lawyers should be practising in this field. 
I will say one or two words about the Crown priority issue. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House have already mentioned the matter but I think if one looks at the history of insolvency law reform one can see quite plainly that whether the idea of retaining the Crown priority for the Inland Revenue Department works is very much in the department’s hands. If the Inland Revenue Department uses its priority in the voluntary administration regime responsibly if it allows companies in trouble to trade out rather than insisting on a very strict revenue-gathering approach then the reality is that the regime has a good chance of success. If the Inland Revenue Department is responsible about its powers which we all hope it will be then the voluntary administration regime as contained in the legislation should work fine. The reality is of course that if it does not—if a responsible approach is not taken by the Inland Revenue Department to the powers and the priority it retains—then no doubt this House and the Commerce Committee will have to look at the legislation and the provisions again. 
To me that is an appropriate way of looking at this sort of change. It ought to be incremental. A radical step such as removing the Inland Revenue Department’s priority ought not to be taken in a hurry. One ought to see whether it can be made compatible with this new voluntary administration regime. If it can well and good. If it cannot there is the opportunity for further consideration. 
I think this is an appropriate juncture at which to welcome this legislation. Many members of the profession both accountants and lawyers who are working in the insolvency field welcome it. I welcome it. It is a shame that the National Party is playing politics with it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the last speaker talked about playing politics with this issue. We are approaching it from a very pragmatic point of view. We supported many of the parts of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. There were only two parts in particular that we had difficulty with and they were Part 5 and Part 8. 
The centrepiece of the legislation is the voluntary administration scheme which will replace the seldom-used compromise scheme. National members stated in our minority report that the scheme is aimed at enabling companies in financial trouble to trade out of their difficulties. The lack of incentives and the difficulty in getting the consent of a majority of creditors have been cited as reasons for not utilising compromise schemes in the past. 
There were a number of submitters and they were unanimous in their view that unless the Government addressed the issue of the priority status for the Inland Revenue Department the voluntary administration scheme would not work. In fact it would be severely compromised. That was the point we made at the time which came up during the Committee stage when we sought some clarity about this matter and when we asked for the Minister in the chair at the time to give us some guarantees which were not forthcoming. So overall we will be voting against this legislation. 
The other area we had great difficulty with was the newly introduced no-asset procedure scheme whereby an individual can choose to enter the scheme for 12 months in return for a write-off of up to $40000 at the expense of creditors. This reminds me of the period during 1987-88 when the Government of the day introduced the mortgage discounting scheme. I was formerly a farm appraiser in the Rural Banking and Finance Corporation and was called back during that period of the mortgage discounting scheme to look at situations where mortgagors were having great difficulty. There was a downturn in farm incomes land values had slumped and some farmers had negative equities so the mortgagees—the lenders—would call the mortgagor to account around the table and we would look at how we could refinance and try to work or trade our way through in some of those areas. At that stage the Rural Bank was giving $40000 for farmers to walk off their farms so they could buy houses in town. That was Government money in those days because the Rural Bank was a Government-owned operation. The Government is no longer involved in that sort of lending and rightly so; it should not be involved. But in those days it was a very important way of being able to give a small contribution and one could actually buy a house for $40000 in town. So there were negative equities and no assets—the liabilities far exceeded what the assets were—and that was an example in point. 
But when we look at what this measure is doing whereby debtors can now write off up to $40000 the question has to be asked about who will pay. Who will fund this? While it is all very well for Government members to say that it will allow businesses to grow and proceed and that they will be successful in the long run the chances are that that will not happen. I was involved in a restructuring role for many years and I can tell members that a lot of businesses failed not because their prospects were not good but because they were overcapitalised and underfunded or because they did not understand what the market was saying to them. That is the reason why businesses fall over and the people involved should not have been in business to start with. 
It has been so easy to get into business and many people have gone into it for the wrong reasons. A lot of people who have been made redundant and come out with huge redundancy payments have bought themselves a business. What they have done is buy themselves a job but they may not have the skills or the business acumen to be there. That should never be allowed to happen but it does happen because it is very very easy for people to start businesses in New Zealand. 
So National’s concerns are first the voluntary administration scheme and secondly the no-asset procedure. We think that that is wrong; it sends the wrong messages. We ask where the responsibility actually lies. Does it mean that anyone who gets into trouble now will be able to opt out because of the new regime? 
As I said at the beginning we actually agreed with most parts of this legislation but the Government did not take heed of what submitters said. It did not take heed of the questions we asked during the Committee stage which were about issues that we had identified and that submitters had identified. But those issues were not addressed. On that basis National will be voting against the third reading of these bills. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Insolvency Bill the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bills read a third time. 
Business Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 October. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Bananas. That is what the previous speaker on this Business Law Reform Bill Doug Woolerton spent 10 minutes talking about last night. After his trip to Australia he studied and consumed bananas in Australia. He was questioned—as a New Zealand First member in relation to the confidence and supply part of the agreement with the Government—about whether New Zealand apples have got into Australia. Sadly the answer was no. After 2 years of rhetoric good New Zealand apples from Hawke’s Bay are not into Australia yet. 
The National Party supports the bill at the second reading. Previous speakers from our party have indicated that. There are 60-odd clauses in the bill. I guess it is one small step for New Zealand business one tiny step for New Zealand businesses but one giant leap for the Labour Party as it finally recognises some of the compliance anchors and barriers in front of business success. It is true that this bill will help small businesses such as the Manukau company Rural Direct whose achievements in recycling plastic to make products for the farming and packaging industries have resulted in it becoming a finalist in the recent 2006 Westpac Manukau Business Excellence Awards. 
I give credit where credit is due. I think I actually sat in on the Commerce Committee a few times when submissions were being heard on this bill. The way the select committee has reported back in the commentary is very good. There are some very considered replies to some of the submissions but I do note that that select committee also often struggled to make a quorum and it was with the good faith and fair play of the National Party that it managed to keep its quorum together many times. 
This is an omnibus bill and it was a shame that we did not have more clauses in it about business tax reforms rather than reviews and of course linking to personal tax reforms. There are two parts to the bill that I have a concern over. Clause 2—with all due respect to the Governor General—is the part that deals with the Royal assent. I am respectfully concerned about our Governor General’s time because obviously he will be checking signatures on the online petition asking for him not to give Royal assent to the retrospective pledge card legislation rushed through disgracefully last week. 
I will speak to clause 34. There was a very good commentary and I appreciate the Minister’s speech around this particular point last night. This is the clause that gives exemption power to the Accounting Standards Review Board. I just have an awkward feeling about this part of the bill. I know the points are considered and there is about a page of commentary on the major two points. I was actually there the day that submission was heard and I cannot help but have a bad feeling about it because basically the Minister has decided that she knows best—or the officials have managed to convince her that they know best. 
I will quickly read the qualifications of the members of the Accounting Standards Review Board whose submission was rejected by the select committee. These are the people who recommended that the Accounting Standards Review Board did not have power to give any exemption whatsoever. They argued very forcefully and the commentary points that out. The chief executive officer of PricewaterhouseCoopers New Zealand asked that the Accounting Standards Board did not have this exemption. The chairman of Tanui Group Holdings and a director of a number of companies including Tower Corporation Holdings Ltd and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd asked that the Accounting Standards Board did not have this exemption. The New Zealand Treasury’s chief accounting adviser also pleaded that the board did not have this exemption. Just to reiterate they are members of the board that this bill gives the power to exempt. 
This board pleaded with the select committee not to be given that exemption. Board members also made representations to the Minister in charge of the bill and other Ministers in associated departments and they cannot understand for the life of them why their combined expertise was massively outweighed by the union expertise background and history of the Minister. Another board member who pleaded that the board be not given the exemption has been a corporate and commercial law partner in Bell Gully since 1992 but the Minister knows better than him. Another board member is a partner with Beattie Rickman and works in business services in medium-sized businesses at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand—again the Minister knows better than her. Finally the Minister knows better than a person who is the chairman of the Financial Reporting Council is a director of Wesfarmers Telstra and the Sustainable Investment Research Institute is on the Victorian council of the Securities Institute of Australia and so on has chaired a strategic review and who again pleaded that the board be not given the exemption. 
Regardless of the commentary in the start of the bill about this particular clause I cannot for the life of me understand why their advice their pleadings their combined commercial nous was rejected by a Minister and I cannot quite recall last time she ventured into the real world of business. In fact I have left one out: the project manager for the project for the conversion to International Financial Reporting Standards. This body also oversees that conversion and his advice was also rejected. 
As Mr Finlayson speaking on the previous bill alluded to the only logical explanation as to why the combined commercial nous of these various esteemed board directors—in fact the board the Minister herself appoints—was rejected is quite frankly because this Government has lost touch. It believes in its own mirror sadly. It believes it knows best; it believes it knows how to run business best. In fact it has no idea and again I reiterate my objection to this particular part of the bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Kia ora. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Maori Party is pleased to take a call tonight on the Business Law Reform Bill. We support the intent of this bill to amend business law statutes so that the operation of business can be clear efficient and effective. Tangata whenua collectively owned assets and businesses produce $1.9 billion per year. While the revenue from taxes and exports will be significant the key highlight for the Maori Party is the impact the success can have in uplifting the economic and social under-performance of tangata whenua if the accumulated wealth is for the collective whanau good. 
 The Maori Party is a business-friendly party that does however consider there is a need to strike a balance between maximising profits on the one hand and maintaining the integrity of our natural environment on the other. We believe economic gain must be achieved by balancing economic advancement with social progress cultural uniqueness and environmental enhancement. The way in which we do this is to provide the incentives for whanau hapu iwi and other community-based groups to develop and implement collective business development strategies that increase economic participation and encourage local and regional self-reliance including local and regional partnerships. 
So how will the Business Law Reform Bill achieve these worthy goals? We believe that most of the changes in the bill are based on suggestions from business law practitioners enforcement agencies and the business community. The bill should improve existing business law by making small high-priority changes to reduce some of the costs of complying with legislation and that has to be a good thing. 
The Maori Party comes to this bill absolutely inspired by the hard-working and devoted commitment of our people out there doing the hard yards making their businesses work and most of all providing that tautoko—that support—that is so necessary to keep a good business afloat. We think about Te Awe Wellington Maori Business Network the oldest Maori business network operating in Aotearoa—and that has been operating for only a decade. The network was set up to promote assist and encourage Maori in business through networking hui where Maori business owners meet and share their business challenges and successes. 
Then there is the Federation of Maori Authorities New Zealand’s largest business network. The main focus of the federation is to support Maori across all the different levels from whanau shareholders to land-related developments in the primary industries to major diversified enterprises. Or there is PoutamaMaori Business Trust which earlier this year was the joint winner for 2006 in the Vero Excellence in Business Support Awards for the most significant contribution made by a not-for-profit organisation. Poutama has played a key role in developing Maori micro and small businesses over the past 18 years. 
What I am absolutely excited about is the growth in rangatahi networks. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has talked about the rangatahi business hui sponsored by Lion Nathan and Te Arawa at Ihenga for secondary schools in the Rotorua region. Hone Harawira has talked about the rangatahi business competition run by Te RangaNgaku the Maori management student network at Waikato Management School. As my mokopuna would say it is mean Maori mean. 
So this bill is about making things better for a whole lot of Maori and what can be better than that? We are particularly pleased with the changes that have been made to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 including the removal of unnecessary or excessive preparation audit and filing requirements the decision to increase the size threshold needed to be a “small company” and the moves to standardise financial reporting with international standards for the ease of reading and understanding—that is exemptions for international companies doing business in New Zealand. These developments will assist economic independence and will enhance financial efficiencies in the world of business and we support that. 
All these strategies seem to move towards easier smoother and lower-cost operations demonstrating manaakitanga in each. We are also very supportive of the amendment to widen the qualifications for admission to membership of a credit union thus covering employment by a group of employers as qualifying for a “common bond”. Friendly societies and credit unions grew out of the expression of local rangatiratanga and it is only right that there is adequate accountability to members on kaitiakitanga. I make the point of applying our kaupapa our tikanga and our philosophies to Maori business to small business—as indeed it applies to every business. 
At the Hui Taumata last year Professor Whatarangi Winiata anticipated a future in 2025 that was based on kaupapa. He shared a vision where Maori economic leaders will accept economic opportunities to be active contributors to the long-term survival of Maori through the expression of kaupapa Maori and the pursuit of tikanga Maori for genuine progress. 
Perhaps the biggest point of difference over the 20 years is the theme that kaupapa and tikanga are the basis of Maori business. In the tikanga Maori model the expression of the kaupapa is to be maximised while ensuring that the financial constraint is met. The profit is thus a collective profit with the objective being to grow the people with an emphasis on mutual respect and harmonious relationships. Investment is prioritised as social as human and as cultural capital. So we look to the Business Law Reform Bill to see how well it can assist Aotearoa in meeting what others may call the triple bottom line. 
Finally on this point I will refer to an absolutely shocking release I read from KPMG just over a week ago. The latest 2006 KPMG fraud survey revealed that 53 percent of New Zealand organisations had experienced at least one fraud with an average loss of $479000. 
Ron Mark 
: Bloody Maoris! 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Sixty-three respondents reported single frauds with a value greater than $200000—I say to Ron Mark—and there were eight cases where the value exceeded $4 million. In 42 percent of the major frauds none of the money or the stolen goods were recovered. In 2006 the average detection time was 362 days. In the current environment where we seem to read and talk about the crime on the streets and the escalating burglaries and thefts I am surprised that this release stating such major cases of fraud went by with hardly a whimper I say to Ron Mark. Respondents in the survey reported 546 cases of identity fraud with a total value of $2.8 million. The typical fraudster was male aged 38 years acting alone and misappropriating funds to an average value of $220000. 
Ron Mark 
: And Maori? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Interestingly I say to Ron Mark there was no mention of ethnicity in the whole release. I guess we can all wonder why that is. So in the light of this latest information the fact that directors who have been banned in Australia will now as a result of this bill be banned from New Zealand is welcomed. 
The Maori Party will support the second reading of the bill. We support the incentives to reduce compliance costs particularly for small businesses without risking their stability and potential for success. We believe that these moves will stand to enhance opportunities for Maori business people and they will help to ensure that their business activities enrich the life of our whanau. Ultimately we believe that a successful Maori business can only add value to the activities of our marae and our wider communities. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is good to speak to the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill. This bill shows that the Labour-led Government is prepared to invest in the incremental improvement of the business legal environment. There are a number of small improvements in this bill. Taken together these improvements represent an ongoing progressive improvement of the business legal environment and in so doing ensure that legislation surrounding the operation of business is clear efficient and effective. 
The bill contains a number of amendments that are intended to remove unnecessary compliance costs for businesses and that point has been recognised by speakers opposite in previous speeches. The amendments are also intended to clarify commercial law statutes by removing conflicts within and between existing legislation. As Minister Dalziel noted in her speech yesterday these amendments are based upon suggestions from the business sector—from business law practitioners enforcement agencies and the business community—and many of the suggestions came forward in submissions to the Commerce Committee. This process is a good demonstration of the ability of this Government to listen to and to take heed of concerns from the business sector. Those concerns have been incorporated into this bill as it now appears before the House. 
In speaking to this bill I will mention two particular items. The first is that members will notice in the select committee report the reference to the report from the Regulations Review Committee. I want to draw attention to that report because it represents a very good part of the process of scrutiny that this House delivers for the safety of New Zealanders when preparing legislation. The Regulations Review Committee expressed some concern that powers in the bill that were being conferred to regulation might more appropriately be considered the domain of Parliament itself. That was a right and proper constitutional point to raise but in fact the regulation-making powers considered by the Regulations Review Committee and referred back to the Commerce Committee as they appear at clause 28 which inserts new section 6A and again at clause 31 which substitutes new sections 19 and 19A will be made by Order in Council. Those powers under new clause 6A(2) inserted by clause 28 will apply when “(a) amending the maximum amount of assets that applies under subsection (1)(a)(i):” “(b) amending the maximum amount of turnover that applies under subsection (1)(a)(ii):” and “(c) amending the maximum number of full-time equivalent employees that applies under subsection (1)(a)(iii)”—that is under the definitions of an “exempt company” in the preceding subclause. 
The Regulations Review Committee brought this matter to the attention of the Commerce Committee and we considered it seriously because having Parliament as the ultimate scrutineer of legislation is a fundamentally important aspect of our democratic processes. In this instance it was unanimously considered by the select committee without demur from Opposition parties that the risks attached to this particular regulation-making power were not sufficient to warrant an additional amendment to be made to the primary legislation itself. The process of scrutiny that has been undertaken is a good one. The Regulations Review Committee looks at legislation coming forward to see whether there are regulation-making powers that are inappropriate or that extend delegated regulatory authority beyond the scrutiny of this House. In this instance the select committee decided that an amendment was not warranted. 
The second point I want to make refers to the “Issues requiring further policy development” in the Commerce Committee’s commentary on the bill. That section of the report said that submitters came before the select committee proposing changes that were “beyond the scope of this bill.” I refer particularly to a recommendation from the Takeovers Panel to amend the Companies Act by removing a possible loophole regarding the application of the Takeovers Code. 
The Commerce Committee thought the Takeovers Panel had a legitimate point to make but decided that further work was needed on that issue. The committee decided that it would be possible to bring forward some suggestions that might address the panel’s concerns at least in part but that further consultation and talking with the business community might be necessary. The Takeovers Panel proposed the amendment during the course of submissions because it was taking the opportunity to raise that issue around the possible loophole in the application of the Takeovers Code and the panel saw an opportunity to advance the issue in the context of hearings on this bill. So the Commerce Committee decided to insert the following sentence in the commentary on the bill: “We would support additional measures being brought forward to address the Takeovers Panel’s concerns at least in part.” That is an important consideration because there may well be things that we will be able to do in short order to address some of the concerns of the Takeovers Panel particularly with regard to amalgamations and where actions look like amalgamations rather than takeovers. 
That point I think is not one that has been drawn out in the debate before. It is an important forward-looking point in the commentary that ought not to be overlooked by this House in the second reading. The bill remains unanimously supported in this House and I look forward to its progress. Kia ora koutou. 
Bill read a second time. 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sports Anti-Doping Bill be now read a third time 
. In doing so it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to present this bill to the House for its final reading. It is a further milestone in New Zealand’s fight against doping in sport. I will put on the record again however that not all sports are moving as quickly as they should in the anti-doping area and note my particular concern about the rules of racing and the ability of courts to frustrate in that area. 
In my introductory speech I referred to the case of Lisa Cropp who on 7 May 2005 allegedly rode with methamphetamine and amphetamine in her system and that case has not yet been heard—it has been continually frustrated by judicial review. As I have said previously I am very concerned that someone who has not contested the fact that she had those drugs in her system has been allowed to get out repeatedly on a racecourse. It is just wrong and we need to get that area of the law tidied up in the way that this area has been because New Zealand is considered a leader by the international community in the battle against doping in sport. 
New Zealand was a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and is a strong supporter of the World Anti-Doping Code. In fact in 2005 we were the fourth country in the world to ratify the international convention against doping. This bill will help to implement the World Anti-Doping Code in New Zealand. It is designed to protect athletes’ fundamental right to participate in dope-free sport and will allow violations to be handled in a consistent manner. The bill updates the functions and powers of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency which will be renamed Drug Free Sport New Zealand. It will continue to be the Government’s adviser on sports anti-doping matters and will be required to make sports anti-doping rules that reflect the code. In order to implement the code sports will be able to adopt these rules. The rules will not be compulsory and sports will be able to implement the code in other ways if they wish. 
The bill also continues the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand to be renamed the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand as the body responsible for hearing anti-doping and other sports-related matters. This tribunal provides an accessible and low-cost forum for sportspeople to resolve disputes and to have other sporting matters heard. I would note that we have taken an approach that is different from Australia’s in designing this legislation. Australia has a complex statute that mandates a national anti-doping scheme. Under the Australian statute and its regulations sports organisations are required to implement detailed anti-doping policies. 
By comparison our legislation is simple it is elegant and we believe it better reflects the intent of the World Anti-Doping Code. It sets up a regime that is not mandatory but will build on the commitment and goodwill already established in the international sports community. It provides for a single set of consistent anti-doping rules which can be implemented by sports through a simple and brief provision in their constitutions. I am confident that our legislation will be used as a model for other countries around the world. 
I would like to thank parliamentary counsel the staff at Sport and Recreation New Zealand Drug Free Sport New Zealand and the Sports Disputes Tribunal and especially members of the Government Administration Committee for their hard work in bringing this legislation to fruition. But most important I would like to take this opportunity to thank our athletes. They have shown on the international stage that New Zealand can compete and win fairly and cleanly. I spent a really interesting few minutes this morning with a young woman called Rebecca Spence a pupil at Rangitoto College who has recently won the world junior cycling time trial event and also the world junior duathlon event within about 3 weeks of each other. It was only her second time trial. She is a brilliant young athlete and someone who will go a long way. But what we talked about was how in some parts of the world especially in cycling doping is still rife. So thank you to our athletes who behave so well and are so clean. 
The final reading of this bill today shows New Zealand’s commitment to fair play. Sport is a very important part of our national identity and New Zealanders should be proud that we are leading the way to maintain a fair level playing field for all athletes. I commend the bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I endorse the comments of Minister Mallard about our sportsmen and sportswomen around the world. We are leaders. For a small island nation 12000 miles away from what most people would describe as being the centre of the universe at the bottom of the South Pacific we are world leaders because per capita we have more people who compete at a high level and do well than most other nations similar to ourselves. 
This legislation has as its objective the stamping out of doping in sport. That in itself is a very honourable objective. However after listening to the concerns raised by the Minister about racing I point out that I have some anxiety that this legislation may be brought back before this Parliament and that some other amendment may be put forward to stiffen it up in one or two areas. I know that the Government Administration Committee agonised over whether there should be compulsory reporting to the police and other agencies when someone was suspected of taking drugs. On balance the choice was made not to go with that option. We will not know whether that approach will work until it is tested but it will be interesting to see what happens with the Australian example just across the Tasman—whether a heavier regulation or a more bureaucratic approach will have a better outcome. 
Clearly we have a proud record of being fair sportspeople and doping has not been a major issue for New Zealand. But if it were to become a major issue then clearly we would have to do more. Representatives from Sport and Recreation New Zealand made submissions to the select committee and they were very precise in what they suggested. 
The purpose of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport that the Minister spoke of is to promote the fight against doping in sport with a view to its elimination. That goal seems very very honourable. It is an instrument by which Governments can undertake formal commitments to independent practices in a manner consistent with the practice of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Obviously we should be supporting these moves. 
The World Anti-Doping Code which came into effect on 1 January 2004 provides a uniform set of anti-doping policies rules and regulations that can be adopted by all sports in all countries. The majority of the world’s international sporting federations have signed up to the code. Consequently New Zealand’s national sports organisations are required to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code as a requirement of participation in international sporting events such as the Olympic Games or other major international events. I do not think anybody could have any problem with that requirement. 
The detail of the bill itself left one or two members a little anxious and I guess it will be only a matter of time before we really know whether the intent that is outlined in the bill will have the desired outcome. I think somebody called the bill a Clayton’s Bill and in some respects that is true. It does not have a great purpose. It tidies up some loose ends and modernises some of the rhetoric around various regulations. One could ask why the bill was necessary and various members who spoke in the debate have done so. I guess it will be a matter of time before we know whether the bill is necessary. The fact is that the Sports Anti-Doping Bill is a move forward but whether it is a big enough move has yet to be tested. 
The bill is consistent with the International Convention Against Doping in Sport but the bill and the convention are entirely independent—neither one is reliant on the other. The introduction and/or passage of the bill does not commit New Zealand to the signing of the convention. In fact the Government commenced the development of the bill well before the Unesco development and convention. Those who want to be critical can be critical but the reality is that the bill is a step in the right direction and I acknowledge that fact. Maybe we will have to come back and debate the bill again so let us not get too bogged down in the issue of whether it will work until we find out. 
It was interesting to note that we were the fourth country in the world to ratify the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. In the light of what I have just heard from the Minister I wonder why we were not the first country to do so. Maybe that is typical of this Government—being the fourth out of the blocks instead of the first. We have just established that we did not need to pass this legislation in order to sign up to the convention so I am not sure why we were not the first country to do so. Maybe the Minister got out of bed later than people in some of the northern hemisphere countries did or maybe the problem was the extra distance he had to travel—who knows? The reality is that we were the fourth country to sign up to the convention but I guess that is not a bad place to be as a small island nation at the bottom of the world. We would not be happy with that of course if we were dealing with the All Blacks—we would want them to be first. We certainly would not want any of our other sporting teams to come fourth either. But to be the fourth country to sign up to this convention is not a bad thing. I will not beat the Government up too much about that but I have to say that it is pretty typical of the Minister to come fourth. 
The limited effects of the rules which will not affect the rights or obligations of the members of the general public are on balance a good thing. In order to get people involved in this kind of voluntary structure we cannot have heavy-handed regulations that force them to do this or that. We want this process to start at the small clubs in the small schools in the isolated areas around New Zealand where a culture is built up that drugs or any kind of chemical enhancement of sporting ability is not tolerated. Of course at that level we cannot enforce such behaviour with some kind of universal or international convention. On balance I think we have got it about right. We will wait and see what the outcomes are. 
Clearly the signal being sent is that doping in sport will not be tolerated. Those who get involved in the coaching and encouragement of young children can take some heart from that fact. They should read the explanatory note of the bill. I hope one or two of those coaches are listening to this debate because this is one of those rare occasions when the whole Parliament is in support of a bill and there is no dissention as far as I can tell. I tell those coaches that they should start at the earliest possible stage in a person’s sporting career or development to introduce the principles that are outlined in this legislation. If possible coaches should also have a better understanding of the various international conventions that New Zealand is involved in because if athletes within their group have aspirations to compete internationally they will be forced to meet the requirements of those codes when doing so. 
From a signal point of view I think that it is quite a good thing that we are taking a softly softly approach at this point in time. Obviously if people are still not participating at a level that we would see as being desirable—and the Minister used the racing industry as an example of this—then further regulation will be required. I am pleased that the Minister sent out that signal. 
I do not think that I can add anything else to the debate today. National has supported this bill from the time it was introduced into the House. It will be good to see where it finishes up and whether we have to do any more. At this point in time I for one am willing to give it a go and I know that the National Party in general is willing to do so too. I hope we end up with the desired outcome. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to put on the record that New Zealand First supports the passage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill the principles behind it and everything it stands for. 
When I am out and about as a member of Parliament I talk to people—answering questions and explaining the sort of work that I am engaged in. Lately I have been saying that we are currently working on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. On one occasion a gentleman suggested: “It doesn’t matter what you do legislatively Ron; you’re not going to stop some people being dopey—end of story.” I guess there is truth in that; there will always be those athletes who seek an advantage and there will always be some MPs who do their business the way they do. 
Speaking of parties I again have to put on the record the concerns raised by New Zealand First when we read the Government Administration Committee’s report. I raised these concerns about the issues of privacy and information sharing during the Committee stage. I say again in this third reading that we note that the select committee reported back that a majority supported the view that information should not be shared with the police. On a select committee drawn up of three National Party members and three Labour Party members that majority means someone on the National team had to have agreed with Labour. 
I have said before that I know in my heart of hearts that Shane Ardern is a man who when he says “zero tolerance” means it. I know my colleague from down south Brian Connell to be a man of his word and a man of honour; a man who says what he means and means what he says. If he says he stands for zero tolerance he means it. This leaves only one person who needs to come to this House and explain her vote in this reading of the bill and that is Sandra Goudie. Quite clearly her view of zero tolerance in terms of drug use and law and order is more aligned with that of Labour than that of National. That is why she broke ranks and voted with the Government on that particular clause. 
Judith Collins 
: This is outrageous! 
RON MARK 
: It is outrageous as Judith Collins says. I agree with her; it is absolutely outrageous that someone who preaches zero tolerance who runs around this country condemning Maori up hill and down dale for drug use and who condemns people for the use of marijuana should vote against mandatory reporting. 
Judith Collins 
: Are you going to apologise to Sandra Goudie for that? 
RON MARK 
: Sandra Goudie—I say to Judith Collins who loves to interject—has every opportunity to come to this House to say that she did not vote in support of retention of the proposal that there should not be mandatory reporting. 
Judith Collins is an esteemed person who obviously went past fifth form and she knows that three and three are equal numbers. To get a majority there must be four against two. Therefore someone has to fess up and say that he or she has a different view of zero tolerance when it comes to the use of drugs and does not believe that people should automatically be reported to the police if they are found to be in breach of the code. That is all we ask—for someone to be upfront and clear about his or her position on this. The issue has obviously hit a very serious nerve with some National members on the front bench. 
If we want to go down that path and talk about restrictions on people expressing their views I will also put on the record that it is disappointing that a member who sits on the Government Administration Committee has not been permitted to speak in this House on that bill. I speak of Brian Connell. Brian Connell and I worked on the Law and Order Committee for years and I found him to be a staunch advocate of law— 
Anne Tolley 
: He spoke last night. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Anne Tolley just said: “That is a lie.” which is outside the Standing Orders and an unparliamentary term. Just because she is a whip does not mean to say she can get away with that sort of nonsense. 
Judith Collins 
: I think Mr Mark may have misheard Mrs Tolley. I heard her say: “He spoke last night.” and Mr Connell did. I think Mr Mark should stick to the bill and stop making ridiculous comments about Mr Connell. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I accept the view from the member on my left. 
RON MARK 
: So do I Mr Deputy Speaker. It was gunner’s ear as they say; I thought I had heard something different. But if Mr Connell was permitted to speak last night then I assume he will be allowed to speak today. I look forward to his contribution today because a little birdie had indicated to me that maybe he might not be allowed to speak. If we have just curtailed that decision then that is a good thing because I value Brian Connell’s contributions. I value his contributions down in the South Island. I and New Zealand First as a party have always been very appreciative of the support he has given to legislation that seeks to interdict drug dealers drug users anyone who distributes drugs and anyone who in any way advocates that there is something OK about drug use or the illicit drug use that we are trying to deal with in this legislation. 
People like Brian Connell are hugely valuable to this House. Their contributions in the past have been invaluable and we look forward to more contributions. We look forward to hearing an announcement from the National Party that it has stopped its petty vindictiveness and has reinstated Mr Connell in the caucus to allow him to participate 100 percent as the duly elected member for Rakaia—[ 
Interruption 
]—which he is I tell Anne Tolley. In fact I tell that member that he is an elected member and that is something we should acknowledge. We should ensure that he is accorded the right he so duly and justly has to speak on any issue whenever he pleases. 
If New Zealand First has some concerns about the bill they lie around the privacy issues but we are prepared to go with the select committee’s decisions and recommendations that the names of athletes who have tested positive to prohibitive substances should be kept private prior to the hearing process. But we reinforce the words of the Minister for Sport and Recreation in saying that where an athlete has been found to be using not just a performance-enhancing drug but an illegal drug such as methamphetamine we want it on the record that we have grave reservations that his or her name will not be made known. I ask the House to consider the fact that athletes who aspire to achieve at a high level both nationally and internationally draw with them a huge amount of adoration from our young. They become role models; knowingly wilfully or not—they do. They are people whom young people see on television every night every weekend and every month and those young people adore respect and admire those athletes. To have an athlete who is known to be a methamphetamine user out there in the sporting world adored loved and admired by young people who have no knowledge and whose parents have no knowledge that that athlete is a user of illicit drugs is something we would question the value of. 
So we will accept the word of the six honourable members on the select committee but I think we should underline the words of Shane Ardern in his contribution that in time once this bill has run something of its course we might need to review some of those questions should it be proved we need to. Everyone loves our All Blacks our Silver Ferns and our great international athletes but there is no room for respect or adoration to be built around athletes who are users or even distributors of illicit illegal and harmful drugs. That would do us no good as a nation at all. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party of course supports the Sports Anti-Doping Bill but I want to talk in its third reading on why sports doping itself is more prevalent now than it was in the past and why people have such a desperation to win that they will affect their own health so dramatically. Of course some of them die very young and we need just to see examples of that like Robin Tait and Graham May in New Zealand sport or Florence Griffith Joyner the American woman athlete. The suspicion is that the drugs they took had some impact on their shorter lives. 
I think there are four reasons—although there has been change over time—why people are motivated to win at all costs and to take drugs to do so. The first is the simple reason of the personal gratification of winning. That has been unchanged over time but I do not think that it alone pushes people into drug taking very much. 
The second factor is public acclaim which has been with us for a long time too but I think its nature has changed. New Zealand’s great winner in the 1500 metres at the 1936 Berlin Olympics Jack Lovelock got great public acclaim—domestically in New Zealand and internationally. But the nature of the acclaim athletes win has changed as we have become a more globalised world. The era of global communications television coverage etc. means that an athlete’s victory is more immediately seen by billions of people around the world particularly if it is at an Olympic Games. Athletes can travel around the world much more easily live in the aura of their victories and be acclaimed by people in many lands. There is quite a difference I think between a Jack Lovelock and what he could do following his 1500-metre victory in 1936 and what for instance Carl Lewis was able to achieve in the athletics world in terms of public acclaim. The latter became not just a victor but a celebrity on a world stage. 
The third factor that pushes people towards drug taking is national pride. That motivates individuals to do well; they want to do well for their nation. But there is a bad side to it as well particularly in terms of the people behind the athletes—the people pushing the athletes. Sometimes national pride in relation to the activities of national sports organisations can lead to drug taking. We have seen that particularly in the more authoritarian countries that want the glory of sports success to shore up their reputations both domestically and internationally. We saw it with the Nazis back in the 1930s. They wanted to win a lot of medals etc. at the Olympics to gain domestic support and to try to reduce the criticisms of their policies internationally. 
The practice carried on in the post-war years in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where there was a huge amount of drug taking by athletes. Some of the world records on the books today particularly in respect of women’s athletics were attained by Eastern European athletes whom everyone now recognises were into wholesale drug taking. Drug taking was organised by the sporting authorities. In fact sportspeople would not get into teams unless they took drugs. I think the same thing occurred in China for a period particularly when women distance athletes were breaking world records some of which are still on the books. The women’s world record for the 1500 metres is an example. Beyond the authoritarian countries some other countries turned a blind eye to drug taking in sports for a period. The United States athletic authorities turned a blind eye to some of their country’s sprinters in particular taking drugs but those people were subsequently caught out by drug tests. It does not happen so much in the US today because a better sporting regime is in place. 
The fourth factor that is becoming more and more important in terms of pushing people into drug taking is the money involved in sport as we have moved not only to professional sports on a more universal basis but also to global sport where a huge amount of money is available to teams that win. Sportspeople in those teams or individuals in global sport particularly soccer tennis golf and basketball can become multimillionaires very quickly if they win. Their winning attracts global sponsorship such as has happened for people like Michael Jordan Tiger Woods and Carl Lewis etc. 
So all of those four factors put great temptation in front of sportspeople to take drugs and the sporting bodies to encourage or somehow allow that to happen. It is good that this bill is part of an international movement to establish proper processes to reduce the possibility of that although it is a battle between those who are involved in doping and are well-financed because of all the rewards I have just talked about and the sporting authorities which sometimes have less funds to keep up. 
As there is always a bit of a delay between the development of the method of doping and the development of the testing regime I think it is important to try to get around that by keeping blood samples for a while so that new tests can be applied to them. That would mean that people who cheat by using drugs can perhaps be caught out a year or two later and have their medals taken off them. Also I think the penalties have to be very strong. In professional sports there needs to be much more banning for life rather than for just a 6-month or year suspension. I think that a serious penalty is needed. 
It is incumbent on every sports body and agency in New Zealand to try to change the culture as much as possible in terms of the four factors I have mentioned so that drug taking does not take place. Perhaps in one respect the Government and Sport and Recreation New Zealand need to have another look at their practices. I support most of what the Government and Sport and Recreation New Zealand are doing in terms of funding sport. Sport and Recreation New Zealand has two funds: one for high performance sport and one for generally encouraging more participation in sport. Unfortunately with the high performance grants that Sport and Recreation New Zealand gives there has been some debate of late in terms of the latest round of funding. In its choice of sport it seems to be encouraging the concept that winning is all. That has been to the disadvantage of high-participation sports like soccer. The soccer people have been a bit critical of Sport and Recreation New Zealand in this respect. Even though more kids play soccer it is very hard for the New Zealand soccer team to win internationally—that is to win the World Cup—so the high-performance grants tend to be given to other sports. 
I am not against these sports getting money but I think we should recognise a difference between team sports like soccer and other team sports like rugby which fewer people play internationally giving New Zealand a better chance of winning. That is not to take anything away from the All Blacks or from individual sports such as rowing where New Zealand has a greater chance of winning because fewer countries fully engage in those sports and a greater number of medals are on offer compared with team sports. I think there has to be a balance. 
We need to take up the calls of basketball and soccer to also be part of this high-performance grants system. Even though they may not necessarily win at an international level we want to reward high performance and to reward teams getting to international events such as the All Whites did in the World Cup in 1982 even if they do not go beyond the first round. Achievements such as that should be equally rewarded. Although Sport and Recreation New Zealand is very much involved in trying to stop sports doping if it adopts too much the “winning is all” philosophy then it will against its intentions help keep the culture going that encourages sports doping—the very thing that this bill is against. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tatou te Whare. In picking up on what the previous speaker said I note that if the country was going to reward success through Sport and Recreation New Zealand funding waka ama would probably get millions and rugby would not get anywhere near as much as it does because for all of its relative support from sponsors and from the Government its success at the highest level has yet to be achieved. 
We know that Aotearoa is a world leader in promoting and supporting drug-free sport. We are a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and we were one of the first countries to introduce domestic sports drug-testing. So the Maori Party is happy to congratulate the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency on its excellent work in providing drug-free sports education to our national sporting bodies and other key agencies in providing effective drug-testing procedures and in providing educational and research programmes to underline our commitment as a nation to fair play in sport. 
 We also see this bill as an opportunity for this Parliament to take note of other values that we can draw on from our nation’s athletes: values such as integrity honesty justice morality and fairness—values that Mr Shane Jones assures me are likely to be unfamiliar to many in this House but that exist in abundance in the Maori Party caucus. 
This bill also gives the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand greater power to obtain evidence and conduct hearings on doping cases in sport. But it raises the question of whether a sports ban is a sufficient penalty particularly given that in Italy drug cheats are prosecuted as criminals whereas in Aotearoa it remains a civil rather than a criminal offence. 
I would also like to mention another key player that is promoting this bill and that is Sport and Recreation New Zealand which through its credibility and expertise right across the sporting world has played a big role in bringing together comments and opinion from national sports organisations athletes and other key stakeholders on draft anti-doping rules. Within Sport and Recreation New Zealand there is also a national network of Maori organisers that have operated under the banner of He OrangaPoutama since 1988. It is a great example of an initiative to develop healthier more active lifestyles for Maori people. It is also due to the hard work of both the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency and Sport and Recreation New Zealand that Aotearoa has been at the forefront of the fight against doping and the Maori Party is happy to record its gratitude to those two bodies for their efforts to protect an athlete’s fundamental right to participate in drug-free sport. 
In closing I would like to mention one of the key stakeholders in the Sport and Recreation New Zealand structure one Dallas Seymour a former New Zealand Sevens representative and All Black who along with Eric Rush was one of the most talented sevens players in the world. He was highly respected for the energy and thinking he brought to the game and for the school he attended St Stephen’s College. And of course his wife Julie after bringing three little Seymours into the world revitalised her own netball career and was selected for the New Zealand netball team that recently played against the Australians. In the Seymour family we see all the values that we want to promote in sport and some of the positive aspects we want to see in our athletes. In fact I was reading a blurb about Dallas the other day where he said: “I’m Maori. I’m passionately proud of our country. It’s always been an enormous privilege for me to pull on the black jersey with the silver fern—in sixteen years of representing New Zealand I never took that moment for granted. For me the jersey was motivating—each time I wore it I was deeply aware of its history and meaning which meant I knew I could perform to the best of my abilities.” 
This House can learn a lot from the leadership that our athletes exhibit. The Maori Party will support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and we do so because of the motivation that people like Dallas Seymour give us to honour the spirit and the history of Aotearoa. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.43 p.m.