Volume 609 Week 28 - Tuesday 24 June 2003 
Volume 609 Week 28 - Tuesday 24 June 2003 
[Volume:609;Page:6465] 
Tuesday 24 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The question was originally put down to the Prime Minister and I seek leave that it be held over until the Prime Minister is here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does the Government’s announcement that it will introduce legislation to provide for Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore prevent anyone from making an application to the Maori Land Court for title to the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The intention of proposed legislation is to give clear expression to the Crown’s ownership of foreshore and seabed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is also the Government’s intention to preserve the ability of Maori claimants to pursue claims to the foreshore and seabed compatible with the Crown’s ownership rights. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Prime Minister make statements giving the impression that the Maori claims were blocked when in fact it is Government policy that those claims can continue before the Maori Land Court and the Maori Land Court will have the capacity today tomorrow—even when the legislation is introduced—to decide whether there is customary ownership? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is the Government’s intention to balance the interests of all parties in this matter. It is also the Government’s intention as it is stated to look now at the detail to ensure how those interests can be reconciled in the interests of all New Zealanders. 
Tim Barnett 
: If the Government did not legislate is it possible that the court processes could result in someone being given exclusive title to part of the ocean? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Associate Minister said on the Holmes programme this morning: “What the Government should do under those circumstances when the law has not been clarified is that we are announcing that in principle we are going to clarify it” could she tell us what legal principle this is and why does she and others in this House who for years have been passing separatist legislation not fly a white flag and admit it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is not the real situation that the Court of Appeal found that customary use rights—customary access—to the foreshore was the equivalent of customary ownership so when the Minister says that the Government rejects Maori ownership of the foreshore but it accepts Maori claim to customary use and access that is a piece of sophistry and in fact what the Government is doing is agreeing to hand over our foreshore to a select number of New Zealanders? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No and no. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the Court of Appeal decision reflects the common law principles of aboriginal title applicable in New Zealand and as were applied in Australia in the Mabo case and does she agree that te tiriti creates even stronger obligations on the Crown to consult Maori rather than legislating as she proposes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No I do not accept that the Court of Appeal decision does what the member says but I do accept that the recent Australian decisions have in fact decided that there is no exclusionary use of waterways in aboriginal title; and yes there will be consultation with Maori in terms of working through the detail as to what legislation will be ensuring that everyone’s rights are protected. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the legislation that the Minister is foreshadowing how will the rights of recreational users and fishers other than customary users be protected? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That is precisely what has to be made clear. It is the interests of all parties. One starts from the fundamental principle that if there is ownership in the Crown then it is for the Crown to ensure that those interests—Maori interests as well as recreational interests and commercial interests—are protected. It is a balancing of interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Associate Minister seen the comments of her colleague Tariana Turia: “They want the Government to overrule a unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal.” and her similar comments made on the issue of oil and gas in Taranaki and could she please tell us what legal principles she has been informing her colleague about when she rises in this House and says that nothing has been done in respect of challenging a Court of Appeal decision? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If I understand the questions no I have not seen the comment of my colleague. The Court of Appeal decision related to jurisdiction and to access and that is not what has been challenged. In that process however the end point of the application to the Maori Land Court would lead to a private title in land and that is what was the concern of the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I am asking for a very clear answer to a legal question. The reality is that Judge Hingston made that an issue when he said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no let me finish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has not yet come to one. The Minister is giving an answer. The member has an opportunity to ask her in a supplementary— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker she has given a long extended answer none of which relates to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated while I am on my feet or I will not call the member again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well wait until I have finished my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well you can run a protection racket if you like but the reality is that I want some answers in this House and so does everybody else. We have put up with this rubbish for years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member does not leave he will be named as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I don’t mind if you name me Mr Speaker. I know what my name is. 
Question time interrupted. 
Naming and Suspension of Member 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the member. The question is that that be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rt Hon Winston Peters be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 106 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Question agreed to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Associate Minister seen the following comments: “This is a due process of law; there is no need for anxiety. If the claims of the tangata whenua are upheld there will no doubt be negotiations with the Crown.” which are statements made by Tariana Turia on Saturday; and did the Government consult her and the members of the Maori caucus before making its statements that appeared in public yesterday? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No I had not seen those specific comments and no there was no formal negotiation with the Maori caucus on the point of principle. However there will be extensive negotiation with the Maori caucus and with other members of the caucus in working out the detail of the policy. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the Minister’s statement that there is no exclusive use to waterways in aboriginal title will the Government reconfirm the 1922 legislation vesting in the Crown the foreshore and beds of 14 Rotorua lakes thereby dismissing the current Maori claim over the foreshore and beds of those 14 lakes; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No the Crown has made an offer to Arawa on those lakes and that offer is subject to conditions for public access and for use. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister then confirm that Tuwharetoa have legal title over the beds of Lake Taupo its associated rivers and streams with joint management of the beds with local and central government but that that legal title does not give the owners the right to exclude the public from those waters? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: If it is the Government’s view that the title to the foreshore and the seabed has always been with the Crown just what is it that she is going to be negotiating with Maori on and why has she already suggested compensation for a right that she says the Crown has always had? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Those are all matters that will be subject to negotiation. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did ask a specific question about what it is the Government is going out to negotiate on. The Minister has talked about negotiation many times in question time. She has mentioned compensation in her public statements. She made absolutely no attempt to answer that specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister might like to continue her answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said they are all matters that will be subject to discussion and negotiation. They have not been predetermined. If we had already predetermined it there would be no point in having the discussion and the negotiation and we would be criticised for that also. 
Literacy—Home Environment 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to help spread literacy gains from the classroom into the home? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This week more than 80000 students from 426 low-decile schools will get to choose a book they can take home and keep thanks to funding from this House. Government Book Week forms part of the highly successful Books in Homes programme that helps to get books into homes where reading material is otherwise scarce. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other initiatives has the Government in place to help to improve students’ literacy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Spending on recent literacy initiatives is set to rise to $25 million over 4 years as a result of the $15 million injection in the May Budget. As a result literacy development officers will be supporting schools where necessary to deliver effective literacy programmes for their students. Other projects already in place include the Literacy Leadership Programme the highly successful Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning and a lot more classroom and home resource materials than was previously available. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What policy or programmes have been developed to mitigate the negative effects of what the Education and Science Committee report on literacy identified as the most seriously detrimental home-school relationship breakdown which was the issue of transiency on which this Government in 2001 pledged to commence policy work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have certainly fulfilled that commitment. 
Treaty Settlements—Government Policy 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Is it Government policy that treaty settlements are full and final? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the 1992 fisheries settlement was “full and final settlement of all claims to commercial fishing rights” and that the definition of “commercial fishing rights” clearly includes marine farming why does she state in the Christchurch  
Press 
 this morning that claims by iwi for a cut from the profits by aquaculture farmers in the Marlborough Sounds were still being considered? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not have responsibility for that settlement. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. I do apologise if I do not have all the detail that is required to answer this question. However my understanding is that those matters on aquaculture are under discussion at the moment and decisions will be made in the near future. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that both the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements concluded by the previous National Government have ratchet clauses meaning that those iwi can have another bite at the cherry and therefore those settlements cannot be considered to be full and final? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. Certainly the previous Government did include clauses in those settlements. They have not been included in any settlements under this Government. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Do historical treaty settlements extinguish Maori customary rights? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No the treaty settlements only settle historical claims. They do not extinguish any aboriginal title or customary rights that may exist or have effect on them. Indeed treaty settlements contain explicit provisions to that effect. However under the settlements the Crown retains the right to challenge the nature and extent of any aboriginal right or customary right that Maori may assert. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the exclusion of customary use rights under the treaty from settlements will she guarantee that access to beaches and seabed in so-called Crown ownership will be available equally for all New Zealanders without distinction or privilege on the basis of race or ethnic inheritance; yes or no? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes that is the Government’s intention. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does she think her statement that claims by iwi for a cut from the profits by aquaculture farms in the Marlborough Sounds are still being considered does for investment confidence for the hundreds of marine farmers who have invested their life savings and what is she doing to try to create clarity for those important contributors to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am at a disadvantage here because I do not have the actual quotes of that statement. I have no recollection of making that statement so I would appreciate it if the member would give me a copy of it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the article in the Christchurch 
 Press 
 this morning in which the Minister said those words—that is that she was open to Maori receiving a cut from aquaculture farmers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: Taking into account Mr Smith’s reference to aquaculture and obviously to the Marlborough area as well in the recent Court of Appeal case—going back to Judge Hingston’s decision did he not make only a provisional determination that customary title may still exist but then he granted leave for the parties to appeal his decision to see whether they wished to contest his findings of law; and did he not say that further hearings were required to establish whether any Maori customary title did in fact exist? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I understand there were several appeals from the result of the original decision. That is why it took 5 years to get to the Court of Appeal. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that over the last 3 days she has seen fit to comment on issues of legal rights in the marine environment does she accept that the 1992 fisheries settlement amounted to a full and final settlement for commercial fishing including marine farming? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I repeat I do not recall the details because it is not within my ministerial responsibility. However my understanding was that aquaculture was in fact separate. But I suggest the member lay a question down for the Minister of Fisheries. 
Agriculture—Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
4.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: How can he justify placing a levy on sheep cattle goats and deer to fund research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Agricultural greenhouse gases make up more than half of New Zealand’s total emissions. To meet our international obligations on climate change we need to find a way to reduce these emissions and research is the way to do that. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Minister also recommend that the Government levy the Department of Conservation for the deer goats chamois thar and vegetarians that live on the conservation estate; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The way in which the country reports its emissions is done pretty much by proxy. We have to estimate total animal numbers. No doubt we will make an estimate for feral animals as well. 
David Parker 
: What benefits can farmers expect if this research is successful? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Research in this area has good potential for increasing farm productivity or reducing production costs which would be to the direct financial benefit of farmers. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why has the Government put out a discussion document when it is clearly not interested in discussing this tax and will simply “require” farmers to pay for research as admitted by the Minister during question time last Thursday? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preferred policy position in this matter was released in April last year and confirmed several months later. This discussion document asks for stakeholder involvement in decisions about what the holding company structure might look like what happens to the intellectual property how the levy might best be collected and matters of that ilk. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given that on 21 May 2001 the Minister said that the Government “has ruled out introducing a flatulence tax on every sheep and cow” is not his recent announcement of an $8.4 million tax just a marvellous example of this Government “keeping our word”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is indeed a marvellous example. Let me explain. Should the Government impose a tax on primary production methane and nitrous oxide—even at a marginal level even if it were just on the increase and even if it were $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide—that would cost $50 million. If we were to do that on all the emissions of the primary sector that would cost $370 million. In fact we are asking the primary production community to invest with the Government about $8 million of its money in order that we can improve further the productivity of our primary production industry. 
Dail Jones 
: How can the Minister say that New Zealand has an international obligation to the Kyoto Protocol if it does not come into effect internationally until 55 percent of the parties that are party to the protocol have signed and accepted it and if we take into account that the United States which has a 36.1 percent share still has not signed and nor has the Russian Federation which has a 17.4 percent share—together they make over 53 percent—and therefore the Kyoto Protocol is not in effect today and there is no international obligation; and will the Minister refund the money that this Government is illegally claiming from farmers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that the Kyoto Protocol has not come into force and therefore has not come into effect. Indeed it will not come into effect until 1 January 2008. However what the research does is improve farm productivity. If the member could think of methane as waste and ask whether reducing waste is a good idea that improves farm productivity and that productivity goes straight to a farmer’s bottom line. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that if agricultural emissions are not reduced then carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector will have to bear more than their fair share of meeting the Kyoto Protocol and that that will be a difficult transition for the energy sector to make that fast? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes that is one of the options. Another option is that the country pays. A third option is that we plant more trees. But none of those are quite the point; the point is that we can improve our primary production industries with this research and reduce methane. It is called win-win. 
Larry Baldock 
: Why is an agricultural research levy necessary when the new biotechnology that could emerge from this research effort would be easy to commercialise and therefore would fall within the existing purview of Crown research institutes and the multitude of Government research science and technology grants currently available? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government already invests just a little short of $5 million in the area and the private sector invests about $0.8 million. In the last several months we have scoped what the research needs are and that is where the figure of an additional $8 million has arisen. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given that the Minister stated just moments ago in this House—and indeed he has stated it in the past—that research is the way to go why is he not aware that at least $30 million a year is being spent by private sector research companies on research into better pasture and fodder-crop conversion rates thereby reducing methane emissions; why is he not aware that those companies are doing that right now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Our assessment of the amount of money that is going directly into methane mitigation is nowhere near that high. We put the private sector investment at $0.8 million. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Government’s proposed agricultural emissions research levy is already seen by many as being inherently unfair and contradictory and is this not just the beginning of the difficulties the Government will face as it attempts to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat for the member that agricultural emissions in this country account for more than half our total emissions. The Government is saying that it will meet all those emissions in return for which we invite the primary production sector to pay up $8 million to reduce those emissions by way of research. We cannot see what is unfair about that. 
Parole—Preventive Detention 
5.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he accept that the release of Michael John Carroll a five-time rapist of whom a judge said there was no alternative to preventive detention because he could not avoid the conclusion that Carroll was likely to offend again is evidence that the Parole Act 2002 is releasing violent predators back into the community; if not what evidence does this Government need? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Offenders who have served the minimum period of time required under law may be considered for parole under the Parole Act as was the case under the previous law. Decisions as to whether to release an offender are made by a properly constituted independent Parole Board which has been given by this House the safety of the community as its paramount consideration. In this case the judge who originally sentenced the offender to preventive detention the judge the member quoted in his question also happens to be the chair of the Parole Board that decided the offender was safe to release. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the House take it that the Minister is saying that Michael John Carroll a five-time rapist is now free solely because of section 7 of the Minister’s Parole Act which states that offenders must not be detained any longer than is consistent with the safety of the community; if that is so and if Mr Carroll reoffends will the Minister take responsibility and resign; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The member did not quote the key provision of section 7 which I will quote in case the member has not read it: “… the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” That is the guiding principle under which the Parole Board operates. It declined on five occasions to release the offender on parole; it decided on the sixth having regard to the evidence put in front of it that it was safe to release the offender. That is the board’s decision and I have no ability under the law passed by this House to influence in any way that decision. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can an offender sentenced to preventive detention who is subsequently released be recalled to prison; if so on what grounds? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is yes. Any offender sentenced to preventive detention if released is subject to conditions for the rest of his life and can be recalled to prison at any point not simply for reoffending or for breach of parole but even on the grounds that the Parole Board on advice believes that that offender constitutes an undue risk. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister regard it as a satisfactory outcome under his much-vaunted Parole Act that this five-time rapist Carroll has been freed when even his lawyer describes him as “perhaps New Zealand’s most dangerous predator”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I repeat for the member that the decision to release was made by an independent and properly constituted Parole Board. It made that decision on the advice that was available to it. Interestingly the judge who sentenced this man to preventive detention is the same judge who chairs the Parole Board and he could be assumed to have a good understanding of this man’s character. 
Ron Mark 
: To whom does the Minister believe the greatest consideration should have been given when five-time rapist Michael Carroll’s suitability for release was assessed: the victims of Carroll’s previous rapes and their families; the families in the community into which he was to be secretly released; the Department of Corrections staff who said he was beyond redemption; or the Minister's politically correct Labour Party appointees and stooges on the Parole Board who like this Government appear hell-bent on social experimentation at everyone else’s expense? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has just gratuitously insulted the Parole Board the membership of which I doubt he even knows. It is led by a former High Court judge— 
Hon Member 
: Who appointed him? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Party appointed him. The board comprised a District Court judge who had been on the bench since 1987; New Zealand’s foremost forensic psychologist; a former prison manager; and another person who is eminent in the public service. I do not accept his insult to the members of that board. However the answer to the first question is that the paramount consideration must be the safety of the public and the Parole Board made its decision with that principle in mind. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider that media exposure might undermine the evidently successful rehabilitation of Michael Carroll who after 20 years of imprisonment now lives a warped fantasy life masquerading as a soldier or sailor and spends inordinate time at local brothels; and would this not be a prudent time to remove the possibility of parole for serious violent and sexual offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly the behaviour of the released offender is a factor that will be taken into account by the Parole Board if it sees fit to recall that individual on the evidence that it has. With regard to the effect of media exposure I quote the Parole Board chairman Justice Ellis’ comments on this. He said that media exposure “may well completely negate the considerable effort that the police the Department of Corrections and Mr Carroll himself had put into his rehabilitation” and that “that could never be in the public interest”. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read the report on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning that states that Michael Carroll has been frequenting massage parlours on a very regular basis that he has spent vast amounts of money at those parlours and that he is delusional and living in a fantasy world; if the Minister has read that report can he tell the House who will be held accountable if this man rapes again—will it be himself the Prime Minister or the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To answer the first question yes I have read that article. If any of the information in that article is relevant to the Parole Board it will no doubt take it into account but as far as I am concerned wearing a military uniform for example is not an offence—as the member well knows—nor is being in a massage parlour though that matter is to be considered later. Who would be held responsible if this man offended again? First and foremost the individual himself would be but naturally there would be huge concern if he were to reoffend given a judgment by the Parole Board that he no longer presented any undue risk. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Can the Minister assure the House that his officials and Department of Corrections officials did not have anything to do with the finding of accommodation for this individual—accommodation that is surrounded by bush secluded and very close to a commuter railway station? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can assure the member that the Ministry of Justice had nothing to do with that because it is not an operational department. Generally when a person is released from prison and in particular when a person is released on parole the Department of Corrections will take some responsibility working with other groups in the community to find both accommodation and necessary support mechanisms designed to minimise the chance of that person reoffending. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I invite the Minister to recheck his statement. My understanding of the law is that it is illegal to wear a military uniform and to impersonate a member of the armed forces. The Minister might well have inadvertently misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister confirm that Michael John Carroll is a five-time convicted rapist has fooled experts before is one of the recipients of the taxpayer Lake Alice Hospital payout and has been spending that money at a massage parlour—it is said that he spent a five-figure sum there—and will the Minister confirm that once this person has spent that money and is again penniless every woman is not safe; if that is the case why has the Minister not applied to the Parole Board for Michael John Carroll to be recalled? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to the member’s first question all of that information is published on the front page of today’s paper so the member can take that as being the case—although that is not always so with the  
Dominion Post 
. In relation to the second question I do not have the role of—in fact I am statutorily forbidden from—interfering in the role of the Parole Board and that is properly so. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the Minister assure us that the victims of Michael Carroll have been notified of his release; if not will the Minister be prepared to contact them to ask them whether they wish to be placed on the victim notification register despite this person's crimes pre-dating the register; if not why do the needs of innocent victims continue to take second place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can confirm that one of his victims was on the notification list and that victim was properly notified and invited to make a submission. If any victim in that position wishes to make a submission he or she has the automatic right to do so. Under the law victims’ submissions must be taken into account by the Parole Board. 
Home Buy-back Schemes—Statutory Management 
6.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Why did she recommend that eight companies be placed in statutory management last Friday? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The eight companies were placed in statutory management following the advice and recommendation of the Securities Commission that the companies may have been acting fraudulently or recklessly and it was necessary to protect the interest of creditors including the families who had entered into the so-called buy-back schemes. These schemes are fundamentally flawed because they involve the transfer of title to the property to one of the companies involved in the scheme and it would appear that lawyers provided advice on both sides of the transaction without informed consent. This is a recipe for disaster and the Government had to act. 
Dave Hereora 
: Are the problems associated with housing buy-back schemes limited to those companies placed into statutory management on Friday; if not what steps should consumers take if they have concerns? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. It appears that a number of other companies have been operating these housing buy-back schemes or a variation on them. Both I and the Minister of Consumer Affairs are warning people not to enter into any scheme that involves the transfer of the title of their property to anyone else. A toll-free number has been established today—0508 Housing Buy Back 0508 468 732. 
Murray Smith 
: What does the Government hope to achieve by putting these eight companies into statutory management? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Statutory management may help to identify what has happened to moneys raised by the companies involved and also provides some breathing space for the families who sadly remain at risk of losing their homes. The advantage of statutory management in this case is that certain companies were put into voluntary liquidation earlier last week. The costs associated with receivership would have reduced the funds available for distribution. Under statutory management the costs are met by the Government. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before Dr Scott asks the question I point out that I have consulted her and that the question she originally submitted has had a slight change in wording. I have allowed the change and I have advised the Minister. 
Mental Health—Patients in Police Cells 
7.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why are mentally ill patients still being held in police cells for more than 6 hours and treated like prisoners not patients when her department issued a directive that patients must not be detained in police cells for longer than 6 hours 6 months ago? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is permissible to hold people in police cells for up to 6 hours to allow assessment. What is unacceptable is people being held longer. I am advised that the Waitemata District Health Board has reduced considerably the number being held longer than that. The police decision has seen that practice stopped altogether. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has nothing been done to avert this crisis caused by a bed shortage that mental health nurses believe will see potentially dangerous patients discharged too soon due to lack of beds staff and resources and will she take responsibility if any member of the public is harmed; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is incorrect to say that nothing has been done. This House will recall that in December last year I brought forward $2.8 million of funding to be spent to ensure there were packages of care in Auckland. I also brought forward $10 million of extra funding for Auckland District Health Board to increase the number of facilities it has for the whole of the Auckland area. 
Pita Paraone 
: Given that mental health patients are being held in prison cells contrary to the directive of her ministry are the actions of the district health boards symptomatic of a lack of beds an insufficient number of trained staff or a lack of an adequate monitoring process by the ministry? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is a fact of history particularly in relation to Waitemata District Health Board that mental health patients have been held in police cells. In fact it is the only district health board in New Zealand to do that. It is due to a combination of factors including staff and including resources—something I have been trying very hard to put in place to overcome this problem. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is it true that as reported in a memo to staff of 19 June the Waitemata District Health Board is actually continuing to rely on the use of police cells for sections 8 and 9 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and transporting patients and holding people where there is a risk of violence; and does the Minister think that is going to be viable satisfactory or legal in the long term given the police’s desire not to hold mental health patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I do not find it acceptable or desirable and in fact this practice has stopped because the police will not hold them any longer. The Waitemata District Health Board needs to get in line with every other district health board in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What resources have been allocated to Waitemata District Health Board for the delivery of mental health services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Considerable resources and I am proud to say that it has been this Government that has taken mental health seriously. In 2001-02 there was $85 million in 2002-03 $97 million and in 2003-04 $107 million. That is just for Waitemata District Health Board alone. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As Inspector Abbott has said that about six patients per month have been held in Henderson cells and today it was acknowledged that two patients had been in cells for 3 days each is that not a clear indication of a Third World mental health service; and if this illegal action has now stopped what is going to happen to those acute patients when there are not acute beds for them? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Part of the packages of care that Waitemata District Health Board has put in place is additional acute beds including new ones it has just agreed to. If this is a Third World mental health system it must have been a “Fourth or Fifth World” system under the previous Government. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 19 June 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Last Thursday I made an error in responding to the health Minister Annette King for taking offence at my colleague Lynda Scott for raising individual cases. I sought and obtained leave to table 19 cases that she as Opposition spokesperson had raised as individual cases in the House. That was an error; it is 21 cases. I now seek leave for those 21 cases to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Leave was given to table 19 cases. In assembling and counting them it was found to be 21 cases. I noticed that when the member sought leave to table effectively the extra cases the Minister herself did not object. I wonder whether we should put the leave again because the problem is that Nick Smith may not know which 19 of the 21 cases he should table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House agreed to give the Hon Dr Nick Smith leave to table. He did not table the documents in the time required—by 6 p.m. that evening. But I am happy—[ 
Interruption 
] I am stating a fact as relayed to me. However I take the member’s point. I will seek leave again. Is there any objection? There is. 
Furniture Industry—Development 
8.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What initiatives are under way to enhance the development of a design-based furniture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Following my visit to Europe and discussions with the Danish furniture industry Industry New Zealand is now engaged with the Danish furniture industry the Furniture Association of New Zealand local New Zealand manufacturers and New Zealand designers. The aim is to accelerate the use of world-class design within the New Zealand furniture industry with products made here under licence and exported directly to overseas markets. Already we have begun a programme to audit the quality of nine leading furniture manufacturers in New Zealand to improve their capability to form partnerships with Danish companies. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: How will the formation of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise assist in accelerating those initiatives for the design-led furniture industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is to be the one-stop shop providing advice for businesses industries and regions and for integrating trade industry and investment support. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will support individual businesses—in this case high-quality furniture manufacturing—to grow and develop so they can take on new high-added-value opportunities such as working with Danish designers and manufacturers. It will also assist them to identify investment capital and export opportunities. What is wrong with that? 
Darren Hughes 
: How did the Minister’s recent visit to Scandinavia assist in developing linkages with designer-led industries and companies and what regions will benefit from those linkages? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The visit created strong interest among designer-led furniture manufacturers particularly in Denmark who had no idea—despite many years of the wood-processing industry under previous New Zealand Governments—of the quality of New Zealand pine. The coalition Government’s leadership in both the design and wood-processing task forces has clearly demonstrated our design-led and added-value commitment to manufacturing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the answer please. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These discussions are leading to a great improvement in job opportunities in high-quality added-value manufacturing in New Zealand. 
Mental Health—Patient Care Waitemata 
9.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps is she taking to ensure people with mental illness are adequately cared for in the Waitemata District Health Board district? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Considerable steps have been taken. One of the issues constantly raised in this House however is the lack of resources in terms of funding. I have made available an extra $12.4 million of mental health funding for the Waitemata District Health Board in this financial year alone and a further increase of $10 million is planned for 2003-04. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister confident that the 2 percent pay offer currently on the table for psychiatric nurses and counsellors employed at Waitemata District Health Board is sufficient to attract enough quality staff to fill the many vacancies currently existing in the Waitemata area? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The issue of salary negotiations is a matter for the district health board. However I have been informed today that agreement has been reached with the Public Service Association on the pay increase and it now goes out for ratification. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has she been advised of any further staff increases for Waitemata District Health Board mental health services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have been advised that 20 fulltime-equivalent extra nurses and therapists will be recruited as from 1 July. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has the Waitemata District Health Board which has the forensic psychiatric contract for all of Auckland had crisis after mental health crisis which has forced the police to act in an illegal manner in detaining patients as prisoners and when will she as Minister of Health stop passing the buck and adequately resource Auckland’s crumbling mental health system and make sure that outcomes are delivered? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the member. I do want outcomes delivered. That is why we have committed the resources to ensure that the district health board can get on with the job. I am expecting it to do just that—get on with the job. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why were the 20 extra packages of care allocated to the Waitemata District Health Board as a result of the Auckland review given to community care rather than to acute units when the review itself pointed to the ongoing crisis in availability of acute beds in the region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is in fact incorrect. The packages of care in the Waitemata District Health Board are as follows: three additional intensive-care beds; five respite-care beds as of yesterday; and a suitable house for six step-down beds in the community and the board has agreed to an additional two intensive-care beds for North Shore. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given that the situation in the Waitemata area continues to deteriorate despite the additional funding and beds that the Minister has referred to will the Government consider increasing funding and taking steps alongside that to ensure that what funds there are are managed in a way that ensures adequate health and accommodation for all acutely mentally ill people in the region and those recovering from mental illness? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: My first interest is that all the money I provide is spent. What I think does help the Auckland region are the recommendations from the Mental Health Commission to have one regional organisation to coordinate and fund our mental health services in that area and as of this week Derek Wright the new director starts work. 
Tertiary Education—Teacher Standards 
10.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to recognise and promote excellent teaching in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last night the Prime Minister Marian Hobbs and I participated in the second annual Tertiary Teacher Excellence Awards presentations. Awards went to eight individuals along with two teaching teams who won in the “Excellence in Collaboration” category. The Prime Minister’s Supreme Award went to Dr Peter Schwartz of the University of Otago who is well known for pioneering a style of teaching based upon self-directed small groups. I should also note for the House’s interest that Dr Peter Schwartz is also well known for the fact that every year he memorises the name of all the students in his class and meets them at the door for their first lecture by naming them. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Does the Government intend to introduce further measures to support teaching quality in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we do. The tertiary education reforms place a great emphasis on teacher quality. Funding for tuition of students is going to include a performance element. We will continue and expand the teacher excellence awards. We are setting in place the tertiary workforce review and a review of quality. All of this will be maintained next year through to next year’s Budget. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What does the Minister think will be the effects on the quality of teaching in the tertiary sector of the decision to exclude postgraduate courses from the fees maxima when university academic positions generally require a PhD and doctoral graduates are having to go into the private sector to repay their student debt because salaries in New Zealand institutions are uncompetitive? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not expect a negative impact on teaching. In fact the Performance-based Research Fund places a high priority on postgraduate and other research students in the postgraduate area which will ensure that they are well looked after by their institutions. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 As this question is pertinent to the Minister himself and as he is not here I seek leave for the question to be held over to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Agriculture—Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
11.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Why did he reportedly assure farmers at last year’s Meat New Zealand annual meeting that the Government would not impose a tax on greenhouse gases emitted by farm stock yet has now proposed to introduce such a tax? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Because he has not. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why then did the Minister say at the opening of the Federated Farmers office in Christchurch on 31 October 2002 in my presence that farmers had nothing to fear and would not incur extra cost by the Government’s ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s decision was announced at the time that there would be the probability of a levy to fund research— 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh no no. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member believes that that is a tax on emissions he has become confused between— 
Opposition Members 
: That’s what he said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not on emissions. It is per sheep per cow. The member is confused between the sausage and the sizzle. I assure him that his income tax is not on any emissions he may be making. 
Janet Mackey 
: What contribution is the Government making to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2003 the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Minister of Agriculture and of Forestry will spend approximately $4.7 million on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research. The Government intends to continue that investment. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why does his Government continue to call farmers “whingers” and “silly” and is that the attitude farmers can expect from this Government every time they seek accountability from Ministers to simply keep their promises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I believe that farmers are part of the backbone of this country and it is good to see that usually they do not take their behavioural habits from the National Party. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Minister’s reaction to Taranaki Dairy Farmers of New Zealand Chairman Don Harvey describing the tax as disgusting to large-herd owner John Washer’s comment that Pete Hodgson had been reading too many comics and to Meat New Zealand Chairman Jeff Grant stating that the tax is overkill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that Mr Grant is a former National Party senior whip. I am sure that had absolutely nothing to do with the comments he made on this matter. 
Hon David Carter 
: If the Minister does believe that farmers are the backbone of this economy why does he refer to them as “whingers” and “silly”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that farmers have some whingers and some who are silly. Almost every organisation I know of has a few people who fall into that category. Only National Party members are 100 percent whingers and silly. 
Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Research Funding 
12.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What feedback has he received from stakeholders within the agricultural sector on the planned levy mechanism outlined in the  
Agricultural Emissions Research Funding 
 discussion document released last week? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The discussion document seeks comment by 1 August. No formal comment on the proposed levy mechanism has yet been received. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: When will the Minister stop labelling and insulting farmers and listen to their concerns rather than pushing forth regardless with a commitment to an international agreement that many of our major trading partners have chosen not to ratify? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have been listening to farmers’ concerns for many years and chief amongst them is how to improve productivity. 
Mark Peck 
: What level of funding has the agriculture sector voluntarily committed to research and to reducing its emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Private sector investment by the  Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium amounts to $0.8 million a year. 
Hon David Carter 
: How does the Minister equate the fairness of confiscating farmers’ greenhouse gas credits yet levelling a tax on their greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Farmers do not have greenhouse gas credits. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill for which Colin James suggested in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 a perfect title when he talked about the sneaky taxes we do not see coming. Indeed an apt name for the bill would be the “Sneaky Taxes We Don’t See Coming Bill”. This is one of a long list of the LabourGovernment’s stealth taxes that this nation has been subjected to. Even from the beginning when it started to raise the general tax it mentioned that but then it went on to the tobacco excise tax of over $110 million the alcohol tax the sherry tax on the elderly not to mention— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member; however the debate is on the title. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Quite right and indeed— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a moment please. I am speaking. The debate on the title clause in Committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause—does the proposed title adequately describe the bill?—and I would ask members to keep to that please. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you very much for reminding me. As I was saying I believe that Colin James aptly described what the title should be—that is the “Sneaky Taxes We Don’t See Coming Bill”. However there are other possibilities for the name of the bill and one that would be entirely appropriate would be the “Ruth Dyson Increases ACC Levies by 25 Percent This Year Bill”. The rationale behind the increase according to the Minister is that there are better ways to estimate the levy. It just so happens that the Government has discovered better ways to estimate the levy 3 years in a row. This year it has topped it off by a 25 percent levy increase. Undoubtedly the name the “Ruth Dyson Increases ACC Levies by 25 Percent This Year Bill” is also totally appropriate. 
But let us just look at the name of the bill as it stands: it is the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. We should look seriously at that title which encompasses injury prevention and what we do know is that while road deaths might have gone down marginally in the last few years serious and moderately serious injuries have gone up in the last few years under the Labour Government. It was quite clear— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Fewer people are dying. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That may be so. It may be because fewer people are dying but the actual figures are quite substantial. Under a National watch moderate to serious injuries were about 79000 in 1998-99. By 2000-01 they had gone up to 83900 and by 2001-02 they had gone up to 93800. It is a huge worry when the title ofthe bill focuses on injury prevention yet after almost 4 years of this tedious Labour Government we have seen that very serious increase in moderate and serious injuries in this country. 
However one other absolutely appropriate possibility for the title would be the “Labour Government’s Failure to Establish Relative Risk Rating Bill”. Because all the bill does and quite rightly so is spread the levy between the petrol tax and the registration. What it does not do and what this Labour Government has failed to do is acknowledge the fact that accidents are related to a whole variety of things and it has only that very narrow scope related to how much petrol one uses and to the type and size of vehicle. That is totally unrealistic and unlikely to do what the title of the bill suggests which is to achieve injury prevention because it does not give the signals to users that they should take greater care. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 In this Chamber we have tried to establish the principle that the title of a bill is meant to reflect the purposes of the bill. The title of this bill is Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. Anybody hearing that title would think that Parliament was debating a bill that would have measures to help the transport or the motor vehicle industry to lead them and to come up with an innovative way of how to prevent injury or to reduce injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents; or a bill that contained new health initiatives to be introduced to help people who are injured during motor vehicle accidents to regain their health. But actually this bill is all to do with enabling the following: first to “establish as a levy under the principal Act the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle Account;” and second the bill states that because the Government does not want to come back and debate other legislation to adjust the rate of excise tax while it is passing one piece of legislation to increase excise it might as well adjust another one. Everything is to do with increased cost increased levy on to motor vehicle users. 
Also as my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison expertly pointed out the interesting thing is that this increased levy of course is due to better estimation. All it is saying is that every time we come back to debate this legislation it is nothing to do with how to introduce a measure to prevent or reduce injury: all it says is that the Accident Compensation Corporation probably has developed better models to estimate how much more it costs for the long-term rehabilitation costs of claimants under accident compensation. So once again the Labour Government continues to say there are no ifs and buts the Labour Government promises there will be no increase in tax no increase in levy. We have heard that again and again in this Chamber. It seems to me that every alternate bill introduced to this Chamber has some sort of increased cost relating to it. I think it would be appropriate that the title of this bill should be very upfront and be the “New Levy and Increased Excise Tax Bill”. There is much to be said for the title of a bill being upfront so the public would know—they might even agree—whether there needs to be an increased cost. The public might even say that at least this Labour Government is honest. 
Simon Power 
: It would never say that. 
PANSY WONG 
: That is my point I tell my colleague Simon Power. The point is that the public would not be able to say that when they look at this title: the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. When they follow this debate in the Chamber they will realise that it is another increase in levy another increased cost but with very little effort going into preventing injury—apart from the fact that we know that the police and traffic cops have a quota of speeding tickets. That might be about the only contribution this Labour Government is trying to make in terms of injury prevention—that when the public want the police to investigate burglary etc. it is low priority yet the traffic police seem to have a quota to catch people who are speeding etc. The Labour Government should demonstrate that it is open and upfront and change this title. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
): 
 This is a bill that the ACT party will be voting against all the way. This bill is all about another tax grab by Labour. That is all it is. This is the third petrol tax increase that Labour has put on to the citizens of New Zealand. We have to say to ourselves: “Is there a good reason for bringing in this tax increase?” and the answer is “No”. The Accident Compensation Corporation has millions and millions of dollars in its coffers. This is a way of getting more money from the motorists of today to fund a surplus into the future. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labour Party is putting yet another cost burden on to New Zealand motorists. It is an unnecessary cost burden and it just goes to show that this is a Labour Party that does not care about families’ and New Zealanders’ rights to be able to get on with their lives in a proper manner without having all these extra taxes shoved on to them. 
The title of any bill should reflect exactly what the bill is all about. The title of this bill gives us no idea at all that it is a bill that will increase levies and taxes. A better and more honest title from the Minister would have been something like the “Motor Vehicle Account Tax Increase Bill”. That would have said it exactly as it is. That would have told New Zealanders that when they went and got this particular bill out of the statute book they were looking at a tax increase bill. If the Minister did not like that maybe she could have just called it the “Increase in Accident Compensation Levy Bill”. Again that would have told consumers exactly what the bill is all about. It is a rise in levies which is a rise in taxes by stealth by this Labour Government. 
Another idea I had was to call it “Another Labour Party Stealth Tax Bill.” Again that would have told everybody exactly what it is—a stealth tax. People do not see it upfront; it just comes on quietly and every time people go to the garage and fill up their cars with petrol they have paid this extra money in tax which the Labour Party wants to grab off New Zealand motorists. This is a Government that is anti-business—every New Zealander knows that. It is anti-business and anti-worker and I think it is a shame that it has to go about doing this sort of stuff by stealth. 
This bill brings in a 120 percent increase in petrol taxes. They will go up from 2.3c in the litre to 5.08c in the litre. Again I say that that is the third petrol-tax increase by Labour since it has been in power and I ask what on earth that party has against motorists—to keep on socking it to them with more and more tax increases. That is why New Zealanders did not want the Accident Compensation Corporation to go into monopoly control. A monopoly can do what it wants; it does not have to look after consumers. This bill is a very clear example of a monopoly saying: “Let’s get more money. Let’s grab more money off the motorists. Let’s do it by a stealth tax.” So the Government is raising money from today’s motorists to fund its organisation into the future. That is completely unnecessary. 
I say to the Labour Party that the title of this bill is a lie. It does not tell New Zealanders what this bill is all about. The Government has a responsibility to be more honest to the people of New Zealand so that when people go to the library and get out this bill—which they think is all about accident compensation and somehow about helping to stop injuries or rehabilitate people—they will realise that it has nothing at all to do with those things. It is simply a stealth tax on every New Zealand motorist. So I ask Labour why it is not honest and why it does not come clean. Why does it not put that in the title of the bill so that it is being open transparent and accountable? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The title of this bill is absolutely wrong. The average New Zealander reading it would think it was something about injury prevention something about rehabilitation something about compensation or something about all three of those attributes. In fact it is nothing of the sort. If we wanted to retain those references in the title this bill should be entitled the “Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (ACC Levy Increase Amendment) Bill”. That would be far more honest. I believe that the public would then have made more submissions and there would have been submissions from individuals. I think we had three submissions all told. The most comprehensive of them was the Automobile Association’s submission representing some 950000 motorists but average motorists do not have a clue that this legislation will come into being and impose another 2.38c per litre of petrol on them. 
This bill could have been called the “Increased ACC Levy Bill” the “Increased ACC Petrol Levy Bill” or—along the lines of what the ACT member said—the “ACC Motor Vehicle Account Tax Increase Bill”. It could have had any title that reflected what it is all about. Personally I see the bill as another attempt to slug the petrol motorist and I would prefer it to be called the “Slug the Petrol Motorist Again Bill”. Under this Government and under Labour in particular the petrol motorist has had a really tough ride. That party does not give the motorist terribly much credence at all. 
The vast majority of motorists are concerned about the rising costs of running a motorcar which increase almost monthly under this Government. The cost of fuel is now going to go up a bit. The last increase in the cost of fuel was only 2 or 3 weeks ago when it went from 96c or 97c to nearly $1 a litre. The cost went down a little prior to that but it has gradually crept up—when this Government came to power I think it was 80c a litre—to $1 a litre and this legislation will put it up yet again. On top of that the levy contained in the registration fee has been increased significantly by this Government. 
We all know that the Accident Compensation Corporation has some very hefty liabilities—I think to the tune of about $8.5 billion—but it has something in excess of $4 billion tucked away in investments. Although the corporation has been mandated to become fully funded by the year 2014—I think from memory—that date is not essential and could be extended a little bit. Certainly as the economy dries up a little and becomes harsher the average person should be given some consideration. We should not just impose things on people because we have a commitment to a date or as the Labour Party has to an ideology. 
Whatever else we say about this title we say that it does not reflect what this bill does. In fact it is a long way short of giving anybody the impression that it will increase accident compensation levies. When this bill goes through—and I have no doubt that it will go through because I believe the Greens are committed 100 percent to supporting it—there will be an immediate increase in the cost of petrol and this bill will give a blank cheque sometime in the future to the accident compensation levy being increased even more. The title should reflect that sort of potential action. The present title gives the distinct impression that this bill is about some form of injury prevention rehabilitation and indeed compensation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I guess the Opposition would not be the Opposition if it did not use every opportunity there is to jump up and down and make political capital when the cost of something goes up and to complain about new taxes. 
Simon Power 
: It’s called politics. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Of course it is called politics and that is what the Opposition does. 
The title of this bill is entirely appropriate because it is about what the money will be spent on. This is not a new tax in the sense of gathering more Government revenue. It is not a new tax in the sense of the money going into the consolidated account. It is additional money to fund the cost of the accidents that occur this year and if motorists want the levy to go down all they have to do is have fewer accidents. 
The Opposition members who oppose funding the full long-term costs of the accidents incurred in a year never tell the House which of the two alternatives to that course of action they would prefer. Do they believe that there should be no long-term funding for full rehabilitation of accident victims? If they believe that we should stick with the present situation—which arose under a National Government that refused to fully fund the tail of long-term rehabilitation of accident victims—they should tell the House honestly that they do not believe there should be full rehabilitation of accident victims. Then motorists could decide whether they thought that was a sensible policy. Alternatively perhaps they think some other part of the economy—some other tax such as perhaps the general taxation fund—should fund the costs of road accidents in which case they should tell the country that as well. Then taxpayers could decide whether they wanted to be responsible for picking up the costs of people who injure themselves in accidents. Opposition members cannot have it both ways. 
The Greens are supporting this bill because we believe in fully funding accident compensation. We are disappointed that there has been no progress since the bill was introduced in terms of shifting the whole accident compensation component off vehicle registration and on to fuel. That would make it easier for young people and poor people to register their cars instead of driving unregistered cars and it would relate the payment to the risk. The car that sits in the garage all day is not having accidents; the car that is doing tens of thousands of kilometres on the road is at much greater risk and the owner should pay more. We believe that the cost of accident compensation should be on the fuel not on the registration. The bill goes some little way towards that in that the whole increase is on the fuel but the previous funding remains with the registration. 
We would also have liked to see a firm commitment to extend this levy to diesel rather than—as expressed in the bill—just having an opportunity to do so. It is quite iniquitous that petrol users should be paying this additional accident compensation levy and not diesel users. Although the bill makes it possible to do that it does not ensure that it will be done and we have a certain disappointment about that. 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to raise a matter in the debate on this bill. I refer members to Standing Order 251 and to a whole series of rulings on pages 90 to 92 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. Members might well be advised to study the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings particularly in the context of this legislation. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that this bill is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I want members to read this bill and maybe someone who takes the next call will be able to tell me where this bill talks about injury prevention. I have read it and I cannot find it. So if there is nothing about injury prevention in this legislation why is it called “Injury Prevention”? That is why I refer members to the Standing Orders and to Speakers’ rulings because the title of the bill should reflect the bill. Well I cannot find where this bill refers to injury prevention. 
I read on because I thought that although the bill did not talk about injury prevention it would probably talk about rehabilitation. So I went through the bill. I read and I read. Maybe there is something in the schedule and I have missed it; that is a possibility. Perhaps the next speaker will be able to point me to where the bill talks about rehabilitation because I cannot find it. Yet the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—particularly the latter—say that amendments have to be relevant. In fact the rulings are very clear that an amendment can be ruled out if it is not relevant or if it is facetious. How can we then start off with a title that has no relevance to the legislation? 
The title goes on in its third part to state “and Compensation”. Again I read through the bill and I am sure the original legislation talked about compensation—indeed I know it did—but this bill does not. It does not refer to compensation. It talks about collecting money and it also talks about taking appeals to the High Court on a question of law. 
So this legislation does two things: it talks about gathering revenue and it talks about legal procedures. I would have thought then that if a bill talked specifically about two issues it would be named appropriately. The purpose of naming bills is so that when somebody in a court somewhere or a lawyer in an office up in Kaikohe or Kaitaia or Whangarei or wherever it might be— 
Phil Heatley 
: We’ve got lawyers in Whangarei. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We do not have many because we are good people in the north but occasionally we need them. The purpose of the title is for the lawyers or the people concerned to be able to pick up the Act and see that it is what they need that it will take them to the issue they are looking for. This title will absolutely confuse people. People who want to know about injury prevention who pick up this Act and read it will be confused. People will want to know about rehabilitation and what Parliament did on 24 June 2003. They will want to know what we said about rehabilitation. They will be awfully disappointed because the bill does not talk about rehabilitation at all and it certainly does not talk about compensation. This bill talks about levies. 
Brian Connell 
: What are they? 
JOHN CARTER 
: They are taxes. They are taxes by another name. I am sure I recall this Helen Clark - led Labour Government saying that it was not going to impose any more taxes. I am sure it said that on its credit card. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to take up the challenge of the member who has just resumed his seat in addressing this bill entitled the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. When he first made his rather elegant speech asking where the bill mentions prevention rehabilitation or compensation I thought that he could not be right that there was no way he could be right. I have to say I have read the bill which is quite short and he is absolutely right. 
 Under the heading “Aim of bill” the commentary on the select committee report states: “The principal change proposed is an increase to the excise duty on petrol sales to cover increased costs to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) of compensating motor vehicle injuries.” He is absolutely right; I am not disagreeing with him. It is not in the bill. I read from the commentary on the bill. One would have thought that the aim of the bill as stated there would be reflected in the purpose clause of the bill itself but it is absolutely not. 
When one reads the words of the bill itself it becomes quite clear that it is nothing less than a tax bill. Essentially the title says that this legislation is an amendment to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act but it is a misnomer. This is a new tax bill. It is adding to the excise tax on motor spirits. We know that this Government has already increased the tax on motor spirits three times. We know that this Government has introduced a new tobacco tax and a new sherry and port tax. We also know that it is legislating for a carbon tax and that it is talking about a flatulence tax and even a fat tax—a food tax to try to address obesity. Yes there are papers out on that. 
Of course when we go back to this election campaign pamphlet— 
Simon Power 
: Who is that person? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No one recognises her but I am told that it is an airbrushed photo of our Prime Minister. People often say: “Who’s the sheila on the front?”. It is an airbrushed photograph of our Prime Minister Helen Clark and no one recognises it so the member is excused. 
This is the  
We Will Deliver 
 pamphlet. What did Labour promise? It promised no new taxes and no increase in taxation. Well this is the fourth increase in the tax on motor spirits and we have had the other taxes that I have mentioned. We also know of the fiscal drag effect on income tax. We were told that only those earning over $60000 would go up to the 39c-in-the-dollar tax rate but with inflation 3 years later there are a helluva lot of people who have gone across that threshold and there are a lot of people who have gone across the $38000 threshold. That is the fiscal drag effect. So Labour's statement that no more than 5 percent of the population would pay this tax is no longer true. Up to 10 percent of the population is now paying increased taxes because of this Government—and the fiscal drag on income tax is the sneaky way that the Government has done that. 
The title of this bill sounds so innocent but the bill is nothing more than another tax. There is no better way to show that than to go the schedule of the bill as it relates to the title where we see the figures 36.2c per litre of motor spirits plus 8c per gram of lead. We know that a considerable amount of the excise tax does not go to the roading fund and it is the fungibility of money that is the problem. The Government is nominally saying that this money will go to the Accident Compensation Corporation as a direct levy but how would one ever actually know that? One does not know that. Nor do we know what the exact costs of accident compensation are. The point has already been made that we have enjoyed a reduction in the number of road accidents yet the Accident Compensation Corporation is saying that the costs are going up in spite of the reduced number of accidents. Does that not say more about the efficiency of the Accident Compensation Corporation and what it is doing than anything else? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I note regarding the commencement date that the major part of the bill is due to come into force on 1 July 2003. I think that the first reading of this bill was held under urgency on 7 April 2003 which reflects the untimely haste with which this Labour Government loves to bring in more taxes. It brought this tax grab in under urgency only about 6 weeks ago. As we reflect again on the importance of the original Act I suggest that surely more consideration was given to its commencement date than has been given to that of this untimely tax grab that we see this rapacious Labour Government presenting before us today. I compare it with the local government legislation on dog control for instance which the Government let languish for 4 years while there were 760 significant hospitalisations 60 percent of which involved children under the age of 18. Yet here the Government is after the money in a short 6 weeks or as fast as it can possibly get it. 
I guess that the important part of this bill is reflected in the purpose clause. The Government quite unashamedly states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish … a levy”. What is the difference between a tax and a levy? I think Colin James provided the answer for us in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 where he states: “ ‘A levy is a tax’ former Labour leader and Prime Minister Mike Moore used to say …”. That is what the Labour Government used to say but now the tables are turned. Labour is in Government and every possible moment where it can choose to collect yet another levy it does so. That is described absolutely clearly in the purpose clause of this bill which states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish as a levy under the principal Act the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle account;”. 
 But one of the other things that is clearly missing from this purpose is whether it is an equitable levy or a fair tax. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that element of it. Surely from this so-called reforming Labour Government we would expect some degree of social conscience about this but there is none. This is an unashamed barefaced tax grab on the motorists of New Zealand. 
One might think a little bit further about the submissions. Very few submissions were put before the select committee. Both the Automobile Association and Business New Zealand made the very important point that the Labour Government just ignores the question of whether a tax is an equitable or fair tax. In fact Business New Zealand said more fundamentally that setting a motor vehicle levy solely on the type of vehicle and the amount of fuel consumed is a poor substitute for a system that takes account of all risk parameters. It stated that the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Government should therefore investigate alternative options for setting premiums for the motor vehicle account that would take into account all aspects of risk including driver vehicle and road characteristics in accordance with commercial actuarial practice. 
This is just classic Labour Government doubletalk. On the one hand there is to be no increase in taxes. A former Prime Minister of a Labour Government Mike Moore clearly equates a levy with a tax. Here is the Government once again unashamedly grabbing taxes in a matter of a few weeks. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have listened with some interest to the contributions made by members on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Although I do not profess to be— 
Rodney Hide 
: What part was the best part? 
SIMON POWER 
: I think that probably Ken Shirley’s airbrush comments were the best part if I look back historically over those points. I have just finished listening to Dr Paul Hutchison. 
The one thing that leaps out for me with regard to the purpose clause is the fact that through this bill the Accident Compensation Corporation is able to take this action at all. The fact that the corporation is in a position to ask the Government for this or that the Government can make a decision to do this at all leads to what I consider to be probably the most subversive message in this bill—that is when one has a State monopoly one can do what one likes. It does not matter what the market says it does not matter whether motorists are travelling safely and it does not matter that it is probably the very people whom Labour purports to represent who will suffer the most from this increased tax. Those same people now pay more for sherry and cigarettes and if this Government has its way they will not now be able to have a durry in the Returned Services Association. That is an outrage. This Government is busy telling us that it looks after the working people of New Zealand when all that it is about to do in this legislation is to tax them more for getting from A to B while trying to earn a decent living and make a contribution to society. 
It astounds me that this Government has not got the message that when one gives an organisation monopoly rights abuse inevitably follows. If we had competition there would be no need to increase the levies at all. This is a tax grab and the Government is simply putting its hand up and saying it will use this mechanism to redistribute money between the peoples of this country. This bill will affect mostly the people whom this Government purports to represent. 
As my colleague Peter Brown has just whispered to me—and I will give him credit for this because it is not bad line—if people can insure a car privately why can they not insure the inhabitants of the car privately? That is a very very fair point. Let me just run through Mr Brown’s contribution again before he gets to his feet and no doubt makes a contribution in a much more eloquent way than I could. If members of the public can insure their cars privately why can we not see the occupiers of those cars insured privately? There is no good reason for this Government to allow the Accident Compensation Corporation under this legislation to get away with this type of blatant use of monopoly rights in a certain part of the insurance market. 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s theft! 
SIMON POWER 
: There is no question about that. If this Government understood half of what is involved in the model of competition in these areas of law it would have understood that these types of increases in levies are absolutely indigestible to the public of New Zealand. It is only because of the monopoly rights of the Accident Compensation Corporation that the Government is able to pass legislation like this. That will all change. When there is a change of Government all that will change because there is no way that we will allow levies to be increased under this type of legislation by virtue of the monopoly status of various Government departments. 
I listened carefully to Ken Shirley and various other members talk about the fact that this is a stealth tax. It is worth just spending a couple of moments on that. The original pre-election credit card that we all saw bandied around the country with that person on the front of it who is unrecognisable to most people as they walk around the street— 
Rodney Hide 
: She looked like a Hollywood starlet. 
SIMON POWER 
: She did not look like that when I saw her. That card specifically stated that there would be no more taxes other than the increase in income tax that this Government put through at the end of 1999. What have we seen? We have seen this Government put through a range of stealth taxes and this bill is just yet another example of how this Government blindingly disadvantages the people it purports to represent. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia to take a call to explain in English or in Maori–we can get a translation so it does not matter which language he uses—the difference between a levy and a tax. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia to rise to his feet and show us what he is made of. He should take the call for the sake of what Parliament is about and make that explanation. He should explain why Ngati Porou has to pay an increased accident compensation levy for its motor vehicles and why the Maori people whom he represents have to pay more money on their vehicles. Is it because that is supposed to prevent injuries? Is it because it is supposed to help with people’s rehabilitation and therefore they have to pay the Government more money? I do not remember Labour promising that at the last election. I do not remember the Minister of Maori Affairs standing up on marae around the country to explain that. I do not remember the “Minister in charge of Te Kuni Porkery” explaining that that would be paid for by more taxes. 
What do we hear from this Government? We hear a deafening silence. Government members are not even prepared to come down to this Chamber to talk to Part 1 the purpose of this bill. Did we hear the Minister in the chair speak to it? No. Did we hear the Minister of Maori Affairs speak to it? Did we hear any back-bencher try to sharpen up his or her practice in Parliament by speaking to this bill? Did we hear any one of those members stand up in this Committee and say this is not a tax but a levy? Not once did we hear that. I say to David Parker who is trying to interject that he should take the next call to explain that. He will say that when a cow blows off we can put a levy on that and it is not a tax. We can ask this great farming nation of ours who would have believed that? Do members remember the jokes that used to go around about what Labour would tax next? I do not remember anyone saying that there would be a tax on cows and sheep blowing off but this Labour Government is doing that and calling it a levy. 
 I look forward to the Minister of Maori Affairs who is in charge of “Te Kuni Porkery” being ready to take the call. With Brian Edwards’ haircut and all the media training will he take the call and explain to Maori people why they have to pay more on their vehicles because of “improved estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs”? What is improved about them if people have to pay more money I ask the Minister? How can the Minister go onto marae and say the Government has improved accident compensation so therefore people have to pay more? I say to the Minister that in the real world when one improves something the price stays the same. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’ll pay for your salary. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister wants to whack my salary. I am the man who is doing his job! I am the man who is doing his job and he stands up and tells the House that I am doing his job. I am the man who is finding out what is happening in his portfolio and he stands up in the House and tells us that. And when he gets stuck whom does he call on for help? The National Party’s former vice president! That is who is bailing that Minister out. I say: “Good on him.” I am very pleased that the Minister of Maori Affairs is being consistent and has stood up in this House and said people should vote National because that is the only way to get a Minister of Maori Affairs who will do the business. 
I say to that Minster that he should stand up because the Minister in the chair cannot and none of the Government back-benchers can either. I ask Minister Parekura Horomia to stand up and tell us the difference between a tax and a levy. The Minister should tell us why the Maori people have to pay more money on their cars and why this Government calls that an improvement. He should tell us why this Government and he in particular did not listen to the submissions that said this would happen. He sits still and does not take the call. Let the record reflect that. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It comes as quite a surprise that Rodney Hide would want Parekura Horomia to address the Committee on this particular issue a tax when Mr Horomia is not very coherent on his own portfolio. How could he ever be expected to speak about the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill? I would have thought that Mr Hide would go straight to the Minister of Health who is in the chair and ask her to explain to us the difference between a tax and a levy. I know that the Minister of Health is taking an interest in this bill only because she is enthusiastic about introducing a health tax. She is interested in introducing a health tax—a health levy. She has floated that idea; she simply wants to see how this accident compensation levy goes through. She wants to learn from the mistakes of the Minister who is in charge of this bill because she wants to introduce a health tax. 
I am also surprised about the commencement dates in the bill. This Government is so enthusiastic to boost up its coffers that I am surprised that this whole bill every clause of it does not commence immediately or as it states in the bill when it receives the royal assent. I am surprised that this Minister and the Labour Government are not trying to get this money in the coffers as soon as possible. I am delighted that the Government is not doing that; I wish the Government would put that off for ever. But I am surprised it has not done that because this bill is simply a money-collecting exercise. 
Clause 3(b) concerns me. It states that the purpose of this Act is to “avoid the need for an amending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty on the relevant fuel … whenever the levy changes;”. In other words this bill gives this Government an opportunity to change the levy at any time at a moment’s notice without warning the public before any general election and to slap another tax on the people of New Zealand who jump in their cars or ride their bikes. That is what it does. This bill simply breaks down the walls so that this Labour Government can tax and levy at will—and this is what the bill states: “to avoid the need for an amending Act” so that the Government can act quickly. The purpose of this bill makes it clear that this Government is enthusiastic to levy and tax New Zealanders. The Government is so enthusiastic that it is making it easy for itself to do so. 
Clause 6 refers to the rate of the levies. It adds subsection (4) to section 214 of the principal Act and that subsection states: “The levy payable … is payable—(a) at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations … ”—as one might expect. But then it states: “(b) in the absence of regulations for the time being in force for the purpose … at the rate of 5.08 cents …’’. And of course it also states that the rate can be changed at any moment—at a moment’s notice. 
So we can add this tax to the flatulence tax which we have heard about and to the tax that has already gone on Northland roads. I think it was 4.7c a litre was it not? I ask John Carter whether he has seen Northland roads improve since that tax was brought in. 
John Carter 
: It’s taking a long time. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is taking an awfully long time to see Northland roads improve since that tax was brought in. We can add this tax to the tax put on the elderly of New Zealand every time they just want to have a quick glass of sherry to the tax on Northland—the tax on road-users—and the tax on cows and sheep. If we add all those taxes we have a formula for this Minister in the chair Annette King to introduce a health tax on every New Zealander. That is what we will see next. We will see the promised health tax. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It will be a levy. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes it will be a levy. The member who hails from the north although we do not see him up there very much is quite right. It will be called a levy but it will actually be a tax. So there we have it: a road tax a petrol tax a tax on sherry a tax on flatulence this tax and a health tax. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I am delighted to engage in this debate during what is drive time for most New Zealanders as they go home. I am delighted that they will hear the shocking news—and this will be the first time they hear it if they have not caught up with the news already—that another levy is coming their way. How did Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance once describe levies to the public in this House? He described them as back-door taxes. That is what the Minister said. 
Rodney Hide 
: I don’t believe it! 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely! He described them as back-door taxes. There is not much “back-door” about this tax. This tax is right out front—5.08c. 
But what is of such great concern is not so much the levy itself although that is concerning because it is up 120 percent. What is really concerning is clause 3(b) which my colleague Phil Heatley referred to. In effect the Government will have the ability to change the levy whenever that is required. Why is that important? Why is clause 3(b) so crucial to this legislation? Let me explain to the Committee. 
The first reason is that this levy has to cover the amount owing. Why is it 5.08c a litre not less? Because this Government chose to renationalise accident compensation. The Government said that it did not want competition that it did not want the ability to have competing firms which would drive down the costs for New Zealand motorists. The Government said that competition is not a good idea. It said it would renationalise accident compensation and bring in all the inefficiency that one gets with a monopoly—unless one socks it to the poor hard-working motorists of New Zealand who are going home to their families in drive time. That inefficiency will come back to roost year after year as people pay greater increases in their levies. 
That is not the only concern. The second and probably most alarming concern is that the rate of long-term claimants which had been falling dramatically has stopped fallingIn fact it is increasing. Why is that of such great concern? Why does that make a . 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why? 
JOHN KEY 
: I will be happy to tell Mr Cosgrove. As the number of long-term claimants rises— 
Phil Heatley 
: Darren Hughes is on his knees to Annette King. 
JOHN KEY 
: Darren Hughes is on his knees proposing to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Health. This is ground-breaking stuff. I feel like an anchorman for one of those television shows—breaking the news to the country. I could be Paul Holmes breaking news. No wonder the member is blushing. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. I was wondering whether the Committee could have the Minister’s answer! 
JOHN KEY 
: Why is it important that the number of long-term claimants is rising? It is because the levy—the back-door tax being socked to the hard-working motorists of New Zealand—will increase if the number of complainants goes up and the cost to the commission goes up. That is a fact of life. If the number of long-term complainants rises and it is rising as we speak— 
Brian Connell 
: Why is that? 
JOHN KEY 
: Because we are back into a monopoly— 
Brian Connell 
: No competition. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is absolutely correct. So that is of great concern. But equally of great concern and in this respect I give a backhanded compliment to the ministry is the outstanding job it has done of managing the reserves—$3.6 billion worth. Last year the ministry earned 3.6 percent return on those investments. That is a tremendous return if we take into consideration the very poor investment conditions. Can such a stellar performance by the ministry continue? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Unlikely. 
JOHN KEY 
: There is silence from the Government and an “unlikely” from the Opposition benches. I say it is very unlikely indeed. If that return is poorer than it has been in recent years there will be less money to pump up the levy less money to help those wonderful New Zealanders who are in drive time going home to their families and less opportunity for them to defray the costs. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 There are a couple of important issues that have been alluded to but they need to be cemented in to be sheeted home. One of the things that— 
John Key 
: Did the Minister say “Yes” or “No”? 
Hon Annette King 
: I said “Maybe”. 
JOHN CARTER 
: What is more the young fellow is blushing in anticipation. He is going to ring his mother to see if it is all right. 
John Key 
: She has broken a lot of hearts in her time. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes he will have to watch that. It happens to all us young people! Shall we focus on the bill for a while? I have been listening closely and there is one issue that concerns me. 
Rodney Hide 
: Just one! 
JOHN CARTER 
: No there are a number but there is one that has not been mentioned yet and that we need to talk about in the context of this new levy. We have talked about the alcohol tax that was passed. We have talked about the flatulence tax which is coming up shortly. I think there is possibly the imposition of a levy on power. 
Brian Connell 
: Yes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There is something along those lines. Then we have the levy in this bill. 
Phil Heatley 
: In Northland. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Not just in Northland but across New Zealand—4c extra. But members should not forget that there is a new one going on as well—the 10c regional tax. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair could stand and tell us what all these taxes mean for New Zealanders in dollars and cents terms. The levy in this bill is a quite significant tax for New Zealanders in dollars and cents terms. It is all very well for members in this Parliament to talk about levies and adjusting the rates of excise duty etc. but people listening to their crystal sets will want to know what that means in terms of their pocket. This is where we need the Minister in charge of this bill—the Minister of Health who is filling in for the Minister in charge—to take a call and just explain in dollars and cents terms what the levy means per litre of petrol or diesel or whatever fuel people use in their vehicles. Most people do not understand excise duty; they are not sure what it means. They just talk about an excise duty. We have a responsibility to explain to people the impact on their pocket. I want to hear somebody— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: This Government doesn’t worry about that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the problem. That is why I urge the Minister to take a call and tell the people of New Zealand what it will cost. A lot of them will be listening to their radios as they are driving home in the congestion in Auckland. As they are sitting in their cars on the motorway they will be wondering how this levy is going to impact on their pocket. 
John Key 
: It’s well over a dollar every time they fill up a medium-sized car. 
JOHN CARTER 
: This is the problem. The good member John Key is happy to have this information made available. 
Phil Heatley 
: He’s done the work. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He has done the work but the Minister in the chair should be doing this work and telling people that it is likely to cost them a dollar a tank of gas for an average-sized car every time they fill up. 
John Key 
: What about the boat? 
JOHN CARTER 
: We will not get into that. We will just talk about the motorist with an average-sized family car. When the motorist pulls into the gas station and fills up the tank another dollar will be added. The problem is what impact it will have on the ability of parents to give their schoolchildren money for their schoolbooks for example. People probably fill up their tank about two or three times a week on average. So that is $2 or $3 extra a week and maybe $5 extra. That all adds up. In dollar terms in terms of how it affects their pocket where will they get this extra money? The extra cost will outstrip the increase those people get in their wages. 
It concerns me that on legislation like this the Minister in the chair does not seem inclined to take a call. That is a pity. The only response she has given to anyone was to Darren Hughes when he was on his knees in front of her—and she still has a smile on her face; I am sure the people of New Zealand will want to know about that. But I am worried about the impact this levy is going to have. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to make a contribution to this debate. I shall concentrate on paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3 “Purpose”. Paragraph (a) establishes as a levy “the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle Account;”. We have already decided that a levy is a tax and we actually have had that confirmed by Mickey Cullen so I do not think we need to debate exactly what is intended. Paragraph (b) is to “avoid the need for an amending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty” whenever the levy changes. We need to ask ourselves why the Government would want to do that. I suggest it is because the rate will change and the Government will not want the fuss of having to amend the legislation every time. It is my confident suspicion that the rate will go up not down. That is what happened to that temporary petrol/roading tax. That was the temporary tax we were going to have for 18 months. It seems that it has now been extended. 
If I had been able to take a call in the debate on the title I would have suggested that it be “Injury Prevention Compensation and Pilfering Pockets of Petrol-users Amendment Bill”. I would have omitted the word “Rehabilitation” because the bill does not mention it. The motorists of Auckland who are listening to this as they drive home as they sit in traffic queues will have heard John Carter and John Key make the point that motorists will now be paying more for their petrol because what happened with the last petrol hike the road-user charge was the money went straight into the consolidated account. It did not go into roading. I challenge members of this House to tell me of one project that has been started to decongest Auckland roads or South Island roads for that matter. Maybe one of the members from the South Island could enlighten me as to what is happening in that regard. 
This is simply just another tax; it is the worst type of deception. Do members remember the words of the credit card promises? 
John Carter 
: What are they? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: There will be no more taxes. 
John Carter 
: Levies are not taxes though. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well according to Michael Cullen they are. 
John Carter 
: Are they? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh absolutely He said that levies are just a back-door way to introduce taxes. That is what he said. Mickey Cullen has been here longer than me so if he says it I assume it is right. 
John Carter 
: What did they say on their credit card? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well on the credit card Labour said there would be no more taxes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should use the correct name for members. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh I apologise. Do you want me to take “Mickey” out? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should use correct names. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Chair for that advice. Michael Cullen said that levies were taxes. That is a fact. They are back-door taxes. 
John Carter 
: And this is a levy? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: This is a levy. So I do not think there is any argument about that. It is almost Bill Clintonish is it not? “There will be no more taxes.” He was not telling the truth. 
John Carter 
: Is that what he said? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well he did not quite say that. I think he said something like: “I did not [something] with that woman!”. But my point is: would one believe him? Would one believe this Government when it says there will be no more taxes? Listen to this: in the last few months this Government has introduced a flatulence tax and that stinks; a reserved generational electricity tax; a petrol tax; and an accident compensation levy tax. For the farming community around Rakaia and I am sure across the rest of the country taxes have gone up by between 30 and 40 percent. Road-user charges have already been talked about. Drivers’ licences fees have increased. And we have heard about the sherry tax. Those poor old folks who were going to have a cold winter as it was could not even reach for a bottle of sherry without being slugged. A customs tax was introduced. Remember we were told there would be no more taxes! Fringe benefit tax went from 49c to 64c. “Corporations can carry that no problem at all.” said the Minister of Finance. This Government has an insatiable appetite for tax. 
This particular tax would not be necessary if there was competition in accident compensation. This Government has renationalised accident compensation. It was not necessary. It is a very clear market fact that if one does not have competition then there is no market leveller and prices simply go up. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill in no way reflects its title because it is a tax on ordinary New Zealand motorists. Part 2 absolutely puts that to rest. Part 2 deals with the rate of levies the levy categories the collection of levies challenges to levies power in respect of small amounts of levy and on and on it goes to regulations relating to levies. 
We have indeed just witnessed a rare spectacle. It is excellent to see the Minister of Health here but it was somewhat extraordinary to see the member for Otaki Darren Hughes on his knees to her and one does question her motives for being here. As my colleague Phil Heatley quite rightly pointed out is she here because she really is looking at this bill not from the point of view of accident prevention and rehabilitation but from the point of view of bringing in a sneaky health tax? We do not know what her reply to Darren Hughes was but we are deeply concerned about it. 
This part of the bill is the one that deals with the rate of levies. It is quite sobering reading when one looks through the details. Clause 6 “Rate of levies” adds a new subsection: “(4) The levy payable … is payable—(a) at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations made under this Act;”. Well we have seen a 25 percent increase this year. What will we see next year under this rapacious taxing Labour Government—the very Government that stated on its “credit card” that there would be no more taxes? Yet here is a classic example of a bill whose title totally fabricates the real meaning of this part which focuses on how that gathering of taxes will occur. 
But I do want to dwell for a minute on the technical aspects of the levy-gathering that the Government has confined merely to either fuel—which is bad enough—or the vehicle which many people would view as also pretty bad particularly in light of the view that this Government has encouraged a monopolistic framework instead of the competitive framework that was brought in several years ago by the National Government and which very sadly reverted to a monopoly under this present Labour Government. 
I say “sadly” because when the competitive element was brought in we saw an immediate shake-up within the Accident Compensation Corporation. We saw greater attention to case management; we saw huge attention to early rehabilitation and we saw a great focus on improvement in the workplace. It was as though the corporation was suddenly galvanised into action to look at how best this insurance could serve the people of New Zealand rather than the situation now where we have a monopoly very much prone to going its own way no matter what. There are no checks and balances on it. In this last year we have seen a 25 percent increase and who knows what we can expect next year? 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is with great interest that I take the call and continue on with Paul Hutchison’s dissertation on the bill. It is interesting that the Accident Compensation Corporation is again levying the taxpayer—and a levy-payer is a taxpayer in this case. People who drive a car a boat or who ride a bike will pay more. Why is that? Why have costs within the corporation become so out of control that it has to look for more money in order to operate and pay its ever-burgeoning staff—the bureaucracy so to speak? That is the question before us today. 
The devil of course is in the detail and I can see little Lucifer right here in Part 2. Paragraph (b) in clause 6 states: “in the absence of regulations for the time being in force for the purpose of paragraph (a) at the rate of 5.08c per litre of motor spirit in respect of which excise duty … is payable under the Customs and Excise Act 1996.” 
Simon Power 
: Got it! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member for Rangitikei has found the reference. This time the amount chosen to tax New Zealanders is 5.08c—an added tax that will go to the Accident Compensation Corporation to spend on an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy. 
But that is not what concerns me most. I noted when we were looking at subsection (b) inserted by clause 3 “Purpose” that this Government is legislating to avoid the need for anamending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty. In other words it is cutting through the red tape. We usually do not welcome that but in this case we welcome it in terms of slowing down this Government’s move to tax New Zealanders and rape their pockets. But subsection 3(b) inserted by clause 5 wants to avoid the need to go through due process and one could therefore say that this 5.08c is purely arbitrary. However it is not only arbitrary; it represents shifting sands when it comes to levying and taxing motor vehicle users in this country. I say that by way of a warning to members of the Committee. They should not be fooled that the amount of 5.08c is set in concrete for ever and a day because sadly Parliament is seeing this Labour Government make sure that there is no red tape. On a whim it will be able to change that rate and tax New Zealanders even more. 
I note that the levy payable under section 213(2)(c) of the principal Act is payable “at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations made under this Act;”. I want to see what those regulations are because I am concerned that an even clearer passage may be cut in them to enable this Government to put up the rates at any time. I put that to you Mr Chairman. I see that you are raising your eyebrows and that you are changing your opinion on this bill. I will be interested to see you cross the floor on this matter. You know that rates for roading tax have gone up on a whim. You have sat in the Chamber until 3 o’clock in the morning and seen tax on sherry go up on a whim. You have watched the cows and sheep scatter in the paddocks as they see themselves being taxed to death every time they let out a bit of steam— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Part 2 proposes the increased accident compensation levy. As one who really enjoys using fuel I do not like any increases in the cost of the wonderful substance that keeps our machines going superbly on the road. But as my colleague Larry Baldock has already stated United Future accepts that the increased costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation do need to be met. We also accept that increasing the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving that—as opposed to increasing the vehicle registration fee. However I would challenge one aspect of the thinking in the bill that states that those who do the most mileage are those who might have the most accidents. I do not necessarily agree with that. 
However we think this increase should be absorbed into the total amount of excise duty taken by the Government rather than allow $785 million of the $1.7 billion collected in petrol excise duties road user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees to be siphoned off into the consolidated account. There is no guarantee that that money will be spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else directly related to transport. Clause 6 raises the accident compensation levy to 5.08c per litre but when we consider that 18.5c of the petrol excise duty collected from motorists at the pump already goes straight back into the Government’s coffers we have to wonder why the increase is not taken out of that amount. 
As far as the accident compensation levy is concerned United Future likes the idea of a tax being used in such a direct way for the purpose for which it was collected. Taking the levy increase out of the money that goes to the Government would support that principle leaving 15.7c to be diverted back to the consolidated account. Then at least a greater portion of the excise duty is guaranteed to be used for transport-related costs. 
Federated Farmers pointed out in the select committee that the diversion of 18.5c per litre of fuel excise into the Crown account was initially justified on the basis that it was required to fund the medical costs of road accidents. They submitted that the subsequent introduction of the motor vehicle account invalidated that justification—to which the Government replied that medical costs were not the only justification for the diversion of the excise citing a number of education enforcement programmes to which the excise duty contributed. But one would have to say that 18.5c for every litre of fuel purchased must buy a heck of a lot of educational programmes. In the meantime spending on Transfund was actually cut in this year’s Budget at a time when the Government is running Budget surpluses and the New Zealand transport infrastructure is in dire need of investment. 
United Future cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden already borne by New Zealand motorists when there is enough to show for the money they already pay. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just noticed that the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard looks as if she is prepared to take a few questions on this part. I wonder whether she would be good enough to guide me through the reasons for the inclusion of the provisions relating to section 162 “Appeal to High Court on question of law” in clause 4. I see that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chose to strike out the original appeal provisions and insert a somewhat larger set of provisions relating to appeals to the High Court on questions of law. I see that the usual leave provisions are there. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take a quick call and let those of us on this side of the Committee know why a larger set of provisions has replaced the smaller set relating to questions of law. 
 I am not sure what the actual difference is. I am not sure whether Dr Paul Hutchison who sat on the committee has a view on that. However if the Minister does not know perhaps she could ask one of the officials and we could get a bit of a rundown as to why that clause has been replaced and why such a large new clause on questions of law is in there now. I shall let that matter lie on the table and come back to it if the Minister is prepared to take a call on it. 
My colleague Phil Heatley referred somewhat unusually to clause 6 “Rate of levies” as a sort of Lucifer clause. He did make one good point in his 5-minute contribution and it was that what the Government is doing here is introducing a non-negotiable bottom line for the levy rate whilst retaining the ability through those other subclauses to raise that rate at any time at all. This is not a concrete provision that sets the levy at a particular rate; rather the clause in question states that in the absence of any other regulation increasing the levy the amount of 5.08c will be the fall-back position for the levy. 
Mark Peck 
: Which clause number? 
SIMON POWER 
: Had the member been paying attention he would know that it is clause 6 which inserts subsection (4)(b)—otherwise known as the Lucifer clause. That clause states that the Government is not increasing the levy to any particular rate. All it is doing is creating a bottom line for that rate so it is a fall-back position. It is not a new rate; it is a minimum statutory inserted rate where the discretion remains to increase that rate at any time in the future. The motorists of New Zealand are in a less than satisfactory position when this Government can by regulation simply amend that rate at any time in the future. I represent a large electorate and I do not think that is in the best interests of— 
Rodney Hide 
: And a good one too. 
SIMON POWER 
: —I thank the member—motorists around New Zealand. Nevertheless to save the motorists of New Zealand clause 11 has been inserted and I predict that it will be the least used clause in this new amendment bill. That clause relates to refunds payable by the corporation and I am willing to wager that it will never be used. I want to state for the record now that the day the Accident Compensation Corporation refunds anything to anybody by way of levy or any other matters it collects under regulation will be the day that United Future makes sense in this House and finally decides not to vote with the Government on matters of confidence and supply. The member should not look so shocked. I am sure that there is more chance of that happening—and it will be pretty rare—than there is of the corporation ever refunding anything to anybody. 
But slipped in at the end is that wee clause 11. Perhaps when the Minister is explaining the reasons for the appeal to the High Court being changed she could help the Committee by perhaps giving it a smorgasbord of events where she envisages the corporation refunding money to people under clause 11. I cannot think of one. I have spent my fair share of time with constituents in Accident Compensation Corporation offices and they are not given to generous refunds. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to answer our two queries. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Today we are seeing an abuse of Parliament. Legislation is going through this House to put up the levy on motor spirits and not one Government member has taken a call. 
Simon Power 
: Or the Minister. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Or one Minister. It is whoever gets the short straw and now Judith Tizard has the short straw. She is just sitting in that chair. They may as well be knitting because they are not coming down here to explain— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No that would be against the Speaker’s rules. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I did not complain about the Minister knitting. She can carry on knitting. My view was that at least she was doing something useful for a change. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Which is more than you have ever done in this House. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Ask the Minister Parekura Horomia who has been helping all these weeks with his portfolio. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I ask the member to come to the point. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point Mr Chairperson before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister in the chair whom you did not move on who is not allowed to sit there and interject is why will she not take a call? Why will not one member like Mark Peck take a call? I will tell members why. The ninth floor said: “Don’t speak to this bill. There’s nothing in it for us.” 
Simon Power 
: You do a radio interview you get pulled off half way through. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A Minister is called off halfway through because the ninth floor says not to respect Parliament. 
Janet Mackey 
: What about the bill? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We will tell that member about subsection (4)(b) in clause 6 which states that there will be a levy of 5.08 cents for every litre of motor spirits. We are prepared to talk about it. We are prepared to attack it. We are prepared to criticise it. Why is the Government not prepared to defend it? Why is the Minister in the chair not prepared to defend it? Why is the honourable Minister Parekura Horomia not prepared to ask the reason that his people the Maori people will have to pay 5.08 cents per litre of motor spirits? Why is that well-known petrol head the Hon Harry Duynhoven not prepared to ask why people who are petrol heads driving around in their cars should have to pay an extra 5.08 cents in a monopoly levy to the State? According to the bill the State has improved its estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs. What a load of rubbish! 
I can understand why the Government does not want to talk about this. It is indefensible it is wrong and it is contrary to what the Labour Party campaigned on. Why do those members not come down here to respect Parliament? Why can they not come down here and give one speech in defence of the reason that every New Zealander rich or poor Maori or Pakeha whether or not the treaty applies should pay 5.08 cents minimum as my fine colleague Mr Simon Power said extra per litre of petrol? Not one of those members will take a call. 
We have a bill going through Parliament that this Government is not prepared to explain defend or tell us why it has to go through. We know that the United Future party is against it. That is a good start. We know that the Greens will vote for it because they hate the motorcar. They hate freedom. They would put up taxes on motor spirits—$10 a litre would not be too much for them. I ask Mr Tanczos whether that is right. I think the answer is yes. He is still thinking about it. I ask the member whether $10 tax on a litre of gas is all right. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is that your suggestion? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says that is a good suggestion. But old Harry Duynhoven will not go along with that. I say to this Committee— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Who’re you calling old? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well Minister young Harry Duynhoven. Why does he not take a call to explain to all the Volkswagen lovers of New Zealand the reason they will pay 5.08 cents more for petrol? 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
:  
Last week I had the opportunity to talk in the second reading of this bill and I said I was absolutely horrified that the Government talks about how it is fair yet it is to impose a levy that is nothing more than a tax on business on those with fixed incomes and on the professional drivers of vehicles. And this Government says that it cares! Members should remember that Labour members said in 1999 that we should watch their lips when they said there would be no increase in taxes. What have we seen in this legislation? [ 
Interruption 
] It is all very convenient for the Government is it not? 
What concerns me—I mentioned this in the debate the other night—is that by way of regulation which comes in under clause 6 this legislation simply imposes a provision that the rate of tax can go up without it coming back to this House for scrutiny. The Government is using that technique more and more. Those who have sat on the Regulations Review Committee will know that this Government wants to bring in by stealth all these taxes—no scrutiny by Parliament—and it does that by way of regulation. If we look at clause 6—Simon Power and other speakers mentioned this but I have not heard any Government speakers stand up and defend it—which relates to the rate of levies we see it states that the rate of the levy will go up from 2.3c to 5.08c per litre. 
Rodney Hide 
: How much? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: To 5.08c per litre. That is a 120 percent increase. How can the Government justify a 120 percent increase from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre? That is absolutely disgraceful. 
This Government will hit all those people who are on fixed incomes. They have no way to recoup this tax. They will pay for this accident compensation levy to swell the coffers so the Accident Compensation Corporation will be able to pay for the accidents. Why is the 18c per litre that is collected now and goes into the consolidated account—this came up in an earlier debate—not going towards the accidents that the Accident Compensation Corporation has to account for? We are paying for that now in the registration of our vehicles. We are already paying it there and it has gone into the big fund. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member over there on the Government benches wants to stand up and defend that I would be really interested to know what he has to say. I know that in his electorate in Invercargill all the people who need to drive vehicles will be carrying the can on this levy. Maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard can take a call on this measure because I find it quite disgraceful and unacceptable that we have this huge increase in compliance costs. Here it is—an increase of 120 percent with no justification for that. 
I wonder why at this stage diesel is not included. I know that diesel in the long term will be included but why do we not have diesel in the equation here? It will not be included at this stage; it is not subject to an excise duty. We say that if the Government is to be fair— 
Brian Connell 
: Ask Harry Duynhoven. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes the Minister over there on the Government benches might take a call. Why are we not including diesel at this present time? Why did the Government miss it out? We have a section of the community that has no way to recover these costs. If we look at the professional drivers we see that those people because of the nature of their work and the training that they have are not the ones who have the accidents—yet we are hitting those sorts of people with a 120 percent increase in the levy. I find that quite unacceptable. [ 
Interruption 
] It is. It is a 120 percent increase. Putting up a 2.3c per litre levy to 5.08c per litre—that is a 120 percent increase. 
Rodney Hide 
: They call that an improvement! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes that is right. What about these high compliance costs and regulatory regimes? If we look at this measure we see it is an extra 3c per litre and there is no chance of those people being able to recoup that. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Consequential amendments 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am a little perplexed when I look through Part 3—in fact at all the bill. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and assist me. As I look through it I cannot see any reference at all to rehabilitation. I understand the title of the bill is the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill but I cannot see any reference to rehabilitation. That is a serious matter and maybe it is just a drafting error. I think that the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard should take a call and try to avert an error from taking place. Once this bill is enacted that will be the way it is. I leave that for your attention Mr Chairman. 
In particular I want to look at clause 13(1). I draw members’ attention to the Customs and Excise Act being amended so that “levies imposed by section 213(2)(c) of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001” are inserted in the definition of “duty”. There is no way that one can read that and not say it is a tax. I ask the Committee this: when is a duty not a tax when is a levy not a tax and when is a tax not a levy? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a very good question. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What’s the answer? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well Michael Cullen gave the answer to the House some time ago. He said that levies were just a back-door way of introducing taxes. 
People in the Government have said that this increased levy is just a small matter. As Mr Tisch has rightly pointed out the increase from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre equates to a 120 percent increase. People who are listening to this debate out there might just say 2c or 3c a litre is not very much. But when we put it in dollar terms we find it adds up to approximately $155 million. The mums and dads out there are the ones who will be hit with this levy the hardest because they are on fixed incomes. They will not have the ability to change their incomes to pay for this increase. This is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. We have just a little bit more on a little bit more on a little bit more until we reach a point where the levy is no longer sustainable. 
 I ask whether the increase is necessary. The answer clearly is no. If there was competition in accident compensation this bill would not be necessary. I challenge members on the Government side of the Chamber. Mr Peck is calling out. He is a guy who has a lot to say so maybe he will get on his feet take a call and explain in 5 minutes or so to this Committee why it is necessary to have a $155 million increase in taxation under the guise of a levy. I challenge Mr Peck to do that. 
Mark Peck 
: I am a big fella. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I wish Mr Peck would sit down when he calls out. Oh I am sorry; he is sitting down. I apologise to him. 
Does the Minister think that Kiwis are idiots? I want to pose that question to this Committee. Does he really think that the people of New Zealand will not recognise tax increases when he calls them levies? “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalised robbery.” is a quote from Calvin Coolidge a former US President. “The reward of energy enterprise and thrift is taxes.” is another quote this time from William Feather a US author. I think the people of New Zealand need to understand that point. This Government is hell-bent on attacking people in this country—the mums and dads who cannot do anything to change their incomes when taxes are arbitrarily introduced. I tell the member to sit down because I was taking a deep breath and the next point is important. 
If the money was going where it is intended it should go I would be more relaxed about this legislation. But I say to the members of this Committee—and they may take issue with this if they like—that I do not have any faith in that. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just one question—the Minister in the chair has indicated to me she has an answer to it—about Part 3 and it is in respect of clause 13(2) which states: “Section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is repealed.” Just happening to have a copy of that Act on hand I notice that in my version of this statute which is annotated to 1 January 2003 there is no section 75A— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That can’t be right. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I do not know why that is so I ask the Minister whether I am right. I could be wrong; that has happened. I ask the Minister to take a call because if there is indeed a mistake in the annotation then there— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not allowed to. 
SIMON POWER 
: The whip interjects but this is quite an important point: either the annotated statutes in the lobbies are all wrong or the bill is wrong. So one of those two things has to get the attention of the Minister reasonably swiftly so that she can explain to the Committee why all the statutes in the lobbies are wrong— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
SIMON POWER 
: —it is a good question because it is quite a serious question—or alternatively why the drafting of this small wee bill “Lucifer clause” and all refers to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. By my reading of the statute annotated to 1 January 2003 that section does not exist. There is a new section 73(2A) in the Act and a new section 73(5) but there is no section 75A. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Whose fault? 
SIMON POWER 
: This is what happens. The Hon Harry Duynhoven as I know is pretty concerned about procedure generally speaking and likes to get things right—to dot his i’s and cross his t’s. I can tell that beneath the mirth on his face he is concerned that we are seeing here a legislative process that requires a Minister to get up and explain to the people of New Zealand how this came about. Most people who looked at Part 3 would have thought the amendments were inconsequential but they are quite consequential when we find that bits of them are wrong or missing. I ask the Minister in the interests of clarifying this issue for the Committee whether all the annotated statutes in the lobbies are wrong or whether the drafting of this amendment bill is wrong. As members of the Committee I think we are here at least to facilitate the passage of this legislation in a constructive way so that—God forbid—we do not leave the judiciary to interpret this stuff. Let me now ask the Minister whether she will now take a call and explain to the Committee exactly how this hiccup occurred. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
:  
I assure the Committee that section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act does exist. I have already asked the Clerk to take the matter up with the firm doing the annotation because members must obviously have correct legislation available to them. Section 75A was inserted as from 1 April 2002 by section 337(1) of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. It is absolutely clear that that provision relates to the levy payable and I would happily provide evidence to the member that it clearly exists. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You can see the quandary that we are now in when trying to debate the accuracy of these clauses. I have no reason to question the Minister’s word on this issue but clearly the annotations of the statutes in the lobbies are wrong. That raises a number of serious concerns not the least of which is that members in this Parliament are entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the annotations contained in the volumes in the lobbies of the Chamber. Members in the Committee who are debating various clauses in various bills could be—frankly—misleading the public over issues they are debating if those statutes are not correctly annotated. I note the Minister’s comments that she is prepared to follow this matter up with those people who are responsible for that annotation. Mr Chairman I ask for your view on that but I also ask the Minister—and this may be slightly out of order for which I apologise—to table a copy of that section so that the rest of the Committee has access to it; otherwise we are in a situation in which we are not dealing with accurate information. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the relevant page containing section 75A in Part 6 “Duties” from the copy of the Act—Brooker's Statutes of New Zealand Customs and Excise Act 1996—provided to me by the officials which they had from brookers.co.nz. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we are in a predicament in this case. Although the copy of the legislation that the Minister has which her advisers have provided may well be right—and I am not questioning its validity—Mr Power has made the point that the statutes on which we rely and that are the means by which we can check references in this debate have not been forthcoming. I believe that the question should lie on the Table and that this debate should be adjourned. We cannot use the statutes as the highest document of authority the means by which we can check validity and can check off sections we are debating. I seek leave of the Committee that this debate lie on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for making— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have sought leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 182: “A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future sitting.” We have a situation in which the information has been tabled and copies have been provided. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt you—I would certainly not think that I am known for that sort of thing—but the member has sought leave for the matter to be put. My understanding of Standing Orders is that in that environment the question has to be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have read out Standing Order 182. The member cannot move that the House adjourn. [ 
Interruption 
] Will the member just hang on? Members can move that we report progress. That is an entirely different matter and can be done only on a call. I am going to call Dr Paul Hutchison now to give his 5-minute dissertation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In view of the matters that we have just heard I move that the House report progress on this bill given that we have a difficulty with clause 13(2). 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has actually called a point of order. He cannot do that through a point of order. He must do that when he is called; as part of his speech he can ask that progress be reported. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. He did go for the call and you called him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: He started and he has moved that the House report progress. He is doing what you suggested he do and he is in line with your instructions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought he was doing it on a point of order. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order I think my colleague Lindsay Tisch is quite right. You suggested that the only thing we could do to draw attention to this matter was to have progress reported. I am moving that that happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I clarify why the member is seeking this? We need to be clear. Are you seeking to report progress to get the Speaker’s ruling? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order it is consequent upon your suggestion that because we could not do this through a point of order and could do it only through a member of the Committee calling for progress to be reported. I am doing it purely on your suggestion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when my colleague Lindsay Tisch sought to have the matter lie on the Table you denied him the opportunity to do that because of Standing Order 182 and that is the reason my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison sought leave to report progress in order that the issue that Lindsay Tisch raised could be considered by the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are the members seeking to report progress to obtain a Speaker’s ruling or just to report progress? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We want a Speaker’s ruling. If I just go back one step you may recall that I sought leave for the debate to lie on the Table and you said that under Standing Order 182 we could not and I accept that. I have no difficulty with that. You then went on to say that if we wanted to pursue this further someone would need to take a call which my colleague did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept what the member is saying. I am now going to put the question that the Committee report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want clarification. We still have much to speak about in Part 3 and also on the schedules. I want assurance from you that the debate will not be curtailed because we are reporting progress. There is still much to be debated in Part 3 and the schedules and with the process you are going through now I want to be assured that we still have that opportunity to continue the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that if we get the Speaker’s ruling we can then move back to the debate. I am now going to put the question. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We in New Zealand First have not said much. Are we moving under Standing Order 183? If we are all we should be seeking is to move that the Committee report progress full stop not “to get a Speaker’s ruling”. That is a different motion. It is either one or the other not a hybrid and I ask whether the point could be clarified that Dr Hutchison is actually just seeking that the Committee report progress full stop. The additional words “for a Speaker’s ruling” are not required. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All right. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We agree with Dail Jones. That is the procedure we would like to see followed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We find ourselves on this side of the Chamber in a predicament about the— 
Jill Pettis 
: With the poll vote that member has I would too. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am speaking on a point of order and the member is interjecting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order while a point of order is going on! The member should know that it is certainly unparliamentary to interject when someone is making a point of order. Would the member please be silent so I can hear. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We find ourselves in a predicament. The statutes that we rely on in the lobbies are incorrect. The Minister has tabled the correct statutes from the advisers and we accept that but we have to seek out our own definitions and understanding of what the statutes mean. If they are incorrect I am seeking a ruling on whether this debate can continue. Reluctantly the only way is to ask that the Speaker be recalled to rule on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I suggest to the member that the document has been tabled copies have been provided and there is no reason that we should not proceed with the debate. Isuggest to the member that he might like to reconsider. 
Phil Heatley 
: I just want to convey to you the gravity of the situation in the sense that if the highest court in the land—and I believe Parliament is the highest court in the land—has access to incorrect statutes and we take the Minister’s word for that every other court in the land such as district courts and high courts and every legal library might be in the same situation. We want to establish whether the highest court in the land has the correct statutes and if they are incorrect what we are going to do about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Is he asking that the Speaker be recalled? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Some confusion has arisen over a provision to do with the actual workings of the bill. The Minister has tabled the necessary parts to the bill for members to look at but members consider that that is not sufficient. They have therefore sought your ruling on this particular aspect of the legislation. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some guidance from you. When we were debating this issue the part of the bill that specifically referred to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act was identified as having been repealed. When I went to that section in this volume of the statute book from the Noes lobby which has been annotated until 1 January 2003 it became clear that no reference to a section 75A was contained in that volume. I then sought assistance from the Minister who sought assistance from the officials and she was then able to separately table section 75A relating to the clause in question. The difficulty that my colleagues and I now find ourselves in is in respect of the reliability of those statutes held in the lobbies when we are debating quite detailed issues—such as the clauses brought about by way of repeal and amendment in the bills before the House. Your assistance on resolving that issue would be greatly appreciated. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Power did bring this matter to my attention. I sought advice from the officials and they were able to provide me with a copy of the legislation including section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. I have also provided the copy of the legislation from the Government caucus room which is indeed correctly annotated. So although there is obviously some mistake in the annotation of the statute book held in the Opposition lobby I have at least two copies of the correctly annotated amendments that were made to the Customs and Excise Act. I have also laid a copy of those on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. Hard copies of statutes are annotated from time to time. If there is an error in a particular volume it is unfortunate and it will be investigated but members have had notice of this Committee stage since Thursday and have had an opportunity to conduct research. There is no reason that the Committee stage cannot continue. 
In Committee 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain irony about Part 3 being called “Consequential amendments” because clearly here is a situation where my colleague Simon Power has noted an error that has taken away a lot of the consistency in terms of the true relevance of this bill. 
The legislative history of this bill is one of absolutely untimely rush. We saw the tax grab introduced on 7 April 2003 and here we are 6 weeks later seeing the sort of mistake that this Labour Government is likely to make—and has made—because of the untimely haste with which it goes about grabbing levies from the New Zealandpublic. It is just an absolutely classic reflection of its inability to scrutinise things carefully and to ensure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. This is undoubtedly a classic example of the Labour Government’s lack of concentration on detail and its untimely haste in taking levies from the New Zealand public. The Labour Government is on form once again. After all we heard earlier in this debate that it was not only former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore who called a levy a tax but also the present Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen who referred to this as a back-door tax. 
Let us just have a look at Part 3 “Consequential amendments” because there is no doubt that the amendments are more than consequential; they are hugely important to this unfortunate further tax grab perpetrated on the New Zealand public by this Labour Government. Let us just go through it. Clause 13(1) states: “Section 2(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is amended by adding to the definition of  
duty 
 the following paragraph: ‘(e) levies imposed …’ ”. One of the most significant submissions came from the Automobile Association which made the point—as did Paul Adams from United Future—that at present the 39c for fuel excise duty on petrol is comprised of 2.3c for the Accident Compensation Corporation 18.5c for the National Land Transport Fund and 18.5c for the Crown account. The Automobile Association and Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that there is no need to increase the excise duty from 2.3c to 5.08c which is an increase of over 100 percent. They said it would be far more equitable and proper to take it from the amount that goes into the Crown account. 
So we have a great difficulty here—not only with the untimely haste that the Government has used in bringing in this bill but also with the way it has approached the equity of collecting a tax on motor vehicles and fuel. It has not only confined it to petrol and the vehicle but it has forgotten about what real risk rating is because it has thrown aside the very important competitive model that challenged the monopoly and which brought about earlier rehabilitation. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to continue with Paul Hutchison’s substantial arguments regarding Part 3 “Consequential amendments”. Part 3 refers quite specifically to the schedules which I assume we are debating next and particularly Part B where motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are on Part 3. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In my introductory comments I was speaking on Part 3’s reference to Part B of the schedule which I specifically said we would be debating later. Part B of the schedule refers to regular grade petrol with a Research Octane No. less than 92 which will be going up in cost per litre. That is what Part 3 is all about. It specifically addresses those grades of petroleum products that will have extra tax put upon them and of course New Zealanders paying extra tax. 
I too have sympathy for Paul Adams’ arguments. It is good to see him coming out of the blocks to debate this issue which is close to his heart. We would like to see him debate other issues that he shies away from that we know are also close to his heart but at least he has started with this one. The fact is that this part of the bill increases taxes for New Zealanders including the Adams family and we do not like to see that. I do not like to see colleagues having to dip into their pockets time and time again but we are seeing it here. Clause 13 amends the Customs and Excise Act simply to allow for the levy rate—and let us be frank the tax rate—to be increased without having to amend the Act. In other words this particular part—and I know that members of the public are concerned about this because they are going white—actually removes the checks and balances that we would normally have on a Labour Government that is determined to tax New Zealanders to death. 
Earlier in the day we went through other examples where this Labour Government has taxed New Zealanders to death. I do not have to mention them—the flatulence tax and the tax on provincial roading of 4c or 5c. We know about the threatened health tax and we know that the old people’s sherry and gin went up the other night. We now see the accident compensation levy going up from 2.3c to 5.08c—an over 100 percent increase; 8.5c goes to the Land Transport Safety Authority—we cannot argue with that—but 18.5 goes to the Crown account. I concur with Dr Paul Hutchison: why does the extra money for accident compensation come out of that? Why does the extra money that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs because of its burgeoning bureaucracy come out of that Crown account? I do not know. No one can answer that question for me Paul Adams or Paul Hutchison. No one can answer the question for members of the general public of New Zealand who are being taxed to death. 
I would like to move on to clause 13(2) in relation to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act which is being repealed. My colleague Simon Power could not even find it in the Statute book. I do not know who put that statute book there but I call it the “ghost” section. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Speaker for coming in in relation to Part 3 and settling that issue with us. That particular statute book ought to be replaced as soon as possible because we are very wary about voting on Part 3 knowing that the documentation that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has access to out the back is incomplete or incorrect. I would appreciate that section being replaced. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Schedule 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain truth about the schedules. Here we have amendments to the third schedule of the Customs and Excise Act related to the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The theme of this debate this afternoon has been whether this bill in any way reflects the ability to achieve what its title is all about—injury prevention rehabilitation and fair and adequate compensation. The schedules which are clearly and squarely related to the excise theme that runs throughout this bill—the tax—clearly show that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the parent bill’s basic aims or purposes. That is a hugely worrisome revelation. 
As I said earlier on in relation to the components of the 39c plus GST per litre that is taken from petrol it is very interesting that individuals such as Paul Adams of United Future have also picked up the key point that there would have been no need to alter those schedules in the first place if the modelling the Government had chosen was a competitive model because undoubtedly the costs—if any—would have gone down. Instead we have seen them consistently go up and we have once again seen the Labour Government use euphemisms when it is really taxing the people of New Zealand. 
More importantly the Government had the opportunity to use the 18.5c component that went to the Crown account to bring some degree of equity into the reasoning behind this bill. That option was very much backed by submissions from the Automobile Association Business New Zealand and I am sure from Federated Farmers. All of them are aghast that this Labour Government has increased the amount allotted to accident compensation by over 100 percent when the opportunity was there to take this motor vehicle excise duty across from the Crown account. 
Again that is an opportunity lost but it is even more of an opportunity lost that this bill has not used realistic relative rating in terms of assessing the amount. For instance the Government has totally ignored third-party risk. Mr Rennie a leading barrister involved with accident compensation reform pointed out that if for instance a bus driver drove over a bank and injured 40 passengers the funds would come from the employer’s levy but the funds for the 40 people injured would come from this part of the levy which is totally inappropriate. The signals this bill has perpetrated are totally inappropriate in terms of realistic risk rating and as Business New Zealand said they absolutely do not reflect commercial actuarial reality. That theme runs right throughout the bill that this Labour Government has perpetrated—a lack of reality and a grab for tax. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I too would like to move onto the schedules and I do have some questions for the Minister. I would like to commend the Chair Mr Ross Robertson on the way he is looking after the Committee. I recently spoke to pupils at the Ruakaka primary school and I promised them that members of Parliament would be on their best behaviour while in the House and you are certainly helping them to do that Mr Chairperson. I am glad that is now recorded in  
Hansard 
 as I promised. Thank you for that and for resolving the issue around the “ghost” section—section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. 
Part A of the schedule concerns goods manufactured in New Zealand.It concerns motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92—that is regular grade. People will know that I am the member of Parliament for Whangarei and that the Marsden Point oil refinery resides in that electorate. I am well aware of what they are doing there to ensure that they produce petroleum products that do not hurt our environment but are still very good products for motorists throughout New Zealand to use. 
I have a question for the Minister about these rates of duty. Members will see the four columns the first being headed “Excise item number”. I am referring to Part A “Goods manufactured in New Zealand” and I am referring to excise item No. 99.75.15C. That particular number refers to motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92. That is regular grade and the unit column is per litre—and we have been talking about the increase to 5.08c per litre tonight. The last column is the “Rates of duty” column and it states: “36.2c plus 8c per g of Pb”. I assume that that is lead. A litre of petrol I take it weighs less than a kilogram would that be right?Yes one litre of water weighs one kilogram. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Harry Duynhoven does not realise that one litre of water weighs one kilogram. He should be ashamed of himself. The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard should know that one litre weighs one kilogram at 273 Kelvin. Per gram of lead one litre of petrol would weigh roughly slightly less than one kilogram. 
What I want to know from the member is how many grams of lead per kilogram roughly are in one litre of petrol? If there is an additional 8c per gram of lead and there is substantial lead in one litre of petrol I would like to know—and I am sure other members would like to know—how much that puts up the price to consumers.I ask the Minister in the chair to answer that question. How many grams of lead are in one litre of petrol; therefore how much is contributed by the lead content? I assume that is some sort of penalty. I have already given the Minister a brief lecture on how much the petrol should roughly weigh. If she could work that out and report to this Committee I would very much appreciate it. 
Interestingly enough these levies or what we call taxes which have been increased by this Labour Government will contribute to accident compensation.When people read Part A and Part B of the schedule they might not realise that the Accident Compensation Corporation already has about $3.5 billion in reserves. It is worth questioning whether it would get a better return by investing some of that money in road safety initiatives—that is in the fence at the top of the cliff—rather than billing New Zealanders more levies. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that actually tells us the numbers—that is by how much the levies the rates of duty will be increased. Effectively it means that instead of paying 2.3c a litre tax on petrol everybody will be paying 5.08c a litre so this Labour Government is increasing the tax on petrol at this particular moment in time by 120 percent. Theoretically the idea is that it will go into helping to run the Accident Compensation Corporation. I say that this Labour Government has got this whole thing completely wrong. The Accident Compensation Corporation does not need the money now; the corporation has plenty of money to fund itself at the moment. The motorists of today are having to fund the tail of accident compensation in the future and that is very unfair on the families and small businesses that are struggling at the moment. 
What is worse about this particular bill is that it comes under the label of an accident compensation bill. This bill is a tax-increase bill and the Labour Government was elected on a bandwagon of saying that it would be open honest and transparent. 
Jill Pettis 
: Talk about the schedule. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I ask that member over there why the Government did not put into the title of this bill the fact that it is a tax-grab bill. That is what the bill is all about. 
The schedule tells small business that its petrol charges are going up. What we do know is that small business is finding it so hard to get by and the first thing it has to do is pass that cost onto the consumer. What it means is that the numbers in these schedules will simply be another cost on New Zealand families. Only an anti-business Government would actually consider that that makes sense when we have a downturn coming. Most of the people of New Zealand realise that a downturn is on the horizon and here we have a bill that is putting up the cost to motorists throughout the country—that is ordinary families with their ordinary cars. More important it is everybody who has anything to do with transportation so anybody who buys a loaf of bread will find the cost of bread going up because the cost of petrol is going up. That means that that cost will eventually be passed onto the consumer so we can expect price rises for bread milk cheese—for everything that consumers in New Zealand buy. 
The real problem with accident compensation is that it is a monopoly run and controlled by the Government so we get the Government in here today putting up the levies on petrol and accident compensation without any problem at all. It is one hand feeding the other hand; it is the two arms of the Government conspiring against the ordinary families and taxpayers of New Zealand. 
It is interesting to look at the issue of accident compensation. Labour has already increased levies for the self-employed by 40 percent since it has been in power. The wage-earners’ levy has increased by 10 percent motorbike levies by 57 percent and car ownership levies by 14 percent and now we have the third increase in the price of petrol. This increase is going to accident compensation and it is a 120 percent increase. I say to the members sitting opposite that that is shameful because it will hit the very families who are struggling harder than anyone else to get by and that is the group that the Labour Party tries to pretend it is representing. I say that this heavy-handed tax grab is not needed and it should not be taking place now. I think it is disgraceful that the Labour Party is once again increasing the taxes on New Zealand families. 
What did Labour say when it came into Government? It said no tax increases on anybody who earned under $60000 a year. What have we had? We have had 25 different tax increases since Labour became the Government. I say that that is an absolute disgrace because most of those tax increases have been by stealth. I wonder whether listeners realise that Labour has collected an extra $9 billion in stealth taxes since it was elected. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 This brings us to the end of the debate on a tax that the Opposition will not be supporting—for the reasons we have been articulating during the Committee stage. When we look at the schedules we see that it is nothing but a tax increase and a “tax by stealth” as the ACT member has just said. If we were to take into account how much money is collected now to meet the accident compensation levies it is 39c per litre plus GST. Of that 39c 2.3c per litre is going towards accident compensation. That amount will be increased under this bill to 5.08c per litre. That is a 120 percent increase and it cannot be justified at all. There is also the 18.5c per litre that goes to land transport funding and another 18.5c that goes to the consolidated account. The argument we have put up is simply that the tax has already been collected. If more money needs to go into the accident compensation account it should come out of the consolidated account and it can be moved across for that purpose. But no this Government has gone out and said: “ We’re going to increase the taxes.” 
What is very concerning about this bill—and it is a point I have raised in previous debates—is that it provides that the Government does not have to come back to the House to have future increases scrutinised. The Government can do it by regulation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Very bad. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is very bad. It is absolutely intolerable that the Government can increase that tax in future without having to come back to this House for the matter to be scrutinised and debated. There is no transparency; no accountability. That is what this Government is imposing on everybody who drives a vehicle. 
This tax will hit those on fixed incomes—the mums and dads at home and people who are retired. They do not have the means to go out and earn extra income to be able to pay a 120 percent tax increase. We have seen this done before in the term of this Government. Other tax increases have come in and Muriel Newman alluded to some of them. The income tax rate for those earning over $60000 per annum went from 33 to 39 percent. The fringe benefit tax increased from 49 percent to 64 percent. The income tax for trusts in respect of minors went from 19.5 percent to 33 percent. We saw the tobacco excise tax increase from $7.30 to $8.20. 
We saw the increase in the petrol/diesel road-user charge and what a debate that was! We saw the alcoholic beverages tax go up and that was the issue we debated until 5 to 5 in the morning. The Government said that tax was supposed to target binge drinking and under-age drinkers. But once again it mostly hit those who like a port or a sherry at the end of an evening. The accident compensation levies for self-employed people increased. Then just the other day we heard about the flatulence tax that will bring in $8.4 million. In the schedule of the bill we see this tax increase in the accident compensation levy. National certainly opposes that increase. 
Interestingly in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today there is an article by Colin James under the headline: “Clobbered by the sneaky taxes we don’t see coming”. The tax we are talking about today is one of those sneaky taxes. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill be now read a first time. 
 Later I will refer this bill to the Law and Order Committee. 
This bill replaces the Secondhand Dealers Act of 1936 and the Pawnbrokers Act of 1908. Both Acts are now well out of date. This bill is part of a package of measures implemented by Government that is designed to combat property crime. It has two main objectives: firstly to make it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers; and secondly to make it easier for the police to recover stolen goods and solve property crimes. 
The bill considerably increases penalties for offences compared with the Secondhand Dealers Act and the Pawnbrokers Act. Currently penalties fail to provide any adequate deterrent for offending under the provisions of these Acts. The maximum penalty under this bill for acting either as an unlicensed second-hand dealer or as an unlicensed pawnbroker is now set at $20000 compared with $200 and $100 under the present Acts. 
The integrity of the licensing system will be improved in a variety of ways. First as well as dealers and pawnbrokers requiring licences staff accepting goods on behalf of the business or supervising people who accept goods on behalf of the business will be required to have certificates indicating that they do not have convictions for dishonesty. Second in place of the present lifetime licences for second-hand dealers there will be relicensing and recertificating every 5 years. Applicants will be assessed against objective criteria in place of the present subjective criteria with the focus being on excluding applicants with convictions for dishonesty. Third licences and certificates will be in a photo ID form. This will aid identification of licensees and certificate holders. Finally fourth the objective is to make it easier to establish who is licensed or certificated and for police to contact them and that will be done by having a centralised electronic register in place of the present paper-based system. In the case of second-hand dealers the present paper-based system has largely broken down and is ineffectual. 
Under the bill second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers will be required to sight an approved ID from a person selling or pledging goods to them to record how that person was identified and to ask that person to provide contact details as well as his or her signature. Many businesses currently do this voluntarily but many do not. The legislation will increase the risk for people knowingly trying to pass on stolen goods. It will also help the police to trace where people who are unknowingly passing on stolen goods obtained those goods. 
Under the bill second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers will be required to comply with various record-keeping and labelling requirements. Significant changes are made to obtaining ID details and to a requirement that a record be kept showing the name and contact details of employees. Currently second-hand dealers are required to retain certain goods for a minimum of 1 month. This is so that goods at risk of being stolen remain with the dealer long enough for there to be a good chance that they will be detected either by the dealer by the police carrying out an inspection or by a customer. 
The schedule listing these goods has been unchanged since 1963. It contains gramophones and fur coats. It does not contain videos and computers. Therefore we need a new schedule and all the goods listed in the new schedule are regarded by the police as being at risk of being stolen. To reduce compliance costs the retention period has been shortened to 2 weeks. An exception is made for goods sold on behalf of a client. They can be sold within 2 weeks but the dealer will need to get ID and contact details from the buyer so that police can trace the goods if it appears that they may have been stolen. 
Under the bill people carrying on a business running markets or fairs will be required to keep records showing where and when they operated who was selling second-hand articles or scrap metal or who acted as a pawnbroker at that market or fair. This new requirement however will not be onerous. 
Under the bill the police must be permitted access to records. They must also be allowed to inspect any or all goods held by licensed second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. The bill requires that licensing decisions made subject to the Act will be the responsibility of a registrar of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers appointed and serviced by the Government. This replaces the present decentralised system where licences are issued by the various district courts. The new system will be much more efficient. 
The regulation powers under the bill are quite broad. This is necessary because of the many and diverse kinds of transactions that can occur and because of the rapidly changing commercial environment. The procedures for obtaining ID and for record keeping and labelling need to be appropriate to the type of business and the type of transaction. Transitional provisions too have been designed to minimise disruption to businesses as the move is made to the new regime. 
People who hold a licence under the Secondhand Dealers Act the Pawnbrokers Act or the Auctioneers Act will be deemed to hold a licence under the new Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act for the first year after the new Act comes into force. After that they will be required to get a new licence if they wish to carry on business as a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker. People will be able to hold auctioneers’ licences under both the new Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act and the existing Auctioneers Act. 
In conclusion in carrying out the review that led to this bill officials consulted widely with private sector stakeholders. These included the New Zealand Licensed Traders Association individual second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers the Boating Industries Association of New Zealand the Scrap Metal Recycling Association of New Zealand the Auctioneers Association of New Zealand the Insurance Council and the Consumers Institute of New Zealand. Overwhelmingly these bodies were supportive of the change recommended. I wish to thank them and their organisations for their input and look forward to their submissions to the select committee. 
I expect that every party and member of this House would support this legislation. It represents a significant advance in the campaign against property crime which this Government is committed to. I commend this bill to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 As the previous speaker correctly surmised. National supports the bill. I am always comforted when Mr Goff reads from prepared material because I know that it will be inherently accurate. I have been hugely comforted tonight as he read at rapid-fire rate this material fashioned by third parties that we can have confidence that there has been an accurate summary. 
There are however some significant issues in this legislation that we should not ignore. I would like to start if I may by noting for members of this crowded House tonight the fact that in ancient times three gold balls was the sign of the pawnbroker. For the desperate whose bank account cannot stand another cheque or an Eftpos withdrawal a trip to the pawnbroker can be the answer. I say that because it is a quick and uncomplicated system unburdened by copious form filling. As others have said: “They can be in and out of here with money in their hands as quick as using an ATM machine.” That comment came from a local pawnbroker in this city of Wellington. 
Of course if someone pawns something he or she might get a lower price than selling it second hand but there is a chance of buying the stuff back at a price. But at least if it is something that the person values it can of course be taken home again. 
It works this way. A pawnbroker puts a value on the goods and offers cash. He holds the goods but they remain the customer’s property and can be reclaimed by repaying the original loan plus interest. As I understand the law if the items are not redeemed—within 3 months for clothes or 6 months for other goods—then the law says they must be auctioned and any money received from the sale over and above the principal and the interest due at the time of the sale minus the handling cost belongs to the person who pawned the item. 
 There are of course many reasons that people pawn. Usually they need cash to tide them over for hassle-free bridging finance. No credit checks are needed. An inability to buy back their goods means they lose the item but there is no bad credit rating. Sometimes people pawn and re-pawn the same thing. About 20 percent of goods I understand go unclaimed under the Pawnbrokers Act of 1908—and that is the first point I would like to make: this is old legislation. There are not too many pieces of legislation that date back to that great year of 1908 when so much law was consolidated. 
I mentioned the three balls being the traditional symbol of the pawnbroker. Members of this House—listening attentively as I know they are—will know that the traditional three balls are said to be from the crest of the Medici family in Italy who with the Lombards in England were moneylenders in Europe in the Middle Ages. Legend has it that one of the Medicis in the employ of Emperor Charles the Great slew a giant using three sacks of rocks and these eventually appeared on the family crest. So it is from those three sacks of rocks that the symbol of the three balls arose. 
As the MP for Epsom I hesitate to offer issues of history relating to Wellington but I am very much aware that the symbol of the three balls was last displayed in Wellington in the 1970s when the Willis Street pawn and second-hand shop owned by Israel Triester closed. 
I now turn to the substance of the legislation against the background of the very helpful summary that the Minister read at such rapid-fire speed. Before I do that I should probably say that “pawn” comes from the Latin patinum meaning clothing. In earlier centuries the principal assets people had were their clothes and they borrowed money by pawning their clothing. 
But I come back to the legislation. Having made the preliminary point that the Pawnbrokers Act is very old legislation I point out that this bill provides for the replacement of the Secondhand Dealers Act and the Pawnbrokers Act. In this legislation we see two things. First of all there is the regulation of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers and individuals acting either as directors or as agents of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. We see also the specification of record-keeping requirements for promoters of markets and fairs with regard to second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who operate at those markets and fairs and the requirement that promoters allow the police to inspect those records. 
None of us in this House would be oblivious to the fact that if we could control what goes on in the markets touching on second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers we would put a large number of burglars out of business. There is absolutely no doubt that if we closed down the fencing or receiving industry that flourishes in New Zealand many burglars and thieves would not find the business of theft worthwhile. That is why National supports this legislation. If we close down the extent of fencing and receiving maybe—although I doubt it under this Government—we will be doing something in terms of dealing with those significant issues. 
It is a tragedy as we all know that right throughout New Zealand there are people active in our communities and neighbourhoods who are determined to pursue criminal activities by nefarious means with no consideration for their neighbours at all. The need to support one’s neighbours I suggest has never ever been more critical. If one looks at the legislation helpfully contained within the contents provision that Mr Goff has seen fit to include one notes that there are a number of parts no fewer than four and also a schedule. Those parts deal I would say unromantically with some preliminary provisions. In Part 2 we look at issues relating to licences and certificates. Part 3 deals with obligations of licence holders and promoters. Part 4 deals with the Registrar of Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers and certain miscellaneous provisions are included. Then finally in the schedule are some forms of what I suggest are of no great interest to members of this House. 
In conclusion it is all very well having these highly prescriptive arrangements that assume that commerce is transacted in person or perhaps by correspondence but the reality today is very much that a lot of trading in second-hand goods occurs on the Internet. I would like to say that trading in the area of websites needs to be more significantly considered than it is in this bill. What does this bill do about that issue? Absolutely nothing! So we have websites like www.trademe.co.nz and www.ebay.com presented by backyard unlicensed dealers and such trading is rife. I hope that the bill will be extended to deal with this. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am not so enamoured with the sound of my own voice so I will come to the point. This bill introduced by the Government has the support of United Future. New Zealand presently has one of the highest rates of property theft in the world the bulk of which is disposed of through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. As such United Future is proud to support a bill whose purpose is to make it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods by creating a tighter goods tracking regime for the second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers industry. This as the Minister has pointed out will therefore make it easier for the police to track stolen goods apprehend offenders and recover such goods accordingly. 
The present legislation is now well outdated ranging between 40 and 95 years in operation with the police complaining that both pieces of legislation are antiquated and toothless. This new legislation has been developed in consultation with the industry and as a result it has the support of the Licensed Traders Association which I am informed has been pushing for it for years. I also note that although the association has an excellent record in honest practice it itself acknowledges that there are some rogue dealers out there who need a tighter regime enforced upon them. As such I thank them for their contribution to the bill. The police are also satisfied that this bill ought to make a difference. I note the recent comments made by Sergeant Rhys Johnston of the Wellington Burglary Squad that police were battling an increase in break-ins. The first 3 months of this year saw a 48 percent increase in reported burglaries compared with the same period last year. That is why this bill is needed. 
I want to make one or two comments on some aspects that the Minister raised. We are pleased to see the penalties for dealing without a licence being increased from $200 to $20000. The old amount barely warranted consideration and it certainly did not deter any of the less reputable from bothering to become licensed. There are some matters that to my knowledge the bill presently is unclear or remains silent on and I am sure that United Future will be keen to make a contribution on these matters at the select committee stage. They are not huge issues but they merit a mention anyway. 
 It is pleasing to see that dealer licences are now no longer issued in perpetuity and that they are to be renewed and certified every 5 years However if the emphasis of relicensing as the Minister points out is to weed out applicants with convictions for dishonesty and the like upon application then maybe there ought to be opportunity for members of the public to object to a dealer being relicensed if they are aware of any significant malpractice or more commonly shonky business by the dealer in question. 
Also—as in Western Australia a jurisdiction that has a relatively new second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers statute—perhaps dealers ought not to be allowed to deal with anyone under the age of 18 and further not with anyone who appears to be affected by drugs or alcohol. Such measures might appear draconian. However when one pauses to consider that the effect of the Western Australia statute on second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers has been a 30 percent drop in house burglaries in that State it starts to sound like perhaps a good idea. With such a reduction not only does property become safer but the cost of it becomes cheaper as insurance premiums decrease. If we are serious about cracking down on property theft and its aftermarket then I put it to the House that perhaps those are some of the matters that ought to be considered and no doubt we will be raising those points during the select committee process. 
I would also like to pick up on another change the Minister touched on and it is an eminently sensible one. Under the previous statute a list was made of goods that were recognised as being more likely to be stolen and those goods were therefore required to be held by dealers for a month. Drafted in 1963 it presently remains in law that gramophones travelling rugs and typewriters are our most at-risk goods. It is surely time for revision. United Future is therefore pleased to see that the new schedule involves an excellent compromise whereby the hold-over period is reduced to 2 weeks. However the police may categorise any goods as being at risk and therefore provide for a flexible schedule that may move with the times as technology evolves and as new consumer products are invented. I commend this bill to the House. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support this bill. In many parts there are no substantial changes to the legislation that currently governs the group. As outlined in the explanatory note of the bill—and New Zealand First agrees with it—due to the increasing rate of crime in our communities it is timely to ensure that those people who are and who want to be second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are subject to far more scrutiny in order to ensure that the unscrupulous dealers in this whole sector are followed up on. There are already challenges within this sector and if some existing dealers will not meet the requirements for the issue of certificates with this new legislation some of that group will be disqualified from holding a certificate and quite rightly so. New Zealand First believes that initially there will be a great deal of work for the registrar to follow up on in the licensing area. 
Richard Worth 
: Why? 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Because of the number of people who will be required to be licensed. Although we support the issue of certificates for pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers we query the availability of police resources to carry out the checks as recommended in the bill. In clause 23 “Police check on every applicant” we see that the police must check on everyone who applies for a certificate. There is a shortage of police officers throughout the country and one has to question whether the resources that are currently available will be sufficient. 
Jill Pettis 
: The police have never had more money then they’ve got now. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: But we need more of them. Because of our increasing population the police require an increased number of officers to carry out the work they currently do and this checking of applicants will be an additional task for them. However we do know that the police regularly contact and visit the various second-hand dealers within their towns so they do know who they are. Due to the legislation we pass through this House it appears that every day the police are getting an increasing number of jobs that are not front-line policing. There is a big anomaly because we do not see any action at all on increasing police numbers so that the front-line policing role can be adequately carried out. They are stretched now and we keep wanting them to do more. The bottom line is that we really do not want to see our valuable police service further stressed by a totally unmanageable workload. 
Second-hand dealers support a police check on every applicant as they know that a percentage of the people operating in that industry deal in property from a questionable source. The police themselves can already identify those people. A second-hand dealer whom I was speaking to yesterday was proposing a check-sheet system similar to that used by the Auctioneers Association to assist the police to check the goods. He said that a mandatory requirement to forward a completed form to the police on a regular basis would ensure that the police have a very good idea as to the goods that were being brought in for sale and by whom. He proposed that the police enter the list of goods into the computer so that there is in existence a list of the goods that have been brought in to be sold. He thought that such a list would help the police and give them extra time to do the functions that they should be carrying out. 
Opposition Member 
: What a good idea! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It is a good idea but not so good for the overworked police who have to maintain the record. The owner of the business also commented upon the length of time that the goods were to be stored—14 days. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes. He was quite pleased with the 14 days I must tell members. But he did not like the fact that the number of goods on the schedule was quite vast—it had increased vastly from what was already there. He wondered what on earth he was going to do with the goods he had to store. It was good to see that ordinary whiteware goods like fridges washing machines clothes dryers dishwashers and stoves—which lots of New Zealanders go into second-hand shops to buy—are exempted from storage. We were quite amazed that the list specifically mentioned sunglasses. We wonder about the logic of that when one considers the number of sunglasses that are on sale and the fact they are the same in every way. During the select committee stage hopefully the second-hand dealers will review that schedule because as the Minister has pointed out it is far more extensive than that currently in existence. 
New Zealand First queries the working of the bill with regard to the increasing number of professional traders that are now selling goods on market days all around the country. We see them in every town and every city. There is no way that the second-hand goods that are on sale on those market days can be tracked. Yet many of those market traders have the same goods that are listed on the schedule attached to the bill. The amount of second-hand goods that are available on market days is really similar to that of second-hand shops and pawnbrokers. The bottom line is that they are highly mobile second-hand shops with the same people and the same types of goods appearing at the various market days around New Zealand. We realise that there are requirements on the people organising the market days to note down the stallholders’ names and addresses but that does not focus on the second-hand goods being sold at all. We do not want to see two separate classes of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers: one group that is highly regulated and works within the bill and a second group that is highly mobile and is apparently above the scope of any bill such as this. 
New Zealand First also queries whether appliance dealers who use second-hand whiteware as trade-ins on new appliances will also be subject to the provisions of the bill. At this point in time many retailers do not consider themselves to be second-hand dealers yet the definition contained within the bill does include them despite their protestations to the contrary. New Zealand First hopes that that issue will be clarified by the Law and Order Committee. New Zealand First supports this legislation being referred to the select committee. 
MARK GOSCHE (Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am happy to support the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill. The bill will make it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods and it will make it easier for the police to recover stolen goods and solve property crimes. We are tired of the second-hand speeches from the other side of the House. We should get on and make life hard for the criminals out there. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I welcome a bill that carries out a mechanical sensible and practical tidy-up of earlier legislation without beginning with a whole lot of ideological clap-trap and claiming to be rebalancing the scales between consumers and suppliers—the kind of nonsense that we see in legislation that governs similar transactions like consumer credit. I welcome the fact that at least the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill seems to be practically oriented. It has a compliance cost analysis that is understandable and has the headings that one would expect from a reasonable attempt to make a tradesmanlike job of updating the existing legislation. 
I am of course a little concerned that the bill states that compliance costs will rise for almost all second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who comply with the requirements of the proposed regime because there are no free lunches. If the regulated industry has an increase in cost we can assume that the competing alternatives such as frequent garage sales the  
Trade and Exchange 
 and all the other ways of disposing of second-hand goods quietly may increase in attractiveness. One of the things I hope the Law and Order Committee will look at very closely is just what commitment there is to enforcement. If this bill has a rigorous enforcement regime it will increase the need and the pressure on the police to look at the alternatives in order to make sure that this bill does not simply squeeze fencing and criminal activity out of the authorised industry and into those other avenues which also include pub sales and fake raffles. There is nothing that can give us much confidence that the police will be able to give it the sort of priority it requires. 
This bill is expected to be enforced by the police. There is a curious statement in the paragraph headed “Key compliance cost issues identified during consultation” in the explanatory note. It states: “During consultation it became apparent that many persons who should currently be licensed and complying with the requirements of being a licensed secondhand dealer or pawnbroker were not licensed.” I would like the Minister or his officials to explain to the select committee just why that should be when the police have apparently equipped United Future and the Labour Party with information about the extent of trading in stolen goods through second-hand dealers yet appear to be saying that that obvious avenue for tackling receiving has not even received enough attention from the police to make sure that all those who should currently be licensed under the existing law defective though it may be are licensed. What can we hope for from a new law however bold and brave it is and however glossy its provisions if there is no commitment to enforcement? 
What a waste of time it is for Parliament to give its attention to technical detail and matters that are desirable but that in comparison with the will and commitment to enforcement are next to nothing! A far better priority for Parliament would be to debate the many areas in which the current will to enforcement is lacking and in which the old Labour tradition of regarding criminals as victims of the class struggle seems to ensure that Government members feel happy leaving them in a continued happy criminal career. 
I found the bill interesting to look through just for the quality of the thinking that has gone into it. Quite apart from the compliance cost statement and the bland mention of the level of non-compliance with the existing law there are some rather curious mentions of compliance costs associated with the various duties of licensed second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. There is an indication that it is expected that compliance costs other than the cost of licensing certification and presumably record-keeping will increase as mentioned in the illustrative compliance costs comparison table. A true assessment of the real value of this legislation should have required a very clear statement in the compliance cost summary of just what those compliance costs are that concern was expressed about. 
I looked through the provisions of the bill and found for example that a certificate holder or licence holder is required to advise the registrar of every change of address. That will probably be a little difficult and will probably be overlooked. It might have been better to have looked at that in terms of the object of that provision. Do we really need the current address very often when the real purpose is simply to make sure the person being dealt with is the person who is named and has his or her photograph on the licence? Another one is the requirement where the sale is on the owner’s behalf for a 14-day holding period that is waived if the vendor’s details are taken down. I cannot understand why that difference exists and it does seem likely to increase the frequency of sales on the owner’s behalf or notionally on the owner’s behalf which might act against the interests of vendors—people who want to come in get their money and be gone and who are perfectly honest are willing to provide all their details can be readily verified through their authentication but cannot get their money because the dealer does not want to have to pay when the goods have to be held for 2 weeks. That seems perhaps an unnecessary compliance cost and it certainly has not been calculated in the compliance cost statement. 
Another provision is the requirement for the minimum age of a licence holder to be 18 years. If we really want to be a mercantile and entrepreneurial country we should be encouraging younger people to be involved—under supervision as is required for a certificate holder—in that industry. I cannot think of any better apprenticeship for learning the skills of trading that this country so desperately needs than being able to work with a second-hand dealer for a while. We send people out to overseas countries where they have to deal with the products of bazaar cultures with absolutely no training because we do not allow people to grow up until they are 18. The committee should look at that as an absolutely ridiculous piece of—dare I use the word—ageism. It is curious also that only 5 years need elapse after an offence before a person is allowed to be a second-hand dealer again. Five years seems a very small length of time. I would have thought that once someone has reached the seriousness of the offences that are mentioned in the bill the disqualification should be for 10 years at least. Soon the Government will permanently suppress the records of most offences for most offenders after 10 years in legislation that is currently being cranked through my select committee. 
I am also interested in the definition of “secondhand dealer”. As I read it if a school holds five garage sales plus a fair it has become a second-hand dealer. I am not sure that that is intended. It may be that the Minister drafting the legislation has not had a lot of association with— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Minister probably hasn’t read it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No the Minister probably has not read it but he certainly does not have any familiarity with the normal role of ordinary New Zealanders who work on school committees. They are the people who go along to the bring-and-buys who raise the funds for voluntary organisations and who know that when one holds a fair one sells second-hand articles but also probably coca-cola and things that people have bought—not everything is donated at a fair—and the same schools have probably held garage sales and a number of other arrangements whereby they have sold things in the previous 12 months. I suggest that if the Government wants to avoid confronting 500 or 700 or 900 school committees it had better make sure that this bill does not catch them as second-hand dealers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The Labour Party will probably need one. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Labour Party probably will need one as a promoter of fairs. Is there not a big fair somewhere in Auckland? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The south Auckland flea market. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The south Auckland flea market will need one. I do not know whether it will have the character to get past the police check so I think this legislation will need to be looked at very closely. The compliance costs should be something that the Government takes a very serious look at it. We will be pleased to see this bill go to the select committee and we hope that the members on that committee will give it very careful scrutiny. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to support this bill which is designed to combat property crime. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 After that mammoth effort from the member preceding me I say that the National Party is pleased to support this bill. There are just a few issues that I would like to speak on tonight. The first is the point raised by a previous speaker about the level of crime and burglary that is so prevalent in New Zealand particularly in the fair city of Auckland from whence I hail these days. In particular I want to speak about a human aspect—and the person involved I am sure would be very pleased to know that we are starting the debate on this bill. My taxi driver today—from the electorate of Clevedon that I represent—to the Auckland airport told me that he and his wife had been burgled on Friday afternoon. Not only did they lose a significant amount of their property—and the Minister Ruth Dyson might find that funny—but they reported the burglary to the police and the forensic people who came to take fingerprints did not arrive until Monday afternoon. So we are talking about a 3-day wait in this instance and I ask that we get real. 
We can put all the requirements in this bill for the police to register all of those pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers and for the police to trot around second-hand shops checking on things and procedures but the reality is that the police will not do any of that. They are already not following up on burglaries in which they know there is stolen property and they can presume there is DNA evidence or fingerprints left. They are just not following those cases up and that is one of the problems. One of the real tragedies of this sort of legislation is that it has a great purpose—I am sure that everyone in the House will support it—but the fact is that if the police are not given the resources told it is a priority able to make it a priority and be held accountable for it and the Minister is not made accountable for it then it will not do even a scrap of good. 
When I read through this bill—as I am wont to do for my sins—I notice that in schedule 2 there are comments about the forms of authorised identification. Although this is not a Committee stage something that the Minister the officials or the select committee might like to look at are the forms of authorised identification of people for the purposes of the Act. For instance I think of my dear old departed mother who at the age of 80 when selling up her property and moving to a smaller one took some things in to get sold at a second-hand place to get rid of them. 
She was of the generation when a lot of women did not drive cars so she had no driver’s licence and she had no passport because she had never travelled overseas. She had no documentation with a photograph on it or credit card because she never had credit. She always had cash in the bank; if she could not afford it she did not buy it. She had no 18-plus card issued by the Hospitality Association of New Zealand because she was a teetotaller and no document issued by a New Zealand secondary or composite school to a student—issued for the purpose of identifying the student and containing a photograph of the student—because she was not a student. 
My guess is that there will be quite a few ladies out there particularly ladies in the 80-plus age group who do not have any of the identification required under this bill to be actually able to sell to a second-hand dealer. That matter needs to be looked at; it is seriously a problem. Those of us in the House are all of a time when we have passports and identification through drivers’ licences but there will be lots of people in the community who will be made to feel like criminals because they happen to be 80-plus and do not have any of those forms of identification. As I say I speak of my dear old departed mother who would have been in exactly that situation. 
So what would have had to happen for people like that? They would not have been able to sell their goods and someone else would have had to do that for them. Really is that not negating the whole purpose of the bill? That issue needs to be looked at. As well when I looked through the bill I remembered all the kerfuffle that there was a few years ago when the National Government brought in the driver’s licence with a photo. What a kerfuffle! Every civil libertarian up and down the country was saying that it was a de facto ID. Effectively by this bill a de facto ID is now required in this country to sell something of one’s own to someone else. 
I wonder why that is—it is because we now live in a society in which people are presumed to be dishonest and crooked if they are selling their own property. This legislation will not help people whose property is burgled and then sold in pubs and clubs around the place. It will not help them. It will not help those who are the victims of crime. It might in fact stop some dealers operating but the reality is that the police will not go and investigate because they have better things to do—which are not necessarily a matter of getting around to all the burglaries. Bless their cotton socks but there are just not enough police. They asked for 160 new police in Auckland and were given 50. We could do with another 100 just in the Counties-Manukau area but we are not being given them so I do not know how they are ever supposed to go through all that paperwork and regulation. 
I note that the honourable member Mr Gosche is in the Chamber and there are a lot of second-hand shops in his electorate. There are instant-finance places pawnshops and everything else. I am sure he knows it when he is there visiting and I am sure he feels that it is the sort of thing that needs to be looked at. But there are so many people now living on credit in this country—absolutely living on credit. 
There is the Cash Converters chain. I do not want to be a free advertiser for them but there are all of those sorts of things because of all those people living on credit or buying things they do not need and then getting rid of them because we live in a disposable society. When we look at the record-keeping requirements we see that the bill regulates second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers—the people who have actually opened up a shop paid the rent and often employed people. But they are not allowed to employ people under the age of 18 I note. I ask what the point of that really is and I have to concur with the previous speaker who spoke about the need for younger people to understand the benefits of trade and that it is OK to trade and make a profit and that we should be encouraging that. 
I also note the contribution from Mr Richard Worth of the National Party who spoke about the fact that this legislation will not touch by one iota the amount of illegal trading of stolen goods and other things that goes on over the Internet. I notice as well that in schedule 1 of the bill there is the very strange exclusion about refrigerators washing machines clothes dryers dishwashers and stoves. I find that fascinating. I also wonder whether those sorts of articles should be subject to a form of regulation rather than that there necessarily be law because clearly what is in the exclusion list and what is out of it is something that can change very quickly. In 1908 nobody would have thought of “boats boat engines and boat accessories” “cameras and photography equipment” or “compact discs (laser read)”. We are probably right now not thinking about what will be the “in” thing for children in particular or teenagers to buy in another 2 or 3 years. I wonder whether the Minister and the select committee might look at whether that matter is better dealt with in terms of regulation rather than in the main form of the legislation. 
So I say in summary that I am pleased we are able to support this bill but I have grave concerns about exactly what effect it will have given the fact that it will not help the little old lady aged 80-plus who cannot fulfil any of the requirements for identification if she sells the goods she has owned for the last 60 years and who will therefore need some form of exemption somehow. Nor will it help the police at all to be able to get around and administer this legislation which will become a burden to them. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill which I understand from the speeches I have heard given tonight has widespread support from across the House. It introduces a tougher licensing and certification regime for dealers pawnbrokers and their staff; it requires that dealers must sight ID and record contact details and the signature of all people selling to them; and it has stiffer penalties for non-compliance with the legislation. The content of the bill and the fact that it has the support of all parties in the House from what I have heard is a credit to the Minister who introduced the bill this evening the Hon. Phil Goff. 
Can I also just mention as an aside that I have heard from very reliable sources that that Minister recently turned 50 and as the Minister for Senior Citizens I am delighted to welcome him to my ranks. I look forward to sharing with him the celebration of the speedy passage of this legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I enjoy wandering through second-hand dealer stores. It is amazing what one finds. One might even find a 50-year-old Minister of Justice if one looks closely. National will be supporting this bill to select committee. We do have some concerns about it that we hope the select committee will be able to look at more closely. We hope the committee will be able to crystallise some of the arguments that have come up especially about people who may be running a fair such as parent-teacher associations and groups like that. Often they are doing it more than six times a year. 
I notice there is an exception under clause 6 that states that people who buy for the purposes of trade or who sell exchange or otherwise deal in second-hand articles or scrap metal on fewer than six occasions in any 12-month period are not engagedin business as second-hand dealers. What happens if they are in fact dealing more times than that? I have been a member of a service club that as a project over the years was continually going and getting scrap metal off farms and selling it. We were doing that more than 6 times a year. Under this provision are those people going to be caught? Stephen Franks made some good points about school parent-teacher associations and groups of people like that who have come to rely on this form of fund-raising for their activities. We really want to know in the select committee how that works. 
I will give a bit of background information for those who do not know the difference between a second-hand dealer and a pawnbroker. I found this interesting as I went through the bill because I was not quite clear myself. Some notes I have here state that second-hand dealers buy goods at which point ownership passes to them—providing the seller has legal title—and then resells them. I understand that pretty well. Pawnbrokers on the other hand hold items as security or a pledge for loans. The borrower retains ownership of the pledge except on default on the loan and then the pawnbroker has the opportunity to sell those goods. So that is the difference between the two. If we were to go back and look at the legislation we would see that the Secondhand Dealers Act came into effect in 1963 and there have been no changes to it since then. As society has moved on as communities have moved on and as attitudes have changed it is opportune that this bill comes forward. 
As Richard Worth said the Pawnbrokers Act goes back to 1908 and if we look back we see that there have been massive changes since 1908. [ 
Interruption 
] It is good to have a lawyer of Richard Worth’s calibre in the House who actually understands the nuances of these issues because he makes it very easy to crystallise and articulate what it actually means. It is good to have someone like that on our team to do that for us. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I note the people over there want to interrupt. We are actually supporting this but one would think we were not. We actually think this is good legislation and I am just trying to add value to it by mentioning some of the things we think are important. It is designed to reduce crime and that is fine. As the explanatory note says the reforms envisaged by this bill are aimed at making it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods through second-hand dealers. If it is designed to close down fencing—if closing down fencing and those who are receiving is the issue that is out there—well and good. We certainly would support that. 
If we were to look further at some of the other areas we would see that the legislation does not cover auctioneers. I guess that when items have to be sold they will go to an auctioneer and I would have thought there might be provisions that included auctioneers. If we go back to the 1963 and 1908 legislation we note that auctioneers are part of those provisions and this legislation does not allow for that. 
I want to briefly mention business costs. Stephen Franks mentioned compliance costs. I am for reducing compliance costs. In many debates in this House I have talked about the high-cost regulatory regimes and the high compliance costs we are faced with. The explanatory note does go on to say that there will be higher costs. If those costs are going to streamline the process and provide accountability and transparency for the people who are dealing in these products—and if that is in the public good—it is something we will have to accept. 
I note that there is a very clear message on page 15 of the bill. There is an analysis of the costs that will be associated with this and it is certainly a very good move to show the costs of the current regime versus the costs of the proposed regime. I will go over this very quickly. The current cost of a dealership for a new dealer is $190. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is $190 and for a new dealer that will move up under this bill to $480. 
Hon David Carter 
: Another tax. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It could be. It is another $290. It does go on to say that there will be compliance costs. I will just read this. “The total industry-wide increase in compliance costs over the status quo for the first year of operation is estimated to be $1155000. This is made up of $975000 in licensing fees for secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers and $180000 for other costs associated with the new licensing process.” So there are major costs involved and at the select committee we will be looking very closely at what that all means because we do not want unnecessary costs. As I mentioned earlier if the costs bring accountability and transparency to safeguard the public’s interest that is worthwhile. 
But one major issue is not covered and that is the buying of goods over the Internet. There is no provision in this legislation that controls the buying of goods on the Internet. There are a number of organisations and firms out there—eBay is one of the biggest—and people who have been involved in buying goods and services over the Internet need to know that they are protected. There is very little protection; by giving one’s credit card numbers over the Internet one can be ripped off and part of the work of the select committee in my view must be to look at how New Zealanders can be safeguarded in their use of the Internet because there is no provision at all for that in this bill. We have moved into this age—and this legislation which is being trumpeted as being so important and certainly we agree with it makes absolutely no provision for or account of this very important mechanism of buying on the Internet that we have access to. 
It does not actually talk about the garage sale provision. I mentioned earlier the point that a lot of organisations have become dependent on running garage sales having stalls and whatever. If it is less than six times a year in a 12-month period they will be exempt. But there are organisations out there dealing in second-hand goods every day of the week. We want to make sure that people buying from there are protected and we want to make sure that the licensing regimes fit the bill. National supports this through to the select committee. We believe there are issues that need to be addressed and during the select committee process and at the Committee stage we will be pushing and articulating those to get what is best for New Zealand consumers. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution to the debate on this bill which I primarily support. I was compelled by the contribution from the honourable member Richard Worth whose speech drew me from my office to the Chamber. I am so pleased to have this brief opportunity to speak. It was compelling stuff from Mr Worth and let it never be said that he is a second-hand rose. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee 
Business Law Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Business Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move at the appropriate point that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. It is important to make sure that legislation aids business activity and to ensure that it does so it must remain up to date and relevant. Business law should hinder neither the ability of business to function nor the effective and efficient operation of the markets in which those businesses operate. Given the amount and the complexity of legislation that affect businesses it is inevitable that amendments will be needed from time to time in order to meet the same. As the business environment changes legislation must be updated accordingly. 
This is the second omnibus Business Law Reform Bill. It represents the commitment of this Parliament to the incremental improvement of existing business law to keep in step with the changing needs and requirements of the market. The bill contains various amendments to a number of business law statutes that in their own right would not justify a single piece of legislation. 
It is at this point that I wish to acknowledge all parties in the House with the exception of New Zealand First which have agreed that this bill should proceed. I believe that New Zealand First has done irreparable damage to its reputation with the business community assuming of course that it had a reputation to damage. I can inform this House that many representatives of the legal fraternity and the wider business community have expressed considerable dissatisfaction that one party could stand in the way of legislation that is designed to assist the business community in a number of significant ways. 
In particular the bill will remove unnecessary compliance costs associated with some administrative processes. It will clarify various statutory provisions achieve consistency between different legislative requirements and update various statutory provisions. Although the changes effected through the bill are individually small and therefore would not justify their own statute in totality they will have a significant and positive impact on the body of law under which businesses must operate. For example in the field of compliance costs one of the key aims of the bill is to reduce compliance costs associated with administrative procedures. An example of that is sections 52E and 52F of the Securities Act relating to employer-based superannuation schemes. All such schemes must prepare both prospectuses and investment statements except for “small-employer superannuation schemes” that existed before 1 September 1983 and have assets of less than $5 million. 
A number of industry participants expressed their concern at the unnecessary compliance cost associated with having to register a prospectus for employer-sponsored superannuation schemes under the Act. Indeed one organisation claimed that complying with that provision costs up to $100000 annually. Industry participants commented that they seldom or never have inquiries for the prospectus. In the light of the expense of preparing and publishing a prospectus they consider that the costs outweigh the benefits. The bill contains a clause exempting all employer-based superannuation schemes from the prospectus requirements in the Act which will greatly reduce compliance costs for the operators of such schemes. 
Another example is section 97A of the Building Societies Act and section 210 of the Companies Act 1993 where certain financial documents must be sent to all members of building societies or shareholders of companies. Consultation has revealed that in many cases the members or shareholders are not interested and indeed may not wish to receive all the financial disclosure documents. In that case the cost of printing and posting such documents to them is an unnecessary compliance cost. The bill contains a clause allowing members and shareholders to opt out of receiving certain information. 
One further example is sections 10 and 12 of the Financial Reporting Act which sets out the disclosure requirements for reporting entities and exempt companies. Exempt companies are those with among other requirements assets of less than $450000 and a turnover of less than $1 million. Exempt companies have lesser disclosure requirements than reporting entities. Consultation has revealed that in some instances exempt companies will have prepared fuller disclosure for other reasons yet must also prepare the additional lesser disclosure documents under the exempt company regime. The bill contains a clause allowing exempt companies to opt into fuller disclosure. This will provide exempt companies with the flexibility to make compliance cost savings. 
The second heading is “clarification”. Another key aim of the bill is to improve the clarity of our existing commercial law statutes. Where a statute is unclear businesses and regulators have to waste time and money on either getting legal advice or taking a case to the courts to interpret the statute. One example of that is section 196(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 which provides that at each annual general meeting a company must appoint an auditor to hold office until the end of the next annual general meeting. It is not clear in the statute whether an auditor may resign before then. The bill contains a clause clarifying that of course an auditor can resign between annual general meetings. 
Regarding consistency the bill also aims to remove anomalies in the law that have emerged over time. For example section 53E of the Securities Act provides that issuers of equity securities debt securities life insurance policies unit trusts and superannuation schemes must have their financial statements audited annually by a qualified auditor. In the case of participatory securities annual audits are carried out only if the statutory supervisor so requires. The bill contains a clause requiring that all arrangements or schemes to which participatory securities relate should be audited annually to remove that inconsistency. 
Finally the bill is about updating the law. This process is particularly important as among other things it allows business to take full advantage of the new information technology environment. For example section 15(2) of the Commerce Act prescribes that meetings of the Commerce Commission should be held at such times and places as the commission determines. That does not provide the commission with sufficient flexibility to convene meetings using for example videoconferencing tools. The bill contains a clause that will allow the commission to take advantage of technology to convene meetings. 
In aggregate the changes included in this the second omnibus Business Law Reform Bill will achieve the key public policy objective of ensuring that the law affecting the operation of business is clear efficient and effective. The bill will reduce the cumulative costs of complying with legislation and the cost of reconciling different legislative requirements to promote both the efficient use of economic resources and enterprise and innovation in the economy. 
I again thank members of the Progressive Coalition United Future the Greens the National Party and the ACT party for facilitating the introduction of this bill and reference to the select committee. On behalf of the business community representatives whom I have met I say shame on New Zealand First for playing politics with a demonstrably non-political bill. Several months have been lost by that about-face given that the bill was actually agreed for introduction before last year’s election. I thank the Leader of the House for finding a way round the obstructive behaviour of a party that has lost any credibility it ever had over this matter. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It was most interesting to be in the House during the last few minutes of the Minister’s speech to hear how she operates to encourage cross-party support for any future bills she might bring to the House and I will comment on the involvement of New Zealand First later on in my contribution to this bill. 
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement attached to this bill. The innovation of such statements was apparently to quantify to New Zealand business and to consumers the costs that would come from implementing such policies and also the benefits that would flow to users as well. I must say that it is clear from reading the compliance cost statements in this bill that the Government defines the benefits very thinly. Some examples but not many are given that would justify some action that this Minister said was all about removing “unnecessary compliance costs”. 
I remind the House that this bill does not address any of the business community’s key concerns with regard to the regulatory cost introduced by this Labour Government. In general I remind members that Business New Zealand has estimated that the increased costs imposed by recent and prospective Government policy changes add about $44000 a year to the annual cost of a company employing just 20 staff. This House needs to know that this minority Labour Government has made over 15 increases to taxes levies excises and fees since 1999 on the basis of its pledge that there would be only one increase in taxes. That was the pledge that only 5 percent of New Zealanders would pay additional income tax. We know that is a hollow pledge because 15 percent of our population earn over that threshold and this Government is doing nothing to remedy that situation. As I said this bill does nothing about the 15 increases in taxes fees and levies that this Government which promised there would be only one new tax has delivered to New Zealanders. In fact in this Parliament we are looking at an additional tax on electricity consumers. This bill does nothing about that. We are also looking at an additional tax on the burps—a polite way of describing it—of farm animals which is another tax that this Government said it would not be bringing to Parliament but it is. 
The House will want to know that the National Bank’s small business monitor survey shows that regulation the cost of compliance is the biggest problem facing small business in New Zealand today. Small businesses say that together with compliance costs and regulation the Resource Management Act is one of the big compliance stumbling blocks in the economy. What in the bill does anything about what worries small businesses in New Zealand? Not a jot! Nothing in this bill will make much of a difference to small businesses in New Zealand and nothing in it will address the community’s concerns about the Resource Management Act. Similarly I have to advise the House that nothing in this bill addresses the significant problems businesses are facing from the Employment Relations Act the Human Rights Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. These are the issues that small businesses in this country want addressed. If we are to have a Minister of Commerce come into this House and pony up a bill that she said “removes unnecessary compliances costs” then I would have thought that the compliance cost statement in that bill would clearly enunciate those changes. 
What is there in this bill that the Government says will make a saving? Well there are few things in it for big business and some things for the insurance industry. 
Dail Jones 
: Which it may not want! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes which it may not want. There are some things in it for the big businesses that issue prospectus documents. There is some stuff in here for the big businesses that are suffering some concerns with the Financial Reporting Act. 
However it is very interesting what is included in the bill. This Government which said that people who earn over $60000 a year are wealthy and that they can afford to pay extra taxes has changes its mind. This Government has introduced legislation that actually defines what a wealthy person is. This Government has decided what a wealthy person is. It says that a wealthy person has assets in excess of $2 million and an annual income in excess of $200000. So why is this Government hitting middle-income earners with higher personal tax rates? If people are wealthy and earn over $200000 a year why then are middle-income people suffering the added consequence of higher personal taxes under this Labour Government? The biggest compliance cost for working New Zealanders today is their income tax. We know that the high rate of inflation that this Government has tolerated in the last few years is pushing more and more New Zealanders up into the higher tax bracket. Nothing in this bill does anything about it. When this Government came to office it said that only 5 percent of New Zealanders would pay higher tax. What we know is that 15 percent of New Zealanders are paying higher tax. 
What would the House have expected to be in the Business Law Reform Bill? I would have thought we would be doing something about the burden that the Occupational Safety and Health Service is putting on small businesses. I would have thought we would have something about the difficulties that a rigid labour market and the Employment Relations Act make for businesses that want to open on statutory holidays. I would have thought we would be doing something about that. I would have thought we would be making some changes to the Human Rights Act to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the things that businesses say should be acted on as priority. Where are the changes to the Local Government Act to remove the burden on small businesses that are trying to get ahead? 
Where are the changes to the Resource Management Act the biggest stumbling block to investment in this country? Where are the changes that are putting Lockwood’s investment in the Rotorua district at risk—changes that should be made to the Resource Management Act to prevent silly and ridiculous objections under the Resource Management Act that have stopped Lockwood from making its investment there? Where are the changes that will make that? I will tell members where the changes are. They are in the National Party’s 16-point plan for changes to the Resource Management Act. We promoted those in the House and members opposite have opposed them. They should look at our 16-point plan to fix the Resource Management Act. That is the sort of thing that would have encouraged Lockwood to make its investment in the Mamaku in Rotorua. If that investment does not go ahead then the people of Rotorua have no one else to blame but the Labour Government because it voted against the changes to the Resource Management Act that would have ensured that investment would have gone ahead. The Government is responsible if there are problems with that investment. We should see more in a Business Law Reform Bill than has been promoted in this one. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I listened with some interest to the speech made by the Hon Tony Ryall. Let me put my cards on the table at the beginning and say that United Future will be voting for this bill. I think the principle that I would respond to Tony Ryall with is that we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Also I would like to say that many of us New Zealanders were very very disappointed indeed that the more extreme provisions of the Resource Management Act were not dealt with during the term of the National-led Government. I think that many people have spoken through the ballot box on that issue. I would certainly hope that the Government might take notice of that and that we can indeed give the people of New Zealand some relief from that legislation which in some ways I think has been very poorly thought through. 
However I come back to this bill. The amendments appear to be largely technical and uncontroversial in nature. They are intended to clarify and update various statutory provisions to give effect to the intended purpose of the provisions remove unnecessary compliance costs and remove conflicts within and between different pieces of legislation. Most of the amendments stem from suggestions from business law practitioners enforcement agencies and the business community. 
Given that the bill is running well behind schedule and that the business community is eager for the proposed reforms to be implemented we have pleasure in supporting this bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is an exciting piece of legislation if one is a lawyer or an accountant or if one goes to the Regulations Review Committee meetings on Wednesday mornings at 8.30. 
Darren Hughes 
: I bet the member is always late. 
DAIL JONES 
: No the member is usually on time for that committee. 
As a lawyer believe it or not one can go through the 13 pieces of legislation that are being amended by this bill and one could show some interest in all of them. Of course the most disappointing feature of this legislation is that it has been held up since 2001 by this Labour minority Government. This bill was sought after and requested by all the commercial sectors in 2001. Somehow or other in 2003 New Zealand First gets the blame. Well that is a long long bow. 
The National Party says that it has a 16-point plan to sort out compliance cost requirements. New Zealand First has a one-point plan. It is very simple: vote New Zealand First. Can we fix it? Yes we can! It is just a one-point plan for us. We are not a very subtle bunch. One point is enough for us; one vote is enough for us. [ 
Interruption 
] If we have a good idea we stick with it. That is right. 
I have looked through this legislation and read it clause by clause. Of course we have had the speech from the Minister and I thought: “Oh well let’s see what it says.” I ask members to look at this wonderful piece of drafting that we have in clause 13. I looked and looked at it and I hope that perhaps the next Government speaker will explain it to me. Clause 13 “Interpretation” states: “Section 2(3)(b) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘capital’ and substituting the word ‘capital’ “. Shall I say that again? Clause 13 “Interpretation” states: “Section 2(3)(b) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘capital’ and substituting the word ‘capital’ “. Well what does that mean? 
Pansy Wong 
: Is it now a little “c”? 
DAIL JONES 
: No they both have a small “c”. This is a wonderful piece of legislation which has been heralded by the Minister of Commerce. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Das Kapital! 
DAIL JONES 
: Oh Das Kapital—with a “k”. It should have been with a “k” not with a “c”. All I can say is that that is the first amendment that will be made to this piece of legislation. Somehow or other the Government has messed it up already. 
I must express my appreciation at the very beginning for the tremendous support given to me by the New Zealand Law Society in investigating this bill and what must have been its predecessor. I have about 26 pages of information here from the New Zealand Law Society and its representative at Kensington Swan for which I am very grateful. Each of these pages has about four to six suggestions for this legislation. I would say that at the very least three-quarters of them support the legislation and New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because in principle we do support it. There is no doubt about that but obviously we could not support clause 13 which will remove the word “capital” and substitute it with the word “capital”. There is obviously something wrong there. 
As I flicked through the bill and looked at various things—and this is for the record as much as anything else or for anyone looking at it later—I note that clause 23 seems to be an amendment that was not in the original suggestions made. Clause 29 is headed: “Penalties that may be imposed on directors in cases of failure by board or company to comply with Act”. That clause seems to be relatively new judging by the information handed out to people. Clauses 34 and 35 seem to come within the same category as well. Clause 37 deals with the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908. As I have mentioned on a previous occasion the Law Commission in its 1995 report on the Property Law Act said that this Act should be repealed. Does anybody in the Chamber know what the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908 is all about based as it on the— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does “Replevin” mean? 
DAIL JONES 
: Exactly! What does it mean? Here we are voting for something that even the member for Pakuranga does not know the meaning of. No no one knows. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Worth and myself may have dealt with the Distress and Replevin Act—and perhaps Mr Franks but I am not sure whether he knows. But that does not stop us from passing legislation and moving legislation on and I am sure that the select committee will take a great interest in it. But the essential fact is that the Distress and Replevin Act should be repealed. That was the submission of the Law Society and the Law Commission—in 1995 as I recall. Why has the Government not repealed the Distress and Replevin Act and put in the new Property Law Act in place of the 1952 legislation? 
The Government says it is trying to do something to assist the business community. In fact the House is just patching up a dreadful old piece of legislation that talks about levying distress or in other words seizing goods usually by a landlord or a judgment creditor and recovering them. I think that the word “replevin” would be an old Norman-French word that goes back to 1066 and probably means “recover”. Am I right? [ 
Interruption 
] No I am not. I have forgotten what “replevin” means and I do not want to know what “replevin” means to be perfectly frank. All I can say is that in practice the Act is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I have come across its being implemented by real estate agents who really would have got into all sorts of problems if anyone had ever criticised what they were doing. 
As I look at Part 6 “Financial Reporting Act 1993” and at the definition of “turnover” I feel sure that people will have a closer look at that. I look at clause 42 “Meaning of group financial statements” and in particular at section 9(1)(e) and I know that people will be having a closer look at that too. 
I am skipping through the bill. There are 13 parts with 13 Acts of Parliament being amended so I have to move along fairly quickly. I refer now to clause 46 which deals with the removal of disputes processes. Now I would have thought that in this day and age we like to see dispute settlement taking place away from lawyers. Clause 46 removes dispute resolution processes and I wonder whether the select committee will have another think about that. 
While I am speaking about the select committee I point out that this bill I am told is to be referred to the Commerce Committee. We have a Justice and Electoral Committee which has five lawyers on it. Why do we not send the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee which in past years would have considered legislation of this kind? Why send it instead to the Commerce Committee which I think has two lawyers on it—or only one? I mean no disrespect to Mr Parker but I would have thought that a bill of this kind with 13 technical pieces of legislation ought to be going to a select committee with at least five lawyers on it. But no no. Why send the bill to a select committee that might actually know something about the bill and might be able to interpret it and understand it? So the Government is sending the bill to a select committee that has only one lawyer. The bill will then be really in the hands of the officials as to what ultimately goes into the legislation. 
I move on. The bill also deals with the Life Insurance Act the Personal Properties Securities Act and such like. Clause 59 may be of interest to lawyers as may be clause 65. I notice that clause 68 inserts new section 75A which is in addition to the information given to me by the New Zealand Law Society and I would suggest that any lawyer looking into this bill later on would have a close look at that clause. The suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society regarding clause 72 about the satisfaction of judgment debts—making sure that the collateral goes towards the satisfaction of an obligation rather than what was originally in full satisfaction—has been taken into account by the Government. 
The main thing really that I want to look at in the short time that is left to me is the compliance cost matter which I hope Mr Franks might take up in greater detail. [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about compliance costs with regard to sections 5(2E) and 5(2F) of the Securities Act which is referred to in Part 10 of the bill. As I read that provision—and the Law Society submission about the provision goes for over one and a half pages—to me there is some great doubt about whether the proposal in the bill for the Securities Act with regard to section 5(2E) I think it was relating to compliance cost requirements is satisfactory. I just mention it in passing so that at a later date someone can perhaps have a closer look at it and see whether he or she is satisfied with the bill as introduced by the Government. 
I look at new section 36A inserted by clause 92 which is additional legislation that is included and there are many other various notes that I respectfully suggest the Commerce Committee will have considerable interest in. I would hope there might be parties in this House that will ensure there may be a substitution on the Commerce Committee to help it with the legislation. New Zealand First always wants to ensure that commercial legislation or any legislation works satisfactorily. 
The claim made by the Minister that this bill will reduce compliance costs and suchlike is a load of rubbish. In many respects this legislation requires additional things to be done. It is all a matter of interpretation. The main point is that this bill has been waiting to come into the House since 2001. I would have preferred to see its parts come in individually because my concern is that if one part holds up this legislation then it will hold up 13. We must make sure that if there is one part holding it up we can take it out of this bill and proceed with the other 12. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 After wonderful oratory like that which is incisive and visionary in its nature I believe it is amazing that this House got by in the 20 years after Mr Jones decided to leave Parliament and was not a member of this Chamber. I am not quite sure how we managed to frame legislation without Mr Jones’ presence during these last 2 decades. 
I am not sure either whether the reason he is opposing this bill is that the residents’ committee of his local retirement village where he makes his home decided that he should come to Parliament and oppose this bill. I can understand why Mr Jones is opposing the repeal of the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908. It was his first private member’s bill back in 1908 when he first came to this Chamber so I can understand why he has a huge commitment to it. 
I support this bill because it does clarify some compliance costs. I think it is very good Government legislation. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I think the Labour Party should apologise to the public. The honourable member Mr Dail Jones demonstrated that he has actually gone through this Business Law Reform Bill chapter and verse. We have just listened to Darren Hughes who totally convinced everybody out there that he had not even bothered to flick through this bill. He just wasted 3 minutes of parliamentary time on talking about nothing. The Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel shows a total lack of enthusiasm. I wish the Government would give the portfolio back to the Hon Paul Swain. At least every time he stood to introduce some business law legislation he showed some enthusiasm and understanding. 
The Labour Party is actually apologising for this bill. When I read the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement in the explanatory note it was very clear to me that the Minister was making an apology because it states: “The Business Law Reform Bill is an omnibus bill that contains minor changes to a number of business law statutes”. All I can say to the Minister is to stop apologising and bring some major changes that will enable the business community to go ahead and expand their business. 
I also want to challenge the very uncharitable Minister of Commerce who accused New Zealand First of single-handedly delaying this bill for 2 years. I do not understand; all I know is that United Future members obviously intimidated by the Minister’s stand immediately got up and said that they did not understand why they should support it but that they had better do so because they do not want United Future to be named as the party that may even show some attempt to stand up to Labour and get it to do some real work. My challenge is to United Future members to take another call and explain to the public why the bill makes only minor changes. Why can it not bring along some major changes that allow the business community to go forward? 
I want to come back to this bill and challenge the Ministry of Economic Development which is headed by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. When I was on the Commerce Committee the ministry always complained that it had developed this compliance cost statement and said that each piece of legislation that comes before the Parliament has to have a detailed statement on how it reduces compliance costs and justifies the benefit of it. We are always encouraging and ask how the Commerce Committee can be helpful in giving some power to help the Ministry of Economic Development demand that various Government departments produce substantial justification for bringing legislation before this Parliament. 
When I look through this Business Law Reform Bill all the Ministry of Economic Development can say under the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement is that the bill will “remove unnecessary compliance costs associated with some legislation”. For a ministry that is supposed to show a leading fine example—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is too much unnecessary conversation going on. 
PANSY WONG 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the members should devote some time to reading through the compliance cost statement. Darren Hughes found time to point a finger at other members of Parliament. I wish he had found time to read through the bill and in his 3-minute speech make a better job of talking about it. 
The Ministry of Economic Development is charged with the important task of demonstrating how a compliance cost statement should be made. But all it can say is that one of the key aims of the bill is to reduce compliance costs and then gives three examples. When the Ministry of Economic Development can only produce a weak general statement of compliance cost justification how can it go ahead and complain that the various Government departments never take seriously the producing of these compliance cost statements? 
My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall is absolutely right: this bill does not do much about reducing compliance costs. Let me give one example. They are saying that this bill is trying to be helpful it is trying to say that some entities no longer have to provide full financial statements so some shareholders can write in and say: “Well the shareholder doesn’t want to get the full set of financial statements.” But guess what the requirement is? Apart from producing the full set of financial statements the entity has to produce some simplified financial statements. One can argue that that has increased compliance costs because the entity has to produce a full set of financial statements anyway. If it has mailed them to the shareholders there is the cost of printing. There is a compliance cost. Introducing an alternative simplified financial statement actually requires an additional step. I presume the entity has to send out those forms for the shareholders to select whether they want to receive the full financial statements or the simplified statements. So one can argue whether it does reduce the compliance cost requirement. 
The honourable member Dail Jones raised a good point when he mentioned clause 13 in Part 3 and said that it sounds strange that this clause omits the word “capital” and substitutes the word “capital”. I think that was a very good question and Labour members should take a call. I read through the legislation and interestingly the first word “capital” is within inverted commas and the second word “capital” has a comma within the inverted commas. I tell Dail Jones that that might mean something different. 
The only point of difference I have with Mr Dail Jones is that I am in favour of the bill going to the Commerce Committee because it does not have as many lawyers. From my previous experience when one sends a bill to a select committee that is full of lawyers they spend large amounts of time debating technically where the commas and the full stops are. My honourable colleague Richard Worth is showing some distress. I have high respect for lawyers except they seem to spend large amounts of time commenting on whether a comma or a full stop will lead to a lot of differences. Of course after they have this lengthy debate and when things do not work out and the case is put before the court then we find that another set of lawyers will come up with an entirely different interpretation. 
But I think Labour members should take another call and show the public that they have indeed read this bill make some substantial contributions learn from Mr Dail Jones and not accuse New Zealand First of not supporting this legislation. We got it from the horse’s mouth—that New Zealand First does support the legislation. Labour members should stop blaming other parties for their slackness in bringing this bill to the Parliament. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 After that fascinating and eloquent discourse all I can say is that this bill does contain various amendments to a number of business laws. The amendments seek to reduce costs for business. That has to be a good thing and that is why I support the bill. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Pansy Wong 
: Did you read the bill? 
ROD DONALD 
: I have read enough of the bill and if Pansy Wong listens carefully she will hear what I have to say about it. The Green Party believes this is a good bill and we look forward to its speedy passage. I am sure there will be wording that the various members of the Commerce Committee will seek to tidy up especially if there is a good body of lawyers on the select committee because after all this bill is largely commercial in nature. But it is more than just a technical bill. There are some very very significant improvements to legislation in this bill. That is why we were bitterly disappointed that New Zealand First held up the introduction of this bill by requiring this House to have a notice of motion so that the bill could come before us especially as the bill was agreed to by the Business Committee on I think 21 May 2002. So why New Zealand First changed its mind I really do not know. 
The most important changes in this bill and the ones that I am sure listeners are desperate to come into effect are the changes in Part 10 in particular. Part 10 contains changes to the Securities Act and will restore some sense of balance and perspective and if one likes adopt a logical approach to employer-subsidised superannuation schemes. We have had the ridiculous situation for the last 2 or 3 years that very tiny employer superannuation schemes have had to jump some pretty high hurdles in order to comply with the Act. I am particularly talking about the need to produce a prospectus when in most cases the members of the scheme do not want to see a prospectus. They are quite happy to put aside a little bit of their salary and for their bosses to supplement that and they look forward to a nest egg when they retire. But that nest egg has been disappearing because of the compliance costs that successive Governments have imposed on employer-subsidised superannuation schemes. 
One can see the consequences of that when one looks at the figures the Government Actuary produces each year. It is horrifying to note that over the last 12 years the number of employer-subsidised schemes has dropped from 2242 in 1990 down to only 560 in 2002. Of course it would have been 559 if the Green Party had not had the good sense to set up the Green Futures Superannuation Fund. But it is not just the reduction in the number of schemes that has caused us major concern; it is also the reduction in the number of working New Zealanders who are receiving the benefits of employer-subsidised superannuation. That number has dropped from 310741 in 1990 down to only 245003 in 2002. In other words there are 65000 fewer New Zealand workers who are saving for their retirement through an employer-subsidised scheme and whose employer is being a good citizen by subsidising that scheme. Anything that we can do to reverse that trend and to encourage employers to support their staff in saving for their own retirement has to be a good thing. 
That is why we particularly support the changes in Part 10 of this bill and also the changes in Part 12 which will lead to another significant reduction in compliance costs for employers. They will not have to send a full set of annual accounts for those superannuation schemes out to all their staff. That means not only that the people in existing schemes will face reduced administration costs and therefore more money in their savings account—their superannuation fund—but that there will hopefully be two significant or important steps towards more businesses offering their employees subsidised superannuation. Of course the trifecta will come through when the new taxation bill comes in this Thursday and the Government takes its first tentative step towards getting rid of the taxation disincentive that is currently imposed on employers who at the moment have to pay at 33 percent for their specified superannuation contribution withholding tax. That is fine if one’s marginal tax rate is 39 percent but if one’s marginal tax rate is 21 percent or 15 percent that means employers are being penalised and therefore that those low-income employees are also being penalised. We will say more on that on Thursday when that bill comes in. But together those three things should make an important difference. 
This bill contains a number of other important amendments. Often they have been at the suggestion of the respective industries. For example the amendments in Part 1 relating to building societies were proposed by the Financial Services Federation a very important organisation that represents New Zealand - owned and operated mutual funds—the backbone of the community financial sector in the opinion of the Green Party. Many of us will be aware of the role that local building societies play not only in helping people to achieve their homeownership aspirations and helping businesses to achieve their small business dreams but also in supporting local community projects. It was a pleasure to meet with the chief executive of the Southland Building Society last week and to hear that it has just achieved a record year. Its members’ equity is up by 14.7 percent its total assets have grown by 18 percent to $1.34 billion and what is more its pre-tax operating surplus has increased by 60 percent to a record $16.2 million. I think the members of that society would be the envy of a lot of people who have put their money in managed funds that have gambled it on the overseas sharemarket and who have seen their money disappear. Clearly the tried and proven building societies are a much better place in which to make an investment than that. 
So too of course are the credit unions which are covered in Part 7. Again the changes in the bill were proposed by the Association of Credit Unions and it is good to see that this Parliament is prepared to help credit unions to continue to play their important role. There is another piece of legislation before the House that will help them and the buildings societies: the Reserve Bank bill. That bill will allow them to continue to use the words “bank” “banking” and “banker” so that they can promote their services to the community in competition with the big foreign-owned banks that are sending the profits from our deposits off shore. It is far better that we support New Zealand cooperatives and New Zealand mutuals because the profits stay in our community. 
Speaking of New Zealand – based companies I point out that Part 4 is another important part of the bill. It has to do with the Co-operative Companies Act. I hope that the Co-operatives Association will make a submission on the bill. I presume it supports the changes that are in this bill because again those changes will help to reduce compliance costs. It is vital that we support the cooperative sector because cooperatives are indeed the backbone of the whole economy. They are often under-rated and under-appreciated but when we think about it we realise our largest business in this country Fonterra is a cooperative and I think our second or third largest—when the three companies in the group are added together—is a retail cooperative the Foodstuffs group. There are a lot of cooperatives now operating in the primary sector. Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative is another example of a cooperative and there are others in the retail sector. They have a very important role to play and it is good to see that this Government is responding to the wishes of those organisations through the introduction of this bill. 
I want to say one last word to Tony Ryall whom I heard speaking when I came into the Chamber. I think he was being rather disingenuous in suggesting that the bill should contain a whole lot of other amendments when he fully understands it is not possible to bring them in under the appropriate Standing Order that this bill has been introduced under. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This bill is business friendly. It reduces unnecessary compliance costs and other impediments to business. It is important that the ongoing improvement of business law continues in this country. We have received many comments in response to and in support of this bill from many many people—from the Institute of Directors and the New Zealand business society Business New Zealand and from Westpac the Financial Services Federation and many more. This bill is good for business and I commend it to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been privileged to hear a witty and fascinating speech albeit of short duration. I seek the indulgence of the House that the speaker be permitted to continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of anybody else and that is not a matter for a point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party welcomes the long-awaited arrival of this bill in the House and we look forward to it being a pattern for reasonably conservative and careful updating of the law from time to time. But I urge the Commerce Committee which is the select committee to which the bill will be going to be very careful that this bill is a measure that has conservative non-contentious and well-drafted provisions because a quick trot through it reveals some worrying aspects. 
The first of those is simply the ambition of the drafters. I notice that the statement of the net benefits of the proposal in the regulatory impact and cost compliance statement which is in the explanatory note of the bill contains rather incautious terms. If there is one thing that should mark out a bill of this kind it is that the statement of its purposes and intentions should be a very sober careful and unchallengeably accurate statement. Yet I see a sentence that states: “This incremental improvement will also ensure that the body of business law has the following characteristics:”—I just pause for a minute to say that to “ensure” anything is very bold indeed—”clear statutory provisions where money is not spent on legal fees to establish their meaning and businesses and regulators can proceed with certainty;”. I think that is a noble objective. It is a wonderful statement of aspiration but I would never ever have claimed that something could ensure that. The drafters of this bill who felt able to claim that they were ensuring clear statutory provisions where money is not spent on legal fees to establish their meaning and businesses and regulators can proceed with certainty are in heaven. 
That sparked in me an eager attempt to look at some of the things that I have known for many years were needless irritations and pointless causes of constant recourse to the lawyers. The first of those that I will look at is the new exemptions in the Securities Act. We were directed to look at those exemptions by Rod Donald who spoke recently. The Green Party now feels that it has pretty much got on top of the investment and capitalism business. It feels it has mastered it: one just invests in a rising market where one’s colleagues are opening the floodgates to immigration and one can feel like a Midas too. By doing that one can find that investment is easy and that all the bunnies who invested off shore just did not know how to do it. One just has to be like the Greens and buy property. That is very interesting. 
I can see that shortly someone in the Green Party will point to the exemption for the wealthy and claim that they no longer need prospectuses or offer documents because they come within that category of the wealthy. Wealthy people will now be able to avoid the compliance costs of the Securities Act—although I see that exemption is only for individuals with a net worth of $2 million and an income of $200000 a year. No the Greens I think possibly still have a little way to go towards meeting those criteria although their superannuation scheme if property keeps on going up in the way that it is at present might get each one of them into that blessed category. 
To be serious though there are problematic aspects to this bill and I do want the Commerce Committee to look at them very closely. For example it seems to have been assumed by the Minister who introduced the bill that nobody could possibly object to the change to section 61 of the Securities Act which prohibits indemnities or insurance for the directors officers employees and auditors of issuers. It states that issuers must not indemnify or directly or indirectly effect insurance for directors officers employees and auditors of issuers that covers liability for any negligence or default in their capacity as directors employees or auditors. If we now think of the inventiveness of the courts in going back and applying their hindsight judgment to business we can realise that that could be pretty significant. That prohibition could mean that a normal directors’ and officers’ liability policy for a member of a public issuer is something that must be funded out of his or her own fees. 
Then we look at the proposed new anti-avoidance clause new section 61C which states: “effect insurance includes pay whether directly or indirectly the costs of the insurance”. Does this Government still believe in Father Christmas? Does this Government believe that the directors of companies would not expect their fees to pay indirectly the costs of any necessary insurance? How do we deal with this issue and what is the net effect of saying that a company may not effect ordinary prudent insurance for its directors? 
Let us think for example of the directors of the various investment funds that inadvertently failed to comply with New Zealand’s securities law in filing all the copies of accounts etc. that they were required to file recently with the Registrar of Companies. It is said that one group of trusts alone—BT Financial Group which is now a Westpac subsidiary—is liable to pay $200 million to New Zealanders. Not unnaturally those people are desperately lobbying the Government to be relieved of that liability. Not unnaturally the Government which is in a far from cosy relationship with the Australians is coming under pressure to try to accede to that lobbying and to relieve those Australian companies of the obligation to pay New Zealanders $200 million that they would not have been able to get if it had not been for that default. 
I look at that provision that states that a company or an issuer in New Zealand cannot indemnify directly nor indirectly effect insurance for a director. I ask myself whether we are about to see the directors of Westpac in Australia suddenly struck with illegality because that company has been issuing in New Zealand. If we are we should think very carefully about that. For companies to be precluded from ordinary prudent insurance simply means that the regime in this country will come under constant pressure of the kind that is now coming to exempt the Australians from something that New Zealanders are being afflicted with. 
I also want to look very quickly—and I urge the committee to look—at the new exemptions from the prospectus offering requirements. I have already mentioned the exemption for “persons who are wealthy and experienced in investing money” in clause 89(2). That term is further defined in new section 3(9) inserted by clause 89 as people with the experience to be “able to assess—(a) the merits of the offer; and (b) the value of the securities; and (c) the risks involved in accepting the offer; and (d) that person’s own information needs;”. 
Why are those exemptions so confined? Why is a Labour Government so anxious to protect people who can well afford to lose money from the consequences of their own folly or imprudence? Why is the Government to impose that securities regime across a whole lot of people who individually have far less than $2 million in net assets and who have an annual gross income of far less than $200000 but who ought to be allowed to participate in the kinds of offers that are made outside the Securities Act regime? Why has that threshold been chosen when for this Government if one earns over $60000 a year one is wealthy enough to have one’s tax whacked up to 39 percent and one is wealthy enough to be in the top 5 percent of the population? Does this Government say that the top 5 percent of the earning adults in this country are so stupid that they cannot be trusted to make their own investment decisions and cannot be trusted to opt out of the securities regime and that the only ones who can do so are those who earn $200000? That must be such a tiny proportion of the population that I ask what the point of the exemption is. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I was tremendously excited when I picked up this legislation. In fact I was virtually beside myself when I read that this bill was coming before the House. I rushed back from a number of functions that had been on around Wellington this evening to participate in this debate. 
Frankly I was amazed by the Minister’s speech. She was so modest in her claims about the bill that I said to myself I should take a moment longer to review the legislation. Her claims were not the kinds of claims I expected to see in the bill. I read the provisions cutting the corporate tax rate slashing it to 15 percent. So we were there with Hong Kong. I feverishly worked my way through the bill desperately looking for the clause that stated the company tax rate would be 15 percent. I forgave the Minister for that. I said that the Minister gave a modest speech. She left that off the agenda because Dr Cullen is difficult to negotiate with so I moved on. I said not to worry about that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t be like Tony Ryall. Be your own man. You can do it. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am my own man. I said to move on to employment legislation. Let us look for the provisions covering the Employment Relations Act. Did I find any amendments to that Act? I was grossly disappointed. Then I looked for the business friendly legislation that would put Air New Zealand in the hands of Singapore Airlines as a partner. I looked for the legislation that would say that Toll Holdings would play a significant role in New Zealand’s rail network. All those things were missing. I then said to myself that I had been conned. 
This is not the Business Law Reform Bill the Minister had promised to me over a quiet candlelight dinner in Bellamy’s. This is not the legislation that I had hoped and dreamt for. This is not the legislation for which I came to this Parliament from my seat in Helensville promising the business community that I would champion through. This is omnibus legislation that is fairly non-controversial. So for the rest of my time this evening I will focus on what this bill really does talk about not on the wonderful things I was looking for such as the Utopia that would have served to the business community the very heights of business law reform that they look for. 
However before I move on to the parts of the bill I implore the Minister to go back to her office to look at what is coming out of the business community to look through that bevy of information across her desk and to make those reforms so that business in New Zealand can go forth. 
Part 10 looks at the Securities Act. In particular it looks to change the provisions as they relate to a prospectus—that is a prospectus can be admitted. I simply flag for the select committee—and I understand the legislation will go before the Commerce Committee— 
Dail Jones 
: A bevy of lawyers. 
JOHN KEY 
: The bevy of lawyers on the Commerce Committee should be careful when looking at that provision. I say that simply because Rod Donald made a very good point in his presentation that the number of employer superannuation schemes has fallen from 2242 to 560. There may be only 560 but the prospectus is a road map. Just as it serves as a road map for the current negotiations happening in Palestine and Israel the prospectus is a road map for peace with investors in a superannuation scheme. If that prospectus is not delivered because of the need to cut costs and because of the need for efficiency but if a manager was to go about activities that were not the intention of those investing in the scheme that could lead to disaster. I would hate to see any member who is an investor in one of those 560 employer superannuation schemes—and hopefully there will be more—get into any danger at all. 
One of the provisions of the bill is that it changes the definition of a wealthy person. Mr Stephen Franks touched on that when he gave his submission to the House a few moments ago. It talks about a wealthy person having net assets of $2 million and an income of at least $200000. That is wealthy when one looks at New Zealand’s household income research and sees that 53 percent of all New Zealand household incomes are under $40000. That is probably an accurate reflection of wealthy. 
But I also want to reflect on the words of Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance in the Labour Government who said that the increase in the top personal tax rate from 33 cents to 39 cents was a “wealth tax”. Those persons were earning $39000 20 percent of the annual income of a wealthy person as registered here. I hope that Dr Cullen will see it within his heart to come to the House and make a personal statement or a ministerial statement and confess that he was indeed wrong— 
Dail Jones 
: Again. 
JOHN KEY 
: —that he was wrong again that a wealthy person is not someone who earns above $60000 but someone who earns above $200000 and that he will change the top personal tax rate to reflect that. 
The legislation includes a number of other important parts and I touch now on the provisions dealing with the Superannuation Schemes Act which include the ability to send abridged accounts to investors in the scheme instead of the annual report. In some respects it is an important amendment that could play an important role in the sense that so many of us as investors receive information that is really wasteful. There are better ways of transmitting that information. We could transmit it by a set of abridged accounts with a full set of accounts available on the website. That could be a far more effective and efficient way of investors being able to get that information. 
I also touch on the provisions dealing with the Unit Trusts Act which see the maximum penalty for offering or issuing unit trusts contrary to the Act increased from $1000 to $1 million. That has to be one of the most substantial increases that has come before this House. For dishonesty the penalty has gone from $200 to $200000. Those are significant increases and I am sure the Commerce Committee will look at them and apply them to see whether they befit the legislation. 
I also touch on the provisions dealing with the Commerce Act which allow the Commerce Commission to use video technology. As someone who has spent a considerable period of time in the business community and managing a business of a global nature I certainly understand videoconferencing and the benefits of that and I would argue very strongly that the Commerce Commission should have that tool available to it. It is one of the reasons that National supports this legislation. 
National is happy to put forward and promote any legislation that comes before the House that is business friendly. We are supporting this legislation. We will support it to the select committee but we urge the Minister to go back to her office tonight because it is never to late to put out a Supplementary Order Paper that might put a smile on the dial of the business community in New Zealand and make it even more productive so that we might go forward as a richer and wealthier nation. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee. referred to the Commerce Committee 
Care of Children Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Care of Children Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will propose at the end of this debate to refer the bill to the Government Administration Committee. 
The Guardianship Act which is replaced by this bill is over 30 years old. It is generally agreed by all sides of the debate on this matter that the legislation itself is out of date and needs reform. The current debate on the Care of Children Bill is on the nature of the reform. That is all we are debating. 
 So how do we approach the rewrite of laws that are 30 years old? Where do we begin rewriting the Guardianship Act? My view is that because the legislation is designed to promote the best interests and welfare of children it is their perspective that should guide the approach. Some commentators have started from the perspective of the parents and what they regard as the ideal family—mum dad married to each other and the children. This ideal however does not reflect the reality that many children are either born into or experience when mum no longer lives with dad. 
It is not my role to agree with any proposition about the ideal family relationship that forms the best environment for raising children. Many people have made references to the language of diversity in the introductory comments to the bill promoting different forms of family. However this bill does not promote different forms of family. It simply recognises that different forms of family exist today. 
The logical conclusion of those who argue that this legislation should exclude children who are not in the “ideal” family setting when the parents’ relationship breaks down is that those children are not entitled to the protection of the law and that the parents of those children are somehow not as responsible for their children if the relationship breaks down. Children do not choose the family arrangements that they are born into or that occur during their lives. We can debate the merits of diverse families for as long as we like but it is utterly and completely meaningless when we pretend that it would be all right to exclude family relationships that exist in fact but that some people would prefer did not. 
By excluding certain families children in those families would be excluded from the protection that should be available to all children. That is why I look at the legislation from the child’s perspective. Whom they regard as their parents matters. Their care when the parents’ relationship breaks down matters. Ongoing contact with a parent not involved in day-to-day care matters and ongoing contact with wider family members caught in a relationship breakdown between parents matters. If we place the best interests and welfare of the children at the heart of all the decision making when the relationship between the parents breaks down then those are all factors that matter and that is what this bill is designed to do. 
Clause 17(2) which is nothing more than a drafting technique designed to avoid the need to repeat 42 words every time the word “father” appears does not make women fathers. It does not make mums dads. It does not make women dads. I am sick of the commentary on this point. It refers to the amendment to the Status of Children Act which gives them parental status. The Act says they are parents. I ask members to allow me to explain that if a woman in a married or de facto relationship with a man uses a human-assisted reproductive technology procedure to have a child with the consent of her partner then he is by law the child’s parent. He is not the child’s father; he is the child’s parent. This is the existing law. The new law simply extends this provision to the partner of the mother when the partner is a woman. She is also regarded as a parent. 
I am happy to debate the policy; I am not happy to see such an important debate trivialised by saying that the law defines women as fathers. It does not; it never has; it never will. It simply could not be. It does not even attempt to do that. I have said that if the select committee wants to change the wording of clause 17(2) to clarify the point then that is fine by me but I am disappointed that the real debate is obscured by such nonsense. 
 I come back to where I began. The legislation is written from the perspective of offering a framework for resolving issues around the care of children when the relationship between the parents breaks down. The nature of the relationship should not matter to anyone. They like me should say that the best interests and welfare of the child are met when the parents whoever they are resolve between themselves to make the best care arrangements they can in the interests of the children. I have kept my personal views on the matter out of this because of some of the nonsense I have seen in the media coming from Opposition parties. Some would ask what would I know because I do not have any children. But my personal view is that those parents must take responsibility for their children. 
This bill is not about rights. It is about responsibilities. I hate seeing parents hurting each other and hurting their children in the process. When an application has to be made to the Family Court to issue a parenting order—which is the new language replacing a custody and access order—to settle a dispute around day-to-day care and contact it represents failure. It represents the failure of two adult people to set aside the differences the grief the concern the hurt and the pain of the breakdown of their relationship for the sake of the children. I am sorry if I use old-fashioned language. It is old-fashioned language to say that we do it for the sake of the children but we ought to. I applaud those parents who do it for the sake of the children because they are making decisions in the best interests of their children and for their welfare. 
Changes to the Family Court arising out of the Law Commission review will see development of non-judicial mediation processes which will improve these outcomes over time. They will get rid of the win-lose attitude that pervades the Family Court debate and that as I have said on more than one occasion actually involves a minority of cases. 
In an ideal world of ideal families we would not need a Care of Children Bill but the real world is not like that. Relationships do break down. The bill does not make judgments about the nature of the relationship between the parents. It says that all children should have the protection of the law when the significant adults in their lives cannot sort things out and the children themselves are entitled to a voice in the proceedings. Nobody wants children to be scarred by an embittered tug of war rather than reassured by parents who will not allow their children to suffer—using the war analogy—collateral damage. 
I look forward to the debate on the Care of Children Bill. I am sure the select committee will consider the submissions it receives very carefully but if anyone out there who is listening tonight is thinking of writing a submission I ask that person to start with the children. That is where I began when we started to rewrite a law that is over 30 years old. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege for National to speak in respect of this very important legislation. I was saddened to hear the Minister in the mid-point of her speech take the position—why she had to say this I do not know—that because she did not have children she was in some way fettered in offering open and frank views on the merit of this legislation. 
The reason National is opposing this bill is that within it we see some significant merit but we also see aspects of propaganda and political correctness that in the context of family issues seem to this party to be the watchwords of this Government. I have had the privilege—some might say the burden—of listening to the comments the Minister has made on the radio in respect of this bill. I have also heard the comments she has made in respect of the Families Commission Bill. I judge—as do my National colleagues and I am sure those representing the centre-right parties—that in much of what she says on behalf of her Government there is little more than political claptrap. 
 The Minister dismisses the concept of the ideal family. That family is in effect parents and their children. She dismisses that concept because she says “Well that may be an ideal plan but that doesn’t really reflect the reality of society.” and that is of course true. I acknowledge that but it is not a reason for saying that that paradigm is not worth aiming for. I am saddened that the Minister should take the particular line she has in the setting of this bill. She offers to members of this House and to those outside of it who care to listen to her comments the statement that the intrinsic merit of this bill is the interests of the child. That is a fair enough comment but it is stupid sophistry because the Guardianship Act of 1986 so many years ago said exactly that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: 1968. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister corrects me by saying that the date is 1968 but it is a trifling point because she has not dealt with the substance of the issue. So let me repeat the point which is no more complex than this. The earlier legislation was about the interests of the child so members should not let the Minister say to us that this legislation is all about the interests of the child because that is what the Guardianship Act of so many years ago was all about. [ 
Interruption 
] I am interested to face this barrage of interjection from the Minister. She may have little experience in these issues; we have that on her own frank admission and that may be so. But quite clearly all these issues of parenting are about the interests of the child. It is complete subterfuge to talk about custody and access as being somehow antiquated concepts and to say that they do not have any real relevance in 2003. 
I reinforce the point that there is much in this bill that is of merit but there is also much that is inappropriate. I suggest that some issues need to be considered by the select committee. Those issues include— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: So you are going to vote for it? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister seems to be worried fretful and concerned to interject. She asks whether National opposes the bill and I said at the beginning of my speech that we do. The Minister was clearly not listening and she will need to listen if she is to interject in a meaningful way. 
There are some issues in this bill that need to be looked at closely. I will number those issues—[ 
Interruption 
] I will deal with the Minister’s interjections in a moment. She just needs to pause and try to rest and think. There are some issues in this bill that are worthy of consideration by the select committee. The first issue is that this legislation continues the present legislative trend of the Government to move away from support for the traditional family signalling the acceptance of other arrangements such as same-sex marriages. I see the Minister smirking. 
The second thing I will talk about is something that she dismissed as a drafting technique. Although the Government dismisses it as a drafting technique it nevertheless remains the case that the bill provides for the circumstance that same-sex de facto partners of the mother can be defined as the father. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.