Volume 621 Week 73 - Wednesday 10 November 2004 
Volume 621 Week 73 - Wednesday 10 November 2004 
[Volume:621;Page:16781] 
Wednesday 10 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Leader of the House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Peter Hain Leader of the House of Commons United Kingdom is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Rt Hon Peter Hain accompanied by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen entered the chamber and took a seat on the left of the chair. 
Motions 
Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That this House commemorate the 60th anniversary of the arrival of 733 Polish children and 100 of their guardians to New Zealand on 1 November 1944; recognise the contribution the Polish community has made to New Zealand life; and reaffirm its desire for the continuation of friendly and cooperative relations between New Zealand and the Republic of Poland. 
The refugee children and adults arrived in New Zealand in November 1944 after enduring quite remarkable hardships: first the invasion and then deportation to Soviet labour camps. They came to New Zealand at the invitation of Labour’s wartime Prime Minister the Rt Hon Peter Fraser. We welcome the contribution that this community and its children have made to New Zealand and the richness and diversity that they have given to our society. Yesterday’s refugees have become today’s New Zealanders while retaining a strong pride in their culture and origins. I know that other parties will join with me in welcoming the commemoration of this occasion. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 National is pleased to associate itself with this motion. The story of those children and their subsequent contribution to New Zealand is truly inspiring. The history of the Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939 is well known as is the horror of the Second World War that it unleashed. But what is less well understood is what those catastrophic events did to the lives of ordinary families and innocent children living in Poland at the time. It is hard to imagine the hardship and suffering they had to endure with fathers deported to prison camps in northern Siberia where so many died; and women and children deported to labour camps elsewhere in Siberia which was so harsh and cruel that by the time those 733 children arrived in New Zealand 425 of them were orphans. Yet 11 years later many had passed School Certificate many more were apprentices some had passed university entrance and were nurses and teachers and a few had even graduated from university. To the New Zealand families descended from those Polish refugees today including the family of our own deputy leader Gerry Brownlee I say that their families’ triumph over cruelty and disaster is an inspiration to us all and we salute them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First totally endorses the Minister’s comments and sentiments in regard to those young Polish people who came here so many years ago. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with the other parties in congratulating those former refugees and the Polish community as a whole on the tremendous contribution they have made to our country. It also congratulates the New Zealand Government of the time on accepting that first important batch of refugees. We have taken many refugees since but it was a challenge then—as it is a challenge now—to get our whole community to fully accept people from a quite different cultural background and to understand fully that they have fled persecution and need a new home. Many of the Polish refugees whom we are commemorating today as has been pointed out were driven from their home following the division of Poland between Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia and they suffered dreadfully in Stalin’s labour camps. Just as we opened our hearts and our homes to Polish refugees 60 years ago it is important that we open our hearts and our homes today to many of those who have suffered harassment and torture at the hands of repressive Governments be they in Iran Burma Somalia or Algeria. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party also rises to support this motion and to remember 733 frightened and distressed children who travelled right around the world to arrive in Wellington and then went on to Pahiatua after suffering horrors that no one should have to suffer let alone little children. We note the magnanimous nature of New Zealanders who accepted those children and looked after them and how we should always keep hope alive. Those children made their homes in New Zealand became as has been observed by Parliament upstanding citizens and have added to the New Zealand way of life and to the Polish community which we all know and appreciate. 
It is a story of hope and triumph. It is interesting that there were 733 children with 100 adults and our annual quota is now just 750. But we should not forget all those who did not make it. Between 1939 and 1941 1.6 million Poles were shifted out of Poland to concentration camps mostly in Siberia and Kazakhstan many of whom were never heard of again. We should reflect on the terrible suffering that the Polish people have been through over the years and wish them every success for the future. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the motion and to endorse the comments that others have made. War is at its most cruel when it deals with the innocent and the most innocent in all crises and conflicts are the children. Many of the images we have of wartime are of children being evacuated to the English countryside to Canada to other places. But there can be few more poignant tales than the evacuation of the 733 Polish children to New Zealand 60 years ago. While we can say that 733 is a number that equates roughly to our total refugee quota today it is not a large number. Yet in those 60 years the influence of those children and their families in New Zealand has been such that just about every single one of us can recall some form of interaction—be it family or otherwise—with those Polish refugees from 1944. So I salute them and their achievements. I salute the New Zealand Government of the time for its wisdom and compassion in making that move and I congratulate all those refugees their families their descendants and those close to them on the huge contribution they have made and continue to make to New Zealand today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether I might be permitted from my role as Speaker to make one very brief comment. My late father was the district child welfare officer at the time and Pahiatua was part of his brief. I can remember a lot of the things that he did in that area. I can remember young children coming to our place and being given one of their first meals in New Zealand at our place and I think it is a wonderful thing we are doing today. 
Motion agreed to. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Smoke-free Policy—Parliamentary Complex 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to make a statement to the House on the smoke-free policy for the parliamentary complex. This supersedes the statement I made to the House on 2 March 2000  
Hansard 
 Volume 582 at pages 947 and 948. The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003 has commencing on 10 December 2004 increased the scope and intent of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. Parliament enacted the smoke-free legislation and has a duty to ensure that the parliamentary complex environment fully complies with the provisions of the Act. Under section 26(1) of the Parliamentary Service Act the Speaker is the person invested with the control and administration of the parliamentary precincts. In this capacity I have consulted with the Parliamentary Service as both the supplier of building services for the complex and the employer of the majority of complex staff which in turn has consulted with other agencies housed within the complex. Following that consultation and advice the smoking policy that applies at present within the parliamentary complex is being reviewed and updated in order to comply with the amended legislation. 
 Beginning on 10 December 2004 the entire parliamentary complex—that is Parliament House the executive wing Bowen House and the Parliamentary Library—will be smoke-free. This includes those areas in which smoking has hitherto been permitted—that is the bar known as Pickwicks single-person offices with windows opening to the outside the car-park areas on levels 2 and 3 of Bowen House the underground garages in Parliament House and the executive wing and the walkway under the main steps of Parliament House. All these areas are to be smoke-free. 
Other smoke-free areas that merit specific mention are the lobbies Chamber galleries the Parliament House conservatory including the bridge the members’ recreation room the library veranda and the balcony outside level 20 of Bowen House. Smoking at the top of the main steps of Parliament House is still prohibited. Smoking is permitted within Parliament grounds but not in or around any entrance ways to the buildings nor adjacent to any open windows or in any other area from which smoke could enter the buildings. 
The policy applies to all occupants of and visitors to the parliamentary complex including members of Parliament employees of all agencies members of the press gallery visiting dignitaries and delegations function attendees guests contractors and any members of the general public who are visitors to the parliamentary complex. I will ensure that a copy of this statement is sent to all occupants of the complex. The smoke-free policy will be available early next week. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just reflecting on your rulings with regard to the smoke-free areas around Parliament I wonder whether you could confirm a suggestion that has been put to me that the Speaker’s flat in fact will be a place in which smoking is permissible and whether you will be bringing down an invitation policy for the House to consider. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am pleased that that question has been raised. Absolutely not. 
Questions to Ministers 
Treaty of Waitangi—Conversation with the People 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the reported statement attributed to Government sources by a  
Dominion Post 
article of 8 November 2004 that a government department-led inquiry would set up a “conversation with the people” about the status and role of the treaty; if so what is the purpose of that process? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she perhaps confirm the assertion made in the same  
Dominion Post 
 article that the planned inquiry is seen as a way to “take the heat out of the public’s response to National leader Don Brash’sOrewa speech on race issues.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is no need to; that fire has died out. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why will her Government not accept the challenge of the National Party to present a clear set of policies on the Treaty of Waitangi and constitutional issues prior to the forthcoming election and allow the New Zealand public to make a decision on them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can assure the member that anything the Government proposes in this area will be consultative and inclusive. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would she take the guidance of the National Party on an issue where its blood DNA and fingerprints are all over the tragedy and mess of the Waitangi industry and secondly why would she think this issue is so unimportant as to announce its details at the upcoming Labour Party conference? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have two points in reply. Firstly I have noticed as the member has a distinct difference between National Party utterances on these subjects when in Government and in Opposition; and secondly the Labour Party conference as the conference of the major party in Government is always an important occasion. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Prime Minister genuinely wants a broad public consensus on these issues why does she choose such a partisan venue to announce the proposal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do happen to be the leader of the Labour Party and from time to time important announcements are made at the conference. At least we have a leader. That is the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot let that last comment of the Prime Minister go. I understand it and I sympathise with what she said but she is not allowed to say it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This happens to be a democracy—still. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does she agree that if a community dialogue about the treaty is to contribute to better understanding and relationships then it must be properly resourced with accurate information about our history and facilitated by skilled community educators especially given the lack of civics education in our schools and a widespread lack of knowledge about what the treaty actually says including amongst some MPs? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The sentiment behind the member’s question is agreed with by the Government and that is why we resourced the State Services Commission to begin to get factual information on the website so that people can learn more about the history of our country. 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)—Drug Classification 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Can he confirm that he intends to introduce an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) to provide a new schedule—[ 
Interruption 
]—to regulate the sale of legal substances that are subject to abuse but that do not warrant regulation under the current class A B or C drug classifications? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If nobody else will raise this issue I will. The question had been started by the member when the chief Government whip interjected over the top of the question while it was being asked. You have made very clear rulings about that practice in the past. I seek your judgment on what will become of the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I did. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. She is a whip. That is the only warning I will give today. Please stand withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that I intended to do that. I sent a letter to all parliamentary parties in the House ahead of the Business Committee meeting yesterday asking for leave for a Supplementary Order Paper addressing that issue to go direct to the Health Committee which is currently considering the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). Unfortunately I believe that one party blocked the move for reasons only it would be able to explain. 
Judy Turner 
: Will he give an unequivocal assurance that cannabis will remain a class C drug as per United Future’s supply and confidence agreement and that any new schedule would not be utilised as a back-door route to an erosion of the cannabis prohibition by for example introducing a legal purchase age of 18; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There is no current intention of this Government to change the cannabis legislation in any way. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that substances other than legal highs that are abused such as solvents air fresheners and liquefied petroleum gas have legitimate public uses which means that their classification as drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act would create a legal nonsense; if so does he agree that such restrictions would be best strengthened under other legislation such as the provisions for fireworks and if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Members may be aware of the ongoing coroner’s inquest in Wellington relating to the deaths of six people in the region due to the inhalation of volatile substances. The coroner has called for information on Government strategies and programmes to deal with that serious problem and the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper was one of the strategies the Government is pursuing. We wanted that proposal to be considered not only by the select committee but by the public as well through consultation and submissions and that is why I took the step of asking for the permission of the House and all parties in it to allow the Supplementary Order Paper to go to the select committee—so it could be considered by the public and then in the House subsequently. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Does he understand or know why the ACT party wishes to oppose such an amendment? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I would have thought that the use of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister does not have any responsibility relating to that question. [ 
Interruption 
] It could have been asked a different way but it was not. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister support the labelling requirements in the Supplementary Order Paper applying to alcohol containers—in particular warnings about the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome after drinking even very small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy—in spite of the opposition of the Government’s support party United Future to that or any other restriction on dangerous drinking? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have found the United Future party very supportive of Government actions in the drug and alcohol area. I personally support a clear notification on all substances including alcohol of their danger and if advised by officials and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that that would be effective which is the issue I think we have in front of us then I would support it. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Can the Minister advise the House as to what the effect may be if ACT’s opposition to the amendment is successful? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It will simply delay the opportunity of the select committee and the House to deal with the matter. It would have been effective and quicker to deal with it through the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) which is before the Health Committee now but if the ACT members want to delay Government action on drugs and their effect on young people in New Zealand then it is their prerogative to do so. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Despite the delay does the Minister intend to submit a Supplementary Order Paper to Parliament so that the Health Committee can deliberate on this proposal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I do but of course I am aware of the heavy workload before the House before Christmas. The likelihood is that the Supplementary Order Paper would not be able to be considered before the new year which will delay its implementation in law and if anyone wants to know from me—from the coroner up down or sideways—why that is I will blame the ACT party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to notify the House that the National Party would not block leave if it was sought for this issue to be debated this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for a point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for a debate to be held this afternoon to refer the Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. That debate can be held. I presume that means at the end of the general debate. That debate will be so held on the leave of the House. 
Health Policy—Specialist Assessments 
3.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many people in total were waiting for a first specialist assessment at the end of August 2004 and does she consider her health policy a success? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Patients referred for first assessment as of the end of August 2004 numbered 110879. Of this number 20 percent had been waiting longer than 6 months. In other words the total includes people who were referred on 1 August and people referred earlier. The policy is working because in 1999 when the policy started 34 percent of people referred for first specialist assessment were waiting longer than 6 months. This is a huge improvement. 
Heather Roy 
: How can she credibly claim success when her own new official figures show 110879 people are waiting when in Opposition in August 1998 she labelled the then waiting list of 96000 as “criminal” and said that people could be dying while waiting; and what is her explanation to this House as to why 96000 people waiting is criminal and 110000 is not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Easily because in 1998 96000 was a rough assessment of people waiting. It is criminal because nobody knew how many were waiting no records were kept on how many were waiting and as I said only 20 percent of those currently waiting have waited longer than 6 months. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the total number of first assessments done in a year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Over 450000 first assessments are done in a year plus nearly 1.1 million subsequent assessments are done. These figures show a substantial improvement since 2002 and they cannot be compared with the 1990s because no such figures were kept. 
Judith Collins 
: What comfort can she give New Zealanders when the first specialist assessment waiting list exceeds 110000 despite another $2 billion each year being wasted by this Minister under her watch when in 1999 she said that New Zealanders could take little comfort from a waiting list that was then fewer than 110000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: People can take a lot of comfort from the $2 billion extra we have put in—in fact it is more than $2 billion; the member’s figures are wrong. We have an almost 50 percent increase in funding. The people of New Zealand do not think it is wasted—especially those who are now getting knee and hip replacement operations because of the additional money we have put in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of whether she considers her health policy a success why did she claim yesterday that in the 2003-04 year 15 new medicines were listed on the pharmaceutical schedule of New Zealand not one when in fact only one of those 15 was placed on the schedule with full funding the rest were all restricted access and therefore not available to New Zealanders who would require that drug? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because the figure is the figure provided by Pharmac. Fifteen drugs are placed on the schedule. Of course some of them have co-payments; they always have. Not all of them are fully subsidised. 
Judy Turner 
: Will she give serious consideration to the idea of establishing a contestable fund in order that both public and private health providers could tender to provide elective surgery services within the guidelines set by the Ministry of Health and does she agree that if this concept can be applied to roading policy it can also apply to elective surgery; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has Mr John Power a World War II veteran who has paid his own way all his life had to wait 4 long years for a knee replacement operation which still has not happened despite the Minister’s bluster and an extra $2 billion of taxpayer funds wasted each year by this Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer why the particular patient has not had an operation but I can tell the people of New Zealand that there are many— 
Opposition Members 
: Four long years! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister needs to have a reasonable opportunity to answer with no waving of hands or things like that. The member asked a question and she can expect an answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the people of New Zealand— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are being rather hard on members on this side of the House. The Minister started by saying that she could not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. He has now had two non – points of order; there are not very many to go. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I said was that I could not answer about— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a well-established principle in this House that Ministers cannot go on to say that they cannot answer a question asked but that they can provide some other answer and that is what the Minister started to say—“but I can tell the questioner this”. That is out of order and it has never been allowed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not and it has been allowed ever since I have been in this House. Sometimes a Minister cannot give all the facts but can give some of them and the Minister is entitled to do so. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In this Parliament I have answered questions for many more years than you have. In fact not many members in this House have answered them for as many years as I have. I can assure you Mr Speaker that it is not in order. If you check the Standing Orders you will see that Ministers have to answer a question. They cannot provide any answer they choose to give. They must answer the question asked. If the answer is that they do not know they cannot then say that they offer some other answer. That is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not. As long as the facts that the Minister gives are relevant it is in order. The member should read the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is impossible for any Minister of Health to know the situation of an individual patient. I cannot answer about Mr John Smith or whatever his name was. If the member were serious about this person she would make representations on behalf of him. 
Heather Roy 
: Given her concern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please start with a question word. 
Heather Roy 
: Following her statement in 1999— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please start with a question word. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given her concern in 1998 that some of the 96000 patients could be dying—[ 
Interruption 
] Shall I start again Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given her concern in 1998—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind whether it is Wednesday and it is members’ day but it is still question time and we still have rules to accept. I want to hear the member’s question in silence. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given the Minister’s concern in 1998 that some of the 96000 patients could be dying while waiting does she accept that after her 5 years in charge of health some of the 110000 patients are also dying while waiting now and does she consider this to be criminal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because 20 percent of people on that list have waited longer than 6 months. The rest have not waited longer than 6 months. In 1998 many of those 96000 people had been on the list for years some of them died on the list some went to Australia and some were waiting for operations that were no longer carried out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many of the 15 new medicines that the Minister claimed yesterday to be listed in 2003-04 were actually new if any; second why is she setting up a two-tier health system in this country—one for those who can afford pharmaceuticals and one for those who cannot—given that Pharmac underspent its budget by $25 million in the last year through delays in negotiations reneging on agreements and restricting access to products that could benefit New Zealanders; and how could she call that a successful administration? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will have to table the list. I did not bring it down with me as the question did not relate to it but I am happy to do that. We do not run a two-tier system in terms of pharmaceuticals. There is provision for a pharmaceutical in all the categories that are subsidised available to New Zealanders. What the member has overlooked is that it is this Government that has reduced the cost of getting the pharmaceuticals particularly for our older people to $3 a prescription. Thousands of New Zealanders can now afford to pick up their prescriptions— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Cheap products. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No they are not cheap products. Some of them are generic as we had when that member was Treasurer. Some of them are list pharmaceuticals that are brand names. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why the number of people waiting on the list when National was in power—96000—was “criminal” with people dying while on the list and why now that she is the Minister 110000 is somehow not criminal; and could she please do so without her usual bluff and bluster because there are New Zealanders who are very concerned about having to wait for a hospital bed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because the figure of 96000 in 1998 was a rough estimate of just a list. The people who are now having first assessment are moving through the system. Of those 110000 people only 20 percent have waited longer than 6 months. There is a huge difference between those who had waited on a list year in and year out with nothing happening to them and those who are being seen and moved through the system as happens now—far more than happened when the system was first set up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making these outrageous claims given that before the creation of Pharmac New Zealand’s per capita spend on pharmaceuticals was 3 to 4 percent higher than Australia’s and is now 53 percent second by OECD standards? New Zealand is spending a fraction of what OECD countries spend—the OECD spends 15 percent and New Zealand spends 5 percent which equates to the following amounts: last year by OECD standards this Minister should have spent $1.6 million and she spent $504 million a fraction of what should be paid to people in terms of First World drugs. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member would be very interested to know that the OECD members are very interested in how New Zealand is able to ensure we can afford drugs. Governments in the European Union and in America itself—the home of the drug companies—have found that they have been unable to control the growing cost of drugs to the extent that the Americans are now parallel importing drugs from Canada so that they can afford them. We in New Zealand have been spectacularly successful in ensuring that we have high-quality drugs and good access to them while being able to ensure that money goes into health where it is needed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the issue of the Minister considering her health policy a success I ask her whether it is true that Kim Carter previously a director of nursing services at the Auckland District Health Board and until 2 weeks ago a director of nursing at the South Canterbury District Health Board was escorted from the premises and allegedly received a golden handshake of tens and tens of thousands of dollars? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously I cannot answer that. First of all I do not have responsibility under the Act for employment issues. However if the member were to put a question to the district health board’s chief executive officer who has responsibility I am sure that he would if he could provide the answer. It is absolutely stupid to think that a Minister can come to the House and know about one employee out of the 8000 employees of the Auckland District Health Board and be able to tell the member what happened to that particular employee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister expect to be told as Minister—given the tremendously sincere way she campaigned in 1999 about golden handshakes and the way her Prime Minister behaved at that point in time on such an odious thing as golden handshakes—whether that allegation which relates to the sum of about $100000 was proved to be true? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would not expect to be told about which employees were leaving and what they were paid. However we have been trying to stop the very dopey employment contracts put in place under the previous Government that we had for chief executive officers which enabled them to go on leave for year after year if need be and still be paid. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can the Minister claim any success with her health policy when—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was an interjection made by somebody. That person will leave the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I know exactly who it was if you need any help. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any help because the member will also be leaving. I want the member who made that interjection to leave the House please. I heard an interjection made. 
Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can this Minister claim any success for her health policy when despite spending an extra $2 billion there are now 110000 patients waiting for first specialist assessment and another 62700 in the waiting list booking system—a total now of 172000 people waiting for treatment—or is she going to contest her own numbers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With confidence—because those figures are considerably better than what they were when we became Government. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How given the Minister’s description of 96000 people waiting as “criminal” would she describe 110000 people waiting which is about 15 percent more—is it: firstly seriously criminal; secondly very seriously criminal; thirdly definitely unspinnable; or fourthly time to bluff and bluster? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: None of the above. 
Judith Collins 
: I have several documents I seek leave to table. The first is a media statement dated 8 July 1999 from the Hon Annette King which is headed “110000 still wait for specialist assessment”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
report of 4 July 2003 referring to the case of Mr John Power the man referred to by the Minister as Mr John Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from the Minister of Health’s private secretary to Mary Clist John Power’s daughter dated 31 October 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from me to the Hon Annette King relating to Mr John Power dated 1 April 2003. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Health’s private secretary to me regarding Mr Power dated 6 September 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter to me from the senior adviser to the Minister of Health relating to Mr John Power dated 1 October 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek the leave of the House for the Minister’s answers to be printed and sent to those 110000 people who will be pleased to know that it is successful that they are waiting on a waiting list. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. The first is of New Zealand health information statistics from a division of the Ministry of Health with figures showing that 110000 patients were waiting for first specialist assessment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: The second document I seek leave to table is a press report from August 1998 in which the present Minister of Health claimed that having 96000 people on the waiting list was criminal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Unemployment Benefit—Numbers 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders requiring an unemployment benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have very good news. At the end of October this year the number of people receiving an unemployment benefit was 65085—over 26000 lower than it was 1 year ago. That is like the population of Blenheim or Timaru moving off the unemployment benefit in the last 12 months. Since 1999 the number of people needing an unemployment benefit has dropped by over 81000 or over 55 percent. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have job growth and that New Zealanders get a decent job. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How many employment placements has Work and Income made to help people move from a benefit to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the last financial year Work and Income made over 87000 placements into employment. This record level of employment placements reflects the active approach Work and Income takes to helping people into paid employment through for example a new initiative such as the industry partnerships with growth industries such as the hospitality road transport retail master plumbers roading and—as soon to be announced—meat industries. This strategy and this Government are about real jobs and real wages. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister accept the serious fact that sickness and invalids beneficiary numbers continue to rise and that the money spent on the invalids sickness and disability allowances increased by $141 million in the year ended June 2004? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Accepting that the sickness benefit is there for people who are sick and that the invalids benefit is there for people who have a disability and that there is a worldwide trend in industrialised countries towards higher numbers on these benefits I say that yes there has been a rise. That is why this Government unlike the previous Government has been piloting policies that are now showing real benefits in moving people who can work back into work. We are about to extend that pilot here in the Wellington region then roll it out right across the country as world-leading cutting-edge policy in that area. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the whole situation and tell us the exact numbers—by that I mean the actual numbers—of people who have gone on the sickness benefit or the invalids benefit over the same time frame to which he has just referred in relation to the unemployment benefit reduction? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the figures with me but there has been a rise of around 36 percent during the time we have been in Government in the numbers of people on these benefits. But I say to the member opposite that while the National Government was in power for 9 years those numbers rose steadily. It has taken this Government to put in place the kinds of policies that are beginning to show a turn-round in those trends. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that the Minister has not got the numbers there. I specifically asked for numbers—I repeated that phrase—and he came back with percentages. Can I ask that the Minister supply us with the increased numbers of people on the sickness and invalids benefits? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure the Minister will do that in due course. He has just nodded to indicate that he will. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports which show that as a proportion of the total number of sickness beneficiaries those aged over 50 have increased from 32 percent to only 33.7 percent since 2000 and that as a proportion of the total number of invalids beneficiaries those over 50 have actually decreased from 41 percent to 40 percent; how can he continue to claim that the increasing numbers of sickness and invalids beneficiaries are due to an ageing population when those figures indicate that there is actually an across-the-board increase? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has never claimed that there was one particular reason driving the increase in the numbers of sickness and invalids benefits. One of the reasons is in fact the ageing population. One of the others—which goes along with that—is of course the lift in the age of superannuation eligibility to 65. Members will find that 46 percent of the people who are on those kinds of benefits are in the 60-65 year age group. So age does have something to do with the numbers of people who are on those benefits. But so do such things as diagnoses of psychiatric conditions that many years ago were never accepted as conditions that made people eligible for a sickness or a disability allowance but that these days under both Governments—National during the 1990s and this Government as well I say to John Carter—are accepted as such. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports that show that against the overall decline in the number of unemployed the number of those on the dole for more than 3 years has increased by 24 percent since 1999 with the number of those unemployed for over 5 years doubling over the same period; and does this entrenched unemployment not mean that he simply cannot rely on a burgeoning economy to find those people work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We are seeing dramatic drops in the number of people who have been on the unemployment benefit long term—that is over 6 months. As for people who are on that benefit for longer—for over 4 years for example—I return the member to what I said before: that one of the major drivers for that is age and the lifting of superannuation eligibility to 65. That is an issue that we are dealing with as a country. That is an issue that will be partly dealt with of course by those people getting older and getting entitlement to superannuation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the Department of Labour told the Finance and Expenditure Committee just over a week ago that 1 hour a week constituted a measurement of employment and went down in the statistics as such; that being the case why is he trying to flannel the country with a cock and bull story? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For a good two decades now New Zealand has used the household labour force survey measure of employment just as countries throughout the OECD do and we use that measure so that we can make it internationally comparable. Because the member does not seem to understand the use of the figure I refer him to another statistic that is very important. It is the statistic on who feels that they are underemployed—that is that they do not have the hours that match their needs in relation to the work they are looking for. That figure has dropped dramatically under this Government—unlike what happened under the one he was part of in the 1990s. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports that show that over 26000 additional children have been born to women while they are on a benefit including 7000 women who have had two or more children and one who has had eight additional children; and does he agree that the right to receive a benefit is balanced by a responsibility to both the child and the taxpayer to minimise reliance on that benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware that beneficiaries have children just as other people throughout the community do but the member needs to know that the kind of extreme case that she has been raising of a woman on the domestic purposes benefit who has had eight children is very far from the normal situation. The majority of domestic purposes benefit recipients are between 25 and 45 they have one or two children and they are on the benefit for fewer than 5 years. Because we have introduced a very intense process of case management which is supported—I am pleased to say—by that member she knows that we are getting even better results. 
Home Help—Frail and Elderly 
5.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Does she accept that “Home help for the frail and elderly is under threat as caregivers quit because of low pay and long hours.” as reported in the 
 Press 
 on 6 November 2004; if so how and when will the Government address the urgent issues of recruitment and retention in the home-help industry? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 Yes I am aware of a number of longstanding and interlinking caregiver workforce issues including recruitment and retention which is why last year the Ministry of Health received an additional $1 million to undertake policy work in collaboration with the sector to enable the issues to be addressed in a sustainable way. That work has just been completed and I am considering the recommendations now. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does her reply when asked by the 
 Press 
 “if she would wipe bums for $10.50 an hour” that: “That’s not a relevant question to ask me. I’m not applying for a job as a caregiver.” mean that the Minister considers such a pay rate is acceptable? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not have ministerial responsibility for wage negotiations or for fee-setting for the caregiver workforce. 
Darren Hughes 
: What approach will the Government take to improve the status of the caregiver workforce given the Minister’s statement that she is aware of the issues in that area? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As part of the work done to date a national training qualification has been developed for that workforce. I am considering recommendations that I have just received from the Ministry of Health on the best way to make that training accessible to the workforce and the best way to link qualifications with pay rates. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How many reports does the Minister need before she takes action given that there have been at least six reports in the last 5 years including a 1999 report by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs called  
Homecare Workers 
? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Just one—the one that I referred to in answer to the primary and the supplementary question. The Quality and Safety Project is the first comprehensive look into the issues surrounding caregivers and I will be considering its recommendations soon. 
Sue Bradford 
: What is the Government doing to end the ridiculously wide variation in wage levels between different providers and different parts of the country and to ensure that we move to a situation in which home-care workers are employed on a well-paid and permanent basis rather than in an endlessly casual and low-paid way? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is one of the many issues that is being addressed through the work of the Quality and Safety Project to which I referred in my reply to the previous supplementary question. The other issues are having a career path into nursing and social services security of hours fair remuneration including consideration of travel time and costs the nature of the contracts being on a fee-for-service rather than a bulk-funded basis the quality of services received recruitment and retention issues and the consistency of standards between the three funding agencies. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that an aim of the Health of Older People Strategy is to: “Enable older people and people with disabilities to live with independence and dignity in the community” as stated in the project update for home-based services; and if so how does this Government’s current underfunding and consequent demoralisation of caregivers promote that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I certainly do support that aim. I agree that the sector is underfunded but as I said in the report in the  
Press 
 referred to by Sue Bradford in her primary question more funding on its own is not the answer to the situation at all. What we need to do is to have a comprehensive approach that addresses all the issues on a sustainable basis. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree with Rural Women New Zealand that the home-care sector is in crisis illustrated by the fact that that organisation is turning away 12 clients a day on average; and exactly when will the Government take action to ensure that home-care workers do not have to pay their own travel costs out of their very minimal wages—and I am talking about the often considerable travel costs between clients which is particularly a problem in rural areas? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member may be interested to know that some providers despite the fact that they are given exactly the same funding rate as other providers are able both to pay petrol expenses and some to even offer remuneration for the time between clients. Those issues are part of the Quality and Safety Project work. It is a priority for my ministerial work programme. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the Government doing to address the warning that there could be a meltdown in home care in 6 weeks time over the Christmas period putting at risk the health and safety of elderly and disabled people who depend on that service because home-care staff are leaving the sector in droves because of low wages with a turnover of 90 percent in some areas and with services already refusing referrals because of the lack of staff? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A shortage of caregivers is certainly one of the few unfortunate consequences of our having the lowest unemployment rate in New Zealand for nearly two decades. As I indicated to another member in my answer to a previous supplementary question there is a comprehensive work programme to address that very issue. 
Civil Defence and Emergency Management Ministry—Capacity 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What responsibility does he take for the capability shortfalls detailed in the review of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I take responsibility together with the Minister of State Services for asking in October 2003 for a review of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management’s progress towards meeting the requirements of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. The review shows that good progress has been made in some areas. Some shortfalls have been identified. It is the responsibility of the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to report back by March 2005 on the steps to address those requirements. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why in mid-September did the Minister say he had confidence in his ministry’s ability to manage a national disaster yet 6 weeks later an independent report damns his ministry as completely unable to manage a national disaster; is this “leaky homes” all over again where he is completely oblivious to the collapse of a department for which he is responsible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question relates to the original question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The answer to the second part of the question is no anyway. But I want to tell that member that the civil defence organisation nationally has the responsibility to see that the regional civil defence organisations are ready and the Manawatu floods showed just how well that had been done. 
Janet Mackey 
: Can the Minister tell the House about the good progress being made in implementing the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An interjection was heard before that question finished. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The report found that the ministry has made good progress in implementing the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. For example local response capabilities in the four regions visited for future emergencies will be good; that was Hawke’s Bay Auckland Kapiti and Ruapehu. There was a high awareness of the legislation and its requirements good progress has been made on local response plans good progress is being made in the establishment of civil defence emergency management environments and that person on the other side seems to be very sad about how communities are resilient. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister have to say to Rangitikei farmer Chrissy Collins who today says that she and her neighbours in the Whangaehu Valley were surprised and frustrated with what they saw as a poor response from civil defence during the February floods? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: One will always find people who are aggrieved because they have faced a natural disaster. I remind that member that this Government responded immediately. We went up several times. The Prime Minister went and the Minister of Agriculture went. But Don Brash did not go for over a week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the director of civil defence in light of this report which shows significant gaping holes in the implementation of the civil defence legislation and the comment that these reviewers have extreme concern about him and his ministry’s ability to coordinate a national disaster recovery effort? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have confidence that the director will do what is required by law and that says that group plans need to be completed by July 2005. The National Civil Defence Plan has to be completed by December 2005 and the director is working towards it. But I think with the help of the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs he will do better but that member obviously does not want to listen because he is prattling on himself. 
Janet Mackey 
: Does the Minister consider that some of the concerns raised in the report are a direct consequence of the previous National Government closing the training facility for civil defence—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said there were to be no interjections during question time. Mr Power does not know how lucky he is; he is a senior whip. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Simon Power 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the supplementary question all over again please. 
Janet Mackey 
: Does the Minister consider that some of the concerns raised in the report are a direct result of the previous National Government’s decision to close the civil defence training facility? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to see how the Minister has any responsibility for the previous National Government and would ask you to rule accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not what was asked. The Minister was asked about current policy and whether it related to the closing of a particular facility. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes and they also set up the latest arrangement where the director of civil defence was given greater independence and of course we are changing that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two documents; one shows that the staff of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management has turned over 80 percent during the term of the Labour Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question where 6 weeks before this damning report the Minister expressed full confidence in his department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Sentencing Act—Serious and Recidivist Offenders 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What evidence has he received that the Sentencing Act 2002 is resulting in tougher sentences for serious and recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The annual sentencing and conviction statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice for the first full calendar year since the Sentencing Act came into effect show that the sentencing regime is now comprehensively tougher for the worst offenders. Together with an inmate population that is around 1000 higher than was estimated a year ago those statistics show that this Government very clearly heard the message delivered by the public in the 1999 referendum and that the judiciary in turn has taken note of the intent of the new sentencing legislation. 
Moana Mackey 
: In what areas do the sentencing and conviction statistics show that the legislation is now much tougher? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Perhaps the clearest example is that the average non-parole period imposed with a life sentence in 2003 was 3 years longer than in the previous year before the Sentencing Act came into effect. The overall length of sentences was up the number imprisoned was the highest ever as was the percentage of violent offenders and burglars imprisoned and the number of those sentenced to preventive detention was the highest in this country’s history. The number of remand prisoners was double the level of 9 years ago because of the passage of the Bail Act which is tougher on recidivist offenders who continue to offend while on bail. That shows a comprehensively tougher regime. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Minister continue to support a policy whereby a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can apply for parole after only 3 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has continually misled people with that statistic. When that member was the Minister of Justice in the previous National Government a rapist would have been automatically released after serving two-thirds of a sentence which would be 6 years. Now a rapist who is a risk to the community can serve up to the last day of the sentence. What is more it is possible for a judge in cases where he or she believes it is necessary to sentence not only rapists and other violent offenders but all offenders to serve a minimum of two-thirds of their sentence before parole can be considered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether it was possible for a person who had been sentenced to 9 years to be out in 3. He has given a long diatribe about everything but that. However that was the question he was asked and he has shown no signs of answering it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister did start to address that. Could the Minister perhaps give a direct answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What that member Mr Peters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that the Minister could give— 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am coming to his question. It was always the case in this country that for offences other than violent offences people could be released after serving one-third of their sentence. Previously violent offenders— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Answer the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member would shut his mouth for a moment he could listen to the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a member asks a Minister to answer a question is it appropriate for that member or for a group of members to interject continually during the answer to that question which would indicate that they do not really want to know the answer at all? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There can be interjections but they have to be rare. I just ask members to be calm. The member who asked the question was interjecting too frequently. The Minister should have a fair and reasonable chance to answer the question the member asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the Minister has had two chances to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am making him do that now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He was into his second sentence and he still had not answered the very simple question of whether that was possible—yes or no. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The judge can set a minimum non-parole period of either one-third of a sentence or of above that level depending on the risk posed by the offender. Judges frequently impose a minimum period of more than one-third. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does he gloat over longer headline sentences for headline crime when it is early parole that sets the actual sentence and what is his explanation for the 33 percent increase in violent youth crime disclosed in the same report representing at least a thousand more bashings bullyings and stabbings last year while his policy saw in that same year the lowest-ever proportion of young convicted criminals sent to prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of factors in that question. Firstly in terms of parole the figures out from the Parole Board—which are not part of the report that I referred to—show that in a much higher percentage of cases parole is now being denied. Secondly the figures in relation to youth offending are not for the level of crime but for the level of apprehensions. That member knows as the rest of the House will know that the police have become far more effective at apprehending and convicting offenders because they are better resourced and there are more of them than ever before. 
Ron Mark 
: Is that the same report that states that prosecutions for violent offences are the least likely to result in conviction that the number of discharges without conviction has increased by 70 percent and that the number of convictions for kidnapping or abduction for 2003 at 178 was the highest-ever number on this nation’s record; and can the Minister confirm that this month a number of people will go before the Parole Board who have been convicted of beating their wives and who are only a third of their way through their sentence—and indeed at the time they apply for home detention will be 6 months short of that one-third mark—and how can that possibly mean longer sentences? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough in terms of the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No but I can confirm that a greater percentage of violent offenders are being convicted than ever before a greater percentage are being imprisoned than ever before and a greater percentage are serving longer sentences than ever before. That should be good enough for the member. I note that the member who frequently supports the Sensible Sentencing Trust may have noticed that trust saying how well the Government has been doing and congratulating it on a job well done. 
Immigration Service—Investigations 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How does the New Zealand Immigration Service respond when it receives a letter of complaint alleging that individuals require the service’s investigation? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that depending on the nature of the complaint allegations are referred to the department’s fraud unit or the border investigations branch for investigation. Complaints are acknowledged and further information sought where appropriate. Complaints are prioritised according to the seriousness of the allegations. Where a complaint is substantiated the matter may be dealt with by way of removal revocation deportation and/or prosecution. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain why we have a fistful of letters of complaint that have never been acted on by his department and will his investigation of Asha Ali Abdilledeal with her treatment of staff at the Red Cross in Wellington and Christchurch which involved threatening to pour petrol on one person and spitting in another receptionist’s face and the bizarre circumstances at the Hastings police station in which she threw a bucket of faeces over a constable and also the support letter from a member of Parliament regarding the immigrant fraudster BahmanFakharzadeh who has allegedly cheated four Government departments and is driving a taxi around Wellington? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think there are three questions. If the member has a fistful of letters that have not been acted on I would be very appreciative of receiving them so that I can look into the matters further. As far as Ms Abdille is concerned that case is being investigated as the member knows and the allegations are being looked into. As far as the taxi-driver is concerned I am not certain about that matter. I have seen a number of allegations about taxis—who pays or does not pay their fares—and it would be interesting to see whether the issue raised is related to that particular case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just assure the Minister that the issue is not related to any particular case other than to the fact that he never ever replies to tell a member of Parliament that something has been done about it. Accordingly we have hundreds and hundreds of people running around this darn country who should be offshore because they are here illegally. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is matter of politics. I know the member is good at that but it is not a point of order. 
Scholarship Examinations—Introduction 
9.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why is the Government introducing the New Zealand Scholarship examinations which started today? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Our Government is committed to raising education standards. That is why the New Zealand Scholarship a new examination has been introduced as a stand-alone qualification designed to extend very high achieving students. The examinations will be very challenging and to succeed students will need to apply high-level thinking skills. Scholarship is set at level 4 on the qualifications framework—the equivalent of a year 1 university subject— meaning that it will extend and challenge our top students. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What incentives and rewards are available to students who excel in New Zealand Scholarship? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Our overall top scholar and second top scholar will receive $45000 and $30000 respectively over 3 years. All students who achieve outstanding performance in three New Zealand Scholarship subjects will get $15000 over 3 years. There are also generous rewards for the top scholar in each subject and in each school. These awards are further proof that this Government is committed to excellence in education. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain how the Scholarship exam will rank candidates in order to select the top one or two when the exams are set according to the standards-based assessment philosophy of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement which is explicitly designed not to rank candidates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In the same way as doctoral students are ranked when they sit a standards-based examination. Dr Cullen and Dr Brash will explain to the member how it works. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister who happens to be the Minister of Education to explain it. He did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the Minister’s answer did address the question. He added a comment after that but the first part of the answer most directly did address that question. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister is so clear about how an exam designed not to rank students will achieve the ranking of students why are principals teachers and students across New Zealand deeply confused and why do they regard the Scholarship process this year as a shambles? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite surprised that the member says that because well-informed principals have been discussing it with me. They understand a system whereby the best papers— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the Hon Harry Duynhoven is talking on his cellphone in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Duynhoven is not to use his cellphone in the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] A member may not use a cellphone in the Chamber. That is a rule that I have set many times. The Minister will carry on with the answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am surprised that the member is confused or claims to be confused because the top principals in the country certainly are not. They understand that it is relatively easy to determine the outstanding performance Scholarships using a group of the assessors. There will not be many of them and they will sit down and work it out. As happens with doctoral students or others who sit standards-based exams candidates are able to be ranked. We have had top doctoral students before and I am very surprised that a member who has been involved in education for as long as that member has cannot understand that. 
Member for TamakiMakaurau—Resignation from Portfolios 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she state that John Tamihere took an honourable course in resigning his ministerial portfolios last week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because I think he did. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she really believe that after taking a golden handshake he said he would not take then keeping it secret for 4 years then waiting 3 weeks before resigning his ministerial warrants—and only because he was caught—John Tamihere has acted honourably; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that I do believe he acted honourably. I have in front of me the member’s personal statement to the House last week which states: “I have resigned from Cabinet today because I did change my mind and accept a golden handshake and I did not tell my Prime Minister. Some see that as hypocrisy and I will do my time.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the Prime Minister hear the radio interview that Mr Tamihere gave after his resignation where he was asked why it took him so long to resign and he said: “There are two streams of advice you get. One is direct legal and accounting which is there a process in place to clear your name and you allow those procedures and processes to run. Then there’s the political side. It’s the cumulative weight of that that starts to bear. Bearing that cumulative weight became too much.”; did she give him the latter advice or was she quite happy for him to wait out the process? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have consistently said a process was put in train and it is still in train and that process will continue because Mr Tamihere deserves the opportunity to put his case and endeavour to clear his name. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she agree with John Tamihere that the honourable thing to do would be to resign from Parliament if his personal explanation was in any way found to be incorrect or does she think this is another one of those examples where people say one thing one day and do the other the next? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be surprised if the carefully prepared personal statement proved to be incorrect. If members after having examined the reports that come in think it is then they are free to go to the Privileges Committee with it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that the Prime Minister has only to address my question but my question was specifically whether she agreed with the honourable John Tamihere that he should resign if his personal explanation was found in any way to be incorrect. For the Prime Minister to say whether she would be surprised to find that it was incorrect is not addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it was and it did. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister have an expectation that Mr Tamihere would resign from Parliament if matters raised and defended by him in his personal statement were subsequently proved to be untrue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the member is getting a little ahead of himself. I will wait and see the outcome of the inquiries. Then the evidence will be out for all to see and judge. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider this. We have been given a personal explanation which we have to accept as it is the member’s word. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister does not accept it because she is saying that she will wait and see whether it stacks up. I am not even certain whether if the personal explanation does not stack up the member has to resign. He himself has said he will resign if it does not stack up. We are in an impossible situation with this personal explanation. We have to accept it; the Prime Minister does not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has not grasped the fact that whether Mr Tamihere should resign from Parliament is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. 
Ambulance Services—Crewing 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that all ambulances responding to emergencies operate with a minimum of two trained crew as required by the New Zealand Standard for ambulance services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the emergency ambulance services are being managed and provided in a professional manner and with due regard to the public’s best interests. The ambulance service sector standards have not yet been considered for approval under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act. A lot more work is needed before that happens. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very explicit. Is she satisfied that all ambulances responding to emergencies operate with a minimum of two trained crew as required by the New Zealand standard? Could the Minister address the question please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that most New Zealanders would be disturbed to learn that even in some metropolitan areas such as Wellington ambulances do not have the required two crew members in an emergency situation and will she commit to providing the extra $2 million to $17 million of funding needed to ensure that all ambulances attending emergencies have two trained crew members; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is clear that the member did not hear the answer to the primary question. The ambulance service sector standards have not yet been considered for approval under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act. A lot more work needs to be done before that happens. Therefore there is not a requirement for double-crewing. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not relate to whether the standard had been implemented. My question was whether most New Zealanders would be disturbed to learn that there was not double-crewing in emergency situations and whether she would provide funding so that that could happen. It had nothing to do with whether the standard was implemented. I wonder whether the Minister could address my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can address the question in so far as it relates to whether she is disturbed about the double-crewing comment. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In my view I did answer the question appropriately. The point made in both the primary question and the supplementary question by the member was that there is a requirement to implement the New Zealand standard for ambulance services. The point I was making is that there is no such requirement. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What advice has the Minister received regarding the operational funding of road ambulance services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A funding review of ambulance services carried out by the Ministry of Health in collaboration with ambulance operators shows that non-governmental ambulance providers as a whole had a surplus of $6.7 million on their overall operations in 2002-03. Surpluses have also been posted in the previous 4 years. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware of recent incidents such as one in Wellington that I witnessed as an observer in an ambulance in which a seriously injured victim of a car accident had to wait while a second ambulance was sent to the scene of the incident because the first ambulance carried only one ambulance officer and does she agree that delays such as this can put people’s lives at risk and are totally unacceptable in an emergency front-line health service; if so what is she going to do about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am not aware of the specifics of that case and until I have a fuller briefing I would not even be aware of why the second ambulance was called so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that issue. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister clarify what percentage of public funding goes towards ambulance services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: According to the report to which I alluded in response to earlier questions public funding from both the Ministry of Health and the Accident Compensation Corporation makes up 85 percent of the funding received by our ambulance operators. Of the total road ambulance income 0.34 percent comes from donations. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Where is the sense of urgency around provision of this essential front-line service given that the funding review which the Green Party obtained under the Official Information Act was due for release in October of last year yet the Minister still cannot give a firm date for when the funding issue will be resolved or even an assurance that double-crewing will definitely be implemented in emergency situations? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly share the member’s concern that the review that I instigated was delivered to me a year later than anticipated—in fact a little longer than that. Part of the reason for the delay and a substantial contributor to it was the Ministry of Health’s inability to get quality data from the ambulance providers. Once that had been established I was very pleased to get the review. The whole point of commissioning the review was to build future policy including issues of double-crewing and whether that is appropriate in all circumstances. 
Local Authorities—Resource Management 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent reports has she received about the Government’s programme to assist local authorities to improve their resource management processes? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Ministry for the Environment recently conducted seminars nationwide with local government officers from 56 councils about improving resource consent - processing. Many participants said they would change their council’s processes in line with the advice that they received. That will mean less cost and delay for consent applicants such as homeowners and small businesses. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of support for the central government assistance to local authorities? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes Michael Barnett the chief executive of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce recognised the need for training when he said recently: “The issue with the RMA is not so much the contents of the Act preventing developments proceeding but how it is administered by local authorities.” That shows that those calling for an overhaul of the whole Resource Management Act such as Dr Don Brash are out of step with even their traditional support base. 
Questions to Members 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—Submissions 
1.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Sevices Committee 
: When is the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill due to be reported back to the House and did she request that families likely to be affected by this bill give evidence? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to reply to the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 25 November 2004 and also that the Social Services Committee advertised for submissions on the bill. Sixteen submissions were received and all of those who requested to give oral evidence on their submissions were heard by the committee. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that the thousands of families likely to be affected by the passing of this bill—which submitters have warned will lead to the closure of sheltered workshops around the country—have been fully and appropriately consulted? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question relating to what steps the committee has taken is in order. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: As I said in answer to the primary question the committee advertised for submissions and set a closing date of 28 June 2004. I have mentioned that the committee received 16 submissions and heard evidence from 15 submitters. There were two meetings—on 21 October and 4 November. The 21 October meeting happened to be chaired by the deputy chair I understand and there were hearings of evidence from 15 submitters. 
Charities Bill—Submissions 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Sevices Committee 
: When is the Charities Bill due to be reported back to the House and will she extend to all original submitters the opportunity to give further evidence? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 The Charities Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 10 December 2004. The opportunity for all original submitters to give further evidence is a matter for the committee to decide. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How many of the more than 700 original submitters are being invited to take part in further consultation on the rewritten Charities Bill and what criteria will the Government be using to select those organisations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as this relates to what the member as the chairperson of the committee can do the member may answer—not the Government the committee. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: As the deputy chairperson will understand these are indeed matters for the committee yet to make decisions upon. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be taken through its third reading today following any recommittal. As I am sure most members are aware Dr Hutchison has a small typing error amendment to move in the Committee stage then we will move back to the third reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This was discussed at the Business Committee. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will be so done. 
General Debate 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Prime Minister has called in all the information from the focus groups. She has called in all the polling background information and she has panicked because she knows that the message that Dr Brash gave this country in Orewa in January of this year is as resonant in people’s thinking as it was back then. So she has changed her views on all sorts of things and done what is commonly known in the political arena as a bit of triangulation and come up with the idea that we will have a new look at the New Zealand constitution. I think that when New Zealanders find out the Prime Minister’s record in this regard they will be extremely worried. 
I refer members to a speech given by Helen Clark just a few years ago when she said: “We will want to work through with Maori over time the terms of the new constitutional settlement which will be necessary when New Zealand becomes a republic.” 
That is what Helen Clark said just a couple of years ago and it is the agenda she is trying to sneak in the back door right at the moment. Why is she doing it? It is because she wants New Zealanders to be distracted from the incompetence of her Government. It has made a complete hash of the seabed and foreshore issue. It will not be able to get that back in the House next week because if it upsets the Greens and it does not get Mr Dunne or Mr Peters then it has no capacity to pass the bill. The Government is in the unenviable situation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members who are carrying on other conversations please leave the Chamber. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is an outrageous interruption of my speech Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Those people were leaving in a quite orderly fashion. Goodness me! When does my time start again? I cannot be on my time now after that interruption. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it has been stopped. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Is it starting now? Thank you. I will attempt to get back in my stride. If Parekura Horomia and the Prime Minister manage to trundle over to the Green Party and do a deal over the foreshore and seabed they will lose the support of United Future. If they keep United Future happy they will not get New Zealand First. If they get New Zealand First the Greens are gone. So they have nowhere to go. 
 The only parties in the House that are not being captured by the Government or starting to fall for the Government’s flattery are the National Party and the ACT party. They are the only two parties that are saying we should make this a true constitutional issue and that we should make this something that we go out to the people on not some issue that we push into a tidy little committee of Parliament—a partisan committee of Parliament; a committee of MPs handpicked by Helen Clark designed to inoculate this Treaty of Waitangi issue that is causing so much angst in New Zealand today. 
We know that the Prime Minister is right now writing letters to prominent New Zealanders—or at least to people whom she believes are prominent New Zealanders—like Sir Paul Reeves and company trying to get them on board so that they can be some sort of flying squad to go around the countryside telling New Zealanders that we will have new constitutional arrangements. We know that not only will Paul Reeves be supported by people like Gregory Fortuin but that all manner of other Labour Party lackeys will be out there doing the same bidding for the Government. It is just not acceptable that something as important as this becomes the pet project of a few politicians of the left who consider their view of New Zealand far superior to that of ordinary people. 
I want Mr Horomia to take a call this afternoon and tell us that Maori are not worried about this and that Maori are quite happy to see the reference to the Crown removed from the statutes in this country. The Government is quite happy to see as Helen Clark said some latter-day discussion with Maori about the place of the treaty once the new republican constitution is put in place. Mr Horomia will not take a call because he is sitting in Cabinet. He is part of the collective responsibility—part of the group that will foist republicanism on to New Zealanders. 
When we hear from Helen Clark on Saturday at the Labour Party conference there may well be a soft side to the message but it will be a thin veil over the desire by Helen Clark Margaret Wilson and Parekura Horomia to turn New Zealand into a republic without reference to the people. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Members have probably heard of “The Sound of Silence”; that was Gerry Brownlee the sound of irrelevance speaking just then. As members know we are coming to the end of the year—it is prize giving season. We are now trotting off to our various schools. I went to the Palmerston North Girls High School prize giving on Monday evening and watched talented energetic young New Zealanders walk across the stage to take prizes then go off to celebrate with their friends. 
As I sat there watching those talented energetic young New Zealanders I could not help thinking of Dr Brash. Somehow they brought him to mind. One year into his term I wondered whether Dr Brash would have been on the stage that night if he had been at Palmerston North Girls High School. If we roll back a year we would say that at the beginning of the year he began with high expectations. He said: “I want us to attack the Government with urgency with vigour with rigour.” Actually he would not have said it like that—he would have said it a lot more quietly and a lot less energetically but he would have said that. Secondly he said: “We are going to develop policy. We are going to say what it is.” Thirdly he said: “I do not want us to be afraid of the electorate and to water down our message.” 
He began with such promise. The country watched and thought that at the end of year prize giving he would be there. But by mid-year the hope had faded if not died. We found then the “er ah” flip-flops of the Dr Brash brand of politics. He said that he was not sure whether he could deliver on policy any more. He said that he had five speeches he was definitely going to do but that now he definitely was not going to do them and that he would definitely leave them until next year or that maybe he would not. By the time he got through that nobody knew what Dr Brash stood for at all. 
We have come to the end of the year and we are asking why he finds it so difficult. Heading towards the end of the year he would have to say that he has no policy. We are told that the policy process in the National Party has now completely collapsed. He has no talent. The best sort of talent he seems to have is Gerry Brownlee who stood up before and gave us the sound of irrelevance. Dr Brash himself has said: “I guess what surprised me is the sheer enormity of the workload. I knew it would be tough but I did not realise how demanding it was going to be.” It is not a pretty picture. 
Meanwhile this weekend a unified well-led confident Labour Party will assemble on the North Shore of Auckland. Its members will be going to the annual conference of the great Labour Party the oldest party in the country. The country is run currently by a Labour-Progressive coalition. Those eager people at that conference will be celebrating under the following theme: Labour with New Zealand celebrating the achievements of New Zealanders. 
Those members have only from Friday until Sunday to celebrate. I alone have to talk about the Bio Commerce Centre at Massey the record drop in unemployment in the Manawatu the heroes who assisted in the floods in the Rangitikei and Manawatu the apprentices who graduated this year the successes of the Universal College of Learning the high-tech businesses that are working in defence and the Army and Navy which are doing things all over the world. By the time I am finished we will all have to go home. Mrs King will not have a chance to speak of all the things that can be celebrated in her electorate. Mr Swain will be angry with me for taking all the time. Ms Chadwick will be demanding another day to celebrate Rotorua. That will be the mood of the great Labour Party at its conference on the North Shore of Auckland. This year it will celebrate the achievements of New Zealanders. 
In that context I return to Dr Don Brash and ask whether he would get a prize. In my view the only prize he would get is that of the pupil least likely to succeed. Looking at Lynda Scott’s glum face across the House I can see that she agrees. She is ready to return and take over the reins of leader when he goes away. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Having just heard that very self-congratulatory speech made by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Maharey and his discussion of all the things that the Labour caucus will be celebrating this coming weekend I hope that the Labour Party and its members will be looking quite deeply at the situation for one group of workers in this country and the people they try to serve—home-care workers and the many people they provide health-care and personal services for. 
We live in a society in which everyone acknowledges the growing number of older people in our community and our increasing longevity. We also live in a time when thankfully much more focus is put on the rights of people with impairments to continue to live independently and in their own homes for as long as they can. However there is a big gap between the hopes and expectations of older people and people with serious disabilities and the reality of the workforce that cares for them in an effort to allow their fragile independence to continue. From the many letters phone calls and other messages that the Greens are currently receiving from around the country—as I am sure many members are—and from the inquiry currently being carried out by the Health Committee it is clear that there is an emerging crisis in the provision of home-care services that must be dealt with as a matter of extreme urgency. 
Rural Women New Zealand report that as of late September they have been turning away an average of 12 clients per day and that other providers are in a similar position. In another example five paraplegics from Burwood Hospital are unable to return to their home district in the Manawatu—the Minister Steve Maharey’s own area—because there are no carers to support them there. Some industry sources say that staff turnover can be as high as 90 percent with an overall 40 percent turnover rate around the country. The Parent and Family Resource Centre warns of a looming meltdown at Christmas and states that home-care workers are dangerously overworked to the point where the health and safety of both caregivers and patients are dangerously compromised. 
As the Minister Ruth Dyson mentioned earlier one of the consequences of lower unemployment is that many workers are no longer happy to work as home carers. Is it any wonder when those staff who in many cases receive the lowest of wages are asked to undertake casual hours endlessly and often have to pay their own transport time and petrol costs out of their already meagre pay packets thus reducing their wages even further. Some staff are working from 10 to 14 days at a stretch. Many are expected to be available randomly and on demand at as little as 30 minutes’ notice. 
Both the positive ageing strategy and the New Zealand Disability Strategy have a strong focus on a vision of older people and people with impairments being able to live independently for as long as possible. The gap between the Government’s intentions and the reality for patients and caregivers has become a chasm. I do not entirely blame the Minister for that as I recognise that the situation has been brewing for a long time. I also acknowledge that the Minister is working really hard with her advisers to try to address the issues. However what I am most concerned about today and why I am raising it here in the House this afternoon is the need to engender a sense of urgency in the Government that the situation is already in crisis mode with many people missing out on the care they need today and that it is only going to get worse the closer we get to the holiday season when even fewer staff will be available. 
There are solutions to the problems around home carers. Some of them lie in what Ms Dyson talked about today—for example more quality control and accountability from providers—but the blame cannot continue to be laid solely at their door. Government funding should reflect the actual costs of providing care not just a price fixed randomly and vastly variably around the country. The training institution for caregivers the Community Support Services ITO should be enabled to provide its courses at no cost to either workers or employers. All home-care workers should be paid petrol costs and travel time between clients’ homes not just those workers lucky enough to work for providers who make allowance for that. Government and district health boards should be working closely to ensure that in many more situations providers are enabled to engage staff permanently for regular hours rather than on an hour-by-hour client-by-client basis. 
All older New Zealanders and all people with impairments who are making a go of it in their own homes deserve a chance to receive the health and personal support they need. All the workers who provide their services deserve to be valued properly not just through much improved wages and conditions but also by access to high-quality training. These issues must be addressed now or we risk a crisis in the next few weeks and months that will become almost unmanageable. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The National Party has started to get that familiar stench about it again; there is no doubt about that. It had that kind of familiar stench when Bill English rolled Jenny Shipley. Do members remember that? A very very bad smell started coming out from the National benches over there. Then it was there again when Don Brash rolled Bill English—the same familiar kind of smell wafting over from the benches of the National Opposition. And I tell members that they have it again now. We can smell it; it is coming over from that side of the House. Why is that? Well primarily those National members are just—plain and simple—hopeless. They are just absolutely hopeless and useless. They are hardly worthy of the name “Opposition” with no policy and no leadership. 
The speech last week from Don Brash would have been the worst speech from a leader that I have heard during the 14 years I have been in this House. It was probably— 
Darren Hughes 
: It was embarrassing. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes that is right. It was the worst speech I have heard in this House from anyone in 14 years. It was embarrassing. It was embarrassing to the National Party as he stuttered ummed and aahed his way through it. There was no conviction—he was like a possum in the headlights. But it was such a helpful speech for the Labour Government that he was given a standing ovation by its members. I have never seen that in my 14 years. 
There is no policy from the National Party—except that lunchtime will be gone by lunchtime. That is the only thing we have heard. As my colleague Steve Maharey said some of the things Dr Brash said last year in November 2003 were: “We are going to develop policy—um aah um aah—we are going to say um aah what it is.” That is what he said except that in September this year he said: “The likelihood is that we um aah won’t do any other major speeches on things like um aah social welfare reform education and so on until the beginning of next year.” So instead of coming at the electorate and telling us clearly what National is standing for and instead of doing now what he said he would do last year everyone will have to wait until next year. 
The National Party is irrelevant. In the words of  
Kath and Kim 
 it is “so 5 minutes ago”. That is the truth about the National Party. But what about comparing it to the Labour-led Government? We are going into the Labour Party conference with great things to tell those supportive delegates at that conference. We will be telling them things such as in the last 5 years economic growth has been running at about 3.5 to 4 percent which is absolutely unheard of. The OECD average is 2.4 percent and we have 3.5 to 4 percent. We will be saying to delegates—and they will know this—that under this Labour-led Government for the first time in New Zealand there are now 2 million workers in New Zealand which is 236000 more since this Government was elected in 1999. 
We will tell delegates staggering facts like the fact that the unemployment rate in New Zealand is down almost to a 20-year low of 4 percent. But members should listen to this because they will not believe their ears when they hear it. Under the policies of this Labour-led Government Maori unemployment is down from 18.2 percent in 1999 to 8.8 percent and falling. Labour delegates from all around the country will hear for example that the growth rate in Northland is 5.1 percent Auckland 4.1 percent Bay of Plenty 5.3 percent Gisborne 3.6 percent Waikato 4.6 percent and down in the South Island Otago 5.5 percent Southland 5.1 percent and—members should listen to this—the growth rate on the West Coast is 5.6 percent under this Labour-led Government. Under the previous National Government the regions were cast adrift. There was nothing happening in the regions. This is the kind of fabulous information that delegates will get. 
We will tell the delegates to the Labour conference at the weekend about some of the great things that have happened under this Labour-led Government. We will tell them about the fact that we have reinstituted apprenticeships. They were “gone-burgers” under the National Government; the apprenticeship system was absolutely history. But now my colleague Steve Maharey says that we will have 8000 or so modern apprentices by 2006. The Labour Party has great things to say; the National Party is totally and utterly irrelevant. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today I have good news and bad news about the foreshore and seabed. The good news is that the 99 percent of New Zealanders who will go to the beach this summer can be safe and secure in the knowledge that they own it and will own it forever. The bad news is for the doom merchants and mischief-makers the alarmists and extremists and the unhappy band of the bemused and bewildered to my right and to my left. It does not matter whether people are going to the beach for a barbeque or a boil-up for sausages and eggs or pork and puha the Crown will own the foreshore on their behalf for ever and ever. This was an issue that should have united Parliament to act in the interests of all New Zealanders. It was a chance for MPs to show the people who elected them that they could put aside their prejudices and act in the common good. Is that really too much to have asked for or hoped for? As members know New Zealand First has an enviable record for fixing things and this foreshore and seabed issue is going to be fixed—and fixed next week. Can we fix it? 
Hon Members 
: Yes we can! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what we are going to do—all next week. The beach will not cannot and will never be sold to a bunch of foreigners—full stop! Port companies will certainly get security and certainty of tenure. We are confident that they will be happy with the outcome we have secured for them. 
Customary rights will be protected. Maori have nothing to fear and anyone who says otherwise is simply making mischief. The only people who will miss out will be the stirrers and the radicals and the shroud-wavers and prejudice pedlars in the National Party and ACT. National has apparently agreed with the concept of customary rights. Its minority report says so. National agrees with the concept of customary rights but in its case it will be more like its last rites. This is just another signal another piece of evidence of National’s weak and confused leadership. 
 There was a time when the National Party used to act in the national interest. Now it is little more than a puppet for the interest groups that prop it up and it cannot even do that very well. For the past few weeks and months we have been subjected to the wildest nonsense about the foreshore and seabed—nonsense peddled by people with a vested interest. It is time to set the record straight. It is time for some straight talking and for some common sense. Watch my lips: New Zealanders will own the foreshore and seabed for ever and ever and there will be free access for everyone. 
While others tried to make political gain out of this issue we worked towards a constructive approach and one law for all. Those who have played politics at the current stage and all stages of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill including the select committee have lost the chance to act in the interests of all New Zealanders. There have been no special deals. There is one law for everybody. Some talk and some act. 
Today we celebrate and commemorate the return of a soldier who died in Europe 88 years ago. All such soldiers gave their lives or fought for one country and one law for everybody whether they were Maori or European in both of those wars. I cannot imagine anyone at the Battle of Monte Cassino thinking that as a Maori he was somehow fighting for exclusive rights for his people back in New Zealand. They never thought that way then and we in New Zealand First do not think that way now. I am proud to announce that what we in New Zealand First set out to do with this legislation was fix it up correct it and make sure it became the law of this country. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 A number of speakers this afternoon have been keen to tell the House about the Labour Party’s annual conference which is being held on the North Shore this coming weekend. I am not surprised that they are keen to share that news with the House because it will be a great conference. We have a great story to tell. The Labour Party is providing strong stable leadership for New Zealand. We are providing opportunities for all fairness and security through policies like the Working for Families package fairer employment laws and quality education for all. People are able to access affordable health-care and more New Zealanders are in work than ever before. It is a real good-news story that we have to tell. 
Of course the people at the conference will be debating Labour Party policy. We have reams of policy to debate. The Labour Party has policy on all the important issues of the day. I ask members to contrast that with the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about policy at the end of 2003 and earlier this year. In November 2003 Dr Don Brash said: “We’re going to develop policy. We’re going to say what it is.” New Zealanders waited with bated breath. What did they get? In January 2004 Dr Brash said: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech on each of my five main priorities.” In July 2004 Dr Brash said we would increasingly see major policies being rolled out. We are still waiting. 
Dr Brash tells us now that he has abandoned plans to deliver five king-hit speeches this year on his five priority policy areas. In September 2004 he said: “The likelihood is that we won’t make any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform education and so on until the beginning of next year.” This is the dynamic policy development he talked about. Again he said that he and his advisers had decided to hold fire until next year. So we are not going to get those major policy announcements on areas so important to New Zealand except—and this is another flip-flop—that after having decided to hold fire on policy Dr Brash announced National’s policy on Kyoto a few weeks ago. He said that National’s policy would be to follow the United States and Australia. Goodness gracious me! Is that not wonderful? Where the United States and Australia go we will go according to Dr Brash. That is the extent of National’s policy development. What a pitiful example it is! Of course it is in total contrast to the Labour Party which has a lot to talk about on policy in terms of major achievements and where we go from here. 
I want to talk a bit about fairness and security for all which is a major Labour Party policy and I want to talk about what we have done. We have made holiday provisions fairer for all workers in New Zealand. We have given time and a half for work on public holidays and 4 weeks’ annual leave will come into effect from 2007. Something I am really proud of is that we have increased the minimum wage for workers five times in 5 years after it stagnated totally for 9 years under the previous Government. 
We passed the Employment Relations Amendment Act to strengthen the Employment Relations Act’s key objectives of promoting good-faith collective bargaining and effective resolution of employment relationship problems and we have a brilliant industrial relations record. All the doom and gloom that was forecast when the employment law came in under this Government has been proved to be totally wrong. We have had great industrial relations—fewer strikes fewer stoppages—and things are really going well. We passed the Companies Amendment Act and the Insolvency Amendment Act which give workers more protection when a business fails—none was offered to them by the previous Government—and we have set up a task force on pay and employment equity which will be really good for New Zealand. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 It is little wonder that we have a generation of illiterate young New Zealanders if that member used to be the president of the primary teachers’ union. 
I would like the House to spend some time today looking at what is being proposed in the Government’s constitutional review which is just a smokescreen for a Government desperate to look as though it has some new ideas and a new agenda. I will tell the House what the agenda is: Helen Clark wants to sack the Queen. It is as basic as that. It is worse though. If that happens—this secret agenda of this Government’s review—I say to the House that we do not want people like Helen Clark as president of this country. We do not want someone with a separatist agenda as the president or the leader of this country. We do not want someone who commits art fraud as the president of this country; nor do we want someone who is happy to travel in a motorcade at extraordinary speeds to make a rugby game she really does not want to go to and then who drops the police into the whole issue. 
The fact is that the constitutional review is a smokescreen. When one goes to any part of this country and says that the most pressing issue for the Prime Minister is a constitutional review the people wonder why the Prime Minister is not concentrating on important issues for all New Zealanders. 
Mrs Duncan touched on one when she talked about fairness and security for all New Zealanders. Today in the Law and Order Committee the Commissioner of Police raised a question that I asked in this House in October. I asked whether a woman has to be screaming when she dials 111 in order for the police to come to protect her rather than to send a taxi. The Police Commissioner told the Law and Order Committee that it helps to scream. 
Simon Power 
: What? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: On the issue of 111 the Police Commissioner told the committee: “It helps if you scream.” That says a lot about where this Government has the New Zealand Police—completely strung out like a rubber band with no resources to provide a decent 111 service. The Police Commissioner even tells people that it helps to scream. 
 I do not think that it would have helped my constituent Mrs Bentley if she had screamed. She was on a 111 call while hiding in the bushes from the men who were undertaking a home invasion where they bashed her husband and her nephew who was visiting from Scandinavia. But under this Government when someone dials 111 it helps to scream. I wonder whether we will hear any explanation of that from a member of the Government. 
We were also surprised to hear that the review of the 111 system will be all about how the calls are handled at the call centre but not about the outcomes of those calls. There does not appear to be any commitment by the Government to ensure that rural New Zealanders’ concerns with the 111 system are being dealt with. 
There was also bad news at the select committee today for the people of Rotorua. For the last 4 years Rotorua has had a relentless increase in crime. Rotorua is now the most crime-infested city in New Zealand short of downtown Auckland and downtown Christchurch according to official figures made available by the Minister of Police in this Labour Government. The number of front-line police in Rotorua has been progressively cut since 1999 and there are now more burglaries car crimes crimes of violence drugs and increases in overall crime in Rotorua than existed 5 years ago and that is on a per head of population basis. 
So I asked the Commissioner of Police—and I would be the first member of Parliament from the Bay of Plenty to do so—“What about extra police for the people of Rotorua?” We know that Mrs Chadwick does not support that position because she says that unless the police tell her they need more police she is not prepared to fight for them. The fact is that there is more crime more burglary and more violence on a per head of population basis in Rotorua—but the Police Commissioner says: “No more police in Rotorua.” 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of this very successful Labour Government and I am very proud that we have done so much for the people of New Zealand. I want to talk about the quality education and opportunities that this Government has provided for all New Zealanders. This afternoon we have heard about the scholarship that this Government has started this year for level 4 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. That shows the commitment that we have to providing quality education and promoting merit among students. 
Let me recount some of the commitments and achievements that we have made in this Government. In the 2004 Budget we have committed an extra $2 billion overall towards education for the next 4 years. That brings the total commitment to over $9.2 billion by 2007-08. In early childhood education we have committed $365 million to be spent over the next 4 years. That is certainly a landmark. From 1 July 2007 3 and 4-year-olds will be entitled to 20 hours’ free education per week and that is a great achievement by this Government. The Budget also provides $1 million over the next 4 years for the implementation of the national professional standards for kindergarten teachers head teachers and senior teachers as agreed between the Government and the New Zealand Educational Institute. 
In the area of compulsory education funding has increased by 3 percent for base funding and per pupil funding and has increased by 2.75 percent for most other operational funding components in excess of Treasury’s inflation forecast for 2005. Since 1999 we have increased overall school operational funding per pupil by an average of over 10 percent in real terms. Schools are now receiving over $85 million more in real terms than they were in 1999. That equates to an extra $82 for every pupil in the country after accounting for inflation and real growth. 
In terms of teachers the Budget provides an extra $37.86 million over 4 years to provide English for speakers of other languages for schools. That includes more resources for principals improved support material for teachers and students and intensive revision for high-needs students in the English for speakers of other languages programme. We have extended the laptops for teachers scheme to more primary teachers. We have committed an additional $12 million to allow 7000 primary school teachers of years 4 to 6 in about 2300 schools to become eligible for that scheme. In addition 400 primary school teachers of years 1 to 6 at area schools in rural areas have been added to the scheme. Since 1999 we have put more than 2000 extra teachers into classrooms over and above the number of extra teachers required for real growth. From 2005 we will put an extra 460 teachers into other schools; again over and above the number required for real growth. 
In terms of school property the remaining 400 schools have joined the 5-year property programme as well. Between them they are to receive $100 million in funding to upgrade and modernise existing school buildings. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 This afternoon I want to talk about hospital waiting lists. It falls upon me as an Opposition spokesperson on health to talk about hospital waiting lists because the Government does not want to and it does not want to for a very good reason. Today there was a question about the first specialist assessment. That is the assessment that we have after our general practitioner refers us for further treatment. We have an assessment and the specialist then tells us whether we qualify for surgery or further treatment. In the House at question time today the Minister of Health finally confessed—after months of my asking her this question—that there are now 110879 people waiting for their first specialist assessment. That figure applies from the end of August 2004 so it is up to date. 
So the question is whether this is a serious matter. The Minister of Health says that it is not. She says: “Oh the figures when we compare them don’t tally up. They were not the same.” But in a press report in 1998 the then Labour health spokesperson Annette King—now Minister of Health—commented on a Health Funding Authority report showing that 96000 patients were waiting for their first assessment. Annette King said that the situation was “criminal”. She did not say that it was bad or of concern or worrying—no! She said that 96000 patients waiting for a first assessment was “criminal”. Yet today over 110000 patients are waiting for that first assessment and suddenly it is not criminal any longer. In her 1998 press report she warned that people would be dying while they waited to have their first assessment. She blamed the previous National Government but today—when her figures are much worse—they are not considered “criminal”. She does not seem concerned that people could be dying while they are on that very same waiting list which now has 14000 more patients on it waiting. 
The Minister’s only answer is that the list is now somehow different. Well it is not. She was happy to comment on a list that was 96000 long then. She did not make any complaint that the figure was wrong in 1998 when she was in Opposition but suddenly today the figure is no longer accurate. In fact today she said that it cannot be relied upon. The 96000 might not have even been at that point; it might have been lower. 
 She also said in her defence that 22000 of those people—only 22000—had been waiting for more than 6 months as if that were good news. I challenge her to ask any one of those 22000 people who have been waiting longer than 6 months for a first specialist assessment whether they think that is good news. I doubt it. Some of those people will be at the Labour Party conference this weekend. They will be sitting there with their osteoarthritis waiting on the hip replacement that some people I am told have been waiting now for 4 years and they will not want to hear the Minister of Health bluff and bluster. They will want to know why they have been waiting so long and why they are not getting the treatment that she claims she is getting to people faster and why the lists are longer now than they were when she was in Opposition and was so critical of them. 
So the comments that Annette King made in 1998 when in Opposition were about first specialist appointment waiting lists which were lower then than they are today. She said in the same press report that these 96000 patients were the “hidden waiting list”; and that is exactly what they are today. We never hear the Minister of Health talking about the first specialist assessment wait. We hear that waiting times have come down. Well we are looking at a tiny portion of a very big list of patients who are waiting most of whom are hidden away from public view and who have no idea how long it is going to take them to be seen. This Minister of Health and this Government need to be held accountable for the fact that there are now more people on this list 5 years down the track than there were in 1998. 
Then we move on to a press report in July 1999 from that same Labour spokesperson on health. She said that 110000 patients were still waiting for their first specialist assessment. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 We have heard about the five big issues from our colleagues today on this side of the House with some degree of pride. I just want to make a point of clarification for the House in answer to Tony Ryall on law and order and security in people’s homes as I am the member for Rotorua. Crime is at an all-time low in this country the lowest since 1982 but the figure for my district is not good enough. I give the assurance to the House that I am working on a daily basis to improve that figure with the Minister of Police and already there has been a response of two extra police coming into Rotorua to help us work together to get our crime rates to the same level of successful resolution as the rest of the country. Law and order is one of the issues. We have heard about Working for Families we have heard about the booming economic success unemployment levels and labour relations but I will talk directly on health. 
Health is one of the big issues for us in Government and Dr Brash as the Leader of the Opposition ditched Linda Scott who knew all about health. I am sure she tried to make health one of the five big issues for National and I congratulate the member on that. But what happened as a result of that? Dr Scott who was the one who knew about health lost her role as Opposition spokesperson on health and Judith Collins was given that role. She has to be coached by the two doctors in the National team and the whole of the country knows that. Health is still not one of the big ticket items for the Opposition as it goes into election next year and that is a disgrace. It shows incredibly weak leadership from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Health to us is a biggie. Now 3.7 million New Zealanders are enrolled in 77 primary health organisations around the country. We are fighting disease with the successful roll-out of the meningococcal vaccine. We are putting interventions in place when they are needed. In answer to Heather Roy the health spokesperson for ACT I point out that we have doubled the number of surgical operations for people needing knee and hip surgery and that is because we listened to the community. We did review the waiting times and there is now a much more transparent and robust system. We acted on it. What is more we are making access to health more affordable for New Zealanders and 2 million New Zealanders are now really enjoying being able to go to their doctor and their health practitioner more cheaply. 
What else are we doing? I want to talk today about accident compensation. We brought in the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights in 2003. We put $35.5 million into accident compensation to boost treatment for injuries and we are bringing in a new accident compensation bill that looks at treatment of injuries. I have to say that senior medical specialists have said that this new legislation provides an environment in which doctors can discuss mistakes without fear of recrimination which ultimately insures against further misadventures. That is a good Government. 
That brings me to the current position of National’s health spokesperson on the Care of Children Bill. Her position on that bill showed me everything about her complete lack of understanding and ignorance on how doctors work in this environment. She failed to listen to entreaties from the medical professionals themselves who understand are caring and practical understand about a code of ethics that drives their practice and understand about a code of conduct. It is so naive to have a health spokesperson who undermines that very position of trust and the valuing of clinicians that we in this Government are working so determinedly on in order to make the health environment more open more transparent and less vulnerable to mistakes. 
I am amazed by the action of Judith Collins with her two amendments and as she spoke during the debate she squawked away. Fancy saying that doctors cannot make a clinical assessment about a young girl’s condition without involving that girl’s parents! These are the most vulnerable women in our society—the most vulnerable. How undermining and demeaning it is for doctors to hear the Opposition spokesperson on health say that they do not care and they do not know what they are doing. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The arrival of the Unknown Warrior who lies state in the Legislative Council Chamber is an opportunity to reflect on the values that New Zealanders espouse. Most of us think little about these issues but I would say that the hallmarks of being a New Zealander include a commitment to tradition—both Maori and non-Maori share that value—a ruggedness and a self-reliance that characterise the settler tradition a belief in law and order a commitment to the family and in the wider context a commitment to friends and comrades. 
The present Government simply does not support those values and that is manifested in so many ways. It is seen in the pursuit of the social engineering agenda which the Government pursues relentlessly. The change is insidious. A good analogy is the fate of the frog: when it is dropped into boiling water it hops out substantially unscarred; when it is dropped into cold water and the water is then brought to the boil the frog is boiled alive. That is why these changed processes of the Government are so insidious. 
Social change is all around us. It is to be seen in the legalisation of prostitution which has removed the criminal sanction from that activity. It is to be seen in the steps that the Government has taken to advance the course of republicanism and I echo the statements that Tony Ryall made on behalf of National in that regard. There are a lot of indicators of that social change. There is the decision to stop appeals to the Privy Council when around the world countries are looking outside their jurisdictional boundaries to resolve disputes. It is seen in the degrading of the honours system. It is seen in the decision for no good reason that Queen’s Counsel should be renamed Senior Counsel. 
That is really only where it starts because in the context of the family the Care of Children Bill moves the focus away from parental rights and responsibilities to a wider group of caregivers who may have the most fleeting relationship with the child in their care. It seems the Government is determined to pass the Civil Union Bill which will provide State sanction for same-sex couples. It will allow people in marriages to reassemble their relationship as a civil union and it will mean that the responsibilities of married couples will be invested in de facto couples when de facto couples have deliberately opted out of the more formal structure of marriage. 
 We need to reflect on whether our traditions which are very much part of the New Zealand heritage are being advanced by the present social agenda. I think they are not and I would ask some questions which would include the following. Who really believes that the police should send taxis in response to 111 calls? Who really believes that it is not justified to take the life of an intending killer who enters a farm house? Who really believes that a criminal should be compensated for his or her experience in jail? Who really believes that the problems of a mother on the domestic purposes benefit are solved by having more children to serial partners? National does not. We stand against that. 
In most cases those who went to war and did not return left mourning families behind: wives sons daughters brothers sisters and parents. They died for a cause that reflected the traditional values that I have referred to. Whether they volunteered for reasons relating to the enthusiasm of youth or the duty of service they were on any view of it warrior figures who were prepared to commit their lives to the cause they believed in. I assert that the values of society over long time frames have an immutable quality and that that quality is worthy both of nurture and of maintenance. If we salute the Unknown Warrior we must also commit to perpetuate the values that that warrior stood for and that our society should unstintingly support. That is where National is. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk today about the issue of YouthLaw and the question I brought up in the House yesterday with the Minister of Justice in which I asked about a couple of issues. One of them was quite easy to deal with and had to do with the fact that tax dollars were being funnelled through his Government to fund YouthLaw a website that deals primarily with how to get around the law if one is caught on various kinds of infractions. I have had a very close look at that website and although a lot of the information on it is actually very good there is a tone in the information being disseminated that effectively gives tips on how to circumvent the law. 
My initial question about the financial side was fairly easily addressed. There is a money trail which we sort of followed and the responses to written questions from the Minister of Justice himself are that YouthLaw is being funded on a 3-year contract by the Legal Services Agency to the tune of $1.19 million. According to the website the Legal Services Agency is a Government-funded agency responsible for promoting access to justice for all New Zealanders. Answers to written questions from the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) reveal that YouthLaw has also received $114000 from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services since 1994-95. So there is a link between taxpayers’ money and what is going on in YouthLaw. For the most part I have no objection to that. It is the tenor of some aspects of what the YouthLaw website is dealing with that I have a major problem with because there is a fine line between letting young people know their rights quite legitimately so and giving them advice on how to avoid being convicted. It is a distinction that is blurred by the information provided by YouthLaw on its website in certain very critical aspects. 
The first thing to note is that the section on drugs for example is accompanied by a graphic of a young man taking a hit from a glass P pipe which hardly gives the impression that dispassionate advice is on offer. It is almost a cartoon. But the site does give advice under the various segments which I think go round or skirt what I would call dispassionate advice. I have a few examples one of which is: “If you are found drunk in public or really out of it as a result of drugs then the police will not take you home if you tell them not to.” Another example: “If you are under 17 then it is possible but unlikely that you will go to prison for dealing drugs.” Are those really the messages we want to send to youths? Do we want to tell them the minimum they can expect or do we want to tell them the maximum the law allows? Another example is: “It is not considered dealing to give Class C drugs to someone aged 18 or over only to sell them.” Basically what this is saying is: “If you are caught in an environment where you are selling the drug tell your mates very quickly to put their money away. Say you’re giving the drugs and you won’t be charged with these offences.” It is a tone—a tip if you like—in the way YouthLaw is trying to exhibit examples of the law effectively giving youths an idea of how to circumvent it. For further legal advice on drugs for example the website directs young people to NORML New Zealand a lobby group for the legalisation of cannabis. 
Either this Government is interested in doing something about drugs or it is not. It cannot have it both ways. A lot of progress is being made with the drug P. There have been increases in drug busts and so on. Of course one of the biggest problems we have had in terms of P—this is almost a side issue but it is quite relevant at the moment—is that it took 7 years to change the classification and now we want to introduce another classification for another group of drugs party pills and so on. We are talking here about the slippery slope of drug classification. What we need is a police-led approach that allows police to deal with the situation of drugs out in the public in an effective way and that allows them to have the final say. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: By way of assistance to the House I refer those taking part in this debate to Speaker’s ruling 43/6. Briefly it means that debate is limited to whether the Supplementary Order Paper should be referred to the Health Committee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for the advice that you have just given us but the House today gave leave and I am the person who indicated first that we would not deny leave on the fair understanding that Michael Cullen then sought leave for the matter to be debated. Now it seems it will not be a long debate so to go into an argy-bargy and waste the House’s time on whether this is an appropriate method is not on. The leave has been granted. It is a special case. Of course there needs to be some discussion of the policy matters around that. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that that is a fair point. I think the House will seize the opportunity to have a debate and it would be unduly restrictive and unreasonable for the House to be kept to a narrow debate on whether the Supplementary Order Paper should go. I think some issues need to be explained and I would like the opportunity to explain them to the House. If I have that opportunity then it is quite reasonable for Opposition members or other members of the House to be able to respond to that. So I think the progress of this matter in its substance would be helped if the debate were on a wider basis. 
I do not think the debate will take any more time; I think it will actually take a shorter time. So I seek leave for the debate to be wide-ranging on the issues that this Supplementary Order Paper raises. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is more than entitled to seek leave. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the issues that will be of interest to National and I invite the Minister in his comments to refer to it is whether there should be some form of direction that if leave is granted and this Supplementary Order Paper goes to the relevant select committee then there will be from that select committee a call for public submissions—a call that submissions will be received and submissions will be heard. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a question for debate. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That in its consideration of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Health Committee have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298. 
 In moving that motion the intention is that the select committee will give the widest consideration to all the issues I will touch on in the Supplementary Order Paper and that it be a requirement that the public be given the right to make submissions. That was the intention all along. I could not have waited because the Clerk ruled that it was not in the purview of the bill but I never intended that anyway. I always intended that this Supplementary Order Paper would go to the select committee in time to have it considered by public submission so that everyone would have a chance to have a say. These are complex issues. I understand that and there are no simple answers here. 
The purpose of the new schedule in this Supplementary Order Paper to the Misuse of Drugs Act as recommended by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is to provide for the possibility of some regulation for legal substances that are subject to abuse but that do not warrant on available evidence regulation under the current risk classes A B or C drug classification. An example of such a substance is the legal high benzylpiperazine. The regulation proposed will allow for the possibility of restrictions to be placed on such matters as legal age of purchase retail outlets supply marketing and labelling in relation to substances in the new schedule. Such a schedule will not be confined to substances just like benzylpiperazine but will also provide another strategy in the spectrum of measures to reduce the harm associated with volatile substance abuse which of course includes solvent abuse. 
Parliamentary colleagues will be aware of the ongoing inquest in Wellington in relation to the deaths of six people in the region due to inhalations of volatile substances. The coroner has called for information from the Government on strategies and programmes that deal with this serious problem. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes that there be the opportunity to ensure that one of the strategies the Government is pursuing with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) before the House is in place sooner rather later. That is why I was anxious with cross-party support simply to go to the select committee with the Supplementary Order Paper and then carry it from there. 
I am sure there will be some temptation to joke about hairspray and nail polish and about how ridiculous it is to try to regulate such substances. I understand that. This is a hard issue and that is why probably no Government up until now has had a go at doing anything about it. Some of us would have thought about that over time as we watched young kids blow their brains away sniffing glue and all sorts of other things and wondered why on earth someone did not do something about that. Here is the chance to try even though I know that it is hard. 
It is true that a huge variety of substances available can be abused and most of them have legitimate uses. That is part of the problem. It makes regulating to combat abuse a difficult task which is probably why no previous Government has attempted it as I said. However this Government has decided at least to try and the proposed new schedule allows the possibility for some regulation that is protective of some of our most vulnerable citizens where at the moment none exists. In my view that possibility should not be trivialised by the House. As I say anyone who has watched with a sense of helplessness as young New Zealanders blow their brains away sniffing solvents finds that experience anything but funny. 
Not all substances that can potentially be abused will automatically fall into the new schedules. Substances will be assessed by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which makes recommendations to me as Associate Minister of Health on whether and where the substance should be placed in terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act. My position is that I am advised by that committee and I take the advice. I do not second-guess it I do not change it and I recommend that to any future Associate Minister of Health who has this job. We are not expert clinicians or at least most of us are not and we should be prepared to take expert advice. 
The Supplementary Order Paper introduces an empty schedule for restricted substances in the first instance and sets out in broad terms the controls that may be applied to substances that are to be scheduled in the future: for example age restrictions labelling requirements restrictions on advertising requirements and so on. Once passed the regulations will then need to be developed in order to set out the details of the suite of available controls in each of the regulatory areas available to be applied to individual restricted substances. The new schedule in the Act will remain empty until substances are subsequently assessed by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs on the basis of criteria set out in this Supplementary Order Paper recommended for inclusion in the schedule and then scheduled by an Order in Council that will also identify which of the suite of regulatory controls will apply to that specific substance. The procedure is like that set out in the principal Act for classifying controlled drugs. 
The Minister will consider specified matters in relation to the proposed restricted substances relying on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs on those matters. If that committee considers that a substance should be restricted it must also give advice to the Minister on the appropriate restrictions and requirements to apply to that substance. 
The range of restrictions and requirements available is prescribed in regulations made by Order in Council. The affirmative resolution process of Order in Council applying to the classification and reclassification of controlled drugs will also apply to the scheduling of restricted substances. That means that the Health Committee will get to scrutinise each Order in Council and the House will be able to debate them. I reiterate that. 
Should the House agree to that motion I intend to draw two matters to the special attention of the Health Committee. The first is in relation to the provisions that relate to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As drafted the Supplementary Order Paper provides for targeted overriding of the rights of freedom of expression—that is advertising and labelling restrictions and the right to be free from discrimination in terms of age restriction. In all legislation of any substance we often find that to be so. However the select committee can grapple with that as Governments have to grapple with it and advise the House accordingly. 
I have advised both health officials and justice officials who have varying and differing views on these matters to be prepared to appear before the select committee in order to give their evidence to the committee so that they can be as informed as the Government. I am inviting the select committee and the public to engage in a discussion of the potential conflicts this kind of attempt to protect the vulnerable always confronts us with—a clash of rights that we as legislators have to resolve in the best and most common-sense way we can. 
The other matter for special consideration relates to the fact that persons convicted of an offence under provisions introduced by this Supplementary Order Paper would have a criminal record for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is acknowledged that drug offences are viewed by countries such as the United States as sufficiently serious to inhibit those offenders’ access to the country. Concern has been raised that that may be a disproportionate penalty for the types of offences anticipated by the Supplementary Order Paper. I believe that the select committee after hearing submissions and advice will be in a good position to make a recommendation to the House on that matter. I understand the seriousness of those issues but I have conflicting advice as to whether that is a good or bad idea and I would like the select committee to have the same advice presented to it. The Minister of Justice and I have agreed that both health and justice officials will be made available to the committee to advise on those matters. 
Just as all parliamentary parties supported the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) going to the select committee I am hopeful that there will be cross-party support for this proposal as well in which we are in effect asking the Health Committee to genuinely advise and inform the House. When I wrote to each party’s spokesperson on health and then took the matter to the Business Committee I was hopeful that we would get cross-party support but I have no problem with the fact that the House is debating this matter. It will through the select committee and public hearing processes be debated again. Then it will come back to the House the select committee will advise us and we will have further debate. 
These as I know are hard issues but I think we would be shirking our responsibilities if we did not try in some way shape or form to tackle the problems and to do the best we possibly can. Then I think we can look ourselves in the mirror when we see some of these problems around and say that at least we tried. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We just heard the Minister in charge of this bill say he is unsure whether this Supplementary Order Paper is a good idea or a bad idea and that it will be up to the select committee to sort it out. There is an old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody wants to see our young people abusing drugs. That is the bottom line and I totally agree with the Minister on that point. 
But the fact is that in March 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recommended that this Supplementary Order Paper be devised. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) was introduced on 8 September 2004 but leave was sought today at the Business Committee to add a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the bill and to refer it straight to the select committee with no debate in the House. We did not want to support that. We wanted this debate in the House. 
We will support this motion today and this Supplementary Order Paper to be debated by the Health Committee as part of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) but I do question the process this is going through. These are serious issues. They are not easily dealt with either by justice or health staff. They are complex issues that need to have full scrutiny rather than this process. 
Today also happens to be members’ day. I have had a bill about mental health in the ballot waiting to be drawn for the last 4 years which I am sure the Hon Jim Anderton would like to see progress. The bill is desperately needed. It is an amendment to the Mental Health Act. Yet here we are today using members’ time on a members’ day when we have the only chance especially for those in Opposition to be able to do something substantial to help the health of this country. So I have to say that having this debate today is an imposition on the members on this side of the House—although of course we do want to see that all we can do is being done to help our children stay free from a life of drugs and crime. 
We also heard from the Minister about how the new schedule would actually work and I have some questions. These are questions that the Health Committee will have to ask because the schedule which is blank at the moment will be able to address age restrictions advertising restrictions and labelling. One has to ask—and I do not think the Minister can answer this question—whether the age limit labelling and advertising for alcohol could be changed under this process. The way I read it it looks as if it could be added to and devised that way. 
The expeditious scheduling of drugs was a system devised by the Hon Wyatt Creech and when it was discussed by the select committee we approved that process of rapid scheduling of drugs for substances like Ecstasy and Fantasy—drugs that have a high classification can be very addictive and can also cause major harm and death to individuals. The use of the process for lesser substances has to be questioned to some degree. We have to have a good look during the select committee process at whether that is what should happen. 
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs did not classify drugs such as benzylpiperazine—BZP as it is generally known which gives a legal high—or solvents as drugs needing to be in class A B or C which is the normal classification of drugs and which means a criminal offence is committed by anyone using them. We have heard from the Minister that anyone who breaks the rules in the schedule regarding sale age advertising or labelling will be open to a criminal conviction so these are serious issues. 
Other substances used in volatile substance abuse are solvents which comprise one of the other areas the Minister wants examined. How do we stop people from sniffing petrol or nail polish glue? How do we restrict the age for somebody to be able to buy those products? I am certainly shocked by the deaths of those six young people in Wellington recently and I think it is a tragedy for this country that we have such a high suicide rate that so many of our children are involved in taking drugs and that we have a P epidemic. There is something systemically wrong with the care of our children that we have so many in those categories. 
However using this particular process to schedule these drugs is something the select committee will have to call for submissions on and have a very clear look at. We must have the right process. We know that the Minister actually brought in the sherry tax under urgency in the middle of the night. The intention was to try to stop alcopops being used by the under-18s but that did not happen because the process was not correct. That tax ended up being a sherry tax instead of a tax on what it was targeted at. That is what happens. It was a good intention but the process was a mess and it did not hit the target. 
We have to be sure that we actually get it right and this is not the correct way to do it. This Supplementary Order Paper should have been part of the original bill. We could not support it just going straight to the select committee without any debate but we are having debate tonight. 
The legal highs we have been hearing about such as those from benzylpiperazine have been discussed with me by quite a few constituents. Mums and dads come and see me very concerned about these drugs being able to be sold to children because whatever their effect the fact is that their use is conditioning our young people to think that they cannot go to a party and have a good time without popping a pill and that they cannot have a high that is natural. That is not correct and that is not the situation we should have. The fact is that conditioning people to pop a pill to have a high is obviously going to lead to children taking other drugs stronger drugs to get that high. They condition themselves to think: “I can’t dance all night unless I take this pill.” and that makes them very very exposed to the scum who prey on the young just to make money. We see the deaths and destruction of these young people’s lives. We see unwanted pregnancies and we see death. 
So National will support this process tonight although I am very sorry that it has occurred in the way it has. I do not think it is a good process but because we have so much concern about drugs we will support the referral of this Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak in support of Mr Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper being referred to the Health Committee for consideration along with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). We are very aware that the Supplementary Order Paper falls outside the scope of this bill but it perhaps should have been part of the original bill. New Zealand First actually prefers that the Health Committee consider the Supplementary Order Paper at this time and hear public submissions rather than as can happen tabling the Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage which means that there is no public consultation and we do want some public consultation on this particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
We are very aware too that solvent abuse is a very serious issue in our community that does need to be addressed. There does need to be some regulation for some of the legal substances that are currently being abused by our young people. We believe too that restrictions need to be placed on matters like the age of purchasers the retailing the supply the marketing and the labelling of those drugs. 
 The advertisements we have seen in books and that I have been sent portray a very sophisticated look for some of the party drugs available from legal outlets. New Zealand First has stated many times that the Government needs to take urgent action to tackle substance abuse and solvent abuse and any action that we can take as politicians to assist in this area needs to be taken in a timely manner. No one wants to see our young people destroying themselves using drugs and abusing solvents. We are only too aware that this whole area of substance abuse including solvent abuse is thriving and many people including criminals are profiting from the misery of others. Unfortunately these are always young people. It is a recipe for disaster because we are very aware that many young lives are ruined as a result of substance abuse. 
It is a shame that the effect of these drugs on our young people has never been clearer but too often we as politicians seem to have given up the fight and want to leave it to others. Perhaps this Supplementary Order Paper will assist in this fight. I remember last year that the police commissioner called for more police resources to get tough on criminals who manufacture and sell methamphetamine. The police daily see the results of young New Zealanders involved in youth crime and the drug scene. 
We believe that substance and solvent abuse is a part of the very high statistics that we see in New Zealand and we do need some very concrete strategies to deal with this problem. I know that my colleague Craig McNair has a very great passion about this particular area and has stated that many many times. It is indeed really sad to see children and young people inhaling a whole variety of substances from plastic bags and containers as they sit around the cities and the towns of New Zealand. It is not something we want to see for our youth. 
We always read about the deaths that are occurring due to the inhalation of these volatile substances that are legally on sale and that makes it a very big problem for our police. Strategies and programmes need to be put in place urgently to deal with this problem and hopefully this Supplementary Order Paper will assist. New Zealand First believes that this Supplementary Order Paper is an opportunity to ensure that strategies to deal with the misuse of substances which are associated with the many many examples of solvent and drug abuse are in place sooner rather than later. How many more lives must be lost before politicians admit that the system we have currently in place is failing the youth of our country? 
The community treatment facilities right throughout New Zealand are stretched to the limit and the sooner we can pass additional legislation to meet the needs of the environment of today the better. New Zealand First supports this Supplementary Order Paper being included as part of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and we will look forward to working through it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 First I would like to commend the Hon Jim Anderton for introducing this Supplementary Order Paper and I would also like to thank him for the clarification that there will be an opportunity for the public to make submissions on it during the select committee process. The Misuse of Drugs Act has needed an overhaul for many years—in fact the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs made it clear to the Health Committee during the examination of Fantasy that the framework does need an overhaul. That point has also been made by the Green Party many times in the past and we have put forward specific proposals to that effect. I am pleased to see that the Minister has the ability to recognise a good idea and pick it up and go with it and introduce something into the House. 
This issue came to a head during the expert advisory committee’s examination of benzylpiperazines and other piperazines. I remember the call by Bill English Heather Roy Peter Dunne and others to ban those substances even though they had no evidence that they caused any particular harm to people. The call was really based on sheer ignorance and prejudice. Fortunately New Zealand has moved to an evidence-based decision-making procedure in respect of the scheduling of drugs and that is good despite the antipathy of some members of Parliament to fact and evidence as is often displayed by United Future on these issues. 
The expert advisory committee recommended that these products should not be banned and in fact that is something the Green Party had been saying for some time. While the industry had adopted a voluntary code of practice that was more effective and responsible in developing self-regulation than we have seen from the alcohol industry in this country the Green Party has always said that those voluntary self-regulations were not enough that they needed to be enforceable. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs agreed. It recommended that a new schedule be added to the Misuse of Drugs Act and this Supplementary Order Paper is the result. 
It is also the opportunity for us to try to grapple with issues around huffing and solvent abuse and that is something this House first addressed in the 1980s and was never able to come to grips with. It is good we are starting to address that issue. But of course we have to ask why kids are huffing in the first place. Maybe it has something to do with a lack of much else to do in many parts of the country that has left kids with few recreational alternatives. While we need to look at how we regulate we also need to look at the other side at providing positive alternative activities for young people to take part in. 
We support this Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to go through it and look at some of the details because we do have concerns about some specifics as well as draw attention to some of the positive reforms that are in it. The first contained in proposed clause 32 is new section 46 which deals with the functions of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. These functions have been expanded in regard to the evaluation of drugs. 
The committee will now also look at things like considering the practical consequences of any proposed restriction or requirement and that is good—the committee will look at what the impact will be in reality—and increasing public awareness of the committee’s work in relation to substances by for instance the timely release of reports papers and recommendations. It is about time. I have been trying for about a year to get minutes of meetings of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. They are not on its website despite a statutory requirement to have them published. Therefore it is good to see reaffirmed that we are to see some of its papers and minutes and understand what the committee is doing. The committee does do a good job but let us see the evidence of it by making those papers available. 
Section 47 is the process for making amendments to schedules. It is a little confused. I assume that where it mentions “kind of age restriction” for example in paragraph (c) that refers to the regulatory powers put in place by section 65 and regulations under that section will specify what those kinds of powers are. But the wording in the Supplementary Order Paper about the relationship between those sections is a bit unclear and I think it could be improved by the select committee. 
Section 49 refers to matters to which a Minister must have regard before recommending an Order in Council. These are very good criteria. They include things like the positive or negative impact that any restriction will have on a lawful activity; practicalities of imposing restrictions and the ability to enforce those restrictions; risk of increasing the abuse of the substance due to increased awareness; and risk of encouraging people to use more dangerous substances in its place. Those are all excellent criteria. The only point I would make is that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs should also be looking at those criteria. Under this proposal the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs will look at the scientific evidence but it is only the Minister who will look at these further matters. 
The Minister has said that he does not like to resile from the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and that is as it should be but the committee should be empowered to look at all the relevant matters such as these ones which at the moment it is not allowed to according to the legislation that set it up. I would like to see these criteria expanded so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs also examines them when it makes its recommendations. Those criteria should apply to all scheduling decisions not just under this specific schedule. 
I turn to other matters. The enforcement sections sections 59 and 60 have some things of concern. The Supplementary Order Paper outlines that an enforcement officer or the police can enter premises except accommodation or dwelling houses to inspect take photos or videos copy documents relating to restricted substances and other things if they believe there are restricted substances on the premises. This means that a police officer can wander down to the local hardware store and make copies of all its tax records because hardware stores sell glue and spray cans. That is what the law says as it stands at the moment. It is not because they suspect the proprietors of a hardware store have committed an offence but simply because they have those substances on the premises or they believe they have those substances on the premises. That needs to be tightened up. 
Section 60 is even worse. A police officer can seize all supplies of a restricted substance like glue or spray cans plus any documents records or anything that relates to them which could include accounts computers and tax records because the officer has reason to believe an offence has been committed. It does not have to be proved. The officer just has to have reason to believe that an offence has been committed. The police can then take up to a year before deciding whether to lay a charge. It is not even clear that they have to lay a charge or if a person is found not guilty that they have to return those things that they have seized. So I think there are real issues around the enforcement procedures. 
The law does have to be enforceable. In fact I support tougher penalties than a $500 fine but those powers need to be restrained. The seizure of stuff should require a warrant. It should be restricted only to what is required for evidence to lay a charge or perhaps to stop further breaches of the law—that would be acceptable—but at the moment there are no constraints around what they can seize except that it relates to a restricted substance. There should be more accountability than simply a junior constable deciding there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed. That is entirely unacceptable and I am surprised that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet did not pick up those issues. 
The last thing I will say in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that section 65(2) states: “Regulations made under subsection (1) may limit the rights contained in the following sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”—which is section 14 in relation to freedom of expression; and section 19 so far as it relates to discrimination on the grounds of age—“in any way”. The rights in those sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can be limited “in any way specified in the regulations”. Again I think that that is an extremely broad exception that goes way beyond what is required in the Supplementary Order Paper. It seems to me that any restriction should be limited to the purposes of the schedule only otherwise it is a very broad power. 
This House is often in the habit of paying little regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that that is something we do at our peril and that we need to be much more careful about creating powers for regulations that breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act without any constraints on those powers. 
So there are a number of specific details in this Supplementary Order Paper that need to be worked through. But they are detailed issues that the select committee can work through and I am sure we can come to a resolution of them. But most of all I would like to commend the Minister. I think it is a courageous move to introduce this Supplementary Order Paper. I thank him for doing that and I look forward to the select committee process and participating in that debate. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to put on record the fact that the ACT party opposed this measure going straight from the Minister’s office to the select committee. As a party we believe in the parliamentary process. We believe that we should be having a debate in the House like we are now which is the normal first reading of any bill. That is why we opposed the leave sought by the Minister for this matter to go straight to the select committee but why we did not oppose the leave today for this debate in the House. 
The only problem—and I would like to draw it to the attention of the House—is that the Leader of the House Dr Cullen has treated Parliament with great disrespect today because this is a matter for the Government to be dealing with in the Government’s time. Every 2 weeks when the House is sitting Parliament has a members’ day. It is an opportunity for members who do not normally get a chance to have legislation on the Order Paper to put their bills forward and for Parliament to debate them. The fact that the Leader of the House has chosen to ram through Government business on members’ day is I think treating the members of this Parliament with a great deal of disrespect. 
I also believe that it is a slap in the face for the Hon Jim Anderton. He obviously went to Michael Cullen and said: “Put this on the Order Paper.” Michael Cullen said: “No we don’t have time for it.” and poor old Mr Anderton has had to try to get the leave of Parliament to get it put on the Order Paper so that the House can debate what is a very important issue. So I do feel sorry for the Hon Jim Anderton. He has been slapped in the face by his Labour colleagues and he is now forced to steal members’ time for this debate. 
The ACT party is happy for this bill to go to a select committee and we will reserve our decision on whether to support the bill until after the select committee has had a chance to do its work. We have serious concerns about the ability of the Government to regulate substances through an Order in Council. We would prefer that such regulation on substances should come through an open parliamentary debate and a proper select committee process so that the whole country has a chance first to understand what is going on; and second if they have some real concerns to have a say on the matter and share their concerns and views with the members of Parliament who have to make a decision on whether to go ahead and regulate. 
The issues raised by the Minister relate back to the tragic death of six young people due to solvent abuse to the inhalation of substances. The coroner has rightly called on the Government to provide information on strategies and progress to deal with what is a very serious problem. As other speakers have said it is a very serious issue when young people end up losing their lives because of such actions. But I say to the House that putting warnings on fly spray cans is not the answer; that lifting the age by which young people can buy hairspray is not the answer either. Restricting the sale of nail polish and other such products is not the answer that New Zealanders should be looking to the Government and Parliament for. 
The problem we have here and the problem that the select committee will have to wrestle with is whether Parliament restricts the rights of the majority because the minority choose to use substances—that are legitimately used by most of the population—in a way that causes damage. It would be just the same as Parliament or a Government deciding in its wisdom that we should ban all knives because every so often somebody goes out and uses a knife to harm somebody or to harm himself or herself. Clearly that is unreasonable and a Parliament or a Government would not do that. But the point is that here we could be facing a situation under the Labour Government—which likes regulating sectors products systems and anything that moves and does not trust people to be responsible—whereby we end up regulating hairspray fly spray and all the rest of it. I say that that is not the answer. The answer is to go to the problem itself which is some young people who are behaving in a manner that is not normal and to find out why. These are young people who if they end up sniffing solvents to the point that they die have obviously been behaving in this way for some time. The Government should be asking itself why these young people fell through the safety nets that are in place. 
If we look at New Zealand there is a multitude of different agencies out there keeping a watch over young people and children. The young people who died would invariably have been showing the symptoms from the time they were toddlers. Many members of Parliament went this morning to the Littlies Lobby breakfast with Plunket and they heard a speaker who reminded us of the fact that of those young people who have serious problems later in life—who may become serious criminal offenders—one can mostly see those patterns of behaviour by the time they are 3 years old. 
 By the time they are 6 10 or 15 years old those behaviours have become permanent unless somebody has done something. We have the Department of Child Youth and Family Services schools social workers and police officers in schools doctors counsellors youth services and judges—we have so many people at every step of the way whose role is to pick up young people who are on the wrong path to self-destruction and to help them get on a good path yet when a young person ends up sniffing hair spray or fly spray and dying all those services have failed. The Government should be tracking back the life path of those young people about whom the coroner has talked and raised issues about and seeing where its services have failed. Then it should be looking to put in place some systems that will ensure it picks up another young person who is on that same path. 
I remind the Government that programmes are in place in New Zealand and around the world that successfully pick up children almost before they are born. One can see the families where kids will be at risk and one can work with those families proactively by using mentors and other programmes and facilities that have been shown to be very successful. That is where the Government’s effort should be going. 
Not long ago we in Parliament debated whether to give methamphetamine class A drug status. This Government has failed to get on top of that drug problem. The National Drug Intelligence Bureau is telling the Government that we have a methamphetamine crisis in this country. If the system that the Hon Jim Anderton is trying to bring in today to restrict those substances and make it tougher for people to get them and all the rest of it was working then we should no longer be seeing a methamphetamine problem in New Zealand. Instead in my home town there have been 14 armed robberies this year when previously there have been none. The people who know about the individual cases say that they have been committed because of methamphetamine. The Government has failed to get on top of that problem. I worry that this is not the right system to deal with the other issues I have raised today. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk on the Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Jim Anderton wants referred to the Health Committee as part of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) that is already before that committee. I congratulate Mr Anderton. I believe that when we look at his heart on this matter we see that he has taken an interest in an extremely serious situation that is facing young people in New Zealand at present—legal high pills and other substances that are being used to the extreme health detriment of young people. Mr Anderton wants something done. He said that this is a very difficult situation to legislate for but that we must do something. Sitting back and saying that it is too hard is not what we have been voted in to say. 
However United Future has some concerns that I need to outline. We will support this bill going to the select committee because we think the discussion needs to be had. We think that the Supplementary Order Paper provided by Mr Anderton will provide good fodder for deliberations by the select committee. Certainly it will provide a great discussion document for submitters. In my discussions with the Hon Jim Anderton I have ascertained that he is not precious about his suggestion. If the select committee as a result of listening to submitters can improve on what he is suggesting or can find a better way he is more than happy for the Supplementary Order Paper to be sideswiped in favour of a better option. 
My concern is whether what is being proposed is a natural fit into our current misuse of drugs legislation or whether it would fit better into a separate Act—I am not sure whether one exists or whether we would need to create another one. We are really looking at regulating a wide range of products that have risks associated with them when they are used inappropriately. They are products that have a legitimate use in many cases but when used inappropriately have high risks. As one of the National members mentioned a while ago there is such a variety of products—from nail polish through to LPG in canisters by the garden barbeque—that could come under this legislation that it could start to look like a nonsense in one sense. However I accept very very strongly what the Hon Jim Anderton said about even those seemingly insipid products that can be inhaled with minor effects starting young people down a very serious path and that we need to be looking seriously at that. 
I agree with Muriel Newman that we need to be asking some of the bigger questions. We need to be looking at earlier interventions. It is interesting that the expert advisory committee said that more information needed to be assembled on a lot of the substances that we are looking at regulating. It certainly recommended that it was wrong to market benzylpiperazine as a dietary supplement—that it did not fit into that category and that it was a very dangerous label to have on it. There was certainly strong evidence that some of those substances create adverse reactions on their own. The other problem—and this is another reason why I do not think this particular Supplementary Order Paper will end up fitting well into the misuse of drugs legislation—is that some of those products are not on their own a high risk but when one combines them with alcohol prescription drugs and other substances then one has a lethal cocktail and some very very dangerous outcomes. 
We need to do something. I think it is right and proper that rather than putting it in the too-hard basket we make a move in that direction. I think it is also important to understand what is happening in other jurisdictions overseas right now. In Australia some states have labelled some of those products as illegal—they have been put into a fairly strict category. In the United States a temporary ban has been put on some of those herbal highs while their effects are studied. In New Zealand the police for instance say that they are closely monitoring the situation so that they are able to make recommendations. On some of those things it is almost as if the jury is out. I think we need to be very mindful of that as we proceed with this. Let us have the discussion. Let us call for the submissions. Let us take the very generous offer of the Hon Jim Anderton to make the best of what he has suggested and if necessary to change it completely to get the best outcome. United Future is certainly supportive of that. Our other concern is that creating a category D in the misuse of drugs legislation would facilitate the demotion of drugs currently classified as class C. We think that would be very detrimental to the young people of this nation. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is good to take part in a debate where there is almost unanimity in the House in relation to this most important issue that faces our nation: the abuse of drugs—and also of alcohol which has come into the debate. I was a bit bemused at the backhanded support from the National Party which will begrudgingly vote for the measure. It did of course recognise the public concern about the issue. I also commend the speech made by Nandor Tanczos because it is important when we take these measures to draw attention to the areas that the Health Committee will have to pay close attention to particularly the area of procedural unfairness. When new powers are produced for the right reasons—in this case to tackle the issue of the misuse of drugs—we also have to look at whether unfairness will be introduced through powers that the police or other agencies may have that may be abused. It was an important point to make and I commend the member for making it. 
I am also concerned that the National Party’s spokesperson on health Lynda Scott may be wandering around the building under a misapprehension. She clearly showed that from the comments she made which were fairly ignorant on the reasons for the excise tax introduced last year. It is absolute nonsense to say that alcopops were targeted. They were not; they have a small alcohol content. The excise charge was introduced to close the tax loophole that provided a financial incentive for young people to consume high alcoholic content beverages inappropriately termed “light spirits”. Survey data had shown that the proportion of young women aged 14 to 17 who drank “four drinks or more in one sitting at least once a week” increased from 15 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2001. That survey data is available from the Associate Minister of Health’s office. 
In addition to an increase in heavy drinking by young women survey data also shows there has been an increase in the proportion of young men who have been drinking excessively. We know that which is why we talk about teenage binge-drinking and abuse of alcohol among young people. Before the Government took action to start to curb that problem it considered not only the advice of local health and youth professionals but also the objective evidence from attempts overseas to address that sort of problem. That is what the National Party should consider. This issue is not for political partisan use. People can use it like that but it does not serve our population well. Members should actually consider listening to health professionals rather than trying cheap attacks suggesting this is an exercise for raising revenue. Otherwise their so-called concerns for our young people do not sound very real. I am sure that members of Parliament are concerned about harm to our youth population but to put up an argument suggesting that the actions taken by the Minister and Government on the excise tax were simply to raise revenue suggests there is no serious proposition underneath that argument—that is how do we tackle abuse in terms of the consumption of alcohol by our young people? 
The evidence has been that increasing the price of liquor is a key way of influencing the amount of alcohol consumed by young people. Until Parliament increased the teen alcohol tax some light spirits in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume range—most of which have 23 percent alcohol by volume—sold for under $8 for a 1125 millilitre bottle. Eight dollars is easily within the purchasing range of many young people. That means that before the tax change those light spirits were not priced by their actual alcoholic content but by an arbitrarily low rate that allowed consumers many of them young to get hold of beverages with as much as 23 percent alcohol by volume at ridiculously low prices. That was the mischief that was attacked by the measure brought in by the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jim Anderton. 
The law change increased the excise duty that the Government charges on beverages that contain more than 14 percent but not more than 23 percent of alcohol by volume to reflect their real alcoholic content which as we all know has now pushed the retail price higher. The Business Round Table condemned the excise penalty on youth alcohol abuse as bad tax policy and said that it favours the abolition of excise taxes altogether on the grounds that they are regressive. Three Opposition parties—ACT New Zealand First and National—also strongly opposed the tax rise and fought the measure all the way. But what they were opposing was a rise in the retail price of light spirit products that mainly fall into the category that professionals say is the biggest cause of grief for young people. 
Thanks to the law change the price difference between so-called alcopops which typically have a 5 percent alcohol content and light spirits has widened considerably to reflect the actual alcohol content of those beverages of choice for young New Zealanders. The result for vulnerable young people turning to much lower content liquor instead of the high-alcohol light spirits has already been demonstrated. What was done here was to get at a mischief that was particularly harming our young people. I believe that that is what parties should concentrate on rather than trying to have cheap politics and suggesting that there was a taxation revenue motive behind it. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I do not want to take up the time of the House for the full 10 minutes allocated but I do wish to raise two matters. It is probably our good fortune that the Deputy Leader of the House is present because at the outset I wish to raise a procedural matter. A clear and unequivocal undertaking has been given by the Hon Jim Anderton that it will be the case that the Health Committee will call for public submissions on the merit of this Supplementary Order Paper. But I do not think he can stipulate that requirement and have it enforced on the committee in the absence of a direction from the House. So I raise that issue because it seems to me that such a direction would have to be given to make it clear that those submissions will be called for. I am assuming that the committee has the numbers on the Government side to produce that outcome. So that was the first issue. 
The second issue is to follow on from the comments made by Dr Lynda Scott—who was talking about certain health aspects relating to the Supplementary Order Paper—and talk about certain legal aspects. For those who might be listening to these issues on the radio somewhat perplexedly the point at issue here is a very simple one: we are proposing to create a class of substances called restricted substances which are of harm to people and to have an expeditious classification process so that those harmful substances will be added as restricted substances to the Misuse of Drugs Act. The legal issue relates to the process—and members of the Health Committee will be very much aware of this—known as the affirmative resolution procedure which is the parliamentary procedure that is proposed to do that process of adding to the schedules in the legislation. It turns out that it was the Misuse of Drugs Act that provided the starting point for this novel—and it is novel—affirmative procedure process to arise. It was implemented first by an amendment in 2000 to the Misuse of Drugs Act. 
The executive has made a number of attempts to proliferate the use of the procedure and the Regulations Review Committee has in very general terms set its heart against that course. So in the result when it was proposed that the process be available for increasing the number of judges in the District Courts and High Courts and the Regulations Review Committee said that it thought that that was a bad idea the relevant committee was good enough to accept that position. When there was a proposal to extend provisions relating to cervical screening programmes under the health screening legislation it was similarly the case that the affirmative resolution procedure was not in the result finally pursued. It is said that the justification for the process is to do with expeditious scheduling but I draw to the attention of members of the House that the classification of pseudoephedrine by the affirmative resolution procedure was incredibly slow. When people assert in a lofty way that scheduling can occur quickly they just need to look at that example. 
Finally the affirmative resolution procedure has been the subject of an interim report by the Regulations Review Committee which has produced a Government response that the procedure should not proliferate. I express the hope when the Health Committee comes to look critically at the merit of this Supplementary Order Paper that consideration be paid to that issue. I also note that the Regulations Review Committee and I believe the Government think that the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders relating to the affirmative resolution procedure need amendment. It may very well be that when the bill is reported back with this Supplementary Order Paper there will be an amendment to reflect a better process that can later be picked up in a revision of the Standing Orders. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I will not take up the time of this House too much in the interests of speeding this debate along particularly as it is members’ day. One of the things I am interested in focusing on is that a lot of the debate that has taken place so far is a little bit premature and would be better addressed down the track. The core question right here is whether this Supplementary Order Paper should go to the Health Committee. I think there is fairly good support for that at the moment because there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. 
The real issue is how we decide the best way to regulate and develop a range of policies towards party drugs as well as aerosol sprays and all the rest of that stuff. We also need to consider solvent-abuse deaths and so on which have been faced already by the Wellington Coroner. The herbal highs are another segment altogether. They are currently legal and to some degree have legitimate purposes. But it is the abuse of these things that is at the core of a lot of the trouble we have. In March this year for example five young people were admitted to Dunedin Hospital with anxiety symptoms after taking such pills. The thing is we have to deal with the substances sensibly and also with the inhalants. 
Muriel Newman commented that we should not accept the proposed regulation which would allow restrictions to be placed on such matters as legal age to purchase retail supply and marketing labelling and so on. She is quite right in that we do not want to get into the absurd situation of having to label hairspray as a product that could kill. Every knife and fork in the kitchen cupboard could kill. Everything could kill. We do not want to go down that track. But at the same time we need to have a sensible debate about some of the things that are actually killing hurting and harming our kids. Obviously the message is not getting out and we have to deal with that. If Mr Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper is a way to do so then I think we ought to be comfortable with supporting it and having a legitimate debate when it gets to the Health Committee. 
The regulations proposed will allow restrictions to be placed on the legal age to purchase retail supply and marketing and so on as I mentioned. They will also set out regulation-making powers with offences such as the offence to sell a restricted substance in contravention of an age restriction the offence to supply a restricted substance to a person in contravention of an age restriction and the offence to sell in contravention of the labelling restriction or labelling requirement. I do not want to see our country paralysed by warning labels on every damn thing we need to make our lives bearable. Hell one can die from eating too much candy or chocolate! Should we put warnings on those things as well? I do not think so. 
The point is that those kinds of discussions need to take place in the appropriate arena which happens to be the Health Committee. United Future believes that regulation should be commensurate with the harm a drug does. We would like to see a policy that is led by the police rather than an artificial device such as class A class B and class C drugs. One of the problems in going down that road is that methamphetamines for example took 7 years to be reclassified. I would much rather see the police leading the debate. There are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. The Health Committee is the appropriate place for that and United Future will be supporting that debate occurring. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will make a quick call on this misuse of drugs bill. I think it has been very valuable to have this debate today. It may be a reflection of the frustration that every party has felt about the process of getting both the bill and the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper before the House and what comes first. I was on the Health Committee when we considered the Misuse of Drugs Bill which brought in the affirmative resolution procedure. I remind the House that it was the Hon Wyatt Creech who had great concerns in relation to that bill about our needing a smarter and more responsive approach to scheduling drugs because the market moves so quickly. It is a procedure that we are all slightly nervous about but as the chair of the select committee I can assure the House and those listening that we will call for submissions and we will have a very robust process of hearing them and considering the advice of the expert advisory committee. The membership of that committee was altered by the original Misuse of Drugs Bill and I think that was a very good action of the Health Committee at the time. We knew that it had to be wider—that we needed customs experts police and consumer advisers on the expert advisory committee. I can assure the House that this matter will be dealt with robustly through due process. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I also am delighted that we have the opportunity to discuss in Parliament today the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Supplementary Order Paper from Minister Jim Anderton. Like others I thank him for his interest in and dedication to this cause which is very important to the life of our nation. I have a personal vision for New Zealand and I guess it is also the vision of United Future. We would like to see this country free of cannabis free of methamphetamines and free of gangs. My colleague Marc Alexander has some great policies that we think could make that an achievable goal for our nation. 
The main point I want briefly to make in this debate is that we should be very careful in the way we talk to the wider community about drugs. We should ensure that what we say is always based on the best available science. I say that because although anything Nandor Tanczos says in this House about drugs has no credibility whatsoever with the wider New Zealand community—because most people are outraged that he is in Parliament despite being a self-confessed user of cannabis—it is very important that when people like Jim Anderton and others speak on this issue they are science driven. I hope therefore that the select committee will be very science driven in considering the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Some years ago I had the privilege of having some information conveyed to me by an eminent professor of neurology who was visiting this country. He gave a very simple illustration of the difference between alcohol on the one hand and cannabis on the other. His claim was—and others may want to check it out from a scientific point of view—that the human body can process 1 ounce of alcohol per hour. So if one consumes 8 ounces of alcohol the human body will take 8 hours to process it. Someone who has had 10 ounces of alcohol and 8 hours’ sleep will have a 2-hour hangover—as we all know—at the end because the body needs more time to process the drug. On the other hand the professor explained a single joint of cannabis contains an ingredient that will go into the actual structure of the cells that connect with a very vital part of the brain and will disrupt the operation of that part of the brain for as long as 5 or 6 months. I think it is most unhelpful when people in this House sometimes say that the major drug problem in New Zealand is alcohol. That may be true in one sense but it is also extremely misleading. 
It is misleading at a very practical level as every secondary school principal in this country understands. I have spoken to many of them—by the way I do not think there is one who supports the legalisation of cannabis. They tell me that they can pretty quickly pick when a kid in a class of 14 or 15 starts to take cannabis. They can tell because that child’s attitude to study will begin to change almost immediately. They will start to see a fall-off in the child’s work rate particularly in doing homework. They will also see a serious diminishment in the child’s ambition to get ahead study and be successful in life. That is completely different from the effect of alcohol. A schoolteacher cannot tell on Monday morning whether a kid did or did not get sloshed on alcohol on Saturday night but can tell immediately if a kid has started to smoke cannabis. 
I make this point because I think it is extremely important we get the very best science we can when dealing with such drugs and we make very sure we target the right thing. In my view and in the view of United Future nothing is more dangerous in this country right now than methamphetamines and cannabis being taken by children as young as 13 14 or 15. I have even seen 11 to 12-year-olds on those drugs. We are seeing before our eyes the ruination of entire lives because of a habit occurring at that time of life which is a very critical time for the brain’s development. That habit will have lifelong consequences. So at one level it is very unhelpful to claim that alcohol is actually more dangerous. We need to be more nuanced than that to figure out where the real problem is and to ensure that we take all the steps we can to protect our young people and the future of the nation. 
Motion agreed to. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
Recommittal 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill be discharged and the bill be recommitted for consideration of an amendment to clause 61A(9)(e) in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 61A Voluntary register to be maintained by Registrar-General ( 
recommitted 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. The question is that the amendment to clause 61A be agreed to. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I wish to move that after the words “on reasonable grounds to be” in subclause 9(e) of clause 61A the following words are inserted: “the guardian of”. The reason for this is that due to a transposition problem those three words were left out and it would be very helpful if there was unanimity and agreement on restoring them so that the clause makes sense. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 61A be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (9)(e) after the words “on reasonable grounds to be” the words “the guardian of”. 
Amendment agreed to and clause 61A as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted 
Third Reading 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill be now read a third time 
. I wish to express my gratitude to the House on the passing of my bill the main aim of which is to ban the cloning of humans for reproductive purposes. I wish to speak a little on the history of the bill the progress of the legislation the issues involved—moral legal and ethical—the risks doubts and problems and the need to monitor the outcomes. I will also give thanks to those who assisted at all stages of the process. 
The bill was lodged and balloted way back in 1996 and it was unanimously sent to the Health Committee in 1997. It was imitated by a previous National Government bill in 1998 and was the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope in April 2003. The bill was considered by the Health Committee which reported back on it on 6 August 2004. The bill has taken 8 years to get to this stage. The original bill and subsequent amendments have been influenced by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 by predominantly Canadian and Australian legislation and reports by international debate and bioethics conferences and by the public submissions to the select committee. 
Even after that process this bill poses as many problems as it answers and I believe that the revised bill still leaves some highly controversial technologies to decisions that will be made by a ministerial advisory committee which will formulate mere guidelines and not regulations. Some of those decisions relate in particular to the issues set out in clause 37 of the bill: the donation of embryos embryo splitting gametes derived from a deceased person requirements for informed consent the selection of embryos using pre-implantation genetic analysis and the import into or export from New Zealand of in vitro donated cells or in vitro donated embryos. Although we have put high public consultation processes in around those matters they are still covered by guidelines rather than regulation. 
I point out that in contrast to some newspaper reports pre-implantation genetic diagnosis has not yet been approved. It is still highly controversial and there is consultation out now about what types of controls need to be set up. I also point out that given the low success rate of some technologies the cost of the technologies the incidence of premature birth and the risks associated with those births and the possibilities for the exploitation of women I would have preferred to see tighter controls not only of the technologies but also of the research on embryos especially stem cell research. That is now largely deferred to future legislation to amend the Human Tissue Act and the Medicines Act and to some of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s considerations of those matters. 
I am also concerned about the consent processes around the use of embryos. Those consents I believe are not in the same category as medical treatment consents and could include such matters as who owns embryos if the parent donors divorce. Are they to become relationship property? As we have seen overseas there are some interesting legal cases around those issues. One important aspect of this bill is that women wombs babies and embryos should not become commercialised and the select committee agreed on that. Women should not become rent-a-womb machines nor should babies or embryos be for sale. 
I am pleased that the bill has progressed. There is legislation now where there would otherwise be a void and I am pleased that after 8 years my initiative in 1996 will at last result in law. It is interesting that a child may now have six parents—and that may be good for the child especially on birthdays. A child could have a contracting mother and father a sperm donor an egg donor a gestational mother and a social father. That may be very confusing for the child; it could also be very good for the child. In fact some novelists have suggested that to have five or six parents is better for the child if not for the parents than a nuclear family and that our present system may not be the best for children anyhow. At least the present bill insists on records being kept so that children can trace their heritage and we can monitor any defective practices. 
I welcome the changes that other members have made to the bill. I am particularly pleased that the revised bill includes an amendment in the name of Judy Turner to have the Children’s Commissioner represented on the ministerial advisory committee in order to cater for the interests of the children born from the technologies. 
I am sure that we will continue to monitor the application of this law. As I have said the bill deals with big questions: the big questions of what it means to be human of who decides which embryos should survive of who is eligible to access the technology—at present it favours the well-off—and of how we deal with mistakes or discarded embryos. Any mistakes in creating humans cannot be reversed and babies cannot be thrown away or uprooted like hybrid corn. The risks associated with gene technology in humans are intergenerational. I believe that we must proceed with the utmost caution within a regulatory framework with strong penalties. 
I wish to thank all those who have been involved with this bill from the original drafter who worked with me Debbie Angus and the work that she did in modifying the British Act to fit in with our system to the Hamilton researchers lawyers and medics who offered their opinions and advice and to people in overseas agencies. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I was in the process of thanking the various people who have contributed to the bill and in particular the original drafter who worked with me Debbie Angus. The original bill had four main points: first to license clinics as they do in the UK second to keep centralised records of babies that are born from assisted reproductive technology third to prevent the cloning of human beings and fourth to outlaw the sale of babies’ body parts tissue and fluids—that is the non-commercialisation of any of the processes. I must say that we have achieved three out of those four goals and three out of four ain’t bad. The other point made by the original bill was that it was not a bill to forbid technology but to control it so that we can keep very good records that enable us to know what is happening to whom and where. 
In that regard I thank Rebecca Hamilton a young New Zealand woman who was an in vitro fertilisation baby. She is part of a group of such young people in Australia and as Dr Hutchison knows she went to great pains to try to find out who her sperm donor was. I also wish to thank the Hamilton researchers people in agencies overseas the Parliamentary Library and parliamentary and ministry staff. I thank my fellow select committee members and the chair for working through this legislation. I thank the people who have served on the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction for a number of years and who have given ethical advice. Lastly I want to thank Dolly the sheep—I am one of the few people who went to Edinburgh—and her cloner. Without Dolly the sheep very few people would have taken this bill seriously. In 1997 when the bill came into the House many members of Parliament when Dolly was born asked whether that was the sort of thing we were thinking about in relation to human beings. So I thank Dr Ian Wilmut and Dolly the sheep for making people both in New Zealand and overseas realise that the cloning of human beings is a reality. 
I would also like to thank the New Zealand Bioethics Council my former flatmate here in Wellington Jill White and Sir Paul Reeves. I thank Sir Paul Reeves for a radio broadcast last week during which I heard him say that he was not terribly keen on cloning human beings because he was a bit afraid that we may all end up the same. I can assure him that even if we were cloned we would not end up the same because we would walk on different pavements and breathe different air—one of the best arguments for environment over heredity that I have ever heard. I thank everybody who has been involved with this bill and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support and their encouragement throughout what has been 8 years of patience. Every 6 months I would sign the bill over for another 6 months and then another 6 months. But we have made it. I look forward to the implementation of the bill which the Minister David Benson-Pope is now in charge of. I do not envy him his job but there is a lot of work still to be done so I give my thanks to him in anticipation of that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this very important and in some respects historic evening that brings in the long-awaited Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which has been in genesis for well over 8 years in many respects. One of the remarkable things is that New Zealand has had no specific legislation surrounding this area for the time that the assisted reproductive technologies have been controversial particularly since in vitro fertilisation and the first test-tube baby back in 1979. What has often not been appreciated is the fact that over those years without specific legislation there have been very professional and well-organised reproductive services in New Zealand. 
I want to take a few moments to talk a little bit about the clinics that carry out the reproductive technology procedures in New Zealand. Those clinics probably investigate about 3500 new couples every year and undertake in the order of 1700 to 2000 cycles of in vitro fertilisation as well as hundreds of cycles of donor insemination and intrauterine inseminations with partner’s sperm each year. There are smaller numbers of donor egg technologies performed and of course a few in vitro fertilisation surrogacies which are non-commercial. About half the treatments are publicly funded and the work of the various clinics both public and private results in the birth of about 800 children each year. That actually is fairly significant given the fact that we have annual birth numbers in New Zealand of about 55000—I think it was about 58000 this year—so it is probably in the order of 2 percent of all births. That is quite a significant number. 
As I was pointing out the extremely significant point is that we have not had specific legislation in this area. A variety of other legislation has been relevant including the Status of Children Amendment Act the Adoption Act the Contraception Abortion and Sterilisation Act etc. In New Zealand the working of these technologies has been very successful. The clinics have voluntarily become involved in and joined the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee which is primarily Australian-based and which requires very high standards of information gathering and high standards of quality assurance. I think that that is one of the good things about some aspects of professionalism in New Zealand. I remember vividly one of the people at the centre of this whole debate Professor Robert Jenson talking about Aldous Huxley’s book 
 Brave New World  
and saying that minimal State interference is so important in terms of allowing the inevitable progress of science. The balancing act of this legislation was between those who felt there should be highly prescriptive legislation and those who felt there should be little legislation whatsoever. I think the balancing act has been reasonably well worked out in that there is flexibility and a degree of future-proofing so that the rapid changes that will inevitably occur in the next 5 to 10 years are indeed able to occur. 
As well as the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee’s regulations which all reproductive clinics in New Zealand followed by the early 1990s local hospital ethics committees recognised the heavy responsibility of making decisions in the area of assisted reproductive technology and that led to the establishment of the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction. From there some very worthwhile work by Dr Papaarangi Reid and Mr Bill Atkin resulted in the production of  
Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future 
 in 1994 which was a very good basis to work out the legislation that would eventually come before us. 
There were three very important points made by the submission of the fertility clinics. The first point was that the clinics had submitted themselves to a decade of voluntary self-regulation through the use of the accreditation committee. They did that at their own choice and at their own expense. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act should be a reminder to us that if professionals whether they are nurses chiropractors acupuncturists or doctors do not carry out their own proactive quality assurance mechanisms and educative activities and if they do not police them themselves then there will be a call for the Government to do so. I think that that is one of the balances that we must keep in mind. 
Secondly in New Zealand the health professionals who are engaged in assisted reproductive technology have built a close relationship with the people they treat. Unlike most other countries where health professional groups and consumers have set up their own separate professional interest organisations in New Zealand the health professionals and consumers made a conscious decision to establish a single organisation: the New Zealand Infertility Society recently renamed fertilityNZ. I think that the contribution the society has made—the interchange and constant communication with both the professionals and the consumers—has led to a very positive powerful and worthwhile dialogue in making inputs into this legislation. I would like to salute the members of all the organisations that have been involved. 
Thirdly it is important that New Zealand is the only country in the world where without legislation the clinics have moved entirely to the use of sperm and egg donors who agree to be identifiable to their offspring. That was achieved through the efforts of medical practitioners counsellors and patients and after considering the best interests of children in terms of what was known at the time about the damaging effect of secrecy in families. So I think that it is highly relevant for us to appreciate that this legislation has indeed been brought about by a lot of thought over many years from a great number of people. 
Naturally the way ahead is hard to predict and one of the beauties of this bill is the fact that it does have flexibility. I am often mind-boggled by the possibilities technically that are presented to us—the possibilities of men having children and the possibilities of actually doing what  
Brave New World 
 suggested and incubating babies out of the uterus as a matter of convenience to society. But when we think of those mind-boggling things we can recall that the mere thought of in vitro fertilisation in 1979 was pretty amazing and yet that was only 24 years ago. Dianne Yates has mentioned the dimension of genetics and genetic modification in relation to the new technologies. Although we must be mindful of the royal commission talking about proceeding with caution I would also make the impassioned plea that we do not surround ourselves with hurdles that are too great to allow us to take advantage of the exciting new technologies ahead of us. I am concerned that the Bioethics Council—Toi te Taiao—could get a little bogged down in the lofty philosophical considerations that it may have to dwell on. I think it is very very important that we do not get the situation we have with regard to the genetics debate where huge advantages to New Zealand could be blocked by great hurdles. 
It is a pleasure to see this bill finally have a third reading. I believe it will serve New Zealand and New Zealanders very well for the future. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is with considerable pleasure that I rise today in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which is a member’s bill in the name of Dianne Yates MP for Hamilton East. The enactment of this bill will mean that for the first time New Zealand will have a comprehensive regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive procedures and research. The rapid pace of science and technology in this area means that it is becoming increasingly important to have the robust and flexible framework contained in the detail of this bill. 
The most important part of the bill is the clear identification of activities that are simply unacceptable in this country. Such activities include human cloning for reproductive purposes the implantation of a human embryo into an animal and vice versa genetically modifying embryos using gametes from foetuses for reproductive purposes and sex selection for social reasons. These activities are at the extreme end of the spectrum of assisted reproductive technology and will be prohibited outright. Prohibiting such activities will place New Zealand on a par with other countries that regulate assisted reproductive technology. 
The bill also contains a robust and flexible regime for considering whether New Zealand human assisted reproductive procedures are acceptable and for keeping current procedures under review. It does this by establishing a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee. The ministerial advisory committee will comprise experts and lay people. It will also include a person to articulate the interests of children. This is as a result of the proposal by Judy Turner which received the support of the majority of the House. The ministerial advisory committee will consult the public and provide policy advice to the Minister of Health on new reproductive procedures. Guidelines issued by the committee for permitted activities will set the parameters for the decisions of the ethics committee when considering individual applications. The ministerial advisory committee will also keep current procedures under review and monitor the health and safety impact of those procedures. 
The framework is robust and is not as some suggest reliant on guidelines. Regulations can also be made on any assisted reproductive procedure or research. Where decisions are made that the risks of an activity outweigh the benefits or that it is ethically unacceptable for use in New Zealand the legislation will be amended so that the activity is added to the list of prohibited activities. 
It is important never to forget the very real human impact of assisted reproductive technology. One of the most significant features of this bill is its world-leading national information-keeping scheme for people born as a result of donated eggs or sperm. This scheme reflects New Zealand’s experience of the consequences of closed adoption and recognises the importance of knowledge about one’s identity family and genetic heritage. Fertility service providers will be required to collect retain and pass on certain information about donors and donor offspring to the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages who will maintain a register. Donors donor offspring and guardians of donor offspring will be able to access information about one another subject to certain conditions. Information can also be shared about siblings who have the same donor. 
During the Committee stage of this bill I was pleased to support the proposal of Dr Hutchison MP to extend this regime by creating a register of information supplied voluntarily by doctors and donor offspring where the treatment resulting in the conception of the donor offspring occurs before the commencement of this legislation. 
That this legislation is about to be enacted today is testament to the commitment and dedication of Dianne Yates who introduced the bill back in 1996. The bill’s long history reflects the complexity of issues surrounding assisted human reproduction. Indeed New Zealand is not alone in having spent a significant amount of time grappling with these very difficult issues. We should all be pleased that this bill which covers matters that are both technically and ethically challenging enjoys such a high level of support in this House. This is the result of the time spent by the Health Committee to reach understanding and agreement on the benefits of this technology to assist reproduction the potential benefits of research and to ensure that the proper safeguards are protected in relation to health safety and cultural values. I particularly acknowledge the role of our colleague Steve Chadwick as chair of the Health Committee in accomplishing that accord. 
The bill today is different from that which was introduced in 1996. We have benefited from the legislative developments and experience of other countries particularly the United Kingdom and Canada over this period. The result I believe is legislation that is appropriate for our country and our people. I thank Dianne Yates for the enormous amount of work she has put into the bill’s development and congratulate her warmly on successfully bringing it to fruition. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. It is a very important bill and it is appropriate for the New Zealand environment. We must acknowledge the tireless work of the officials who assisted with the many amendments and ensured that the implications of those amendments were very clear to us. We must also acknowledge the tireless work of Dianne Yates on this bill and the two doctors on the Health Committee Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott who helped us in so many areas with practical working advice. As Dr Hutchison pointed out in his speech legislation in New Zealand has currently been non-existent as until now this area has been governed only by regulation. This is a challenging area and it will continue to be so. Dianne Yates outlined in her speech some of those challenges about which there will no doubt be a lot of further debate. 
We have seen many advances made in the field of reproductive technology and research since the birth of the first test-tube baby and it is timely that with further advances there is now legislation to give a very clear direction to those people involved in these fields. In the past regulations have been sufficient thanks to the professional and responsible attitudes and practices of fertility service providers and there has never been any major evidence of harm. However that does not mean that there will never be any incidents. 
This bill is very technical—perhaps that is one of the reasons it has been on the Order Paper for so many years—and it will form the basis for many amendments that may need to be made at later dates as technology and scientific knowledge develop further or until such time as it may be necessary for the regulations to become legislation. We are all aware in this House that fertility is a very personal issue and that it can be very stressful for all involved so it is very pleasing to see that this legislation is balanced and provides a consistent regulatory environment that can benefit from new medical technologies and advancements along with protecting the rights of potential offspring. 
Ultimately all decisions made about the use of reproductive technology must reflect the fact that its use will impact on those children throughout their entire lives. There is also some flexibility in the legislation so that new procedures can be developed and used after approval from the ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee. It is realistic to say that technology is developing at a very fast rate and an advisory committee and an ethics committee are well placed to keep up to date with the latest developments in those fields. It is pleasing to see that any human reproductive research that is not an established procedure as well as all research applications are subject to mandatory ethical review by an ethics committee. That is how it should be. 
The fact that the designation the functions and the duties of the ethics committee are so very clearly prescribed should ensure that everyone is aware of what is happening and also of what is to happen. There can be no doubt with this bill. The fact that information from the ethics committee must be made public must please many people who take an active interest in that area because we all know that awareness is a key factor in accountability. So the role of the ethics committee in this legislation is very clearly spelt out. The bottom line is that in this legislation we are dealing with human lives and of course the procedures must always be as safe as possible. 
The establishment the appointments and the functions of the advisory committee that must be established by the Minister are also very clearly outlined. The persons and their qualifications to be a part of the committee are clearly specified. Again the advisory committee will work in conjunction with the public and hear submissions as appropriate. The fact that some of the members of the committee will be lay persons must be reassuring. We welcome the strengthened requirements for public involvement. New Zealand First believes that the number of people on the advisory committee may be too large particularly with the number of lay persons and we will be most interested to monitor this. We would have liked to see a member of the ethics committee on the advisory committee by right. 
One of the positive aspects of this bill is the fact that the guidelines for the ethics committee to actually work with will be determined by the ministerial advisory committee. The people on the advisory committee are professionals and are concerned about professionalism and about the ethics around that technology. The bill as it is presently written means that there is some flexibility to take advantage of scientific developments and technology in this field and this framework should enable fertility clinics to move forward into the future. 
We are only too aware that the health risks to children born as a result of assisted reproduction procedures are generally higher than is the case for children conceived naturally. So New Zealand First was very pleased when the Government announced earlier in the year that it would increase the funds for in vitro fertilisation and that it would also provide a second cycle to people meeting the set criteria. We all know that single embryo transfer is to become standard practice in most cases and that is one of the issues where New Zealand First has called on the Government to revise its funding policy as a matter of urgency and that has been done. It has been obvious for some time that the implantation of multiple embryos with one cycle to maximise the chances of success was actually increasing the adverse affects on the health of many of the children born as a result of those procedures. Care for premature babies is costly and very intensive. Parents want to see healthy children. In fact all of us in this House could not dispute that premise. 
This bill does provide safeguards around human assisted reproduction and these are clearly outlined in the schedules to the bill. There is a prohibition on practices that most people find unacceptable now and will continue to find unacceptable into the immediate future. Most countries around the world have a similar list of banned procedures and it is excellent to see that New Zealand legislation has listed what we consider to be totally unacceptable. Transgressions should therefore be few. We would expect to see the items listed remain banned for a long time to come. 
We were pleased to see included in this bill provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and new provisions that prohibit the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating or preventing genetic disease. We did not want to see the growth of a designer baby industry. The requirements for information keeping are very clear as was outlined by the Minister. Prospective donors must be made aware that extensive information will now be recorded and made available to their donor offspring and that will give children the opportunity to be aware of their ethnicity and also their medical history. 
New Zealand First believes that it is imperative for any legislative framework to allow for those affected by infertility to gain maximum benefit from any technological developments approved by the advisory committee and the ethics committee just as those affected by other medical conditions are able to benefit from new technological advances. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote for this legislation tonight but with deep misgivings. We are voting for it because it does provide some safeguards and prohibition of the worst excesses of assisted human reproductive technology—namely the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos other than for serious genetic disease; also because having some legislation is certainly better than having none and having the present situation continue which is a totally unregulated free-market situation and allows fertility clinics to do what they like. But it is only marginally better. Regrettably the Government has taken what was a really impressive bill—Dianne Yates’ member’s bill—that would have set up a good regulatory regime similar to one that exists in England Canada Australia and other jurisdictions and gutted it to such an extent that this legislation sets up one of the weakest most permissive regulatory regimes for assisted human reproductive technologies in the world—a regime that relies on guidelines rather than regulation and a regime that bypasses Parliament completely and delegates policy making in that highly contentious ethical minefield area to a committee of unelected and unaccountable experts meeting behind closed doors. 
 I think it is ironic that this Parliament is able to debate and decide on an issue raised in yet another of Dianne Yates’ member’s bills—namely whether a couple of thousand dogs in New Zealand should have their tails docked—but will not be able once this bill is passed to debate or make decisions on far-reaching controversial issues that will help shape the future of the human race. I refer to issues such as what genetic defects will be able to be eliminated from the New Zealand population by embryo selection and what will not; whether scientists will be able to split embryos; whether we should be able to use gametes from deceased persons; and so on. Those issues are not minor and technical in nature; they are fundamentally important issues and policies that give rise to an ethical and public policy minefield. 
It is astonishing that we are here tonight enacting legislation that will basically take away the right of this Parliament to make policy on those fundamentally important issues. We will not even be able to challenge debate or discuss those issues in the Health Select Committee because all those contentious issues have been delegated to the unelected unaccountable ministerial advisory committee which will make decisions without any parliamentary scrutiny. 
The Green Party put up amendments that would have instituted some degree of parliamentary scrutiny and a regulatory regime. These alas were defeated by the Government and the Opposition voting in unison. I believe that only United Future supported the Greens on our amendments. 
There are no accountability provisions for the unelected committee of experts. There is no ability even in the Health Committee for us to monitor them to question them or to challenge the decisions they have made. I predict as I have before that this legislation will return to haunt us at some time in the not too distant future and we will be obliged to set up further legislation that seeks to give Parliament back some sovereignty over making decisions on these fundamentally important issues. 
By setting up a framework for policy—and I am glad to see that the chairman of the Regulations Review Committee has just entered the Chamber—to be made in a committee that is not even accountable to Parliament the bill breaches the very well established parliamentary principle and parliamentary convention that matters of policy should be dealt with by this Parliament and that only technical issues of implementation should be able to be dealt with by delegation in committees such as the ministerial advisory committee. 
In the select committee we were told not to worry that this legislation breaches the well established parliamentary principle that Parliament should decide on matters of policy because it is just an advisory committee giving advice to the Minister of Health. But in fact the terms of reference of the advisory committee and interestingly the recently released National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction make it absolutely unequivocally clear that the role of this committee will be to set policy in this area. The committee says in the latest consultation document it has just released: “The new ministerial advisory committee will develop policy and advice on new procedures and guidelines for permitted activities.” It will develop policy—that is what it states. In other words the process this bill sets up is a breach of parliamentary convention which will deny Parliament the opportunity to debate and decide on these hugely important ethical issues that will confront us and continue to confront us in the near future. 
There is a very real danger that without parliamentary scrutiny or a proper regulatory regime this legislation will permit medical technology to continue to race way ahead of the rest of us into uncharted and ethically troubling territory. Proponents of assisted human reproductive technologies paint a rosy picture of a future where these technologies can be used to overcome the limitations of the human body. But these selfsame technologies that can be used to cure a child of cystic fibrosis can equally be used to threaten human dignity and human rights eliminate human imperfections and create a perfect person or indeed a perfect human race. In other words they can be used for eugenic purposes. 
The Green Party believes a line must be drawn to protect future generations from growing up as laboratory experiments. There are huge controversial issues in assisted human reproductive technology. Where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable use of pre-birth selection? Who decides what genetic defects are allowed to be eliminated from the human population? This bill leaves those decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee that meets behind closed doors. When we read the guidelines we discover that what is proposed is that the committee leaves the decision on how we draw the line between cystic fibrosis spina bifida etc. to the providers the fertility clinics of New Zealand. Instead of drawing a clear line in the sand they are to consider everything on a case by case basis. That is extraordinary. 
The Green Party is pleased that we at least managed to get one amendment that means there must be extensive consultation. This unelected and unaccountable body must go through a process of consultation. Although that is some comfort it is based on our recent experience only a little comfort because all of us have written thousands of submissions to various bodies and they have completely ignored those submissions. We hope that the ministerial advisory committee will not behave like so many expert committees and ignore public submissions but we cannot be certain of that. But at least we got some improvement in the bill. 
We also are pleased that Paul Hutchison’s amendment has been passed. That basically sets up a voluntary register to help people already born to try to work out their genetic origins. We are frustrated by the fact that assisted human reproductive technology has been touted as the solution to growing fertility problems in our society when virtually no resources are allocated and virtually no research is undertaken into the underlying environmental and other factors that have caused the dramatic drop in fertility over the past 5 years. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 This bill creates three categories under which reproductive technologies including reproductive research can be managed. The first category is called “Established procedures” and would immediately cover in vitro fertilisation and the related practices that have had a long track record of ongoing use in the New Zealand context. Additional procedures may be declared established by Order in Council and are therefore unlikely to cause much of a ripple amongst the general public. Some of us however in this House have concerns about some of the procedures included in this category because we believe that the jury is still out on whether those procedures offer lifelong safety to offspring born as a result of those methods. Animal trials were certainly not conclusive and we are yet to witness the long-term outcomes for the first generation of IVF offspring. 
The second category declares procedures that can be approved on a case by case basis by an ethics committee. The ethics committee makes decisions by interpreting guidelines set out for it by the ministerial advisory committee and those guidelines have also been approved by the Minister. It is this category that causes most of us who are concerned about this bill the most trouble. Dianne Yates’ original member’s bill did not propose guidelines but clear and unambiguous regulations. 
 Regulations draw a clear line in the sand regarding what is and what is not allowed. Regulations however do not prevent the line from shifting when it is desirable and certainly the experience of the British regulatory model is that it has not halted medical progress. However regulations do mean that the line establishes acceptable and unacceptable practice and that it has to be deliberately moved rather than driven by exceptional cases that set a precedent for unexceptional cases. 
Guidelines are written in vague terms leaving the door wide open for a huge range of interpretations and applications. A classic example of this vagueness can be found in the recently published consultation document of proposed guidelines for the management of the controversial pre-implantation genetic diagnosis procedures. Those guidelines seem to attempt to summarise several sides of a given argument without coming to a definitive conclusion. 
Let me give an example. On the matter of sex selection it says: “Sex selection is seen as a demeaning reason for creating and discarding human embryos in that it challenges the special status frequently bestowed upon them in view of the potential they represent. This status is generally considered not significant enough to preclude the destruction of embryos for the prevention of the birth of a child with a serious genetic disorder but is significant enough to preclude its use for sex selection on social grounds.” 
What they are roughly saying in this argument is clear but where is the recommendation? Where is the guiding principle? An ethics committee could literally rule in several directions based on this guideline. 
The third category proposed in this bill is a list of prohibited activities. These include activities deemed to be ethically unacceptable because of serious implications for offspring or because of a serious challenge to the definition of what it means to be human and what it means as a society to value difference. It is this category that seems to have lulled the Greens into a false sense of security. Genetic modification of gametes and embryos is banned—or is it? The schedules certainly ban implanting into a human a genetically modified gamete or embryo but on the issue of research the door is wide open. In fact clause 36 leaves open the opportunity by requiring the ministerial advisory committee to develop guidelines for genetic modification research on humans. Why would we allow research and development of a technology if we were not planning to use it in the future? 
I am trying to imagine right now how Green supporters will feel when they discover that the Green Party has supported more restrictions around the genetic engineering of corn than the genetic engineering of humans. Their party of preference is voting to support this and this poses a huge credibility crisis for the party going into an election year. In all the speeches given by Sue Kedgley on this bill she has been unable to give one positive comment about this bill yet the Greens are supporting it. 
I am sure that Green Party supporters like most other New Zealanders remember the huge song and dance the Greens made about GM technology immediately before and after the last election. They even demanded a royal commission into genetic modification whose terms of reference they helped to set up. The Greens launched a major campaign against it when the findings did not reach the conclusions they were hoping for. They were so determined to stop GM technology that they virtually destroyed their relationship with their only potential coalition partner Labour and caused both parties significant electoral damage at the polls. 
This issue was their bottom line yet what happens when legislation arrives that potentially allows the genetic modification of human beings themselves? Well the Greens let it pass without a whimper. In fact the Greens vote for it. Where is the consistency in that? Where is the Greens’ commitment to their own constituents over the GE issue now? Or are we proving once more that the Greens care more about plants than they do about human beings? 
I am expecting as I speak to see Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons rush into the House grab the bill and look at clause 36 to discover the huge mistake they are about to make in voting for the third reading of this bill. If the media are listening on their radios right now they will be very interested tomorrow morning to ask Green Party members why on earth they would vote for a bill that has left the back door wide open for the genetic modification of human beings. This is a party that postures as the protector of all that is pure and right on this matter. 
Jim Peters 
: Are you for or against it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: That is an interesting one! Sue Kedgley said that having some legislation is better than having no legislation yet that certainly was not the position the Greens took at the lifting of the moratorium. We had very sound and very tightly organised legislation to allow the lifting of the moratorium but it was never good enough for the Greens yet on this bill they are saying that something is better than nothing and that they will go along with it they will play the game they will roll over in the way they always accuse United Future of. The most essential element of what it means to be a Green supporter has just been blown out of the water tonight by the Green Party voting for this bill at its third reading. 
I am dying to hear talkback radio tomorrow morning when Green supporters wake up to the fact that they have been completely betrayed on this very issue. The genetic modification of human beings the very essence of defining what it means to be a human being has just been completely abandoned by the Green Party tonight at this third reading. I think there should be some serious concern that their voters will have to ask some very serious questions about whether they continue to support a party that is happy to monitor the genetic engineering of plants animals and particular parts of the food chain while completely supporting legislation that will allow the development of genetic modification of human beings. I think it is a very telling moment in the House and I am expecting that the Greens’ emails will be running hot as of tonight from supporters asking them what on earth they are thinking of—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will hear our vote soon. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: You have spent your whole speech talking about us. 
JUDY TURNER 
: None of us have quite postured ourselves to be the protector of life as we know it as the Green Party has. I think that the Green Party has really missed the boat; it has really dropped the ball on this particular issue. I think it is high time that their supporters who are genuinely people who care very much about what it means to be human and genuinely do care about the sort of environment into which children are being born and raised discovered that the party they have supported all these years is making this huge mistake and is showing itself to be hugely inconsistent on such a vital matter. 
It is clause 36 for people listening on the radio who want to double-check what I am talking about. Clause 36 is very very clear. Let me just read it. It states that the advisory committee is to provide specific advice in respect of human reproductive research for cloned embryos donated human embryos and genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. Clause 36 is throwing open the back door and allowing the ministerial advisory committee to set up these very loose guidelines that will be able to be interpreted in any direction we want to take them for the genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. This provision this hugely wide open back door is being supported tonight in the House by the Green Party. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will be having a split vote as it has all the way through the deliberations on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill mainly because we like many of the submitters have quite divergent views about the provisions within it. Some ACT members believe that there is not a lot of mischief and that there should be no legal framework in this area. However we do not all agree on that. Personally I think that the provisions we have come up with after going through the select committee process as a result of hearing the submissions to the Health Committee and through the Committee stage have produced a very good balance. 
This is a very emotive area. We can hear that in the debate tonight and I must say that the vehemence with which the United Future member has just given her views is a good example of that. Her very vocal criticism of the Green Party was quite surprising when we have in United Future a party that has supported the Government many times on issues that it campaigned against. I think it is very important that members are able to make their own decisions about things and our party certainly intends to do that. 
The bill is about two large areas—I think we can break it down to that. The first is reproductive technology and the second is research. I have voiced my concern about putting both those big areas together into this one bill when we might well have been better served by having two pieces of legislation: one for reproduction and one for research. However I certainly feel very pleased with the result and pleased that after 8 years the bill is finally at this point. Previously the field was very messy in terms of the technicalities. 
The select committee process was very interesting. People came from widely divergent views which they put to us vocally and I felt we were able to talk through the issues in a constructive manner. We have moved forward to provide New Zealand with guidelines that I think will serve us well in both the reproduction and research areas. I felt that the guidelines were particularly important and I spoke strongly about them at the select committee level. I was opposed to very strict regulation which would mean there would be very little flexibility in the whole process. People who have worked in research as I have know that it is never possible to foretell or foresee every possibility or eventuality. That is particularly so in the area of reproduction. Frequently problems arise that could not be foreseen and they need to be dealt with quickly if they are to be overcome and couples are to be able to have live well babies at the end of it. Those guidelines are very important. The other area is that of research. Technology has advanced at such a pace that I felt—and I had the general agreement of the committee on this—that regulation would not provide the flexibility needed in order to allow research to proceed in a reasonable sort of manner. 
In vitro fertilisation has been given as an example in the House in that regard and it is a very good example of how quickly technology has developed from a very experimental for want of a better term manner to a stage where many couples not just in New Zealand but around the world have become dependent on it to produce their families. For some people for whom the wish and desire to have children and produce a family is overwhelming in vitro fertilisation is the only possibility available to them. It is important given the technology we have that that choice is available to them. 
I was also very pleased to see that Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment regarding a voluntary register was put to the Committee and supported. I think that the provisions were in the bill when it came from the select committee but his provision for a voluntary register has strengthened them significantly. As we all know many children when they reach a certain age are very keen to know many things about where they have come from. That is a very important area for them as they grow and develop into well-balanced human beings. So I am delighted to see that provision there. 
There has been much comment tonight about the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Procedures and Human Reproductive Research. Its chief role is to report to the Minister and produce the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work. That is a very important role for the ministerial advisory committee. I would rather have seen a slightly heavier balance towards the experts but in the end we have an even balance between experts and lay people. Although I would have preferred to see a slightly heftier balance towards the experts I think we have reached a reasonable compromise in that regard as well. The ministerial advisory committee must consult the public—that is a very strict requirement. I think the concern that the committee will be able to bowl through unhindered and make all sorts of decisions that are unethical and immoral is totally groundless and unfounded. 
The Green Party mentioned that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny as a result of the establishment of the ministerial advisory committee and I say that is a jolly good thing. We are 120 people two of whom I feel may be well enough informed to serve on such a committee. One is Dr Paul Hutchison who has worked in the area for many years and is particularly well informed. We were very lucky to have him on the select committee. With his thorough knowledge he was able to help us through very tough technical issues. Many times we were delighted to have him there to explain things to us along with the advisers. The other MP who may perhaps be qualified to sit on the ministerial advisory committee is Dianne Yates. She of course would be there as a lay person. As members know she has spent the last 8 years investigating researching and looking very thoroughly into all the issues. But the other 118 of us would have absolutely no right to be on that committee because we do not have the appropriate knowledge. The discussions we had at the select committee highlighted exactly why parliamentarians should not be involved in that process. That is totally inappropriate and it would result in no better decisions than would result from opening the issue up to the general public through a referendum. I feel very strongly that the ministerial advisory committee is the appropriate body both to report to the Minister and to decide on the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work. 
The moral and ethical issues have taken quite a hefty place in this debate which is quite right. On issues like this that is totally predictable. As I say the ACT MPs will be voting according to their consciences on this bill so we will have a split vote. Certainly we want to see medical advances move forward so that we can have progress both in research and in reproductive technology—as there should be. There are many very unfortunate diseases that children in particular have which nobody would wish on them. If we are able to make medical advances and have reproductive technology that can deal with terrible diseases such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy—things that nobody would ever wish on anybody’s children—then I see that as a good thing. If this bill is able to facilitate that then I think we will have done a particularly good job. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and to open by congratulating my colleague Dianne Yates. This has not been an easy journey. It has taken 9 years which is an enormously long time in which to wait to see a dream and a vision come to reality. This is a wonderful day for my colleague Dianne Yates. We acknowledge as have other members of the Health Committee her absolute passion and determination to get this bill through the House. That has not been without some problems with regard to my role as chair of the committee. That was because the bill was really a morphing-together of two previous members’ bills. That was our difficulty and then we also had to consider Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of Lianne Dalziel. We were trying to meld together the best of the two diverse philosophies: the approach of the Hon Doug Graham and of Dianne Yates. That is always difficult on such a complex and technological issue. 
The Supplementary Order Paper came up with a very flexible regulatory regime that could respond to the new technologies that move so quickly in the area of assisted human reproduction technology. I acknowledge that it is not the licensing regime with strong regulation that the member promoting the bill wanted to see and that was our difficulty. I think when we hear the speeches from the other members of the select committee that we will realise we were reflective of the House and probably of the country in our divergent views. The one thing on which we all agreed was that we did need to have legislation. I think we all came to that view at the end of the very long process. 
This is unusual but I would like to acknowledge the Opposition members of the select committee. Lynda Scott was a member and I also mention Paul Hutchison in particular. With their medical background and their understanding of complex medical issues they contributed constructively to the debate on this bill. It is unusual too for a Government member to congratulate and thank ACT but I think that Heather Roy with her very strong research background gave us some wonderful perspectives on the role of the ministerial advisory committee which does have to consider research. 
 Yes we did provide for research to be part of the committee’s functions and that caused some concerns. 
I think we have come up with a very good flexible regulatory regime. I take issue though with the concerns that people still have. It is sad that a member at the third reading of her own bill has to say that she thinks it is still a bit loose and that she is worried about it. I think that is really sad because I would like Dianne Yates to feel excited tonight and to go away saying that we all did a wonderful job and produced a robust piece of law. I believe it is robust because we had to construct it in the context of our health system. New Zealand is not Canada the United Kingdom or Australia. We have a health and disability sector here that takes a safety and quality approach. We could not have a licensing regime and think that just by bringing accreditation to the licensing of clinics we would have a robust system. So we must remind ourselves that this bill is reflective of the current health environment in which we all work. 
I am concerned too that we have not convinced some of our colleagues of the robust approach to the establishment of guidelines in this bill. Making guidelines is not a flimsy process. In fact it is a far better way than passing legislation through Parliament to get New Zealanders involved in the very technologies that will have such a huge impact on their lives. I believe that the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis guideline that is currently being developed is reflective of that approach. New Zealanders are having input into that guideline which under this legislation will then have to go to the Minister. The guideline will not be accepted if we have concerns about it. I think that there are many many avenues for challenging the construction of guidelines. I acknowledge too a comment that Paul Hutchison made earlier that for over 20 years fertility clinics have functioned relatively well in this country. The gap was getting bigger and the medical risk was growing larger by not having a regulatory framework. We have that now. 
I think the information provisions are one aspect that makes this bill world-leading legislation. Something that we in New Zealand have learned through open adoption is that it is very very valuable for children to know about their origins—to know whether they were born as a result of assisted human reproduction technology. The information provisions in this bill are absolutely outstanding. I have heard back from those who have gone overseas that the overseas licensing regimes are deeply caught in red tape now. The information regime is one aspect of this bill that we can congratulate ourselves on. We have gone out on our own limb with the provisions relating to access to information held by the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. The good intent of everybody on the select committee was demonstrated when it accepted the amendment from Paul Hutchison to set up the voluntary information regime. We as parliamentarians did genuinely work to try to get the best possible outcome because we do not want to revisit this legislation. It has taken long enough to come into being today. 
I believe that on balance this is an outstanding bill. I do not share the concerns and fears that have been quite legitimately expressed by the Green Party and United Future. They are perfectly entitled to their views. On the basis of my understanding of the health environment in which this bill will now become law I do not share their views at all. I hope that over time New Zealanders too will gain confidence in this legislation. It is very important legislation for New Zealand. I congratulate Dianne Yates. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I am afraid I do not share the sense of glowing self-congratulation that seems to imbue the House tonight. I think that is a real danger sign. It shows complacency and it shows the lack of depth of the analysis and debate that has occurred largely without the participation of the public. I repeat what I said during the Committee stage: I have no doubt that this legislation will be back in Parliament within the next 3 to 5 years. 
I want to address two aspects of the bill. One is the process that has been set up and the other is the list of banned activities. The problem with the process has been referred to by other speakers. It is now harder to register a chemical in existing use than it will be to get approval for a new process of human reproduction. The word “guidelines” has come up as the means by which flexibility is achieved. Flexibility does have some merits in any regulatory regime but I get a disturbing feeling that in putting this legislation together the Health Committee has elevated flexibility to the highest priority. 
Far from embodying the precautionary principle we have an almost no-caution principle. Much of our regulatory activity embodies a sense of precaution. We could get carried away with that as many do. The Greens with their precautionary principle regarding genetic modification are an example of people trying to construct regimes where no risk is allowed at all. That is clearly counterproductive but to say that we should abandon it altogether in favour of a guidelines mechanism is in my view a mistake. If a guidelines mechanism is so flexible and effective at containing risk then why do we not use it for chemicals potatoes and vegetables? We do not because we do not think it works. We use regulation with its executive force not guidelines. But apparently when it comes to gametes embryos and people—who in my view are somewhat distinct from potatoes—we resort to guidelines consultation and a committee. 
I acknowledge the motivation of the select committee in coming to this structure. I can see how the argument particularly in the case of reproductive technology has come about. Circumstances give rise to the need to act quickly to change with regard to particular technology. To his credit Dr Paul Hutchison even produced one example—the only one I have been able to find through the relatively recent history of this industry. It really is about the only example where there has been any need to take account of quite a short time period to change the rules so that the reproductive technology can be effective. 
I also raise some issues about the membership of these committees. My concerns have been made deeper by the speeches I have heard tonight. I heard the member from ACT say that 118 people in this Parliament are not qualified to be on those committees and that two people are. I absolutely disagree with that. 
Darren Hughes 
: She didn’t say that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: She did. She said that two people here are qualified—one of whom is my esteemed colleague—and that the other 118 are not. One does not have to have a PhD to know what it is to be human and to understand one’s instincts—a number of which are quite soundly reflected in this bill. One provision shows a great deal of caution about sex selection. There is no particularly rational reason why we cannot have sex selection—if we can select for other things why can we not select for gender—but deep in our gut we know that it would be wrong to legislate for sex selection. We just know it is wrong—we do not need to have a PhD to know that. It is the same with some of the activities on the banned list. Why is there a list of banned procedures? Again we do not have to have a medical degree in reproductive technology to have our stomachs turned at the concept of implanting a hybrid embryo—an animal / human embryo—into a human. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It is illegal. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Exactly. It is illegal in the schedule. The point I am making is simply this. Parliament has already demonstrated a will—[ 
Interruption 
] well people do feel strongly about these things—not to hand everything over to a bunch of experts nor should it. I am saying that this bill hands too much over to committees that will inevitably be dominated by experts. That I think is a fundamental weakness in the process. 
I do not think that the public of New Zealand have really got to grips with the extent to which the experts will decide where this goes. There is an argument and I think it is a considered one that for 20 years that is what has happened. I happen to believe the things I am told by the experts—that we are on the threshold of an explosion of genetic research and that the possibilities for this to go off the rails are much greater now than they were when scientists were focused mainly on increasing the efficiency of in vitro fertilisation which is inherently a very inefficient process. 
I want to turn now to the list of banned activities. I am pleased to see this list in the bill because if I listened to the self-congratulatory logic of the members of the select committee I would wonder why there is a banned list. I mean why have we bothered banning anything if the guidelines are so robust and the experts know so much! Well thank goodness that common sense prevailed and we have in schedule 1 this wizened shortened list of “Prohibited actions”. I want to deal with the first one. We can debate almost every one of these but I will deal with clause 1. It is prohibited to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a cloned embryo.” Well we know what that means: it is not prohibited to artificially form a cloned embryo for research purposes—it is not. I do not think that that reflects the public view at all. Experts might want to be able to clone things so they can research them. It will be very hard to tell actually with the restriction on the 10-day life of these embryos whether they are meant for reproduction or research. But that will be allowed. We will tonight pass a bill that permits the production of cloned embryos for research purposes. 
Clause 2 of this list states that it is prohibited to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo.” Therefore we will vote tonight presumably in the majority to allow people to form hybrid embryos for research purposes. I simply believe that that is wrong and on the basis of clauses 1 and 2 the fact that they are permissive there is good enough reason for me to vote against this bill even though it has significant merits. We can see in clause 1 that the experts are at work: “For the purposes of this item a cloned embryo is not formed by splitting on 1 or more occasions an embryo that has been formed by the fusion of gametes.” So they have even limited the definition of what a cloned embryo is. That is why this legislation will be back in front of Parliament. It is simply not cautious enough for the fire we are playing with. It is really that simple. 
The legislation has some merit and I acknowledge the efforts of the select committee but I think its members have become a bit entangled in the wonder and self-congratulation of it all. The reason other countries have much more complex regimes is that they regard these as much more complex issues than we appear to. They regard them with more care and with more sensitivity to the humanness of the products of this process than this Parliament appears to have. In that respect I am disappointed in Parliament but we will no doubt get another chance to debate it and it is as it should be that Parliament ultimately decides these things not a bunch of ministerially appointed experts. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. Having listened to the second reading Committee stage and now the third reading debate I have been reflecting on the fact that Parliament is celebrating its 150th year of existence in our country and I am sure that the sorts of issues in this bill that we are discussing were not even conceived of when Parliament was formed 150 years ago. The point I make about that is that often in this place we are required to deal with issues that preceding lawmakers of two three or four generations ago would never have thought would arise and would require the creation of legislation as we are doing in this case. 
I acknowledge that this is a difficult area and an area where people have very strong personal moral and spiritual beliefs—particularly the Hon Bill English as shown in his speech just previously. But in the end as lawmakers we are required to try in some kind of way as best we can and with the information we have at the time to build or create some sort of legal framework that these kinds of things developing around us can operate in. That does not mean that we will get it exactly right at this point in our history but it certainly means that we will build a skeleton of a framework for these kinds of things to develop within. That is why I pay tribute to my colleague the member for Hamilton East Dianne Yates who very early on in her political career introduced this legislation because she saw this as an emerging issue. I know that it has been through the select committee process over a number of years and was considered in conjunction with a bill introduced by the Rt Hon Doug Graham in a previous Government. 
The Health Committee has spent a lot of time going through this bill and has added to its purposes that it try “to secure the benefits of assisted reproductive procedures established procedures and human reproductive research for individuals and for society in general by taking appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of the health safety dignity and rights of all individuals but particularly those of women and children in the use of these procedures and research:”. It seems to me that at the point we are at right now when we are trying to work out how these technologies can best be used the purpose that the select committee has added is the best step we can make at this point without the full and complete knowledge of where these technologies can take us. 
The one point on which I disagree with the Hon Bill English however is that he kept referring to this legislation having to be back before Parliament. I think it is important to note that the ministerial advisory committee will have the ability to decide when new technology is developed whether it needs to be banned whether it needs to have a research component put on it or whether it should be allowed. I guess that that in the end does give us a safeguard in a holding kind of way and if Parliament becomes concerned in 20 years’ time that that technology has allowed us to do far more or whatever then we can bring more legislation back to the House. But in the end what we have to confront tonight are the technologies that are available out there in science right now and what we as lawmakers can do to put some framework around that. 
I am not an apologist for rampant cloning or anything like that. I see in the Bills Digest reference to the catechism of the Catholic Church and I guess that is what was driving the Hon Bill English’s comments tonight. I have respect for that but believe we must put in place something in the meantime with the ability to have flexibility which is what Dianne Yates’ bill does. After this long gestation the bill is now before us to pass its third reading. I certainly add my support to it acknowledging in doing so that we must be cautious in this area which I think is what Dianne Yates in good faith has set out to be. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This is a conscience vote and I will be supporting this bill. Human assisted reproductive technology legislation which has included a National Government bill and Dianne Yates member’s bill has had nearly 7 years’ gestation. It was born I think to caring parents with few complications due to good timing and cooperation between the midwife who was the chairperson of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick; our resident obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Paul Hutchison; the general practitioner myself; and other members of the select committee who were the support crew. 
 We have learnt from overseas experience. The timing of this bill is important. I was actually in England and in Australia when they were debating their legislation on this issue and the debate was very heated. Look at us tonight—quiet as lambs! We have heard from Bill English who has serious concerns—and he has been a Minister of Health. We have heard a few other speeches against the bill but it is going through the House tonight with little in the way of major controversy. That is because other countries have gone before us. We have learnt from overseas experience and that has made the passage of the bill easier. 
The issues are complex and complicated. The select committee took a lot of time to tease out the issues that were before us. We have not answered the question of when a new life begins which is what some of the debate has been around. An egg and sperm are both living; an embryo forms then a fetus—life is continuous. So there has been debate about when life begins and what should and should not be allowed. With the cloning of Dolly the sheep man moved another step closer to the cloning of a human being; it became only a matter of time. That cloning of an animal prompted a lot of countries to take the step of introducing legislation which was often rushed. We have had the advantage of being able to take our time. 
Legislation such as the bill we are passing in the House tonight is a response to that advance in technology. Schedule 1 lists nine prohibited activities. These include artificially forming a cloned embryo artificially forming a hybrid embryo implanting into a human being a cloned embryo implanting into a human being an animal gamete or embryo and so on. But in this legislation we have been somewhat more permissive about other issues. We are going to see the development of guidelines that will govern them. 
I was recently talking to a colleague about the trauma of childlessness. People need to have been in that situation to know the heartbreak caused to a couple when they cannot have their own child and to know what women and their partners go through when they try to conceive a child and cannot. There has to be a way to respond rapidly to new technology. I ask members to put themselves in the place of someone who knows that she cannot have a child and who hears of breaking new technology that would allow her and her partner to do so. It might be that surrogacy is to be accepted as it was not for a long time—not commercial surrogacy because that is banned—or it might be that there is new technology that would allow her to have a child. Imagine the heartbreak of sitting for years either waiting for this Parliament—which moves very slowly—to get a piece of legislation through or waiting for an ethics committee to make a decision. Just imagine the heartache. The select committee heard from people in this position who for years and years have waited for a decision. That I think is very cruel and the select committee was moved by some of those submissions. 
The legislation we are dealing with tonight allows for less prescriptive assessment of new technologies around human-assisted reproduction. New technologies can happen slowly or sometimes there may be a major breakthrough. Sometimes doctors and researchers are engaged in developing a technology and accidents happen that lead to a major new development. This bill sets up an advisory committee to advise the Minister of Health on new technologies and whether they should become permitted activities. The Minister of Health is obviously responsive to public pressure. A one-off event is unlikely to gain much media attention unless it is something like the English case where Mrs Blood wanted the sperm of her husband who had been killed in an accident to be gathered so that she could have a child by him after his death. That went to court and caused a huge debate about the ethical implications about whether she should be allowed to or whether he would have had to give consent. That one-off case got a huge amount of publicity. But most of the time one case would not receive that degree of publicity. If a new technology was developing that New Zealanders were uncomfortable about or did not like pressure would certainly come to bear on the Minister of Health and she—or maybe he—would be very unlikely to allow it to be put on the prescriptive list of what can happen. We have the prohibited actions list to which amendments can be made and things added. 
As I said before surrogacy is allowed under this bill but not commercial surrogacy. Parts of the bill are very much about the offspring of those who have a child using a donated egg or donated sperm. The select committee heard quite a few submissions from people in such cases who wanted access to information. We all want to know who our genetic parents are as well as who brought us up. We encourage all New Zealanders who have a child using a donated egg or donated sperm to be open and clear with their children right from the beginning—as with open adoption—about where their roots are who they came from and their genetic inheritance. A child up to the age of 16 can have access to genetic information but not to the identity of the donor. At the age of 18 he or she can get access to the identity of the donor. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that sets up a voluntary register for those who donated an egg or sperm before giving such details became mandatory as it is now. I have had emails from people who are very supportive of that and I was pleased to see that the Government took up my esteemed colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
This bill will allow research to go on so that medical science can work hard to eradicate debilitating inherited diseases like Huntington’s chorea cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. I think we would all like to see that. There are some issues in relation to other forms of selection concerning less severe diseases or for example sex selection. We would not agree at this point to people being able to decide the sex of their child. 
So there are important issues that still need to be decided by the advisory committee that sets up guidelines for the ethical committee. Overall I congratulate the chair of the select committee the committee and the officials on the work that was done. I will be supporting this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The last call is by agreement split into 5 minutes each. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to take the call tonight because I have a very personal involvement in this matter. My wife and I found ourselves many years ago unable to have our own children. After a significant diagnosis of the fact that the Dalkon shield had ruined our chances of having children we tried to go through a number of scientific programmes. We went to the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne we tried with Freddie Graham at the National Women’s Hospital and we spent a lot of money at the private clinic in Remuera. After a number of trials we were unable to have our own children. 
The best thing that ever happened is that we were able to adopt. We have three of the greatest kids there are simply because some other people were prepared to allow us to adopt those children. I want to stress to members in the House tonight that they can have simply no idea of the suffering created for people who would desperately love to have their own children and who will spend whatever and try whatever and cannot. We are just so grateful to the birth mothers of our kids. 
Our kids know without doubt. In fact the best notice that we ever had from the Department of Social Welfare was that the children must never find out that they were adopted; they must always know. They must always know from the day that they can understand. Our three kids are the twins who are now 6 and Simon who is 14 and is part-Japanese. He knows his birth mother Michiko with a passion. They will spend some more time together next week but every year they spend time together. She comes to New Zealand or he goes to her and we have no feelings of any insecurities or concerns. Our children are our children but we know that we needed help to get them there. 
I guess the greatest concern that I have in this country is the number of people who end up pregnant and for whom it is simply the last thing they needed to have happen. They may be very young insecure or have no family assistance. All I can say is that when we drive from Auckland to Pauanui most weeks we see a wonderful sign opposite the Maramurua golf course that says: “Adopt don’t abort.” If I had any advice to give people about this whole reproductive cycle if it is possible—and I know that sometimes it is not; I am not opposed to abortion and I am very libertarian and believe that there will be times when people want abortion—and if there is a chance for people to make that choice and let someone else share in the life of that young child could they please consider adoption rather than abortion. 
I say to this House that there are also some technologies that will unwind over the years that we have not even thought of yet. There are already the gamete intrafallopian transfer programme and gamete fertilisation outside it. I did not even understand when we first started off that “in vitro” meant “in glass”. I thought in vitro was some wonderful technology but it turned out to be “in glass”. Our first experience at the Royal Women’s Hospital was amazing. The medical staff asked me whether I would like to be in the theatre while they did the egg pick-up. They had a long needle which nearly made me pass out. It was on a big vacuum pump and they could squeeze it. They had the ultrasound and they were spotting where the eggs were. After about an hour of unbelievable sweat torture and pain and finally picking up I think six on our first go—which we were very proud of—the nurse passed me the little plastic cup and said: “It’s your turn.” I did not even think that I could raise a mortgage at that point let alone anything else. 
It is terribly dehumanising and it is terribly difficult for human beings to work through but let me just put in a bid on behalf of those who cannot have children to do anything we can do to assist within the bounds of reason. I simply do not agree with part-man part-donkey or any of the other part-human and part-animal clones and all of those other things which is what this stuff is aimed at and I agree with Dianne Yates on that. However we should be very careful not to limit the way in which some technologies may allow us to assist. As a member of the Infertility Society I met some of the most staggering people who would make the best parents and who simply had nothing but love to give to some children but who were being denied that right. As we pass this legislation and I am very happy for it to be passed we need to be very cognisant of those people and the fact that over the years this Parliament will be tested on legal moral and ethical issues that make that able to happen. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Government has very generously given us the opportunity to have a split call on this legislation with this being the final of the 12th speech but under Standing Order 117(2) split calls cannot be between two parties. We want the Government to be able to take the other 5 minutes of this 12th speech and so I seek leave that that occur. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I have been in the Chamber for the previous two speakers and I acknowledge the previous speaker in particular. One will try to control one’s contribution because I strongly suspect that it will not surprise him that some of his experiences are probably a bit closer to those of a number of people in this Chamber than even he may realise. There are a variety of outcomes and if members will forgive me I will not go further than that but obviously life teaches one some very valuable insights. One deals with such fundamental deep issues between a couple and with people and there are other outcomes and then there are outcomes I guess. I think that is what the previous speaker was alluding to and I honour him and I commend his courage in sharing that story with us. 
I will not go into my own circumstances if members do not mind but I will acknowledge the author of this bill in that it could have been easy for her not to get involved. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Dianne Yates and in particular—if members will allow me in terms of the Hamilton context—to the researchers lawyers health professionals her party colleagues and her family who helped her with the time and money and all that was involved. Now I know obviously that it was not just Dianne Yates or that group of people but if in the context of this I can acknowledge that particular Hamilton contribution I have to say that as a member of Parliament I am very proud of it. I am also very proud of the Health Committee and of Steve Chadwick and all the members who grappled with this issue. 
I am absolutely respectful of the split voting reflecting the different viewpoints because I think that all members here look very deeply into their hearts and do their absolute best to come up with what they believe will be the best way forward. I think in a way that it would have been an easy thing for this Parliament not to have grappled with those issues. This is kind of in the too-hard basket but I believe that at least while no legislation is perfect it does set a template or a base for future Parliaments and for our society. 
Obviously it has been pointed out in the commentary as an understatement that: “Fertility issues can be very stressful both for individuals and within relationships. In our consideration of these legislative proposals we have sought to balance providing a consistent regulatory environment with acknowledging the differences in individual circumstances.” Then it goes on to talk about the intergenerational impact in terms of decisions around assisted human reproduction and the robust and transparent process for ethical decision-making. 
I do not want to go on too long except to say that I think there are a lot of people in this country tonight who when they realise the impact of this bill will say “thank you”. Parliament has tried to grapple with what is an incredibly immense and awesome issue and I do not even have the language to really describe what we are grappling with here. I want to acknowledge the contribution of previous speakers—particularly the last two speakers whom I listened to—and also to acknowledge in particular Dianne Yates. There are moments of huge satisfaction for individual members of Parliament when they come here to make a difference. Dianne Yates has come here and she has made a difference. I want to thank her very very much and also the people who worked with her. I also particularly want to thank the select committee for its very excellent work in this area. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill now read a third time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Procedure 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 As far as New Zealand is concerned this is ground-breaking legislation—at least that is the view of New Zealand First. I therefore seek the leave of this house to request that the parties that split their vote table the split—in other words who voted for and who voted against—so that this can be recorded in  
Hansard 
 and so that the view of the public can be respected in that a check can be made of the voting if they so wish. I seek leave for that request to be put to the party whips. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 National is quite comfortable about giving people the names of those who voted for and those who voted against. However seeking leave for that to be recorded is a dangerous precedent. It is not necessary under Standing Order 144. We are quite happy to give the names out—there is no difficulty with that—but we would oppose leave to have the names recorded. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is happy to table how our voting record went. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by Peter Brown for the votes to be recorded in some way. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would I be correct in assuming—I could not tell exactly from the voices—that both Labour and National objected to the leave I sought? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is quite happy to indicate whose vote went which way but we do understand those who do not wish to see any form of precedent whereby one party can in effect oblige disclosure by others without themselves seeking leave for that purpose. So I can understand those who said no. I wonder whether it might be better put not as a leave matter but simply as an invitation for each party to table its list. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I do not wish to extend this debate. The issue that Mr Brown has raised and I respect the reasons for his raising it has been laboured considerably at the Business Committee over a period of weeks and it has been suggested that this is a Standing Orders issue and that Mr Brown has been invited to write to the Standing Orders Committee which is the appropriate committee where this kind of issue can be resolved. The Government voted 51 in favour. We do not need to declare who voted for it—we all voted for it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave was sought there was objection and there the matter ends. I do not see any way through it from our position here but it certainly can be taken further at another time and be dealt with. I am sure those names would be volunteered. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to put on the record that I have written to the Speaker in respect of addressing this in the Standing Orders Committee. As yet I have not had a response but I also want to advise the members of the House that although this might seem to be a petty argument as far as members are concerned we are denying the public the truth of knowing who voted here and who voted there. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I understand from the Business Committee that it was agreed that the names could be tabled which is different to having them recorded. I said in speaking to the point of order earlier that National is happy to table the names—I have them here. We are happy to table them which is different from recording them. So I seek leave for National to be able to table the names of members who voted for and those who opposed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to name now the way in which our split vote was taken. I will do that verbally if that is the will of the Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Shall I go ahead and do that? I was going to do it verbally. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. I thought the member sought leave to table the vote. 
HEATHER ROY 
: No to give the names verbally now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No to table the document. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is not what I sought leave for. I did seek leave and it was not denied. The two votes in favour were: Heather Roy and Ken Shirley. Those opposed were: Stephen Franks Muriel Newman Richard Prebble Deborah Coddington Gerrard Eckhoff and Rodney Hide.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the voting record of United Future on this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a rather strange process once again in that I will ask the House to vote against a bill that will become law anyway. Strangely because of the quirks of this House this is a time when a bill will be voted into law by being voted down. My Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill is a member’s bill. It was first mooted and came into the House 4 years ago in response to the increasing incidence of drug rape in New Zealand and the fact that there had been some rather interesting cases where drug rape had been involved. Drug rape like all rapes is a crime that is very hard to legislate against and it is very hard to prove. As the bill points out drugs leave a person’s system very quickly and victims themselves are often unsure of the exact events that led to the effect of drugs. 
What has happened here is that since tabling this member’s bill and since it went to the Law and Order Committee a Government bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has been introduced into the House. That bill has superseded this bill. In fact I have to admit that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is a much better bill than mine in that it describes the consent process much more clearly. It lists nine defining aspects of consent under section 128A of the Crimes Act in clause 7 “Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in certain circumstances” and that is much better than my member’s bill. As everybody knows with a member’s bill one does not have the assistance and help of a huge number of lawyers and of the parliamentary staff who assist select committees. So I can say that the Government bill and the select committee process have hugely improved on my member’s bill. 
 I want to thank a number of people who were involved with the original bill and I particularly want to thank the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust and two people in that trust in particular Louise Carroll and Jenny Fenton who have worked tirelessly in the area of drug rape in order to bring it to the attention of the House and of the New Zealand Police. They have been involved in police training and they have very much been involved in the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust and with the Auckland-based people who have been supportive of it. I want to thank Detective Chief Inspector Sturman from the UK who did a very sizable thesis around the area of drug rape and who came to New Zealand to share his experiences and his studies with us. I want to thank Jan Jordan who is the criminology person at Victoria University and who has just recently published a very very large book on rape and rape in New Zealand. 
I want to thank Amelia Carter an intern from Victoria University in the year 2001 who worked in my office. She did a tremendous amount of work in this regard. When she came from the university I said that there were a number of things that she might like to work on. She said that she would like to work in the area of drug rape which I had become interested in. She said it was something that affected young people it was very relevant to her life and to young professionals the crime was becoming more prevalent and it was something that she thought she could make a big contribution on—and she did. I want to thank Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care the body that represents doctors who are concerned with sexual violence and Rape Crisis in New Zealand for the conferences and the awareness that it brought together around this issue. 
I want to thank the New Zealand Police and the Minister of Police because they have done a very very good job. In addition to apprehending people who have been perpetuating drug rape and following up on many calls and complaints in that regard the police have also done a very very good publicity campaign. I thank them for the leaflets the flyers and the television programmes that warn young people about the possibility of their drinks being spiked. The police have been extremely helpful on this issue. There are a number of young people who think that if they drink out of a bottle rather than a glass their drink will not be spiked. That is a little naive and I am glad that the television programmes have made that very clear. I want to thank a person who was a police officer when this started Angela Gallagher for her advice. She has now become a Crown prosecutor. I also thank former Hamilton and now Nelson lawyer Anne Todd who is a member of the National Council of Women. I thank them both for their advice and help not only with regard to the framing of the bill but also for the sharing of their opinions and of background studies that have gone on. 
This is one of those strange times when I am actually asking people to vote my bill down in order that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) can then take over and become law. I also want to thank my Labour Party colleagues and members of the Labour Party who made the drug rape issue a matter of policy. It was a policy issue going into the last election and I thank them for seeing that the issue was current and modern. I apologise to the people who have been victims of drug rape for the time that the legislation has taken and for those who have been hurt in the process. I certainly hope that by making clear the process of consent the law may go some way towards preventing the perpetuation of this crime. But I do also think that prevention through the police and television warnings is much more important than what we can do in the law which is to apprehend people after they have committed the crime and to try to console the people who have become victims of this crime. This is a crime that as I have said very much affects young people—particularly young professional people. As I think I have said before in the House often people who are a little more mature and who have been in relationships and then come back on the dating scene are not perhaps as worldly wise as they need to be. So to those who have worked on the prevention of this crime I say a big thank you. Let us hope that whenever we can we can prevent it from happening. 
I thank Martin Gallagher my colleague who chaired the Law and Order Committee the people on the committee the advisers staff and everybody who has been involved with the consideration of this bill. Once again I ask the House to vote down this bill in order that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) can supplant and surpass it. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition supports the voting down of this bill and congratulates the member on putting the bill forward. I think it is a very important role of back-bench MPs to bring such ideas forward. I am disappointed for the member that she has been left behind for so long on the back bench. I think that there would be opportunities for her in the ministry and the fact that she has not had that opportunity is disappointing. It is also disappointing that the Government decided not to adopt the member’s bill because I think it would have been very nice for the member to have a bill passed in her name before the general election because Dianne Yates will not be here after the next general election. The next MP for Hamilton East will be a young man called David Bennett who has put in a tremendous effort already since being selected as the National Party candidate for Hamilton East. He has attended many of the school prize givings and local events that the local member of Parliament has not attended because she was down here at Parliament. 
One of the important things about giving back-bench members the opportunity to produce members’ bills is that those bills do engender public debate and often Ministers do take on board a member’s concerns. The Government would like to give the impression that it has taken on board the concerns that Ms Yates brought forward in her Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill. But I draw members’ attention to the commentary from the National Party on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) because there is actually quite a lot of doubt about whether her concerns are in fact picked up in that bill. Members of the House will have their minds refreshed when I say that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) was the bill in which Mr Goff proposed to decriminalise some sexual activity of children aged between 12 and 16. He told Cabinet that he thought the public would support those proposals but when they were outlined to the public in a Sunday newspaper he quickly backed away from his plan to decriminalise some sexual activity of children aged between 12 and 16 which he had thought the public would support. Although that bill attempts to cover the drug rape issue it also proposes that foster parents will be able to have sexual conduct with their foster children once the foster child is 18 years of age. That is also proposed in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) and members will be able to read our commentary on that together with our views and concerns that Ms Yates’ comments on the drug rape issue are not necessarily being taken on board by the Government. There is confusion about the wording of that bill and we draw that to the House’s attention in our commentary on the bill. 
So we support the expiration of this bill—the voting down of this bill. We acknowledge Dianne Yates who has brought this bill forward. We are very disappointed that the Government did not see fit to proceed to have this bill brought forward and passed into law. I think it would have been great for Dianne Yates to finish her time in Parliament by having a bill passed in I think quite an important area. It is disappointing that the Government did not give her that opportunity as a back-bench MP. We will also have other speakers in this debate who will talk about our concerns that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has failed to address the full magnitude of Ms Yates’ concerns but we indicate to the House that we will take on board Ms Yates’ comments and we will support the voting down of this bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The work that Dianne Yates has done on this legislation is exactly the reason that she will in my view hold the seat of Hamilton East comfortably. I am sorry that the previous speaker went on a bit of a flight of fancy. He was very gracious for most of the time. I will not use the words “forked tongue”; I am not allowed to use them. However I do not think it was appropriate to engage in some kind of political point-scoringon an issue that is as important as fundamental and obviously as painful for a number of people as this one. 
Dianne Yates is a good example of a hard-working member who talked to people who did the work and who came with a bill to this Parliament. It was referred to the Law and Order Committee which I chair. I pay tribute to members of that committee in particular and I also acknowledge Marc Alexander the deputy chair of the committee who no doubt may take a call on this particular bill. I know that he will support me when I say that the committee gave the matter very serious and comprehensive consideration. However we came to the view that this particular bill would be better embraced by and absorbed—if one likes—into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) a Government bill that initiates the first overall review of the sexual offences located in Part 7 of the Crimes Act. It became clear that the issues raised by Dianne Yates’ bill would be better addressed in the provisions of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Of course we acceded to Dianne Yates’ request that we not proceed with her bill but take into account her proposals when considering the relevant provisions of that bill. 
I say again that drug rape is one of the issues that perhaps could have been put in the too-hard basket. I acknowledge Brian Connell who is also part of the select committee along with Ann Hartley Mahara Okeroa Georgina Beyer the Hon Tony Ryall and Ron Mark. I thank them all for the work that was done. As chair of the select committee I do not think that members will mind if I take the liberty to express that all members were deeply moved at a personal level by some of the submissions. We certainly were moved by the submissions from the Drug Rape Trust and a number of organisations that gave public submissions. 
We also heard some private submissions from individuals. It was one of those moments where quite clearly it was not like reading someone’s account in a newspaper or a magazine article or even watching a documentary on the television to have someone in the same room as us who was sharing very disturbing and tragic experiences. We also witnessed the incredible courage of those submitters and the wonderful love and support they received from their friends and family. It was the kind of situation where—touch wood here—one hopes one never has to be even close to having such experiences personally. However one is aware—again touch wood—that one never knows what life holds. I absolutely commend the courage of the individuals who made those submissions in a very very focused way and I thank them for that. I believe that they made a very significant contribution to our grasp of the issue because we are lay people from a cross section of backgrounds. I also accept that I do not know whether the submitters will be entirely satisfied when they read the Crimes Act or the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in particular but all I can do is to assure them that we have done our best. 
We certainly will be monitoring the situation when it comes to drug rape. One of the things about the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the bill introduced by Dianne Yates and our small contribution and that of the officials to them is that they have raised the awareness of the problem. I was reading in the newspaper the other day an article about some of the issues around the smoke-free legislation with regard to people going outside to have a fag or something and again having to use some tests to check their drinks and that kind of thing—the need for people to just be smart and cautious in a crowded pub situation. Again I emphasise that people should be absolutely vigilant. 
In closing I acknowledge the work of Dianne Yates and the incredible research she did on the issue of drug rape by talking to people in New Zealand and from overseas. I stress that although we are technically voting this bill down I want to assure those people who are listening to this debate and for the benefit of the  
Hansard 
 record we are purely—if one likes—absorbing it into a larger Government measure which I fully understand that there will be rigorous debate on. I suspect that there will be rigorous debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). That is good; that is democracy. Finally I thank the select committee and the officials very much for their work. I especially thank the submitters and acknowledge the courage of some people who made submissions. I again pay tribute in particular to the hard-working member of Parliament for Hamilton East Dianne Yates. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just received in my tray a letter from the Speaker of the House—and my point of order concerns putting the record straight—relating to a breach of privilege allegation that the Hon George Hawkins tried to bring against me on a matter concerning misrepresentation of an issue in the House. The issue relates to a question I asked in the House last week in which I quoted something from specifically the May edition of the  
Police News. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
RON MARK 
: I am in a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I say to Ron Mark that what I am hearing is more in the nature of a personal explanation. He is quite free to seek leave to make that personal explanation if he wishes but what he is saying is not a point of order at this stage. 
RON MARK 
: Before I do that can I just read out specifically what the letter said; I will then be guided by your ruling based on the content of that letter. “While I have determined that no question of a breach of privilege is involved in this case it is of course incumbent on any member who feels that he or she might have given inaccurate information to the House to clear the matter up.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member can do that by personal explanation. The member should seek leave to do that. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
RON MARK 
: The explanation relates to a question that I put to the Minister of Police last week. In the content of the actual primary question I quoted something and said it had come from the May edition of the  
Police News 
. The Minister in his answer commented that the quotation in fact had come from the June edition of the  
Police News. 
 Not being used to the Minister being right I took umbrage at his challenge and I challenged him in return. Subsequently we found that despite authentication having been done by the Clerk’s Office there indeed had been an error between our staff the Clerk’s Office and the actual question being accepted and tabled in the House. So I am just seeking to say that in actual fact on this occasion the Hon George Hawkins was correct but there was no deliberate attempt on my part to mislead the House. The question had been lodged with the Clerk of the House and the relevant copies of the  
Police News 
 had been attached to it but unfortunately the authentication quoted May instead of June. 
Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In addressing this bill what can I say. First of all I give my congratulations to Dianne Yates. She must be the luckiest MP I know in this House judging by the number of members’ bills she has had drawn in the ballot. I do not know whether records are kept as to who has the highest number of members’ bills drawn but I think Dianne Yates certainly has to be right up there. 
Hon Member 
: She should take a ticket in Lotto. 
RON MARK 
: That is the advice I would give her too particularly given that she is looking at leaving Parliament and adopting a more leisurely lifestyle. She might want to take a Lotto ticket because given the luck she has had here with members’ bills she is sure to win the big one. 
It was interesting listening to her speech. I thought for a moment that we were at an Oscars ceremony or maybe a beauty pageant; I was waiting to hear at the end of the long list of credits she was giving out to all and sundry who had been involved in research in promulgating the bill and in advocating the issue and fighting for it through thick and thin against dragons big tall and small a final pledge: “And I hope for world peace.” When that did not come it woke me up and I realised I definitely was not at the Oscars. 
Stephen Franks 
: Didn’t thank mum and dad. 
RON MARK 
: She did not thank mum and dad or the children or anybody. But to the victor go the spoils and Dianne Yates certainly has had a victory here of sorts. 
I say “of sorts” because her bill although it will not accepted in its pure form has been definitely incorporated as has already been explained in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Therein is a real issue because whilst all of us who sat on the select committee understood supported and agreed with the intent the objectives of this bill—we all accept that a dastardly crime is being committed out there; it probably is one of the most vicious and horrible crimes we can think of—the fact is this bill has now been absorbed into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which seeks to address a whole lot of sex crimes but more important purports that one of its main aims is to seek gender neutrality in respect of crimes of a sexual nature. But that bill fails at the very first hurdle and it fails—ironically—on an issue that Dianne Yates brought to the House in the form of this bill. It fails on the issue of rape. 
We on this side of the House find it amusing that the great PC party the politically correct Labour Party of the 21st century—which has got most truck-drivers rolling in their graves and looking for New Zealand First voting slips and membership forms—is totally incapable of putting aside its prejudices its sexism its female chauvinist pig attitude and accepting that in this day and age men abhor the rape of men by men as much as women abhor the rape of women by men. But oh no! Under this Government we have a Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) coming forward that touts as its main aim achieving gender neutrality in the justice system in respect of sexual crimes except that rape can only be a crime committed by a man against a woman. Is it not amazing! Labour is the party whose feminists come from formerly such parties as the Communist Party. They come from all walks of life and support the feminist cause—and good on them—but they are behaving in a most chauvinistic sexist discriminatory manner that befits the men they have long campaigned against championed against railed against and expressed pure venom towards. Men-haters of the world unite! Labour is there to ensure that men are forever denigrated. 
We know now that if a young boy goes into a prison and is grabbed by some big gang member or whomever—or a sexual predator if he is unfortunate enough to be locked up with one—and raped then thanks to Labour that is not a crime of rape. In the paper just the other day there was a story of a man who was locked doubled-up in a cell with another man and was beaten and raped. But under the control of these feminists these sexists these female chauvinist pigs that is not a crime of rape. I find that bizarre—to be kind to be charitable. I cannot use that other word in the House. 
Brian Connell 
: What word? 
RON MARK 
: That word—it starts with “h”. But that is not right; it is not appropriate. We will sit here in time and debate the Civil Union Bill and we will discuss how this country has moved on and we will discuss how gay people homosexuals and lesbians have a right to be treated with equality. In the next breath out of the other side of their mouths the females in the Labour caucus will say: “Oh no except when it comes to rape; that is purely a crime against us women.” I ask them to look into their consciences. On the other side of the table the Greens United Future and New Zealand First and I know that a huge slice of National’s caucus thinks the same way say that the crime of rape is as abhorrent to men as it is to women. In this day and age when the Government and people are seeking to have homosexuality—gay and lesbian relationships—accepted as the norm should they not be accepting that the crime of a man in a homosexual relationship raping a man is rape? If they do not accept that the question is why not. 
There is a huge inconsistency here. In transferring all the issues pertaining to drug rape into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) some of us had hoped that that crime would be subject to the purported aim of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) to make the legislation gender-neutral. But now I know exactly where the line is drawn. Now I know that when certain people in the Labour Party stand up and preach equality they are seeking equality for those whom they approve of not for everybody. They are seeking equality of justice for only those whom they favour not for everybody. If it leaves men tarnished and stigmatised they do not give a toss. I just hope that every panel beater every truck-driver every shearer every labourer out there on every building site who formerly has been a staunch supporter of the Labour Party wakes up to what we really have. We no longer have a Labour Party that seeks equality for all; we have a Labour Party with a particular feminist agenda that it will pursue come hell or high water regardless of what anybody else wants. That makes those people precisely what on the hustings they have criticised men up and down this country as being: it makes them chauvinists it makes them sexist and it makes them discriminatory. 
That will help us a huge amount at the next election as New Zealand First hoovers up those former Labour Party voters. I thank Labour very much for that. I look forward to the challenge of the next election and I look forward to our coming back here with a damn sight more New Zealand First MPs than we currently have because that is definitely going to happen. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Over the past few months I have been a member of the Law and Order Committee that has been looking at this bill and at its Government counterpart the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Along with my Green Party colleagues I am pleased to be supporting the committee’s recommendation to not pass this bill—not because we do not support its intent but rather because its purpose has been incorporated and strengthened within the corollary Government bill. When Dianne Yates first introduced her member’s bill I was concerned that it did not really go far enough particularly in the area of defining the circumstances around issues relating to consent. Ms Yates’ bill spoke only of consent not occurring when people are prevented from physically resisting because they are drugged without reference to other offences that might occur because a victim is unconscious for other reasons. 
 On the other hand the new bill that will come before the House for its second reading shortly I hope extends the issue of consent to include alcohol as well as drugs and to situations where the victim is asleep or unconscious without any intoxicating or stupefying substances having been taken willingly or otherwise. I know that Ms Yates is most supportive of this outcome and of the fact that the Government has seen fit not only to expand on her original intent but also to use this opportunity to update the law on various other aspects of sexual offending. I will not go into every detail here as I am sure it is preferable that we discuss the particulars of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) when it comes back to Parliament rather than tonight. However I would like to take this opportunity as others have done to thank Dianne Yates for her courage and persistence in getting her member’s bill before the House and for her sensible support for the progress we have subsequently made in updating the legislation in this difficult area. 
Laws around rape incest and other sexual offending are by their very nature particularly difficult to talk about. For some of us that is because we have been the victims of some or all of those offences; for others it is because of an inherent distaste for discussing particularly in public issues about which many people are squeamish and uncomfortable. However silence has always been the mark of the rapist and the oppressor and does not indicate consent in either public discourse or private relationships. For too many generations women and children and some men too have not been able ever to talk about what has happened or is happening to them. We have only to look at the recent trials on Pitcairn to see where this culture of suppression and silence ends up. 
However rape sexual violation and incest are not crimes that are now quaintly foreign or out of date in Aotearoa today alas. The culture of silence condemnation of the victim and self-blame is still all around us in New Zealand whether we like it or not. Women’s organisations and others making submissions on both bills to the select committee once again talked about how few rape and sexual violation complaints actually make it through the court system to conviction compared with the likely number of offences committed. They also spoke of the way in which too many victims even now feel so put off by the processes of police and the law and by the fear of what family friends workmates and neighbours will think if they find out that they never make a formal complaint. 
The fact that the law up until now has not clearly and adequately recognised the offences that occur when someone is raped when asleep or unconscious makes the passage of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) a matter of urgency. This has always been a particularly murky area of the law and I am hoping that when the new bill finally comes into effect it will strengthen more victims enough for them to feel able to come forward as well as encouraging the police to persist with prosecutions that up until now they have felt were not viable. I also hope it will mean that the courts take these offences more seriously and that our historically low conviction rates might rise. 
Ultimately of course I hope that the new law might discourage some offenders although I am not holding my breath on that one. It will not be laws on their own that will change an age-old culture that says it is OK for guys to take advantage of women when they are out of it. Trying to transform that particular mindset is something we will need to continue to work on where and as we can in our generation and in others following I fear. However as lawmakers in this House I believe we have a duty to try to do everything we can to improve life for all those who are and will be in future the victims of these age-old attitudes and behaviours. 
I feel honoured to be in Parliament as we outlaw drug rape just as I was honoured to be here when we decriminalised prostitution. There is a connection. Both issues are about empowering a group of particularly vulnerable people in society—predominantly but not solely young women—to take more control of their own physical mental and sexual health and safety. 
In conclusion I acknowledge everyone including submitters who has been part of working on and supporting this bill and the Government bill alongside it. Once again I thank Dianne Yates in particular for persisting over a long period with this difficult but very necessary reform. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The bill that Dianne Yates introduced appears to me to be a better bill and a bill more consistent in principle than the bill that is replacing it. The member’s bill is more conservative. I believe it is more respectful of the role of the common law and the difficulty that the law gets into in this area when lawmakers respond to emotion and try to make slogans or political statements in legislation. 
 So I am sorry to see this bill dropped because I think the replacement proposed by the majority of the Law and Order Committee is more dangerous to liberties and ultimately to respect for the law than what Dianne Yates proposed. Briefly she in very simple language tried to make sure that the law would catch people who applied something stupefying wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse. That left all the room needed for a court to deal with the complexities of those kinds of circumstances without directing the court to do what is now being proposed in the bill that the select committee has recommended proceed. That bill has a whole detailed list of circumstances deemed to negate consent. 
The problem is that those circumstances create a liability where there may be no fault. Ms Yates’ bill goes directly to the crime—trying to stupefy people—so that consent is irrelevant. The problem with the replacement bill and the reason I am sorry her bill has been dropped is that it then negates consent so that people who morally are entirely innocent and who do not even know that they are taking advantage of someone else’s act of stupefaction could be caught. 
We will no doubt debate that at the Committee stage of the other bill but I am sorry Dianne Yates was persuaded so gracefully and I assume easily to withdraw her bill when I think it would have been better left on the Table where it could compete as it ought with the product of the majority of the Law and Order Committee. If ACT had been represented on that committee I hope we would not have found ourselves on the side of the majority. We would have found ourselves with National New Zealand First and United Future in expressing concern about the approach that has been taken. 
I believe that once again we have an area of law involving sexual conduct whereby the making of fashionable political statements is seen as more important than retaining the kind of care and evolution in the law that is needed in these circumstances. 
The committee has been looking recently at another product like this of a rush of blood to the head. The changes to the Evidence Act in 1989 were made I understand in just such a climate of pious solemn concern—the sort of tone of almost funereal discourse: sadness and regret. Ron Mark mentioned that he thought he was at an Oscars ceremony; it was an Oscars ceremony without much joy. The attempt was made whether consciously or unconsciously to put those things beyond criticism or debate. This whole area needs a great deal of debate. I believe that the committee’s attempt to show its concern for the victims of these crimes—which is perfectly justified—and to show that it cared could lead to the sort of product we had in the late 1980s when we got rid of the requirements for corroboration and we empowered experts who turned out to be unreliable theorists to give what was effectively evidence instead of expert reports to the courts. As a consequence many of us have very serious doubts about some of the cases involving children’s evidence that occurred in the early 1990s. I warn this House against doing the same thing in the other bill in the same state of pious excitement. ACT will of course support the dropping of a bill that the rest of the House has decided will not proceed but we will certainly want to see a better scrutiny of the replacement. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.