Volume 642 Week 57 - Tuesday 9 October 2007 
Volume 642 Week 57 - Tuesday 9 October 2007 
[Volume:642;Page:12123] 
Tuesday 9 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Myanmar—Condemnation of Military Dictatorship 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its condemnation of the arrests beatings and killings of peaceful protesters in Myanmar by the military dictatorship and calls upon the United Nations to take firm measures to ensure the protection of human rights and the restoration of democracy 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her statement to the House on 19 July 2006 that the Ingram report into matters relating to Taito Phillip Field was “very comprehensive and thorough”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Why did her Government reject Noel Ingram QC’s request that the Crown pay the legal fees for the original whistleblower into the inquiry and does she now accept that her refusal of that request prevented the inquiry from hearing crucial and damning evidence against Mr Field? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As has been gone over in the House before Mr Ingram did not make that request. He sought advice from the Solicitor-General as to what the normal practice was and the Solicitor-General informed him it was not the normal practice to pay in that way. 
John Key 
: What concerns does she have if any that other Ministers of hers including Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor may also be subpoenaed by Mr Field’s lawyers to give evidence in the trial? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have absolute confidence in the Ministers to whom the member has referred and in any evidence that they may be asked to give. 
John Key 
: Is she concerned that in addition to bribery and corruption charges the police are also planning to lay charges of obstructing the course of justice against Mr Field; if so what is her response to the obvious conclusion that the charges relate to Mr Field’s behaviour during the inquiry that she defended in Parliament for months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course I think the inquiry was comprehensive and thorough but that is not to say that everybody who spoke to it was truthful. 
John Key 
: Does she agree with the statement made by Justice Randerson that the allegations against Mr Field “strike at the heart of the administration of government”; if so why did she try to sweep them under the carpet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter of record that within a very short time of those allegations being aired in the media I commissioned an inquiry into whether there was a conflict of interest with Mr Field’s duties as a Minister. That inquiry was comprehensive and thorough and on the basis of that the police made further inquiries. 
John Key 
: Is it not the sharp end of this whole debate that the Prime Minister set up an inquiry that was designed to fail and not get to the truth that everything was done to ensure this issue could be swept under the carpet and it was only when the Opposition continued to take up the story that the police got involved and that what the public of New Zealand want to know is why the police are laying charges that are so extensive and so damning against Mr Field when her inquiry found no guilt? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is well aware that the terms of reference required Mr Ingram to look at the issue of conflict of interest with ministerial duties. As for the truth I do not think that member is in a strong position to be raising those allegations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether a member of Parliament could know the nature shape or character of potential charges to be laid by the police unless he was in conversation with them and is that a proper matter of discussion for the member of Parliament or the police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: With regard to the issue that the leader of New Zealand First raises I assume that Mr Key just made up the substance of the charges he thought would be laid because he could not possibly know. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That statement was made very early in the piece and long before the Ingram report came out. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Is it a fundamental principle of the justice system of any civilised Western country that a man is considered innocent until proven guilty or do we have a kangaroo court here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed it is but that is not presumably a principle that the Opposition of this House adheres to. 
Question Time 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to know whether there has been an omission to the questions of the day because Mr McCully has the media in a right lather up there on a total bagatelle but he does not have a question on the Order Paper to show how he is sincere about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is obviously not a point of order. 
Crown Land—Protection 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Has he received any reports on the protection of Crown-owned land? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Yes. The Labour-led Government recently announced a new process for the sale of all Crown-owned land to ensure national interests such as heritage cultural local and recreational values are protected. The Minister for State Owned Enterprises also announced that the State-owned Landcorp will be retaining ownership of nine properties including Whenuakite Station and Rangiputa Station that Landcorp had been planning to sell. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to managing Crown-owned land such as that owned by Landcorp? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a very confused policy announcement stating that New Zealanders should be asked to buy shares in assets they already own—specifically mentioning Landcorp. I have also seen a report stating that this is essentially a restatement of policy we have had for some time so there is nothing new. Both of those reports came from Bill English. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou i te Whare. Does the Minister agree with the views reported by the  
Northern Advocate 
 in which the chief Ngati Kahu Treaty claims negotiator Professor Margaret Mutu states that the Crown had no other choice other than to protect Rangiputa Station because “It would have caused huge political embarrassment if they had tried to sell it. I think they had the elections next year in mind.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. From Professor Mutu I regard that as a thankyou. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports highlighting problems with the sell-off of Landcorp and other landowning State-owned enterprises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a report essentially saying that the biggest problem is the opinion of the great majority of New Zealanders. As Mr Key said “Now we’re listening to the public … we know they don’t want to … sell assets and we understand that” . At the same time of course he described a policy to sell down part of Landcorp and Solid Energy as “very timid”. It appears that the war in the National Party is not over. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Government is not selling any land assets why does it need a process to protect the sale of sensitive land assets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It may come as a shock to the member to know that the Crown has been selling and buying land since approximately 1840. In order to do that which of course includes surplus education land land that is put into development for housing and so on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. We will hear the answer in silence. I cannot hear a word. I assume the question was asked because an answer was required. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that is an unwise assumption on your part Madam Speaker if I may say so. Land has often been sold for example for development for housing—surplus education land for example. That is quite different from flogging off the family silver of Landcorp and the State-owned enterprises which is what that member clearly wants to do and his colleague is clearly too timid to do. The war in the National Party is not over. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with Dr Rawiri Taonui who suggests that the real reason New Zealand did not sign up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that in relation to the restoration of Maori land: “The real issue is that New Zealand has forced Maori to accept very much less usually one to two percent of losses. The Crown does not want to admit that New Zealand’s restitutive processes and standards are sometimes lacking.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the votes on that issue in the UN largely came down to three categories: those countries that did not have what we might call indigenous people—that is people separate from the main population—and that did not care; those countries that did but said they would not enforce the declaration even though they voted for it; and those countries that thought if they voted for it they would be bound to enforce it so voted against it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why does Landcorp which is New Zealand’s largest farmer running nearly a million animals on 370000 hectares not have any farms using organic production methods nor have any intention to do so; and what is the Government doing to ensure that State-owned enterprises share its commitment to sustainability—or is that an operational matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is a difference between sustainability and organic farming. Organic farming uses a range of unnatural inputs that happen to be 19th century in their technology and that are not necessarily sustainable. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How much greenhouse gas has been emitted in the last 5 years due to Landcorp’s conversion of forest to dairying which is a climate change double whammy due to the loss of carbon stored in the trees followed by an increase in methane emissions from cows; and what is the Government doing to ensure that State-owned enterprises share the Government’s commitment to carbon neutrality—or is that an operational matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I cannot give the numbers on the first item. Much of that has occurred of course under management contracts by Landcorp for other landowners. But the emissions trading system and the introduction of agriculture into that system will cover Landcorp as well as any other landowner in the country. We would expect as a matter of course that Landcorp as a State-owned enterprise would pay particular regard to sustainability issues in the longer term. 
Taxation—Threshold and Average Wage 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it the Government’s policy that a person earning less than the average full-time wage of $46002 should pay 33c on every dollar they earn between $38000 and the average full-time wage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For those who are not eligible for Working for Families that is the current tax structure. Of course some people earning less than that amount who qualify for Working for Families pay no net tax at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the threshold at which low-income taxpayers go on to a 33c tax rate has remained the same since he took office in 1999; and why has he made no adjustment to either the rate or the threshold of tax paid by people who earn less than the average wage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes that is correct. The primary answer to the second question is that the Government unlike the member does not believe in borrowing for tax cuts. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on how much taxes have been reduced in the last three Budgets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Over the last three Budgets we have reduced taxes by $2.5 billion from 1 April 2006 rising to $4 billion a year from 1 April 2008. That of course includes the major packages around business taxation depreciation Working for Families and so on. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister raising false hope among people who earn less than the average wage but pay 33c in the dollar tax by promising tax reductions next year when he has stated in Cabinet papers that: “We should not adjust thresholds in the medium term and thereby retain fiscal drag.”—fiscal drag being the effect of people paying more tax because their incomes have risen? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is possible not to appear in drag but to be beautifully clothed. There are other ways of cutting taxes. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has the Minister received on the criteria for revenue reduction initiatives? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I received a report that states that high-end taxpayers will save a lot of what they get if they get a tax cut so that does not go into the inflation pool. That came from John Key which makes it clear that National’s priority is for tax relief for those on higher incomes. The Government will continue to look at the possibility of tax reductions but only in a manner that meets the four key tests: we will not borrow to pay for them we will not cut services to pay for them and we will not implement them at a time that will contribute to inflationary pressures or in a way that increases inequalities. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does it say about the Government’s priorities that a New Zealander who earns $39000 faces a tax rate of 33c—and has done now for the whole 8 years that that Minister has been in charge—and that the Minister’s first tax cut was $1 billion for corporates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that the 33c rate was actually introduced in 1988 and remained unchanged throughout the 1990s. The member has suddenly had a conversion experience but unfortunately for him it was on the road to nowhere rather than on the road to Damascus. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that the threshold at which taxpayers reach 33c was adjusted in 1996 and 1998 from $30875 to $38000 and that there has been no adjustment for almost 10 years since because he regards company tax cuts as more important than tax cuts for people on $39000 who are paying the same rate as millionaires used to pay? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The problem with the last bit of that statement is that if one cuts the top tax rate for example it would cut in at an even lower rate. Thirty-three cents was always the rate millionaires paid from 1988 onwards but of course it was National that raised the top marginal rate to 66c in the dollar. It was a Labour Government that in two steps reduced the rate from 66c to 33c in the dollar. The fact is that the Government’s priority was business tax cuts to fund economic growth. National opposed business tax cuts. I wonder whether the member ever told that to Mr Phil O’Reilly. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Labour Government after 8 years in office not cut the 33c tax rate that applies to anyone earning over $38000 up to $60000 when no one would regard those people as wealthy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly because the last time there was a cut in such a rate it was accompanied by a cut in New Zealand superannuation. That was in 1998-99. Secondly the Government restored the level of New Zealand superannuation. Thirdly the Government introduced the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Fourthly the Government gave a huge boost to family incomes via Working for Families. Fifthly the Government has introduced KiwiSaver. Sixthly the Government is introducing tax credits for research and development. Seventhly the Government has cut business taxation. National opposed every one of those moves. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that answer by telling us that he is merely carrying out Helen Clark’s economic strategy which she described in public statements as “building up the kitty” which means getting as much tax as possible off people on $39000 to spend on Labour’s vote-buying schemes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We would much rather build up the kitty than strangle the cat and describe that as a free-market system. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Partnership Programme 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What are the estimated savings to ACC of its partnership programme with accredited employers since its introduction and how do the companies that participate in this programme compare in terms of accident rates and workdays lost to those in the same industry groups that are covered by ACC? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for ACC 
: The answer to the first part of the question is nil as the partnership programme is cost-neutral to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). On the second part generally speaking over the last 6 or 7 years accredited employer entitlement claims—those that are more expensive because they involve things like work-related pay—have been higher than non-accredited employer claims. Over the last year or so total employer entitlement claims have been lower than non-entitlement claims but for the previous 4 years they were higher. 
Heather Roy 
: In extending the review of ACC’s partnership programme as announced on 13 September is the Minister paving the way to extend coverage to out-of-work accidents; if so is this because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that this limited form of competition has resulted in fewer accidents significant savings and better outcomes for workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member clearly did not hear the answer to the first question. Firstly it is cost-neutral to the Government; as it is covered through ACC the levies of course cover the cost of it. Secondly the expense of the entitlement claims which are the more expensive part of the system has been higher under the accredited employer scheme than under the non-accredited employer claims. Thirdly given all the to-do about the AFFCO example where an accident occurred within the workplace site it is extraordinary that some accredited employers are now asking to cover all accidents by their employees wherever they may occur including those over which they can have no control at all. 
Lesley Soper 
: What are the good health and safety practices that an employer must demonstrate to become accredited? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To become accredited an employer must satisfy a stringent three-tier assessment by ACC in order to demonstrate a best-practice approach to injury prevention and appropriate experience in managing health and safety issues. This ensures that only those employers with a commitment to health and safety and injury reduction are able to manage their employees’ workplace injuries. The current accredited employer scheme was introduced as part of the process whereby private insurance was removed from ACC in 2000. 
Heather Roy 
: If the current review reveals that competition will result in safer workplaces and greater productivity what assurance can the Minister give this House that she will expand the partnership programme to cover out-of-work accidents or has her Government already decided that involvement by private providers is incompatible with Labour’s ideology? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is confusing two quite different things. The accredited employer scheme is about employers taking responsibility for the cost of their own accidents. That is quite different from private insurance companies competing for coverage. 
Bail Amendment Act—Operation 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the operation of the Bail Amendment Act 2007; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; because in the 9 days that the amendment has been in force it has clarified the law which of course was its intent. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s new Act now makes it easier for a defendant to get bail because the Crown has to show that there is a “real and substantial risk” of reoffending or absconding and that even if the defendant has repeatedly breached bail in the past it may not be considered relevant—as was the case with Chris Kahui who was recently granted bail under the Government’s new law despite previously breaching his conditions three times? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act were made with the intention of clarifying the law. In fact the phrase that the member quotes from the Act actually came from the Court of Appeal’s 2002  
R v Hines 
 case in terms of a specific quote from the court where it said “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. This was a definition that the court itself ran. I can perhaps do no better than to quote Justice Heath on the very case the member quotes. He has said in the last few days that it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” Finally I would point out that under this legislation of course the bail has also been revoked. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What previous comments has the Minister seen on the amendments to the Bail Act? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have seen and heard many. I have heard support for the then proposed bail changes as they were when they went through this House followed by an assertion of “random and haphazard” application of the previous law and then a failure at the last hurdle to support the very changes that brought greater clarity to the bail law—all from the member opposite Mr Power. 
Simon Power 
: Why has he made it easier to get bail at a time when the latest crime statistics reveal that since 1999 Labour has overseen an increase of 151 percent of defendants failing to report for bail indicating that the Government is already letting people out on bail who should not be there? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The 9 days that we have to draw on experience I suggest to the member is a rather short period of time to evaluate. The 9 days none the less has seen Justice Heath talk about the advantage and clarity that this brings to making the appropriate decisions. I think Justice Heath is in perhaps the best position to make that decision. 
Simon Power 
: Why is a previous record of breaching bail conditions not considered to be a good predictor of the likelihood of breaching bail again or is this just consistent with the fact that 87 percent of the defendants on the electronic bail scheme had also previously offended while on bail—yet another bright idea from a Minister and a Government desperate to cut prison numbers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I assume that when the member stood in this House and said that he and the National Party would support the bail provisions in the then bill proceeding through the House— 
Simon Power 
: You voted against it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is a matter of record. It is in the  
Hansard 
— 
Simon Power 
: Look at the votes. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well of course flip-flopping is something we are used to from that member saying one thing and doing another. I think Mr Power is a one-man leadership crisis. He does not even need another member to disagree with. But I assume that when the member said he was going to support the bill and spoke in favour of it it was because it intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions including the Court of Appeal in 2002 which is precisely what this legislation has done. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the primary reason for making bail more readily available and letting more offenders out on bail is to lower the number of prison inmates since the original purpose of the bill in which the provisions relating to bail were contained were to “introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I can confirm that the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act are intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any specific changes. But I say to that member if the National Party is not committed to try to bring down the shocking high level of imprisonment in this country then it does not deserve ever to sit on the Treasury benches. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister reviewed the select committee’s examination of this bill; if so can he confirm that these matters were of such great concern to that committee as a whole of which Mr Power is a senior member that it made no mention of them at all in the substantive part of the report and that in the same report the National Party’s minority report made no mention whatsoever of this issue; and can he also confirm that unlike the ACT party which brought an amendment to the bill to the floor of this House—and in discussions with New Zealand First and the Government got an amendment—Mr Power made no mention whatsoever of this issue then? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: My recollection is that the member’s first assertion is correct. It would be par for the course for the member opposite belatedly to raise matters that are in direct conflict with what he has said during the course of debate in this House as well as in select committees. As to the second matter indeed I think the member raises a very good example of MMP at work where a member of a very small party having found a concern brought in an initiative and discussed it with other parties. The Parliament got behind that decision because it was the right thing to do. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister received any reports that explain why New Zealand First voted for legislation that makes it easier for defendants to get bail? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I have not received any such reports but of course the matter before the House in this question does not do what the member asserts. The Act actually clarifies the law consistent with for instance the Court of Appeal decision in 2002. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table two statements. One is by Mr Power and says that the National Party would support the bail part of the bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr Power where he said National would now not support the Bail Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table the voting record on the Bail Amendment Bill which shows New Zealand First voted to make bail easier to get. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Schools—Ownership 
6.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the ownership arrangements for New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report arguing for a privatisation agenda including more private schools more money for private schools and private businesses running and building schools. So far that agenda has not been fully explained by its architect the National Party leader John Key nor the National Party’s education spokesperson Katherine Rich but it does represent a radical departure from current policy and therefore it is necessary for the National Party to have an open frank and honest exchange with New Zealanders and tell them what its real education policies are. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister received on the implementation of a privatisation agenda for public education in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports advocating privatisation by increasing funding for private schools increasing numbers of private schools and creating opportunities for profit to be made by the building and running of schools. I have also seen a suggestion of a removal of caps on tertiary education tuition fees. So far none of these policies have been explained and once again I say it is time for the National Party to have an open frank and honest discussion with New Zealanders about its real education policy. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned that reports promoting the idea of the private sector owning schools when combined with increased funding for private schools could lead to a creeping privatisation of our education system which could within a decade see our schools operating something like they do in parts of Australia where there are two tiers of schools—good private ones where middle-class and rich kids go and lesser public schools on which poorer families have to rely? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is a concern of the entire education sector. One of the strengths of our system is that we do hold it together through a public education system and guarantee the right of all young New Zealanders to have the best possible education. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that any private businesses investing in schools would want to make a profit; if so does he believe that it would be prudent to direct taxpayer resources away from teaching and learning and into the coffers of private businessmen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think that that is the major concern of people who have heard about the suggestion made by the National Party and they might like to look at examples in Australia—like the one in New Brunswick where one of the schools that was put together under I suspect a similar kind of arrangement had an undertaking to save $184000 and in fact the school ended up costing $900000 more. Of course it is reasonable for the private sector to seek profit—that is what it does—but not so in the public sector. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that the Government does not own the buildings of over 2500 early childhood centres over 300 State schools over 100 private schools or even for that matter the Ministry of Education building here in Wellington; and is it not hysterical dramatics saying he would die in a ditch over the State owning all schools buildings considering that the State continues to fund buildings owned by other people the most recent example being his press release even today which announced more funding for early childhood centres for buildings he does not own? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What I can confirm is that the country is waiting to find out whether the National Party will sell the public school system. That is the first question: whether the National Party will sell the public school system. Secondly I ask the member whether she knew about this policy before Mr Key announced it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he agree with his colleague Trevor Mallard—incidentally a former education Minister—who last November when speaking on behalf of the Government about new infrastructure development said: “We want to see more action and there is a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about the use of public-public partnerships.”; if not has he bothered to ask Annette King why some years ago we bothered in this House to pass legislation to enable public-private partnerships just for him to rule that out—not just for education but the whole State sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I always agree with Trevor Mallard on the idea of being open-minded as he always always is. But what I am also saying is the country is waiting with an open mind to hear the National Party explain whether it will indeed privatise our public education system. That is the question I say to Mr Key. Is privatisation on the agenda or not? It is time to be open and honest. 
Schools—Funding Cuts 
7.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to a sudden funding change which has left many schools hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off without warning that “I’m a bit seriously pissed off with this myself”; if so when did the ministry tell him about the planned funding cuts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Once again the member has her facts wrong. School deciles change every 5 years following the census. Schools have always been given the same amount of lead time as they were given this time. I was concerned however that although all schools were consulted about the change on this occasion the New Zealand Educational Institute which had expected to be contacted was overlooked by the Ministry of Education and the ministry is correcting that now. 
Katherine Rich 
: What precisely annoyed the Minister because when the decile changes shaved an estimated $2.5 million from the operations budgets of secondary schools and potentially $8 million from primary and contributing schools it is beyond the realm of credibility that he did not know about that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is in fact beyond the realm of credibility. If the member had listened to the answer before she would have heard me say that the census is the trigger for changing the decile ratings as it was under the National Government. The lead time was the same as last time. What annoyed me a little was the notion that all schools had been consulted but that the New Zealand Educational Institute had on this occasion been missed out. It was annoyed about that and so was I. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister received any reports advocating major changes to our education system including changes to the way our schools are funded; if so what did they involve? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can report that when the National Party was asked to explain its education policy at the New Zealand Educational Institute conference a few weeks ago Katherine Rich signalled no major change. A few days later her leader revealed a privatisation agenda. Katherine Rich did not tell the New Zealand Educational Institute about that. She dodged questions on performance pay on bulk funding and on the right of children to go to their local school—in fact she said nothing. It is time for the National Party to have an open frank and honest discussion with New Zealanders about its real education policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that 40 percent of primary schools and 50 percent of secondary schools were in deficit in 2006 and that the number of secondary schools in deficit actually increased from 33 percent to 50 percent between 2005 and 2006; and what does he think that schools facing cuts—for some cuts of in excess of $100000—should do to cut their budgets when some are talking about cutting teachers books and even reading recovery programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that the deputy leader of the National Party said that schools were awash with cash and I can also confirm that the majority of schools gain change not at all or lose on average about $14000. Those schools that lose any substantial sum of money are currently working with the Ministry of Education to ensure that the transition works for them. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that when he stood up in front of the New Zealand Educational Institute and said that he was annoyed at the process that had been used to inform schools about funding cuts he knew about the process he agreed with the process and he was really just using a soft smarmy answer to deal with a difficult question from the floor? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Many many times of course the member has misrepresented what people say. What I said of course was that the decile rating changes with the census every 5 years that the lead-in time was the same as usual that the consultation process was exhaustive with all schools but that one piece of consultation relevant to that conference was missed out. That was that the New Zealand Educational Institute was not contacted directly as a group and that was what was talked about at the conference. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister allow schools that are facing cuts to their funding of in excess of $100000 to have a 12-month lead-in time so they can amend their budgets? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I urge the member to listen to answers because as I pointed out previously the majority of schools are in no difficulty whatsoever. Some gain some are the same and some lose an average of about $14000. As I said before for the few schools that are losing larger amounts of money we are working with them on a case by case basis to ensure that the transition is handled properly. That is what we will do. 
Drugs—Driving Under the Influence 
8.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has she received on the Government’s decision to introduce legislation which will impose tougher laws on people who drive under the influence of illegal drugs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen several reports supporting the Government’s decision but perhaps the most compelling information is the preliminary findings from the long-term research being conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd and the New Zealand Police. An analysis of 400 blood samples from deceased drivers shows so far that 87 of the samples were tested positive for drugs only—both illegal drugs and prescription drugs that could have impaired driving—and another 61 were tested positive for alcohol and drugs. The research will eventually cover 2000 samples. The Government does consider it essential that we take measures to combat drug-driving on our roads as well as drink-driving. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s decision to introduce tougher measures against drugged drivers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen a transcript of an interview with Simon Lambourne from the Automobile Association who said that there is obviously a significant problem with drug-driving in New Zealand that needs to be addressed. I have also seen a report in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in which the National Party spokesperson on transport Maurice Williamson said that National would support any sensible measures to stop people driving while impaired. However this is in direct contrast to a media release from his colleague Otago MP Jacqui Dean who says that new law will do little to make our roads safer. Jacqui Dean says that tougher drug laws for those behind the wheel are unlikely to have any major impact on safety. I suggest she tells that to the families of the 87 confirmed victims of people who were driving under the influence of illegal drugs or prescription drugs that could have impaired driving. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the reported statement of Helen Poulsen forensic toxicologist from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd who is in charge of the study she referred to which is that: “New Zealand appears to have one of the highest drug-driving levels in the world”; and if she is aware of that statement does it not indicate to her that some action should have been taken years ago to address this problem and can she perhaps explain why it was not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen those comments. They are from a person who is involved in the research as the member has identified. The question could be asked as to why there has not been action sooner. I cannot address the past but we certainly are addressing the present. The legislation will be before this Parliament very soon and I am hopeful that it will receive the endorsement of the House. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What other reports has the Minister received that impact on the credibility of commentary on drug-driving legislation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In general the commentary has been supportive and sound. However Otago MP Jacqui Dean has once again shown that she speaks before she thinks. Miss Dean has written a letter to the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking whether the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs would consider banning water. 
Hon Member 
: Water? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: She wants to ban water. She is happy to ban water but she is not happy to ban driving while impaired by illegal drugs. Of course this is the same MP who said National would not borrow for tax cuts; it would simply get the money from offshore. [ 
Interruption 
] I have to say Madam Speaker—and they do not like this answer because it is true—that I believe the editorial in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 got it right when it said the National Party is like a party sniffing the political wind rather than offering itself as a credible alternative Government. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenant Fraud 
9.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he stand by his statement on 3 October regarding Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant fraud or dishonesty that “At the beginning of last month 1164 referrals were with the Investigations Unit. More than half of those have now been reviewed and closed or referred for other types of action leaving 431 cases either waiting to be assessed under investigation or currently being assessed by the Crown prosecutor.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Heatley 
: How could the investigations unit possibly have reviewed 700-plus cases in only 23 working days given that it had allowed such a backlog in the first place? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The backlog at the Housing New Zealand Corporation that the member referred to was located in two places: at the beginning when cases were referred on; and at the end when cases needed to be sent to the Crown prosecutor. I can report that the cases that were waiting to be sent to the Crown prosecutor have all happened; they required no further investigation. Those at the beginning of the process were looked at to see whether there was any correct documentation and whether there was any validity to the accusations. Most of those accusations were by neighbours about alleged partners being in the house or undeclared income and many of them were found to have no basis or substance. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would hear the calls for points of order if in fact members did not make so much noise in the House. I do not need any assistance from members. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you will reflect you will see that my question was quite clear: how could the investigations unit possibly have looked at 700-plus cases in only 23 working days? He never said how it had possibly looked at 700-plus cases. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I understand his point of order. The Minister did address the question. I listened to it very carefully. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What action has the Minister taken to improve the operation of the investigations unit of the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This answer may go some way to answering the previous question as well. As I have previously advised the House I wrote to the board of the corporation on 28 June seeking assurances about the investigations unit. In response the corporation has appointed a new central manager to take clearer responsibility for this area; started enhancing the processes of the unit; commissioned a peer review of the investigations unit from the Ministry of Social Development which operates a similar function; introduced a screening framework for incoming referrals to decide on how to deal with them; and of course dramatically reduced the backlog. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the corporation’s deputy chair’s confession true that of the 700-plus cases reviewed over those 23 working days only 12 percent have been closed leaving 600-plus cases still under some sort of action; if so what sort of action? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I think I should clarify the situation because the member is making a great deal of these numbers. Last year the investigations unit investigated over 600 cases; 87 percent did not result in a Crown debt a finding of fraud or a prosecution. Most of these cases are actually malicious cases of people dobbing in neighbours which very quick investigation reveals are not true. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the Minister admit that of the September backlog of 1164 cases 600-plus cases are still under some sort of investigation and 431 are still to be assessed; and when will these 1000-plus cases be properly investigated and finally put to bed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that last year 87 percent were found not to be true. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a Chris Carter quote: “I can assure this House that all allegations of”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a quote: “I ask Mr Heatley where the cases are. Perhaps”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
General Practitioners—Fee Structure 
10.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports detailing the importance of lowering general practitioners’ fees? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. Research released about 2 weeks ago shows that the reduction in general practitioners’ fees for over-65-year-olds for example has so far led to a 24 percent increase in consultation for that age group. Earlier access to health care means better health outcomes. That is known. That is why this Government’s low fees policy matters so much. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that may lead to a reversal of the Government’s low fees policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. It has been well reported throughout New Zealand that the National Party was caught trying to conceal its intention to let doctors’ fees rise. That is well known. What is less well known is that the National leader John Key chose that moment to reveal his deep instinctive preference for the market as it affects health care. When cornered Mr Key likened doctors’ services to those of mechanics and accountants and said: “The market will solve any problems.” In all of this tawdry issue I think the most chilling insight is that the health of New Zealanders will be determined by market forces according to Mr Key. That is the sort of thing Dr Brash used to say. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How realistic does the Minister think it would be for New Zealanders to shop around for doctors if the cap on general practitioners’ fees was removed and a person’s own doctor was to exorbitantly increase his or her fees given that there are areas of New Zealand where there are no doctors or there are very very long waiting lists to see a doctor? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The relationship between a patient and a general practitioner or a patient and a medical centre is often very close and very longstanding. Shopping around is not part of the behaviour of many of us when we go to seek medical advice. It is in part but it is not a substantial part of our behaviour. What is most likely to happen if general practitioners’ fees—[ 
Interruption 
] I hear National members trying to talk me down. This stuff matters. What is likely to happen if general practitioners’ fees return towards the levels that they used to be before this Government came into office is simply that New Zealanders would put off having their breast their prostate their cough or whatever it is checked. As a result of that we will end up with poorer health-care. There is substantial international literature to that effect. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the Minister is talking about New Zealanders missing out on access to services what will he do about the case of a Matata woman who needs a cancerous part of her lung removed but has had her surgery cancelled three times including once when she was fully gowned and has now been given a fourth time and told to ring the day before to find out whether that operation will be cancelled as well? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a time-honoured practice of the member to hide behind some primary question then come up unannounced with a patient whose name I cannot know and whose condition I cannot know and to make a series of assertions that more often than not are not entirely as the member would have them when they are checked out. I simply say to the member that if he cares about this New Zealander would he please come to me with the details so that I can make progress on that case. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Freedom of Expression 
11.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill “Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not and the Crown Law Office advice on this matter is clear in that regard.”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; for the same reasons I gave on 14 August in reply to virtually the same question from the member’s senior colleague. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister disagree with the submission of the New Zealand Law Society when it said: “The bill seems to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as it limits freedom of expression in a way that cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”; if so on what grounds does he disagree with the Law Society? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do disagree with the Law Society. I would cite the Supreme Court of Canada which has relatively recently considered very similar legislation regulating third parties in terms of breach of freedom of expression. I refer here to the recent case of  
Harper v Canada 
. It was clearly said that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are therefore beneficial. The danger with unlimited expression is that it ultimately benefits the very wealthy not the average Kiwi. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that free speech in New Zealand should be equated with the expenditure of vast amounts of money? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I do not and as my answer to the previous question indicated we have seen—and in 2005 we saw all too clearly—the attempt of one party in this House the National Party in collusion with others who sought to spend more than $1 million to secure electoral victory by a complete rort of our electoral law. That is not the sort of electoral system New Zealanders want or will tolerate. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that if the bill cracked down on secret trusts and anonymous donations the public would then have a right to know whether for example the National Party had been funded by the very corporations to which it may later sell our State-owned enterprises and that without these changes we would never know? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the question the member raises is one of some import. It is why it is one of the matters that will be referred for further investigation alongside the structure of the administrative bodies and a number of other matters around State funding and the general funding of political parties to an independent inquiry. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can I take it that the Minister is also disagreeing with the New Zealand Law Society which very rarely recommends that legislation should not proceed yet in this case has said that the bill should be abandoned; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I am disagreeing with the notion of abandoning a bill that certainly sets out to ensure the security of the New Zealand electoral system. And I stand by the comments I have repeatedly made that I expect the select committee process to add value and further refinement to improve the legislation. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister disagree with the written submission of the Human Rights Commission which states that “the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the Bill are disproportionate and in the Commission’s opinion do not amount to reasonable justification under s.5 of the BoRA”; if he does on what grounds does he disagree with the Human Rights Commission? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On two grounds: firstly the experience of  
Harper v Canada  
in the Supreme Court of Canada which unfortunately the Human Rights Commission neglected to make reference to. It is the most relevant piece of recent experience in terms of international— 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s a different law. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh Mr English! This is absolutely relevant to this jurisdiction. Secondly I rely on Crown Law advice which differs from that opinion. 
I seek leave to table a copy of Chris Finlayson’s maiden speech to this House. I think he needs to read it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Practitioners—Removal of Free Care for Under-sixes 
12.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the effect on free health care for under-sixes if the cap on general practitioners’ fees were removed and charges were left to be set by “the market”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The member asks a very poignant question and it is clear that she knows there is a history on this issue. Ten years ago this year the then National Minister of Health Bill English at the request of New Zealand First—they were in coalition Government together at that time—introduced and paid for free health care for all under-6-year-olds. But that Government back then did not write that deal into any contract and it did not adjust general practitioner subsidies to account for inflation. So 10 years later—today—about 40 percent of general practitioners do charge under-6-year-olds. It astonishes me that National has not learnt from that lesson. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister also confirm that any removal of the cap and a move to market rates will likely result in under-sixes and seniors who currently receive no-cost or low-cost preventive primary health care delaying medical treatment until they need urgent and more expensive acute care usually at already overstretched emergency departments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is precisely the point and precisely the case. It is time that this Parliament learnt that primary health care matters for the health of all New Zealanders and that we can have slower progress of chronic diseases we can avoid hospitalisation and we can avoid some emergency arising if there is good primary health care. We will never avoid all of that but we can determinedly reduce the costs to the citizen and to the health system of secondary care by having better cheaper more accessible primary care. That is what the Primary Health Care Strategy is about and that is what the National Party would have put a stake through had the media not caught it out. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Government plan to further increase the number of general practitioners who do not charge to see 0 to 6-year-olds; if so how? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we do. The member will be aware that as part of our confidence and supply agreement with her party we recently announced a further increase for general practitioners for the provision of free under-sixes health care. But this time there is a difference; this time if the medical centre is to receive that funding then it will contract to not charge. If it does not contract it will not get the money. So what we will see now is free visits for under-sixes to those general practitioners who choose to contract on an ongoing basis. What is more each year we will increase the level of subsidy or adjustment going to general practitioners to account for inflation—something the National Party never got round to doing. 
Questions to Members 
Electoral Finance Bill—Submissions 
1.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions has the Justice and Electoral Committee received on the Electoral Finance Bill and how many of those submitters gave oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The Justice and Electoral Committee received 575 submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill and heard from 100 submitters on the bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the chairperson agree with her colleague the Hon Steve Maharey who said: “I am looking forward of course to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee.”; if so why did she ensure that the members of the Human Rights Commission were not able to present oral evidence to the committee where no doubt they would have voiced their strong opposition to the bill? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member has responsibility for the second part but not the first. Would the chair like to address that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What the member said was simply not true. The member as the deputy chair of the committee should be aware that the scheduling of submissions was discussed by the committee and that discussions relating to particular submitters are committee proceedings that are confidential to the committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was somewhat alarmed to note that Mr Ryall got to his feet to say something but you sat him down. I want to know what it was because he has been told not to say a thing unless he checks with Murray McCully his new minder. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows that is not a point of order. 
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased to speak at this third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to all members of the Health Committee and in particular to the chair of the Health Committee. The committee worked very hard over an extended period of time to review the concerns of submitters and to forge consensus amendments to the bill in order to address those concerns. The committee has taken a good bill and made it better. 
As this bill begins its third reading it is appropriate to reflect on its purpose and on the important role of drinking water and the means of its supply. Drinking water as well as being one of the most fundamental requirements needed to support life is a vital component of a sustainable and innovative economy. I would not mind a glass now actually. 
This bill will close what is currently a significant gap in the legislative framework for a sector with assets valued at approximately $5 billion. The sector is critical to sustaining life and protecting public health critical to preserving the image and reality of “100% Pure New Zealand” and critical to tourism and our export-led economy. In this light I would like to reassure the House that although New Zealand has to date managed to avoid major and fatal outbreaks of water-borne disease—unlike some other developed nations—we still have significant and ongoing issues and risks with the quality of our drinking water. This bill will bring New Zealand into line with most other OECD nations by providing a clear legislative framework for water quality. 
Some of those people who have expressed their opposition to this bill seem determined to flaunt their ignorance of science. Not content with the dihydrogen monoxide incident they have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence of any problem with disease caused by drinking water in New Zealand. Although it is recognised that the science on this matter is not straightforward and that there are a number of uncertainties to be considered this does not mean that the overall picture is unclear. Of the nearly 14000 cases of campylobacter notified to health authorities in 2005 only 2.5 to 4.5 percent are thought to be attributable to drinking water. However as far as giardia and cryptosporidium are concerned they cause an additional 2100 cases of reported disease each year—in other words a total of 2600 cases of notified enteric disease each year. 
Incidentally it is well recognised that gastroenteritis is consistently and significantly under-reported. The best estimates are that in New Zealand something like only 5 percent of cases are formally notified. This leads to a further estimate that the total number of cases of water-borne enteric disease each year is probably closer to 52000—in other words about 1000 tummy bugs a week; 1000 tummy bugs a week are caused by water. This is not inconsistent with the estimate from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research of 34000 cases. The institute states that that figure is probably an underestimate. 
To return to campylobacter it has been found in almost all surface waters rivers and lakes etc. in New Zealand that have been examined. Fortunately the level of water-borne disease due to campylobacter is able to be kept low because the treatment processes used for treating drinking water in New Zealand which this bill seeks to validate are very effective in killing off campylobacter. The level of treatment is not available to many of the small rural water supplies. The Government’s $154 million drinking-water assistance programme is designed to deal with this problem and is concentrating on improving the extent to which small rural water supplies are adequately treated so that rural populations receive as equally good-quality water as the people living in towns and cities. 
I would now like to turn to the bill and more important to the nature of its provisions and how they will address the kinds of issues I have just referred to. Although many features of the bill will contribute to improved drinking-water management two elements of the bill are particularly important and world class in terms of both their technical content and the philosophy that underlies them. In combination they represent ongoing quality control and proactive quality assurance. Rather than waiting for a significant water quality failure with the potential for a serious disease outbreak and then taking corrective action this bill embodies a preventive approach to protecting the public health. In so doing the bill seeks to actively manage risks in a way that is commensurate with the level of risk the nature of potential harm to public health and the availability and cost of managing such risks. The two elements whereby the bill embodies these approaches are the ability for the Minister to adopt drinking-water standards and the requirement for public health risk management plans. 
The standards which are based on the best international benchmarks for water quality specify the maximum acceptable values for a range of contaminants and pathogens. The standards also define the monitoring requirements that suppliers must have in place to demonstrate they are complying with those standards on an ongoing basis. Both the standards and the monitoring requirements are based on rigorous science and are regularly reviewed and updated. In an ideal world these standards would be compulsory. However in recognition of the genuine concerns raised by many of the small suppliers the bill requires suppliers to take only “all practicable steps” to comply with the standards. 
The second key feature of the bill is the requirement for public health risk management plans. These are plans that provide a framework within which suppliers can identify all potential threats to the safety of their supply and then systematically provide for mechanisms to prevent reduce or eliminate those risks. The value of these plans is that their ongoing implementation will give high levels of confidence to the quality of the water provided by the supplier. 
I endorse the recommendation of the Health Committee that giving effect to a plan which has been approved by an independent expert will be taken as grounds for demonstrating that the supplier has taken all practicable steps to comply with the standards. This legislation is very much in keeping with the best traditions of public health law. It seeks to ensure the safety of a vital public good that is essential for all New Zealanders. It takes a preventive proportionate and risk-based approach to managing the quality of drinking water and its supply. The bill will therefore make a valuable and lasting contribution to the protection of public health. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s acknowledgment of the members of the Health Committee and the work that was done on that committee. There is no doubt that the bill as reported back from the select committee is an improvement on the bill that went into that committee. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that we think good progress has been made under the previous regime by water suppliers around the country and we expect that more progress will be made in the future. But the National Party as it has stated in its minority opinion in the committee’s report on the bill is concerned about the financial consequences this legislation will have on small rural communities. We believe there is still underlying uncertainty about the cost-burden of this legislation. Of course everybody in this House would want everyone to have a top-notch water supply and would want to eradicate all risks. But the fact is that the cost of achieving the eradication of all risks would be prohibitive to every community. Therefore we have looked at the balance of what the uncertainties are for rural communities and water consumers. 
We have also been concerned about the inability of the Government to provide firm costings in relation to what will fall on smaller communities and local governments. We heard for example that when the Government introduced the bill it estimated the costs would be between $50 million and $275 million. Local Government New Zealand’s estimates were up to $800 million. We know that at the 2006 water and wastewater conference the Ministry of Health advised that the cost could actually be $300 million. So there is some confusion about what costs will fall on communities. Similarly we think it was progress in the select committee that approval of plans and actions will be covered under the concept of “all practicable steps”. The definition of “all practicable steps” is detailed in the bill for all people to see and it sets out a number of criteria. Included in those criteria is the addition of affordability. The National members on the committee were particularly keen to make sure affordability was one of those criteria. 
But here is another area of uncertainty that has concerned local government—and I should remind the House that Local Government New Zealand remains principally opposed to this legislation because of the various levels of uncertainty and the impacts it might have on communities. One of its major concerns was how the affordability requirements might cut across community decision-making in terms of priorities as part of the long-term community consultation plan. Local Government New Zealand was quite clear that it thought that the decision on how priorities should be set in this area should very much be one for communities taking into account the other pressures those communities face. The Government has a fund to assist—an average I think of about $15 million a year—but it is a very significant burden that local governments may face. There is uncertainty about what costs might fall on consumers and district councils particularly in those smaller rural areas. 
We very much listened to the Minister’s point on the terms of water-borne disease but I restate what I said at the very beginning which is that the eradication of all risks would be hugely expensive and not practical. What we are looking to do here is to make sure that communities are aware of the importance of this but we must balance the cost to consumers and councils particularly in smaller rural communities. 
I think the bill has been improved in the widening of some of the definitions of the very small schemes etc. and the dates on which things must be applied. We have some concerns about the late addition of the rural water supply proportion. What is the name of that? 
Jo Goodhew 
: The commercial agricultural— 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The commercial agricultural section. There is some concern in local government that that may not prove to work as effectively as the Government may think it will. I suspect that in the years ahead Parliament may have to revisit some of the provisions in this bill if they turn out to be particularly onerous and burdensome on local communities. 
National thinks this bill has been improved by the select committee process. The select committee worked well but we still have concerns about the uncertainties related to cost particularly on how that might affect small rural consumers and councils. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. First I would like to acknowledge the significant improvements to the bill that emerged as a result of the extensive and very thorough deliberations of the Health Committee. That is after all the process of lawmaking that we are engaged in. I also recognise and commend the huge contribution that supplies owned and operated by local government make to the provision of drinking water in New Zealand. 
Although the debate has tended to concentrate on the difficulties that suppliers may face in providing safe drinking-water we should not lose sight of the fact that 71 percent of the population is provided with water that complies with the drinking-water standards. Local government plays a very significant role in this by providing water through 545 suppliers to 83 percent of the population. However behind those figures is another important point. More than half a million New Zealanders use and consume drinking water that either does not comply with the standards or is of an unknown quality. 
The bill endeavours to promote equitable and reliable access to safe water for all New Zealanders. Why should we in this House settle for anything less? In this sense the bill is both about the half million New Zealanders who currently use water that is either of dubious or unknown quality and about ensuring that the large majority of New Zealanders who already receive safe drinking-water continue to do so. 
I would like to take this opportunity also to correct some misapprehensions on the part of some speakers who during the Committee stage commented that local government had been inadequately consulted on the bill. This is just plain wrong. First public consultation occurred during the late 1990s and local government participated in this process. Second Local Government New Zealand was consulted on the policy for the bill prior to Cabinet approval in 2000. Third partly as a result of input from local government Cabinet agreed to include a phased timetable for commencement of the bill for the bill to provide for flexibility in the way the legislation adopted the standards and Government specifically agreed that Local Government New Zealand be involved in the preparation of the bill. 
There are more examples. Fourth during the drafting of the bill the ministry worked with three key stakeholder groups to ensure their input. As well as Local Government New Zealand the ministry also consulted the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association and the Consumers Institute. Fifth Local Government New Zealand was also consulted when Cabinet considered some refinements to the policy for the bill in 2006. Sixth additionally the technical group convened by the ministry to assist the process of reviewing drinking-water standards also included representation from local government. 
Also cited in the Committee stage was an early draft discussion paper on Rangitikei’s capital expenditure forecasts that Mayor Bob Buchanan had sent to the Opposition. This document was in fact quite different from the final paper that was presented to the Rangitikei District Council in which the issues raised by Mayor Bob Buchanan were absent. What was also not acknowledged was that at a later date at a meeting of mayors called by Local Government New Zealand in the lower North Island to discuss this bill Mayor Bob Buchanan supported the risk management approach for achieving the drinking-water management measures taken by the Government. All of those items should dispel any myths being perpetrated by the Opposition that local government was not engaged and not sufficiently consulted on the drafting of this bill. 
Local Government New Zealand did advise the Health Committee of its policy of so-called principled opposition to the bill. The fact that local government did not engage in a public programme of opposition to the bill and worked very closely with officials to develop amendments to the bill so they could accept it means that this really was no more than opposition in principle in particular to national standards. Also the fact that many of the major water suppliers in the North Island supported the bill was not publicised. The Auckland meeting of mayors and major water suppliers providing water to some quarter of the total New Zealand population voted almost unanimously to support the bill and this was never publicised by Local Government New Zealand. 
To conclude local government was involved in the development of this bill and a number of its features including many of the significant amendments agreed to during the select committee process reflect that involvement. It is noteworthy that opposition to the bill from some quarters in local government has often been led by councils that have a particularly poor track record in terms of their investment in drinking-water quality. One lower South Island council for example that made repeated and inflated claims about the cost of compliance is the only council in New Zealand where in 2005 all of the 26 suppliers that it operates did not comply with the standards. 
In fact parents who are sending their children to one of the schools in that area should be very concerned. We saw photos and evidence whereby a primary school in that area nearly closed because of the poor quality of the drinking water available to children in that area. That needs to be fixed and this bill will do it. It is not sufficient or good enough in a country like ours to have schools providing substandard and in fact unhealthy drinking-water to children. That should not be tolerated anywhere. The Opposition’s refusal to recognise that point goes to its discredit. 
This council that I am talking about will need to make significant investments whether or not the bill is passed in order to remedy years of neglect and the structural deterioration in some of its treatment plants. If it costs that council it is its own fault quite frankly. However generally speaking those councils that have taken a responsible approach to maintaining and improving their supply infrastructure and capacity—and let us be very clear here that is the majority of councils—already do comply with the standards. These councils will face little cost and will have even less difficulty in complying with this bill. There is no reason why quality public drinking-water should not be an expectation of every member of the New Zealand public. We are not a Third World country and we should be able to turn on the tap and get reliable drinking-water. That is what this bill is about. It has taken into account the requirements that local government has sought in order to spread the cost of necessary improvements over a working period of time. But this bill needs to pass for the sake of the health of New Zealanders. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and I want to say that since this bill’s introduction to the House I have had a keen interest in it. Can I begin by making some comments in response to both the Minister and the previous speaker Maryan Street. The Minister said that this was “a good bill made better”. Actually this is a complicated bill that carries with it significant financial risk to ratepayers. And yes the bill has been made better—it is now much better—but clearly there are still some concerns about it. 
The previous speaker Maryan Street talked about the half a million people in New Zealand who have drinking water that is not safe enough. But then there is an undetermined—in fact a not mentioned—number of that half a million people for whom the standard has not been determined. This is yet again another example of imperfect science or really of no science at all. So what if 100000 of those 500000 people had water that did not comply and 400000 had water that we could not determine whether it complied? [ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go. Again we have a lack of science. 
I must say right from the word go that the National Party is very very supportive of New Zealanders having clean drinking-water. 
Moana Mackey 
: You’re not showing it. 
JO GOODHEW 
: If the member opposite would like to listen she will understand that our opposition to this bill is about our belief that eliminating all risk may cause significant ratepayer financial burden that simply will mean it will not happen. When this bill was signalled to the communities of my electorate of Aoraki they were very quick and very keen to raise their concerns with their member of Parliament. For example the Mackenzie District Council which covers about 3000 people has predicted that it will cost $3 million to comply with this legislation and that is over the 10 years of its long-term council community plan. Despite reassurances from the ministry officials that the capital assistance and technical assistance schemes will actually help it the reality is quite otherwise because in fact the council did apply for funding and like all other South Island applicants in the first year got nothing. There was no money for any of those applicants in the South Island. 
 The Waimate District Council manages the Waimate urban water scheme and also six rural water schemes. There are also two private schemes in the Waimate District Council. The council has also raised significant concerns with me about the capital assistance and technical assistance system and its ability to assist the council to improve its drinking water because like many other councils around New Zealand the Waimate District Council does want to improve its drinking water. The naming and shaming approach of the previous speaker will not endear her to rural New Zealand. 
The Timaru District Council is very concerned about this bill also on a number of counts. The capital funding in the long-term council community plan per capita for the period exceeds $2000—that is it exceeds $2000 per person in the district. That is the case with six other territorial local authorities. In fact in the case of two councils—Queenstown Lakes District Council and South Taranaki District Council—the capital funding is more than $4000 per capita. 
In National we were somewhat relieved when rural councils’ concerns about having to treat drinking water—and millions of litres of water intended for stock—were addressed. There is a new category in the bill called a rural agricultural drinking-water supply which has different and more flexible obligations. This seemed to address many of the concerns. But wait there is a fishhook in the interpretation of this particular category. The Ministry of Health used the clarifying words—which unfortunately may be a huge risk to those particular water supplies—that this category is a water supply in which 75 percent or more of the water supplied “is used for the purposes of commercial agriculture” and “does not enter a dwellinghouse or other building in which water is drunk by people or other domestic and food preparation use occurs;”. Now I am told that the problem is that many lifestyle blocks do not qualify as commercial agriculture yet there is stock on those lifestyle blocks and that stock uses a significant amount of the water. So there is every possibility that the 75 percent cut-off will not be reached and those particular water schemes will be forced to apply the drinking-water standards to millions of litres of stock water. 
The Timaru District Council and other territorial local authorities are very very concerned about this particular part of the bill. They are also concerned about the affordability part of “all practicable steps”. Although section 69H in new Part 2A reflects that the steps taken must be practicable in light of the person’s financial position the difficulty is raised that it actually looks at the long-term council community plan process and—as National sees it—supersedes that process to consult with communities and decide on priorities. So I ask whether the bill will dictate that all other priorities must give way to drinking water. How will the ratepayers feel if when they are consulted and they say they want more money spent on waste they are told: “No if there is money in the bank for investment in our particular territorial local authority it must be spent on drinking water because you obviously can afford it.”? 
The Kaipara District Council described it thus: “The proposed legislation overrides the community engagement principles of the Local Government Act 2002 and disenfranchises our people.” Members should remember at this stage that Local Government New Zealand remains philosophically opposed to this bill. National thinks that this is with good cause. Local Government New Zealand has not gone out and had a programme of opposition to the bill. This was mentioned by the previous speaker and she is absolutely correct in that respect. Local Government New Zealand’s opposition is principled because it does believe that the elimination of all risk carries too high a financial burden. 
The path for this bill through the select committee process was arduous. The path was however assisted by significant numbers of submissions and in fact some very very good submissions from Rural Women New Zealand from Federated Farmers of New Zealand from Local Government New Zealand and from a number of the drinking-water suppliers who comply with this bill already. These suppliers are in the main drinking-water suppliers that supply large numbers of people. That is perhaps because they are metropolitan water suppliers. It is not necessarily a good council - bad council division as the previous speaker suggested in the name and shame approach that she suggested for the Clutha District Council—I believe that was the council she was referring to. 
I commend all members of the Health Committee as did the Minister for pressing on to make the very many changes that were required in this bill. I am not sure who the previous speaker was referring to in relation to the Opposition saying that Local Government New Zealand was not consulted. Local Government New Zealand certainly played a huge part in the process in the select committee stage. But if as the previous speaker has suggested Local Government New Zealand paid such a large part in the process prior to the bill being introduced why were so many changes necessary when we got to the select committee process? It would seem that Local Government New Zealand had not been listened to until then. Local Government New Zealand worked through many hours of consultation and I commend the ministry officials for their openness to the suggestions to make this bill better. The bill has been improved as a result but Local Government New Zealand is still very concerned about the cost to ratepayers. 
In fact in respect of costs—and I will touch just briefly on those—when we first heard about this bill the costs were between $50 million and $275 million. It is another inexact science. That is an awfully big range is it not? Of course by the time Local Government New Zealand president Basil Morrison spoke at a conference costs had gone up to a possible $800 million. Even Ministry of Health staff at the 2006 water and waste conference said that costs could be $300 million. In conclusion I reiterate the National Party’s opposition to this bill based on the inexact science. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The right to have clean safe water is a fundamental right here in New Zealand whether one lives in a city a town or a rural community and one that we would expect any and every First World country to subscribe to. In fact every party in this House would want good drinking-water available nationwide here in New Zealand. The fact that the New Zealand standards are based on the World Health Organization guidelines means that there is a very solid basis to these standards. They are not greater than what is required. In fact they are used by many OECD countries. The standards are not unique to New Zealand and the bar has not been raised higher than it should be. When the water going to over half a million Kiwis does not meet water standards it would be very negligent of any Government to ignore it. We would all be wanting action in this House. We know that 71 percent of Kiwis receive quality drinking-water. It is those who do not receive it that we are concerned about. 
I was talking to my colleague Doug Woolerton who has recently returned from India and he said that he cannot understand how anyone would not support legislation for clean drinking-water—after what he has seen in India he finds it incredible. We are very lucky that here in New Zealand we do not even really think about the quality of our drinking water. We take it for granted. Perhaps from time to time when it smells more of chlorine or some other chemical than we think it should we moan a bit then we get on with life quite secure in the knowledge that over the next few days the water will return to the good quality that it was. We do not value clean drinking-water at all as we should. We expect it to be of good quality and fortunately it is. 
This bill represents a move towards a more flexible risk management approach. We are all very aware that the bill does bring in some legal duties rather than leave water a very precious commodity to voluntary standards. I imagine that very few people in New Zealand would have even realised that drinking-water standards are voluntary. This is the year 2007. It is time to move beyond voluntary drinking-water standards—past time in fact—and I would imagine that local governments knew that such an important resource which is fundamental to public health would not and could not continue under any voluntary regime. 
 We heard Maryan Street say that consultation with local government has been under way for quite some time. We are very aware that although large cities have very good quality drinking-water and risk management plans in place this is not the case with some rural communities. The bottom line is that rural communities have the same right as city dwellers to access clean drinking-water. We know from the Ball report that the occurrence of water-borne disease has been demonstrated by quite a number of studies. It is fair to say that although there are highly visible outbreaks of water-borne disease—the Ball report states there are 16.8 water-borne disease outbreaks a year affecting 100 to 200 people—the larger problem is that individual cases do not get any publicity at all. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research estimates there are between 18000 and 34000 such cases annually in New Zealand. Again this is expected to be an underestimate because in nine cases out of 10 they will never ever be reported nor will they necessarily be diagnosed. Most Kiwis think they will come right in a couple of days so do absolutely nothing about it. Fortunately in New Zealand we have managed to avoid major outbreaks of water-borne disease. 
The Health Committee and Local Government New Zealand worked quite extensively on this legislation and made significant changes to ensure it was as good as it possibly could be. We have to acknowledge their input and the input of officials. They worked tirelessly with the select committee on the legislation. New Zealand First was pleased with the technical assistance grants because we know that these will be needed by some suppliers and many of the councils. The challenge will be to ensure the grants are used for the specific purposes for which they have been given rather than used to carry out much-needed maintenance on some part of a water treatment plant that has been sadly neglected in the past. I am only too aware that some of the pipes in the treatment stations carrying water to our homes and our schools do need to be upgraded. The select committee was shown photos of the state of disrepair of some of these treatment stations. 
We are happy to see that the implementation of the legislation will be phased in over several years. This will give significant time to determine whether extra funding is actually needed to bring these treatment stations up to the required standards. The standards in the monitoring regime that is put in place by the legislation will ensure that all practicable steps are taken to ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in their drinking water. Like other parties New Zealand First expects that more progress will be seen to improve the quality of our drinking water. 
This bill is very worthy of support. New Zealand First wants to protect the clean green Kiwi image and quality drinking-water is something we expect every time we turn on the tap. So we definitely support this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill. On behalf of the Health Committee I would like to say that we gave one of the most exhaustive considerations to this bill. We have made a series of very very substantial proposed amendments to it. I think we have probably consulted more with submitters particularly Local Government New Zealand on this legislation than on virtually any other legislation that has come before a select committee. I think the committee did very very good work as did the officials in terms of trying to understand the concerns of Local Government New Zealand and to make amendments to meet its concerns. I want particularly to compliment Andrew Forsyth and his team—the officials who worked on the bill. They spent literally months meeting with Local Government New Zealand to discuss its concerns and working out ways in which those concerns could be met. I really think the Health Committee and the officials did an excellent job with this bill. 
I think that every single submitter as I recall made the point that water is too important to be left to a voluntary standard to be left to the free market as essentially the National Party seems to be advocating. It is very hard to understand why anybody would think that something as fundamental to life and to our health as water could somehow operate with a voluntary standard and be left completely to the free market to decide whether it would wish to comply with that standard. So there really was not any dispute that I recall amongst any submitters on that point. I am frankly surprised that the National Party is still advocating voluntary standards and a free market for the supply of water in New Zealand. 
However a lot of concern was expressed by many of the submitters particularly Local Government New Zealand about their opposition to the bill in its original form because they were worried about the effect that the costs of complying with the legislation would have on rates. Councils up and down New Zealand came to the committee with very concerning estimates of how much it would cost their ratepayers if the legislation was to be fully implemented. Some of them argued that it would effectively bankrupt their authorities. 
We took their concerns extremely seriously. None of us wants to pass legislation that will bankrupt local authorities in New Zealand. As a result the committee made a very substantial number of amendments. My understanding is that Local Government New Zealand now is basically extremely satisfied with the bill; as well it might be because really we have met all of its major concerns. We have created a new category of rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. We have created a new definition of neighbourhood drinking-water supply based on the number of people supplied. We have amended all the time frames which Local Government New Zealand was concerned about so that they are aligned with the Local Government Act. We basically defined the term “all practicable steps” as Local Government New Zealand requested us to do to take into account the issue of affordability. We have required the Minister to undergo a 3-year consultation period before amending a drinking-water standard. I could go on and on about the changes but I would say that we worked incredibly closely with Local Government New Zealand. It was a very good example of the Government and the select committee and local government working in partnership in trying to sort out the problems and issues that they were concerned about. 
I think it is important that water quality is mandatory that there is a national mandatory standard for drinking water and that it is not simply left up to the free market. There was dispute as to what extent there had been a problem with our water in New Zealand. There were varying issues about the number of campylobacter and cryptosporidium cases and so on and how much of a problem we have had. But the point is that we are being warned that in parts of New Zealand particularly Canterbury we will face issues around the water supply and they will become ever greater because of the expansion of dairying. A Canterbury University professor Wally Clark pointed out that as a result of the growth of dairying campylobacter cryptosporidium and previously little-known diseases had become commonplace in Canterbury. Indeed South Canterbury has the highest rates of campylobacter in the world. Basically he warned that if the proposed new irrigation scheme went ahead potentially there would be huge health effects in respect of water and the possible degradation of aquifers serving residents in Christchurch. 
Whatever people say about the quality of our water in the past the fact is there are very real threats to the quality of our water particularly as more and more of New Zealand farming converts to dairying. Environment Canterbury has just released an annual report showing that 60 percent of dairy farms in Canterbury did not comply with their effluent discharge consents; they are in breach of their discharge consents. What will that result in? That will result in the contamination of our water supplies. Thank heavens we have this bill which requires a mandatory standard for water and states that it is no longer sufficient simply to leave water quality standards up to the free market. It puts in place an effective regime but it is not an onerous and Draconian one. It has been worked out with local government in a way that reduces the costs on local government. 
I think that this is an example of where MMP has resulted in better legislation. Having smaller parties like New Zealand First the Green Party and the Maori Party on the Health Committee meant that the bill was not just rushed through as it might have been in the past. Legislation under first past the post was frequently just bulldozed through and rammed through select committees. Now under MMP and with the balance of voting in the select committee when smaller parties are concerned about issues raised by submitters as we were with this bill we can make sure that those concerns are given the utmost consideration. It was particularly those of us from the smaller parties—although the Labour members were equally happy to cooperate—who required ever more extensive consultation with Local Government New Zealand. We extended the deadline on a number of occasions. I think we have come up with legislation that we can be very pleased with and it seems that Local Government New Zealand is pleased about it too. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. Access to clean safe water should be a fundamental human right. Because of that the Maori Party supports the provision of safe wholesome drinking-water for all of our communities replacing voluntary standards with a mandatory scheme to ensure that as many citizens of Aotearoa as possible have access to safe drinking-water and the setting up of guidelines to ensure quality standards are being met. 
I was interested to note that most of the submissions on this bill came from councils whose major concern seemed to be about how smaller water suppliers might be forced out of business by the costs of trying to meet the standards and the wider implementation costs that might be passed on to ratepayers. I note that most of the compliance and cost issues seem to have been dealt with through amendments to the bill like having longer time frames for water suppliers to get their act together having different categories for town and country and having clearer interpretations and definitions of quality and assessment. Those amendments seem to be at odds with the desire for national standards but they will allow smaller towns and communities more time to bring their systems up to scratch. 
However the biggest concern of all still remains the fact that although water is a renewable resource it is also finite and learning to live in a sustainable way with our water resources is one of the key challenges for the 21st century. So I would hope that sitting alongside the Government’s insistence that all New Zealanders including those living in rural areas need safe drinking-water we will see specific initiatives to address ongoing concerns about polluted water tables and failed septic systems. 
The other day I read a section in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement on fresh water and I thought it useful to include it in this debate: “On-site human effluent treatment and disposal can also adversely affect water quality. Within the region there are a large number of small communities which rely on septic tanks or other on-site systems for domestic waste disposal. Discharges from these systems can lead to cumulative effects on water quality when insufficiently treated effluent reaches surface or groundwater.” That is an issue of major concern to the community I live in Waimanoni because we are not on town water supply; we all use septic tanks. We know that a number of rural communities like Waimanoni and others all around the country simply do not have access to drinking water of sufficient quality while others receive drinking water that is either inadequately monitored or simply not monitored at all. 
Members also need to bear in mind the submission to the select committee from rural women who stated clearly that responsibility should fall on the Government as the public health provider to provide equitable access to safe water for all communities. That is a bit of a worry when we consider the report from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which last month found that two out of every three New Zealanders believe that the public health system is inefficient and almost half believe that the system has got worse over the past 5 years. 
It is true that we must ensure that decent drinking water is available to meet the long-term needs of all the citizens of Aotearoa but if the public health capacity within the ministry is being run down as it is we have to ask who will have the oversight to enforce the new standards and address the numerous sources of threats to clean drinking water. 
I raise another key issue about water which is how we manage the tension between water as a human right and the pressure from those who see water as an economic good for the creation of wealth. Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said recently that no matter what the Government is saying it is moving towards water becoming tradable which creates property rights. If that is the case then iwi have a right under the treaty as tangata whenua. We know the growing bitterness and frustration for Maori about the Crown’s refusal to acknowledge iwi access and rights to water and we know that for some time there has been dialogue between Tainui Ngai Tahu Tuwharetoa Whanganui and others over the ownership and management of the lakes and rivers of Aotearoa—the sources of much of the country’s drinking water. We know too that the whole water ownership debate still remains to be had and cannot be sidelined by Government fudging and denials forever. 
 The Maori Party firmly believes that water to homes should be free and not charged for. In my own electorate of Te Tai Tokerau I see that Metro Water makes a $62 million profit every year from water charges and I wonder how much of that is reinvested into ensuring compliance with safe and wholesome drinking water from drinking-water suppliers. I also wonder about claims that user-pays water management models promote less water wastage when the amount of unaccounted-for water—water lost or wasted by the water retailer—has actually increased under user-pays regimes. 
There are many more issues around water and water ownership that although not addressed by this bill remain longstanding concerns for tangata whenua such as the appropriate mechanisms to manage water supply. As kaitiaki of water hapu and iwi are of the view that water arrangements should be jointly managed with local authorities and although we will support this bill at its third reading we will not support any moves that threaten to exclude Maori from our rightful place in taking a lead decision-making role on water. Tena koe. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call on the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This bill begins the process of phasing in a risk management approach to New Zealand water supplies to ensure that the current one-third of the population who either do not have a water supply that is compliant to the voluntary scheme that exists at present or for whom we have no idea as to whether their water supply meets acceptable standards will have good quality water supplies. 
The costs of implementation and compliance have been held up as a concern particularly for local government agencies. United Future believes that both central government and local government need to ensure that water quality is never neglected as a funding priority. On an issue that is as basic to human needs as water quality we contend that where humans are reliant on a water source human standards of excellence should apply and in relation to water quality rural communities should not be the poor cousins of their urban counterparts. 
 I agree with the New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart who reflected that we do not have to travel very far offshore to experience living in a community where people have to be to vigilant all the time about the water they consume—places where we do not allow ice to be put in our drinks and where we are very careful about where the water we drink comes from. 
However United Future is very pleased that the Health Committee did not dismiss local government’s concerns about possible rate hikes that changes have been made and that those changes are considered to be real solutions. We commend the select committee for the work it has done. United Future is not represented on the Health Committee and we are very interested to hear from the Green member about the work of the MMP parties to hold this issue to account to insist on more consultation and to push for some real solutions. United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Earlier in the third reading debate on this bill Tony Ryall rose to speak about cost escalations. So I want to examine the issue of cost escalations in the context that it is just too bad that Tony Ryall was not too concerned about cost escalations when he inadvertently let slip that the National Party thought it was a good idea to take the cap off doctors’ fees. That of course is the ultimate in cost escalation and it would deeply affect public health in this country. This bill is also about public health in this country. It is important to consider and address the matter of costs associated with any bill but particularly for a bill that will affect a $5 billion sector that ultimately is vital to this country’s social and economic development. However it is also important that such consideration be balanced and that the figures used are robust. 
We have heard much in opposition to the bill about the varying ministry estimates of the cost of implementing the bill which allegedly was $230 million in 2001 $250 million in 2004 then $300 million in 2006. The escalation seems to surprise Opposition members. Does it not occur to them that the changes merely reflect the increase in the cost of capital works over that period? Therefore although the ministry’s estimates of the costs of the bill increased by 30 percent over the period the costs of housing increased by 47 percent over that same period. It seems to me that the ministry’s estimates reflect reality better than the expectations of the Opposition. But it is not the first time Opposition members have exposed their lack of economic understanding. 
Then to cap it all off the Opposition introduced its own figure of $800 million which it claims comes from Local Government New Zealand. This figure has never been produced by Local Government New Zealand to the Minister to the ministry or even to the select committee. Thus it has never been subject to review. The figures that have been produced to the select committee by Local Government New Zealand include the greatly inflated claims that the costs of the bill to Clutha would be $32.3 million whereas on examination by competent engineers this figure was subsequently reduced to $20 million at the most and even this figure was for a gold-plated upgrade that would ensure that the drinking-water standards would be met under any management conditions. 
The ministry’s consultants costed the upgrades necessary to enable the water suppliers to meet the standards at $4.86 million. In a final attempt to blow smoke into the eyes of the public the Opposition conjured the figure of $2.7 billion out of thin air. Additionally the Opposition also alluded to the large bureaucracy the bill will allegedly create. This is a common feature of its opposition to anything. “Large bureaucracy!” those members scream referring to it as some sort of job creation scheme. But this shows a very poor understanding of the way public health services are provided in New Zealand already. In fact district health boards already employ the designated officers and assessors who will perform the enforcement and compliance verification functions under this bill. At present these officers support the operational aspects of the largely voluntary drinking-water strategy of which this bill is merely one component. [ 
Interruption 
] For the record I say to Mr Ardern the ministry already maintains a register of drinking-water suppliers though given its current voluntary status this does not include many of the smaller suppliers whose existence had not been officially reported to the ministry. 
The ministry also provides regular reports on drinking-water quality and operates a system for recognising the competence of laboratories in carrying out water analysis and it is already promoting understanding and encouraging the uptake of public health risk management plans by drinking-water suppliers. So this bill is an extension of what the ministry has already shown it is capable of providing. 
Although the bill does represent a significant step in completing the framework of controls for drinking water in New Zealand it is important to be mindful of what the bill cannot do and does not do. Therefore there are three important elements that any understanding of the bill must recognise. Firstly all building owners are already subject to legal obligations in relation to water available for consumption by users of buildings. Several statutes apply but the principal one is of course the Building Act 2004. For this reason generally speaking the jurisdiction of the drinking-water bill ends at the water toby. After the water toby the quality of the water is the responsibility of the building owner. Where a building is not connected to a network supply—that is it has its own source of drinking water such as from a roof tank or a bore—then again the drinking water in such buildings is primarily governed by the Building Act that is already in force. 
However where such a self-supplied building is also used by the public or is otherwise a community purpose building then this bill will require it to be included on the register of suppliers; so it should. This is to ensure that the public can have access to information about the quality of the water in such buildings. Additionally more complete information about self-supplied community purpose buildings may also assist with the investigation of water-borne diseases and that would be a good thing. Also within this context the bill strengthens an existing mechanism in the Building Act the land information memorandum provisions to provide important information to building owners and prospective building owners about what is known about the quality of the water in the building. 
The second point is that sources of raw water such as catchments and ground water are managed under the Resource Management Act 1991. Although the drinking-water bill encourages drinking-water suppliers to take an active interest in the overall management of the sources of the raw water they receive legislative jurisdiction for the management of sources stays with the Resource Management Act 1991. In this light and with the active encouragement of the Ministry of Health the Ministry for the Environment is well advanced in its preparation of a national environmental standard for the management of source waters under the Resource Management Act. This will help and in some cases effectively require councils to improve the way in which they manage such sources. 
Finally in keeping with the principle of proportionality the large majority of the provisions in this bill will not apply to the very smallest suppliers. Any supplier that provides water to fewer than 16 permanent residents or to any grouping that in aggregate uses water for fewer than 6000 person-days will not generally be subject to the key requirements in this bill. In other words those suppliers that are even smaller than a neighbourhood supplier will not be subject to most of the provisions of the bill; nor will they have to monitor the quality of their water nor will they be required to prepare and implement public health risk management plans although I hope many of them will. This is less than desirable from a public health perspective but it is a pragmatic recognition of the difficulties faced by such suppliers. However the bill is still clear that even though these very small suppliers must investigate any complaints that might be made about the water they provide they cannot knowingly provide polluted water. 
I say in conclusion that the bill provides for a balanced range of provisions that support its purpose of protecting the health and safety of people and communities. That is the fundamental purpose of this bill. The bill does this in way that provides flexibility for all suppliers particularly small suppliers and it links well with other key statutes. 
One of the interesting things about this debate is that it has continued to expose the idea that the National Party still holds on to dearly—that the market fixes all and that having a voluntary system in place and the invisible hand of the market will deliver quality standards in this country. The evidence is quite to the contrary. The evidence seen by the select committee showed that. Some of the local authorities that came before us argued that they did not want to meet quality water standards at all and some argued that a voluntary standard would not be good enough. The invisible hand of the market is not good enough. We have to do something quite deliberate and quite important to make sure we have First World standards when it comes to healthy drinking-water. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I stand to oppose the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill along with my other colleagues in the National Party. We believe that the aim of the bill is commendable and laudable. National does support the right for safe drinking water. We believe that water is essential to life but we do not consider that this bill is the mechanism to achieve this. 
One of the concerns the National Party has is the cost this bill will impose on the ratepayer and local rural communities. Local communities were very concerned that they wanted to be consulted and they felt they had not been consulted or heard. They were concerned that they should have been consulted over the level of risk they would be prepared to take. It is all about a balance between risk cost and benefit. Local government was up in arms over the costs and the burden to local communities. The costs were exorbitant. The Health Committee heard of wide-ranging costs from $50 million to up to $275 million—and yes we did hear from Local Government New Zealand that the cost could be as high as $800 million. There were wide variations and when there are wide variations in cost we know something is fundamentally wrong. Affordability has not been factored into this bill nor has the effect on the very small suppliers who are almost doing a community service to their local communities. In the face of such bureaucracy and burden of cost what will they do? Basically they will turn off the tap and a community service will be lost. 
The committee had councils coming to us one after the other with examples of the costs they would be expected to uphold over their plans. There was the Mackenzie District Council: $3 million over the course of its plan; Ashburton District Council: $10 million—these are not small sums—Clutha District Council: $20 million; Central Otago District Council: $5 million. These are not small sums for small communities to sustain over a period of time. We were told that the vast majority of water suppliers gave excellent quality of water and that it was just a small minority of suppliers that needed to clean up their act. Where there is a clear link between drinking water and infection we support firm action being taken and the situation being remedied immediately. 
Local government was interesting. Local authorities still—after all the discussion and the amendments—remained principally opposed to this bill. They are the defenders of the community and surely one would think that if after all the discussion and the consultation they felt the bill was in the right frame—that it would support their communities and would not be burdensome—they would support it. They remain principally opposed and that speaks volumes. The local communities wanted to be consulted. They felt they had not been consulted. They wanted a local solution for their local water-supply issues. 
The select committee had an example from the Kaipara District Council which started off its statement by saying it supported safe drinking-water but not the safest gold-plated drinking-water. In other words it wanted the committee to see that there was a balance between risk benefit and cost. I did not write that; it was the Kaipara District Council that wrote it. The council wanted safe drinking-water but it did not necessarily want the gold-plated version. It was all about assessing risk with benefit and cost. It felt the cost was over the top. It felt that the community’s wishes had not been heard and had been overridden that the increased cost would not deliver recognisable outcomes to the community that the nation’s costs should not have to be met by the ratepayers and that the one-size-fits-all-policy was not suitable and did not fit with the community. It felt very strongly that the current proposal would add significant cost. It summarised by saying that it was concerned that no adequate cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken and that the cost of this legislation could easily exceed any benefits. 
Then we had another example from the former Mayor of Rangitikei who gave a personal oral submission. He was very surprised when he read in August 2004 that his own community had the highest rates of water-borne and drinking-water disease. He was very alarmed by this as he had been a former mayor of the community. He set about investigating. He phoned the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association to get information from the Ministry of Health and from the district health board he got information that showed that Rangitikei’s water-borne diseases were five times the rate of the rest of the nation in 2003. This surprised him because he was the mayor at the time and no one had told him there had been an outbreak or an epidemic. Apparently when he delved more closely he found that the outbreak had occurred at a Marton kindergarten and that 12 children were involved. He thought that was a little odd because in fact there were five kindergartens that had the same water supply. He said in his submission that he smelt a rat and investigated further. He went to the kindergartens and found that not one of the kindergartens could remember an outbreak. He went to the local medical centre which also could not remember an outbreak. He went all the way to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd which reluctantly admitted that it investigates information on only half of the notified outbreaks. In other words the reliability of information stored at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research is dubious. 
In fact the evidence of water-borne disease outbreaks was very interesting. We had a lot of comments that campylobacter is the main culprit. Well it is not. Campylobacter is often related to food-borne illnesses. It is often related to chicken and often is not a water-borne disease at all. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research presented information to us. It gave us a whole document that looked at 23 case studies over the last 20 years. In fact when we look at the last decade we see that only six of those 23 cases occurred in the last 10 years. When we look at the particular case studies we see that three could not be proven as there was no clear link between water-borne outbreaks of disease two were malfunctions of equipment—and we cannot say that this bill is going to fix those malfunctions of equipment—one was an ultraviolet system that was not working and another was a septic tank that had broken and effluent was getting into the water supply. 
The most recent example was in 2006 at the Cardrona ski field where there was an effluent overflow. The drinking-water supply was not registered and there was an issue with the cartridge filtration and ultraviolet treatment. The case study states that although the water treatment comprised cartridge filtration ultraviolet treatment the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of the New Zealand drinking-water standards and the efficiency of ultraviolet treatment was unknown. I think that is a fair enough example. But really of the rest of those six examples in the last decade—and we are talking about the last decade—three could not be proven as there was no clear link and two had a malfunction of equipment. The only one I could use as an example was the Cardrona ski field example and that was in 2006. 
So in summary National opposes this bill. We think the costs to the ratepayer and the local communities are burdensome. We do support the right for communities to have safe drinking-water but there has to be a balance between risk and cost and benefit. Many of the communities we heard from were very concerned that that had not been factored into the equation and their communities would be faced with large burdensome costs without the outcomes and benefits being seen. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps the Opposition speakers should adopt a new theme song “Water Water Everywhere But Not a Safe Drop to Drink” to go with their opposition to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. 
I was a member of the Health Committee that worked very hard on this bill over a lengthy period as the chair has said and consulted widely with Local Government New Zealand to address concerns. I am proud to stand to support the third reading. I am also a lifelong water drinker who has experienced in a number of rural communities in the South Island being given the advice not to drink the tap water. I have heard that same sort of advice in Third World countries too but New Zealand is a First World country. We aim for First World outcomes. May I say that I was at a certain southern primary school on several occasions in the last few years when that school was threatened with closure due to the dangerous quality of the water supply. This bill will ensure that that sort of nonsense does not happen again. 
This bill is about ensuring that all New Zealanders on community water supplies have access to safe drinking-water. That is a basic right and expectation in a First World country. It continues to amaze me that with nearly every other party in this House supporting this bill the speakers from the National Party want to do nothing but play politics with it. Do any of those National speakers at all including the ones with medical qualifications—one of whom is currently leaving the Chamber—actually listen to and believe what they are saying? Well it would appear that they do not and perhaps their opposition to this bill is not so surprising coming from a party that would sell off water in this country if it got a chance. National would privatise water just as it has announced that it would privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and just as it has announced that it would dramatically increase funding to private schools sell off State assets and remove the cap on doctors’ fees and tertiary fees in order to allow them to skyrocket. 
National members would no doubt say as the cloud-jumper Mr Key has said in relation to removing the cap on doctors’ fees that the market would rule and in this case miraculously deliver us safe drinking-water from somewhere or other. Perhaps as Mr Key said on doctors’ fees people could go down the road to find another drinking-water supplier that was safer than the one they had. 
The fact is that at the current time there is only a voluntary requirement for water suppliers to comply with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005. About 71 percent of New Zealand suppliers currently provide drinking water that already complies with the standards which means for those members on the other side of the Chamber who find it hard to figure it out mathematically that about 29 percent do not. It is not acceptable that a high percentage of New Zealanders receive drinking water that is either below standard or not graded. 
Moana Mackey 
: Nick Smith agreed with that. 
LESLEY SOPER 
: That is right; Nick Smith himself agreed with that. It is equally not acceptable that a party that cannot even work out its own health policy should vote against such an important public health bill as this one. The Ministry of Health says that the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is necessary to prevent a major disease outbreak and to tackle high rates of gastrointestinal disease and the ministry is right. 
Let me go over just some of the damage that has been done already. In 1984 3500 people were sick in Queenstown because of contaminated water. There were 61 cases of campylobacter at a school camp near Christchurch in 1997 67 cases at Wainuiomata in 1997 and 187 cases at a college in May 2001. There were 69 cases of viral gastroenteritis at a major ski field in 1996 and 49 cases at a school camp in the Waikato in 2003. The Masterton town water supply was contaminated in 2003 and let us not forget Cardrona in 2006. 
It has been notable that some of the figures supplied to scaremonger on this bill have been wildly inflated and the highest ones come from the National Opposition not from Local Government New Zealand—most notably the figures of cost to the Clutha District Council of $32.3 million. An examination by competent engineers reduced that figure to $20 million for a gold-plated upgrade and to $4.86 million once the upgrades actually necessary to enable the water suppliers to meet the standards were costed. With new maths like this it is no surprise that the National Party thinks it can fund more private education borrow overseas to pay for tax cuts remove the cap on doctors’ fees and tertiary education and let the market rule—and somehow it will all work out! 
The Health Committee reported back an amended bill that was carefully considered. It is a practical bill. It is a responsible bill. It is a bill that provides for reasonable time frames embodies a preventive approach provides for public health risk management plans and uses existing district health board designated officers and assessors to perform the enforcement and compliance verification functions. In other words the bill provides a balanced and sensible range of provisions to protect public health in this country. The bill is supported by the Labour-led Government which is investing $154 million over 10 years to help to upgrade and improve small water suppliers. This bill is one we should be proud of as a First World country and I am proud to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. As has been noted in previous debates on this bill access to and use of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines is vital to our pastoral horticultural and forestry sectors. But there are risks if these products are used inappropriately or unwisely. These include risks to human and animal health to our biosecurity and to our agricultural and horticultural exports. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is a key part of New Zealand’s regulatory framework for the managing of these risks and the changes to the principal Act made by this bill will serve to provide greater transparency for stakeholders and improve the workability of the legislation. Further the changes deliver on the policy objectives and intent of the principal Act. 
I am pleased to say that the bill and the changes made by the Primary Production Committee have widespread and—I may even say—unanimous support in this House. This bill provides for changes to be made to the principal Act the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—the “ACVM Act 1997”—to make it more effective and administratively efficient. The changes improve the workability of the Act for the stakeholders and close several gaps identified in the coverage of the Act in order to better manage the public health effects of agricultural compounds and the regulations of all parts of the supply chain. 
These provisions amongst other things expand the purpose of the Act to include managing the risks to public health thus ensuring that all relevant risk factors can be considered. The bill clarifies the statutory backing for the arrangements to restrict the supply sale or use of products such as prescription animal medicines and poisons such as cyanide to authorised persons. It also clarifies that pet foods and stock foods are covered under the Act. 
The bill also makes changes to improve the enforcement of the Act. It provides for the alignment of the processes and powers relating to the imports of agricultural compound and veterinary medicine products with those of the Biosecurity Act. It enables the director-general to recall non-compliant products or suspend product registration and provides a more appropriate and effective range of penalties for offences. The bill improves the flexibility in the administration of the Act by providing an alternative approval process in special circumstances for the import manufacture or use of agricultural compounds without registration. It allows for the recognition of persons or agencies to carry out specified activities or functions for the purposes of the Act and provides for the issue of certificates of compliance to assist exporters. It also updates the cost recovery provisions of the Act. Finally the bill tidies up aspects of the Act by removing regulatory requirements that are in excess of those necessary to manage risks deleting provisions that have become redundant or are no longer necessary and making other minor changes such as updating terminology. 
The bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee and a number of amendments were made to clarify the way in which the Act works in respect of several matters. The select committee made changes to the bill to clarify the relationship between codes standards and conditions on trade name products. The mechanisms for setting regulatory requirements were amended to ensure that they were made in a more straightforward manner and they will be subject to an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny via the Regulations Review Committee. These changes arose from concerns raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority officials advising the select committee who then brought these matters to the committee’s attention. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the officials of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority for their work on this bill and to acknowledge the work done by the select committee. Its members worked in a very constructive manner. My only disappointment I have to say was the contribution from the chair of the committee who during the Committee stage complained that it had taken 4 months to get to that stage. I did point out in the Committee stage that I had been in this House when a National Government had petitions and bills that never made it to a debate at all so I had to say to the member that in fact he was crying crocodile tears. Putting that to one side I think that the work done by the select committee was commendable and I commend the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Despite that vicious criticism from the Minister National will continue to vote for the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I think what became evident through the various stages of this debate in Parliament with all parties voting unanimously to support this legislation as the Minister noted was an acceptance by all the parliamentary parties of the importance of agriculture and horticulture to the New Zealand economy. Therefore it is essential that we have legislation that is of assistance rather than a hindrance. I think in the contributions made by all members through the various debates we have had in recent weeks on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill that the relevance of the importance of agriculture has become clear. I look forward to the bill’s passing later on this afternoon. 
It is worthwhile recalling the history of the legislation prior to this amendment bill. The original agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines legislation was passed in 1997 and at that stage that legislation was quite far-reaching and forward-thinking. We took a whole lot of small specific pieces of legislation and attempted to mould them into one overarching piece of legislation which has lasted very very well and served the industry well over the last 10 years. But it has been noticed over recent times that the process the so-called one-stop shop by which the dangers are of any potential product is recognised—the process by which the various importers and retailers of these products get the chance to extol the virtues as compared with any proposed risks—could have been simplified greatly and that is the essence of the amendment bill we have before Parliament today. 
The Government clearly has a very large responsibility to ensure that all the products used in New Zealand primary production—and there are many thousands of them—are safe. That is something that must be accepted certainly by New Zealand’s agricultural and horticultural communities—and it is—and it must also be recognised by all the countries to which we extensively market our products. But having talked about safety I say it is also absolutely essential that we have a very wise balance against any processes that an importer must go through because those processes tend to add greatly to the compliance costs under which those industries that service agriculture and horticulture operate. 
As the Minister alluded to in her contribution the work of the Primary Production Committee on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill was very extensive. As I said in some earlier contributions to the debate in the Committee of the whole House I thought that the amount of work done by the select committee was probably more extensive than it needed to be but having said that I can also say we were greatly assisted by the quality of submissions that came before it. Almost inevitably they started with the same opening paragraph which said they were “generally supportive of the thrust of the legislation but …”. They then went on not only to list the essence of their discomfort around the amendment bill—and more important I can say this of all the submissions that came before the select committee—but also to give us in a very concise and concrete fashion some very sensible suggestions on how to then modify the legislation. I think that on the whole we have accepted the tone of those submissions and we have accepted the huge amount of work done by the industry in giving us the solutions and they have been largely incorporated into the legislation that is now before the House this afternoon. 
The passing of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill today will in a small way make farming in New Zealand a little easier. I think that this will be welcome relief to an industry that over the last 8 years has seen a sea of legislation that has been hugely difficult for the farming industry to cope with. We have only just seen legislation passed 5 or 10 minutes ago around water health standards—legislation that will make it extremely difficult for our rural communities. That was pointed out to the Government throughout the select committee process but the Government chose to ignore it. So it is a welcome relief finally to see legislation before the House that is of assistance to our industry and that is a sharp contrast to the obstructive experience that the farmers of New Zealand have had to cope with over the last 8 years. 
I support the legislation and I thank the Labour Government for finally doing something small—it is small—for our primary industries because they certainly need that sort of assistance. So in the dying days of the Labour Government at least it has one small piece of constructive legislation available and it will be over to the next National Government in October 2008 to make sure that this is just the first very small step in the right direction for agricultural producers. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I have to say that the honourable chair of our Primary Production Committee Mr David Carter just cannot help himself. It absolutely kills him that a bill here before the House is doing a good thing for our primary production sector and is doing a good thing by ensuring that New Zealand’s trade overseas is not impacted upon. We are doing whatever we can to make sure that whatever measures we take are commensurate with the risk involved and that we keep the cost down as much as possible. He just could not cope with that so first of all he had to take a whack at the Hon Annette King and go on about how long it has taken the bill to come to the House. This bill was introduced in November last year; we are passing it less than a year after it was introduced into this House. We have had issues today whereby National Party members have told us that things are not taking long enough. Things are either too fast or too slow. Sometimes I think the National Party will never be happy with anything the Labour Government does. 
The unanimous support that this bill has around the House is a testament to its importance. Notwithstanding the previous contribution from David Carter I say that when it comes to issues of primary production and trade we recognise their value and importance to all New Zealanders and to the New Zealand economy and we try to come to a consensus wherever possible. It is very important that we make sure that one of the drivers of our economy is treated well although from the way the Hon David Carter was talking I think we may be seeing some kind of financial rescue package from the National Party for dairy farmers. God forbid that dairy farmers have to make sure their drinking water is safe or that the drinking water for the workers on their farms and in their communities is safe. God forbid! Clearly with the absolutely precarious financial state that dairy farmers are in at the moment it could absolutely tip them over the edge if they had to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable children in their communities have access to the same safe drinking water that they do and that the National Party members do! [ 
Interruption 
] 
The only reason I raise the issue I say to Eric Roy is that the Hon David Carter raised that very issue in his speech. I felt it was important to respond to him because this Labour Government has been very good for the primary production sector. The National Party will never acknowledge that but Labour has been a staunch supporter of provincial and rural communities. We have made sure that provincial hospitals have stayed open. 
Shane Ardern 
: Tell that to the kids in the areas where the schools were closed down. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Mr Ardern that we have made sure that provincial hospitals have stayed open after many in my area were closed under his National Government. I suggest that Mr Ardern be very quiet on that issue. The regional health authorities went around closing provincial hospitals. Labour has been good to the primary sector. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right; they were probably not big enough for the cash registers that the National Party was rolling into provincial hospitals and hospitals all around the country at that stage. But I digress from the bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: You do. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I actually do yes. This is a very good bill. I will take only a short call because much of it has been covered and it will become repetitive. 
Eric Roy 
: Stop! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I very much look forward to Mr Eric Roy’s contribution when he takes us back to farming in the 1840s. He is very knowledgable. Mr Eric Roy is a fountain of knowledge for anyone who wants to know anything about farming in New Zealand. So I very much look forward to his far fuller contribution when he takes us back over the full history of this specific bill. 
I also want to pay tribute to the submitters who came to the Primary Production Committee. The submissions were very well focused. As always despite what people may be hearing in this House the Primary Production Committee worked together very well. We are always willing to listen to whatever proposals are put to us in order to make any legislation better particularly legislation that affects such an important part of our economy as the primary sector. As I said before that sector is very important because we are a very open market when it comes to trade. We need to make sure that we are ahead of the times. We need to make sure that we close off any kind of challenge or risk that might come into our primary production sector and we need to make sure that we are on top of that. I am sure that this bill will be a step in that direction. 
I am happy to stand in support of this bill. I commend the Minister for the fact that the bill has been passed so expeditiously through the House. It is being passed less than a year after it was introduced into the House. That shows the Government’s level of commitment to the primary production sector. It shows the Government’s level of commitment to making sure that we minimise all risk when it comes to that particular sector and—this is also important—to making sure that any provisions put in place to regulate or assist our primary production sector are commensurate to the level of risk that there is and that we do not go over the top. 
Again I thank the submitters and the Primary Production Committee and I commend the bill to the House. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I will also take a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. There is actually not a lot to say because we are all pretty much in agreement on the bill. We have had an opportunity to comment through its first and second readings and its Committee stage so I think we have just about exhausted the material. But I will make a comment firstly about the Primary Production Committee. The previous speaker Moana Mackey made the comment that the select committee works for the good of New Zealand and of the agricultural sector. That is true. There is a general level of bonhomie within the select committee and of listening to one another. The select committee is a very enjoyable one to be on but if we are in such good humour in the select committee I do not know why when we get into the Chamber we have to have a flick at each other. 
Moana Mackey 
: He started it. 
ERIC ROY 
: I do not care who started it; it just does not really square with the way in which we say we work so collegially together. 
This is important legislation. It embodies a whole lot of things that are quite crucial for the New Zealand agricultural and primary production sector which is the leading export earner for New Zealand. That is why it is so important. The aspect is not only that there has to be safety; the perception of safety around the products we use is as important as that. It does not matter whether we comply to the letter with Codex Alimentarius if the consumer on the other side of the world has the slightest doubt about the solidity and robustness of the process. If there is any question about that the consumer just turns off the product. It is important not only that we have a good legislative framework but also that our farmers and those involved in primary production comply with it so we have absolute assurance of our products. 
That ranges across traditional and organic farming and all of the compounds that are used in various ways whether they be biocontrols chemicals fertilisers pesticides or animal health products: vaccinations antibiotics or whatever else they may be. There are many hundreds of thousands of products in reality. We need to be able to have some assurance. At the same time we need to have a process whereby new products can be introduced because pests and diseases build up resistance and we need development in the area of fertilisers and animal health products. There has to be a clear trail whereby those things can come in and go through the process without having a serious impact on the cost of compliance yet we have a safety assurance. This is really quite complex legislation. It is an amendment to quite a layered process that has gone on over the years whereby we can give that assurance. 
I support the legislation. I think most of the comments have been picked up by others. There is general agreement not only amongst the select committee but also as has been pointed out with the submitters on the bill. I look forward to this bill being passed. It is another step on the way to New Zealand performing as well as and largely outperforming the rest of the world. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to join in what seems to be unanimity in this House by supporting the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. We are particularly pleased that this bill will require for the first time that these literally thousands of veterinary medicines that are used in New Zealand will be assessed for their risks to human health and to the environment. One would have thought that this would always be the case but alas no. For the first time we will have to consider those risks and also consider that stock food will be covered by the regulations. As many people will be aware genetically engineered commodities are fed to animals as stock feed—for example soy canola corn and so forth. Until recently even though we knew that much of this stock feed had been genetically engineered it has not been covered by any regulations. It is very very satisfying to find that this bill will cover stock food and pet food and will—as the Minister said—require that things like cyanide and other veterinary medicines will be able to be sold only by authorised persons. Thank heavens for that! 
One aspect of this bill that I was particularly pleased to see was in the commentary where the committee—I was not actually on the select committee that considered the bill—acknowledged that some veterinary medicines are exactly the same as human medicines the only difference being that they are given to animals rather than humans. The committee pointed out further that some medicines such as antibiotics when they are the same as those used in human health and when they are fed to animals on a large scale pose significant risks to humans and potentially the environment and could pose a threat to human health. 
 It is very pleasing to see a select committee actually acknowledging this very very significant risk to human health which is posed in particular by the continuous feeding of things like antibiotics to pigs and chickens in New Zealand. As the bill points out the problem is that we are feeding some of the same medicines used in human medicine to animals—and feeding them continuously. 
As a recent report pointed out it is one thing to give antibiotics to individual animals on a case by case basis as we do with humans but it is quite another thing to continuously feed antibiotics to animals in their breakfast lunch and dinner as it were and in their water on a mass scale. Because what that inevitably does—and we all know this—is give rise to antibiotic-resistant bugs and bacteria. These bacteria can of course spread antibiotic resistance into the food chain and the environment throughout New Zealand. 
We know that this is a very significant problem in New Zealand. A very small study carried out by Massey University found very high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on a single pig farm. Another study found that 40 percent of the chicken farms they sampled had bacteria that were resistant to vancomycin which is considered to be the antibiotic of last resort. 
One would have thought that if we had studies showing this degree of resistance developing in our pig farms and chicken farms we would take this risk extremely seriously—particularly as overseas there is a lot of research into and real concern about antibiotic-resistant bacteria being found in pig herds and poultry flocks. This is causing quite a flurry of interest regulation and efforts overseas to reduce the amount of antibiotics that are fed to animals—particularly pigs and chickens. One would think given this international concern that there would be similar concern here in New Zealand. Alas that is not the case. Despite all of the evidence showing that we are spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment and through the food chain we continue to allow farmers to continuously feed antibiotics to chickens and of course to entire herds of pigs as well. As someone said in a recent report the problem with factory farms is that they are raising more than pigs and chickens; they are raising drug-resistant bugs as well. This is very much the case here in New Zealand. 
Given that we have basically done almost nothing about this very serious problem other than sweep it under the carpet and turn a blind eye to it it is frankly exciting for me to read a select committee report that actually addresses this issue refers to the concerns about it and seeks to strengthen the regulations around not just the feeding of antibiotics but the feeding of all veterinary medicines to animals. The report also acknowledges that veterinary medicines such as anti-parasite dips and drenches which are used on whole herds of animals also pose significant risks to human health and the environment. 
We are absolutely delighted that we are acknowledging the risks to public health from the adverse effects of agricultural compounds and requiring that the risks to human health and the environment be taken into account. We are delighted to support this legislation. We hope it will not be just a piece of legislation that sits in the bottom drawer as it were but that it will result in much more stringent monitoring of veterinary medicines and assessment of their risks. We hope we will see a reduction in the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in particular and other veterinary medicines in New Zealand. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. The Maori Party comes to the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill from a context founded in the knowledge that the land remains a central platform for Maori economic development. We believe that future prosperity for tangata whenua is inextricably tied to the productivity and protection of the whenua. As such we are very keen to address the risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds—those risks being to trade and primary produce animal welfare agricultural security and environmental well-being. Tangata whenua are major stakeholders in the agribusiness sector and some Maori agribusiness operations are performing exceedingly well commercially. For those other businesses that may be underperforming there is obviously considerable value in encouraging the wide uptake of best-practice technology and management practices. 
This bill turns to address and improve the prevention and management of the risks to human health arising from agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines and enables Parliament to address the risks arising from the use of pesticides and chemicals in the farming and forestry industries. It is imperative that chemicals compounds and veterinary medicines are evaluated to ensure that they do not pose any risk to human health animal health the environment or trade. 
The Committee stage of this bill brought up the issue of drench resistance and tied it to the proposals around data protection. The Maori Party is keen to support initiatives that enhance business practice for the agricultural industry so we are pleased that the bill has given consideration to ensuring we have a significant period of data protection available for companies in order to warrant the bringing of new products into our market. A critical issue must be about maintaining our international competitive advantage—something that of course has never been more ingrained in the national psyche than in the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred in Cardiff this weekend gone. 
A key and primary objective of this bill has been to introduce new provisions to protect public health from the adverse effects of agricultural compounds. The timeliness of the legislation could hardly be more relevant as the Business Council for Sustainable Development has only recently released its results of a survey that confirms that 78 percent of New Zealanders believe the public health service has worsened or stayed the same over the last 5 years. Right throughout this bill we have agreed to new provisions framed in the context of reducing the risks to the health of all New Zealanders. The Primary Production Committee report asserts that some veterinary medicines that have been used on animals such as anti-parasite dips and drenches pose significant risks to human health and the environment. We have only to look at the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill that was before the House in the last sitting period to see a classic example of the unpredictable and serious side effects that come about through the ingestion of a cattle worming agent by people. Benzylpiperazine was originally designed as a treatment for internal parasites in cattle—a de-worming treatment that we all know to cause serious risks to public health. 
The other aspect of the timing of this bill relates to a recent announcement from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Although the record of this current Government is hardly positive as far as listening to the United Nations goes it appears that in this one isolated case New Zealand is taking its advice seriously. The Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that global animal food production is undergoing a major transformation that could lead to a higher risk of disease transmission from animals to humans. That is a dire warning indeed which this bill responds to through the strategies that are being put in place to control the use of active ingredients fed to food-producing animals that could pose a threat to human health. We in the Maori Party really welcome the opportunity provided by this bill to invest in the greater ability to regulate and assess the contamination of food for the sake of the benefit to public health. The risk of disease transmission from animals to humans will increase in the future so the work that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority undertook on the bill has been greatly appreciated in making explicit the association between the contamination of food and the risk to public health. 
 When I spoke during the second reading of this bill I raised the issue about regulatory costs. The Maori Party is pleased to see the obligation to avoid redundant regulatory control is clearly articulated in this bill. The bill is quite clear that the controls already imposed under other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or the Medicines Act should be considered. Effective legislation must be a priority for this House not the creation of undue bureaucracy or additional regulation for the sake of it. We commend the Primary Production Committee for making amendments that will actually make a difference to people’s understanding of the legislation and thereby their ability to comply with it. We also support the proposal for the 3-year review of the compliance costs around this legislation. 
Finally I want to bring the wider aspirations of the Maori Party for an organic and a GE-free Aotearoa to this debate. We believe that we could benefit from further analysis of ways to reduce the reliance on pesticides and fertilisers in our commitment to regulate risk management and reduce toxicity levels. We want to place on record the important contribution that Te Waka Kai Ora an organic produce agent could bring to this policy. One of its ambitions is to develop a significant organic agricultural project based on hua paraumu which would identify a pure product and assure consumers of the product’s integrity. Such a project would form the basis for developing an indigenous organic brand and standard. Te Waka Kai Ora has suggested that the verification of organic produce under an indigenous brand would include the integration of tikanga Maori—Maori custom—into processes and standards. It would help to set the standard and independently check that organic products advertised for sale met the standard and then the labelling would claim compliance with achieving the standard for organic produce. 
As tangata whenua we have an exclusive Treaty right to ensure that our lands forests and fisheries and the subsequent produce from them remain free from being genetically modified or polluted by genetically modified organisms. Te Waka Kai Ora suggests that maintaining or perhaps more accurately re-establishing a GMO-free environment in agriculture would give Aotearoa the competitive marketing edge that I raised earlier today—the push to lift demand in the American and global export market places. At their very essence agricultural compounds—pesticides and fertilisers—impact on the mauri the life force of our foods flora and fauna and it is therefore of great importance that we do all we can to prevent any risks to environmental animal and public health. The impact of cross-pollination from GE crops super weed hybrids and general pollution in the environment are all risks that threaten nga hua Maori—natural produce—and as such cannot be dissociated from Maori cultural social and other economic development. 
The Maori Party is therefore happy to support this bill to prevent and manage the risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds: risks to trade in primary produce risks to animal welfare risks to agricultural security and risks to environmental well-being. We are pleased also to put forward our support to ensure that the use of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines does not result in breaches of domestic food and residue standards in order to better prevent and manage the risks to public health. The Maori Party will support the third reading of this bill with this riveting delivery. Kia ora. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. It will be drive time up on the Kapiti coast now with people heading away and listening to their radios—I read today with interest that this is the first day that Parliament will be live on television. In particular I want to talk about this bill being really a one-stop shop tidying-up bill and about managing risks as we heard before in a very good address from Mr Sharples of the Maori Party. 
In the Primary Production Committee we heard from four submitters and we received six submissions of very good quality as well. In particular we spent quite a bit of time—and the submitters helped us with this process—on compliance costs because that was an issue for a lot of the submitters. It is interesting to see that there will be a small increase in costs as users become familiar with this legislation after it is passed this evening. It is forecast that compliance costs around this legislation will in time be reduced. We will be watching that with a great deal of interest. 
The submitters before the Primary Production Committee also pointed out the issue around data protection and how different parts of the world prescribe a period of 10 years; I think that in Canada in particular it is 8 years. New Zealand currently has a period of 5 years for registration and a further 5 years for full registration. The first 5 years are provisional with another 5 years for full registration. There was a concern that we are not keeping up with the rest of the world and that the time should be pushed out further but the officials told us that that could not be part of this bill. So that is something we will have to look at moving into in the future. 
The National Party supports the passage of this bill in its third reading in Parliament this evening. I guess the biggest concern I have is that this legislation will have to be implemented by veterinarians around New Zealand. New Zealand currently has a shortage of veterinarians and we are not training enough through Massey University so we are having to go around the world to recruit them. This afternoon we heard from Annette King the Minister for Food Safety that the Food Safety Authority is trying to recruit veterinarians from around the world to come to New Zealand and that is proving to be extremely costly. I am sure we need to do more to train more New Zealand students and we need to ensure they stay in New Zealand as well. I guess they will have to look to the National Party to provide the right incentives for them to stay in New Zealand. 
In conclusion the National Party supports the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I wish to thank the Primary Production Committee for all the work it has done on the passage of this bill which has taken I think about 9 months—and that is actually pretty quick for Parliament. We look forward to the 3-yearly review of the legislation to ensure that it is delivering on the mechanisms set out in it. 
Bill read a third time. 
Armed Forces Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is the product of 4 years of policy development undertaken in consultation by the New Zealand Defence Force. It amends the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990 to deliver an enhanced military justice system for the New Zealand armed forces. In doing so it will take into account developments in domestic and international human rights laws including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It will ensure that the military justice system does indeed fulfil the seven vital elements of the military justice system that I referred to when the bill was read for a first time. Those elements are the maintenance of discipline consistency in all strategic environments portability expedition fairness efficiency and simplicity. 
 The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in March of this year. The report of the committee and the useful amendments that it has recommended to the House demonstrate the value of the select committee process. I commend the committee for what has clearly been a thoughtful examination of this bill. The committee received four submissions from interested groups and individuals including the New Zealand Law Society the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Advocate General. I also received some useful suggestions from the Legislation Advisory Committee which were referred to the select committee and which in large measure are now reflected in the bill. 
The bill as read a first time inserted a new Part 6A into the Armed Forces Discipline Act establishing the Court Martial of New Zealand as a permanent court of record. Because of the limited availability of new section numbers in that part of the Act the bill inserted a large number of alphanumeric section numbers including a new section 144ZZI. The committee has recommended that in order to make the bill more user-friendly to members of the armed forces who are not legally qualified those provisions should be moved into new Parts 4 to 6 of the bill with a view to those parts being divided in the Committee of the whole House stage to form a separate bill which will be the Court Martial Bill. That seems to be a sensible proposal and the Government supports it. 
The bill repeals current provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act that permit commanders to overturn or interfere with the decisions of the Court Martial of New Zealand including the abolition of the board of review. Such powers will now become the exclusive province of the appellate courts such as the Court Martial Appeal Court. This is necessary to ensure that our system of military justice complies with internationally recognised standards of independence and impartiality which are reflected in section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
One of the issues raised by the Judge Advocate General and considered by the committee is how the valid and useful contributions that senior members of the defence force can make and have made to the maintenance of service discipline could be retained in the new legal environment. There is value in having senior commanders consider the broader issues that often arise in the context of trials by court martial to determine whether there are measures that might be adopted to prevent the reoccurrence of problems or to improve the conditions and standards of discipline in the armed forces. 
To address that issue the committee has recommended the establishment of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee which will be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and will include his senior commanders the Judge Advocate General the director of military prosecutions and a representative of the military defence counsel. The Armed Forces Discipline Committee will consider reports on command issues from the senior military member at each trial of the Court Martial of New Zealand. It will also produce sentencing guidelines for the Court Martial of New Zealand fulfilling a similar role to that of the Sentencing Council which was provided for by an Act of Parliament passed in July this year. The Government supports this development. 
Another issue that the Judge Advocate General suggested the committee should address was how concerns about the outcomes of summary trials might be communicated to the Judge Advocate General so that he or she can if necessary refer those cases to the new Summary Appeal Court. The committee has responded to that issue by recommending that the bill provides that any person whether a service member his or her defending officer or even a concerned parent may refer such matters to the Judge Advocate General. That will be a significant additional safeguard and the Government also agrees with that. 
The select committee has recommended that all judges of the Court Martial of New Zealand have security of tenure equal to that of the Chief Judge and in fact of a High Court judge. The Government accepts that that provides a better fit with New Zealand’s constitutional framework and supports that recommendation. 
The committee has done some work on clarifying the status of the director of military prosecutions who will be in much the same position as a Crown solicitor in his relationship with the Solicitor-General. 
The committee has also recommended that the role of the national preventive mechanism for service penal establishments under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 be transferred from visiting officers appointed by the Chief of Defence Force to the registrar of the Court Martial of New Zealand in a new role as inspector of service penal establishments. The Government agrees that that will enhance the independence of the authority responsible for ensuring that there is no potential for torture or ill-treatment to occur or go undetected in New Zealand’s service penal establishments. 
I note that the select committee has commended the work of the legal staff of the New Zealand Defence Force in the initiation and the conduct of the military justice review and the modernisation of the law. I have huge respect for people in the legal staff of the New Zealand Defence Force and I endorse the committee’s comments in this respect. 
I also take this opportunity to thank the retiring Judge Advocate General Mr Peter Trapski for the excellent work that he has done as Judge Advocate General for the past 12 years. Peter Trapski’s connection with the military justice community stretches back over 50 years to the time when he was a legal staff officer with the New Zealand forces in Malaya. We are fortunate indeed in New Zealand to have people with a depth of wisdom and knowledge in the law as well as a familiarity with the armed services. 
As a result of this bill Parliament will ensure that New Zealand continues to have a highly disciplined and world-class defence force. 
Before concluding I mention—perhaps unusually—that today I had the sad responsibility together with Dr Wayne Mapp to attend the funeral of Byron James Solomon a young sailor with the Royal New Zealand Navy. Byron Solomon was tragically killed last Friday in an accident whilst he was serving on board the  
Canterbury 
. I record on behalf of this House our sorrow at the tragic cutting short of the life of this young man who had so much to offer. I know Wayne Mapp will agree with me that the service today was a huge tribute not just to Byron and his family but also to the family that the navy is for those of our service personnel men and women who serve in that service. Byron was a young man with a long tradition of family involvement in the military including a grandfather who served in the 28th Maori Battalion in World War II and a great-grandfather who served at Passchendaele the anniversary of which we commemorate on 12 October. I take this opportunity on behalf of the House to pass on our deepest condolences to Byron’s partner and to his mum dad sisters and brother and indeed to all of his crew mates who were part of his family on board the HMNZS  
Canterbury 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I think in light of the Minister Phil Goff’s comments that it would be appropriate that I also record the debt that the nation owes to all of our serving people. I have heard service in the armed forces described by some people as a job. In fact I heard that very recently from someone who should know better. But of course service in the armed forces of one’s nation whether in peacetime or at times of armed conflict is inherently risky and everyone who goes into the armed forces knows that. Those in the armed forces train diligently and rigorously to avoid accidents as much as they possibly can. 
 Most of what defence people are doing is training for operational service so it is a deeply wounding tragedy not just to the family but to the whole Defence Force and the Navy when such an accident happens. Byron Solomon had joined the Navy just 4 years ago and was very obviously from today’s funeral service highly regarded by his colleagues. It was more than just the Navy pulling together; it was his shipmates bonding in unity with the family with what will now be the memory they will have of Byron Solomon and reflecting on their future. It was a very moving service. It was certainly poignant as indeed it was a very moving address to note that his great-grandfather had served with the New Zealand Army and had been wounded at Passchendaele; his grandfather had been in the 28th Maori Battalion; and indeed his uncle is a senior warrant officer in the New Zealand Navy. So this is a family that can look back with pride at service across the generations and of course will remember with pride their now lost son brother and partner. 
The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill is one of those opportunities that the Parliament has to consider carefully the law and practices that apply to the armed forces and we get such an opportunity probably only once in every 30 or so years. This legislation was initiated by the New Zealand Defence Force and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee specifically commends the legal staff—and we noted this in our report quite particularly—for their competence and professionalism. Had the director of legal services for the armed forces Brigadier Riordan and his team and particularly the naval commander not taken the initiative we would not be dealing with this legislation today. What they are doing is a service to the quality of rights and freedoms that every New Zealander has irrespective of the occupation he or she performs. We owe it as a House to ensure that when people don the uniform of this country they do not surrender their rights and privileges as citizens. We have to ensure that the armed forces law which operates in obviously unusual circumstances reflects those rights and privileges. One of those is to know that one will receive justice in the military chain of command. 
This bill is very much about that; it is essentially a modernisation to bring New Zealand law into line particularly with those of Commonwealth partners Canada the United Kingdom and Australia. So we now have a much more robust court martial system. I want to make clear that traditionally court martials have had the advice of the judge. The judge has not actually been the presiding officer; the presiding officer is normally a senior officer not trained in law but obviously trained in command. This bill changes the court martial into a proper court so that the judge will be the presiding officer and the members of the board will be acting much more like a jury. So it will feel and look for the future much more like an ordinary court. 
We see that as a major advance because in that way there is virtually no risk that one’s rights and privileges would be trampled upon perhaps for the cause of the service at large. An individual’s rights should always stand above those. That is an important change and one that the committee commended. 
The committee however was particularly concerned about the role of the summary proceedings where so many issues are dealt with and where to be honest people are sometimes encouraged to plead guilty to sort of “Get it over and done with; it will go easier for you.” and so forth. I can understand the pressures for that. It is all done as part and parcel of binding the unity of the team together and a difficult legal process may disrupt that. There are enormous pressures around that process to keep things tight to have a person who may have transgressed so to speak kept within the family by perhaps doing something that is against his or her interests but might nevertheless be seen as appropriate for the unity of the organisation as a whole. Some of us have seen that happen in practice admittedly in a very small way—things like an unauthorised discharge or something of that nature. 
Therefore the committee decided there had to be some supervisory role and the armed forces sentencing committee is really intended to perform that particular role. It provides guidelines and we did see some value in essentially importing the modus and practices of the new Sentencing Council into the armed forces. We saw that as a desirable outcome; it would encourage justice being done in all cases. 
We were also particularly concerned that in summary proceedings people receive the right to legal advice. We have sought and indeed strengthened that part of the legislation. We considered seriously and it is noted in the report of the committee whether that should be so in every single case but we decided that in some instances—for instance a ship at sea during a warlike situation—that may not always be possible. But by and large we expect the person charged to have that right of independent advice; to have that sense that his or her rights will be protected. 
I want to touch on perhaps one final point and that is the role of media freedom. This is obviously another issue that we were concerned should be properly protected. The worst thing that can happen is that justice held in secret is actually no justice at all. Justice to be trusted must be open. So we were concerned that the media have the proper access and we have I think struck a proper balance between protecting the security of the nation and providing for open processes of justice. We feel we have modified the bill as presented in a proper way. 
The Minister spent a bit of time going on about letters of sections and so forth and it is true we were concerned that the legislation be understandable to people who are not legally trained. One of the things I think is a good thing in the Supplementary Order Papers which we will be debating no doubt in the Committee stage is that the bill has been broken up into four separate bills. It is very important that the legislation be readily accessible to those people who have to administer it and that it be structured in an obvious and coherent manner. 
In conclusion the select committee took its task very seriously in this instance. We asked a lot of questions of the legal advisers probably more than they were expecting I suspect but we understood that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right. I commend the director of legal services for the Defence Force and his staff for working extremely hard and well with the select committee to strengthen what was already a very good bill—and I want to make that clear. It strengthened the bill and I think we will come out with excellent legislation that the armed forces can rely on with confidence for the next generation. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 First of all I agree with Dr Mapp when he says that every 30 years or so Parliament takes the opportunity to modernise legislation regarding the defence forces and the military. Certainly that has been the case. I cannot claim to have been here 30 years ago but certainly I have in my time seen one earlier occasion when Parliament modernised law regarding the defence forces. 
I have had the privilege—as you have Mr Assistant Speaker—of serving on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I was always greatly impressed by how seriously the committee undertook its task. You might recall Mr Assistant Speaker that you I and a few other members of this House led by Mr Graham Kelly agreed with my suggestion to visit East Timor and witness first hand how our servicemen and servicewomen managed the peacekeeping work there. That visit coincided with the first anniversary of independence. It was very interesting to see just how our legislative framework works in terms of our defence forces and at that time we were greatly impressed. We were impressed with what our defence forces were doing there we were impressed with how well they were regarded and we were really impressed with the arrangements made to ensure the smoothest possible transition to civilian rule there. 
As Dr Mapp said the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee takes its role very seriously as it has with this bill also. I imagine that many members of the public are not very familiar with the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill but it is basically a technical bill. It is technically important as it reforms the New Zealand military justice system. Although this might seem a little arcane it is worth noting that the foreword to this bill in the Bills Digest states: “There has been no substantial reform of the military justice system in New Zealand since the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 came into force in 1983. Domestic and international developments in human rights law particularly the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 necessitated a thorough review of the military justice system in New Zealand. The review conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force recommended a large number of reforms. Those reforms are reflected in this Bill which will amend the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990. The Bill will also make a number of consequential amendments”. 
Although many people might ask what this has to do with them I think that as we celebrate our country’s contribution and commemorate all those who have given sometimes the supreme sacrifice of their own lives in the service of our country the Commonwealth and our allies in various conflicts around the world it is worth remembering that we have not always had the legal frameworks necessary to ensure that our people get a fair deal. You will recall Mr Assistant Speaker that some years ago this House debated legislation to pardon those who it was felt with the hindsight of history and the years and generations that had gone since had been unfairly treated and executed as a result of decisions made during past jurisdictions—indeed not only by New Zealand but also by our allies. We have had to grapple with some issues and that is precisely why we have this sort of legislation. 
In the consideration of this bill the Labour-led Government believes that the military justice system should apply the same rights to our armed forces personnel that are enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system. The purpose of this bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. As I said earlier sometimes in the past that system has not always been seen to be effective or fair. The current military justice system is governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. As I said earlier there have been changes in human rights laws over the years both domestically and internationally and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act made it necessary to review the military justice system. This bill provides for a common system of summary discipline for the armed forces that complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
This bill will amend the Acts that I mentioned earlier and hopefully following the select committee’s modification the bill will deliver an enhanced military justice system for New Zealand’s armed forces. New Zealand’s armed forces justice system is currently governed by out-of-date legislation. In fact the legislation was over a decade old before it was finally enacted. The armed forces justice system needs to be updated to be consistent with international developments in human rights laws as well as with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The legislation will better serve our servicemen and servicewomen by applying to them the same rights enjoyed by civilians. 
When one reads the report of the select committee and the Bills Digest associated with it it is interesting that there are some quite detailed recommendations relating to procedural and technical matters that are aimed particularly at protecting the rights of accused persons. These are explained in some detail in the select committee’s commentary on the bill. They bring into a more modern framework the legislation that governs the way courts martial and the like are conducted. As someone who is not a lawyer I am well aware that some lawyers—and I have acquaintances who are very well versed in this issue particularly from a military perspective—have been very concerned for some years that the legislation has been not only somewhat out of date but also well out of step with what happens in the civilian world particularly in relation to the rights of the accused or the person being court-martialled. 
The select committee has recommended that a separate bill be formed from this bill and proceed as the Court Martial Bill. So parts of this bill will be split off and new parts have been added. The select committee has also recommended that the bill provide for an Armed Forces Discipline Committee which would produce guidelines on sentencing principles and practice and establish grounds for when there might be departure from those guidelines. The Armed Forces Discipline Committee would be established and chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and would consist of the Vice Chief of Defence Force; the three chiefs of the individual services; the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand; the Judge Advocate General; the director of military prosecutions; and a representative of the armed forces defence counsel panel appointed by the Judge Advocate General. 
The select committee has done a thorough job on this bill from what I can see. I am not of a legal mind myself but I have been around this place for some time and one gets a perspective and a view of when things are not quite as they should be. I think that this bill will go quite some way towards modernising the circumstances and the legislation under which persons who are perhaps up for some disciplinary charge or who may be even in as serious a situation as being court-martialled are being dealt with by our military forces. 
It does seem to me that this legislation is well overdue and I commend it to the House. I am pleased Mr Assistant Speaker that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee appears to be just as thorough and committed as it was in earlier days when you and I were part of it. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I must say that never having had any personal or professional reason to become involved in these issues I have found this legislation immensely educational and also quite challenging. Until we started to get deeply into these issues in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I had not realised the sophistication of the thinking that has gone into this exercise. Like other speakers I really want to commend the professionalism and the good patience of the legal services officers of the New Zealand Defence Force. They revealed a very high degree of sophistication in their thinking and a very high sense of responsibility for the procedures they were asking this House to put in place and were immensely helpful to the committee. In that sense I think they were perhaps a little fortunate that we had at least one member of the committee—namely my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp—who unlike me had quite a deep personal knowledge of this issue. I think he provided some worthy questioning and even perhaps some testing questions at times for the professional staff. Out of this I think came a very happy marriage of advisers and politicians and that is why I think this process has gone both successfully and smoothly. 
Every major policy issue has to be looked at by each generation through their own eyes. Things move on. I guess a number of members of this House would be familiar with the old Churchillian aphorism about how discipline was maintained in the British navy historically. It was through a combination of three factors one of which I have temporarily and perhaps conveniently forgotten but the other two were rum and the lash. That might have been appropriate in centuries past for the British navy but clearly it would not pass muster in the 21st century with Generation Z. So we have looked at this starting as previous speakers have said with the legislative framework set in place more than 30 years ago in 1971 and we have then looked at it with fresh eyes in terms of the changes. Those changes are not just in terms of the nature of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which was the main driver I think in a procedural sense for much of the debate and the drafting; they also reflect the broader societal changes such as the enhanced role of women in the armed forces. The committee has looked at this bill through the light of social and legislative changes that have taken place in New Zealand and similar societies since the base legislation of 1971 was put in place and I think it has done a fair job frankly. 
I suspect that the public understandably is only at the best dimly aware of this major legislative initiative and exercise that has been under way. But I think that many if not all members had in their minds the following thought. There are times when things do go wrong in military justice. This can become a matter of acute public concern. If we think back to the deeply controversial executions that took place in the First World War of people who were alleged to have deserted and think about some of the debates still going on in societies around the world about some of those deeply controversial military justice decisions we can see that although the public might not follow this issue on a continuing basis—and understandably so—politicians on every side of the political fence have to bear in mind the long-term consequences of getting it right. This can become a matter of intense public interest if it has not gone right. I think that was very much in our minds. This was a—unique is perhaps too strong a word—once in every generation opportunity to try to get this right and that was the spirit of the committee’s work. 
I also think that a number of us were conscious that the role of the military has become very different and itself much more sophisticated. Indeed in the discussion paper the National Party put out on external strategies in the section dealing with defence it referred to the almost quasi-political role some of our New Zealand defence personnel are carrying out in the Pacific Afghanistan and other areas around the world where they are using not just the traditional soldier’s skills. They are operating in an almost political environment and their own behaviour and discipline is absolutely essential and a central element in the efficacy of their operations. We have certainly seen—fortunately not in respect of any of our armed services that I am aware of; at least in the recent past—peacekeeping operations involving officers and soldiers of other countries in which some deeply questionable losses of discipline have occurred and where some very serious charges often of a sexual nature have been levied against those soldiers. So the whole role of discipline also has an additional character which is the intense international scrutiny of the behaviour of troops operating in these sometimes grey zones which are neither combat nor political. I think that is also a broader context in which the issue becomes a very important issue that politicians of every complexion need to bear in mind. 
Quite clearly the role of discipline in the armed services is of an entirely different nature from discipline in any other profession. I do not think we need to dwell on that; it is self-evident. Therefore the principles underlying the administration of military justice have to be quite specific to the nature of the beast. As far as I understand it we have essentially two types of military justice: the summary discipline system and the courts martial for much more serious offences. 
Like any politician trying to cover a number of bases in which one does not have any personal experience I followed on the first issue the old advice of asking some taxi drivers. Eventually I found one taxi driver who had been a soldier for a number of years and I asked him whether he had ever had any experience of military justice. He had indeed. He and a couple of his mates when they were young soldiers had relieved the officers’ mess of a certain amount of alcohol to as he put it redistribute it down the line. There were of course other ways of describing it that were slightly less favourable to my friend the taxi driver. I asked him whether he went to a court martial. He said: “Good heavens no. It wasn’t that serious. We were dealt with under summary discipline procedures.” I asked him how it went and he said they were a bit concerned when the officer who was hearing the charge shouted out to the sergeant major the words “March the guilty bastards in.” as to whether they were going to get a truly fair hearing. But he said it was a fair cop and he did not have any particular complaints. 
Although the “Dad’s army” side of discipline is there I suppose we also know that there are much more serious offences carrying severe penalties and that is where the courts martial comes in. In respect of the summary discipline side of the equation I think there are some very sensible changes. There is the unification of the summary discipline procedures. Whereas in the past there was one for the navy and other slightly different systems for the army and the air force they have now been combined into a unified base and I think we have a much more expeditious and coherent system that is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
In respect of the more serious side of military discipline—the courts martial—I think what we have done with this legislation is end effectively that closed loop as I put it of the system. The director of military prosecutions will be appointed by the Governor-General and high standards are expected by the incumbent of that office. He or she must have served I think 7 years as a barrister or solicitor to the High Court and must have practical military experience. By insisting that he or she no longer reports to the Chief of Defence Staff there is a big shift to remove any potential conflict in terms of their career and the chain of command from the director of military prosecutions to the Chief of Defence Staff. Henceforth the director of military prosecutions will be reporting directly to the Solicitor-General which I think is a very healthy shift and I hope it will increase the confidence of the men and women of our armed forces that in the event of a serious charge they have a fairer system. I think we all know that fairness is hardwired into the New Zealand DNA. I think the men and women who serve the country with distinction should welcome these changes and feel that they have a system that is up to date fair yet efficacious in terms of the special disciplines required. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 In light of the time and the fact that I thought the next call belonged to the Maori Party—and I apologise to Mr Fairbrother—I seek leave of the House to suspend business until after the dinner break. I would also like to pay tribute to the whanau of Byron Solomon and under the circumstances I seek leave of the House for that to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none—and it is 6 o’clock. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking in this reading of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill I will concentrate on three or four aspects of this comprehensive reform of the criminal process in our armed forces. The Minister Phil Goff in his speech this afternoon made very quick reference to what is a significant change in the structure of our court martial process when he noted that the legislation established it as a permanent court of record. Of course that sets in a whole train of procedures that are now introduced into this bill and become part of the discipline procedures of the armed forces. A court of record of course is a court that has a registrar—in this instance—or a clerk responsible for keeping records. It becomes the court of first instance on any appeal and obviates the need on any appeal to rehear the evidence. The court of record establishes an administrative function of a court and in this bill that is observed by the registrar. 
The immediate change that that has—and it is a change no doubt for the better—is contained in the new clause 139 which will be section 139 of the amended legislation replacing the present section 129. There are two circumstances in which an accused person can object to any person in the court martial about to hear the case against him or her. Under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 as it presently stands a court martial is specially convened for the particular hearing whereas under the amending bill we are considering it is established as a permanent court and thus a court of record. Under the present law the accused person can challenge on two grounds. The first is impartiality—the concern that one or more members of the court martial may not be in a position to act impartially or and I quote from section 129(1)(b) “Is for any other reason ineligible or disqualified.” 
The bill before us now retains the first leg which is the possibility that a member or the court may not be able to act impartially but it restricts perhaps the second leg which is for any other reason. The second leg is now defined by what will be the new section 134—the qualifications of the member—that is that the member of the armed forces has served in the armed forces for a period of 3 years or more and is not disqualified under section 135. If this bill goes through the new section 135 deals with the grounds for disqualification. They are essentially similar to the grounds in what will be section 139(1)(a)—that is issues of impartiality—because they relate to whether the military member is the commanding officer of the accused has been a prosecutor or witness has investigated the charge and similar matters such as that. 
So the power imposed on the registrar under this bill is quite a responsible power that will have to be exercised by that registrar very very carefully because no longer does the court martial itself determine that matter—although no doubt common law would enable that to occur. Under the bill the court martial itself does not determine by a vote of the majority whether a disqualification ground arises. So the registrar assumes a position of considerable importance in ensuring that the subsequent court martial is a fair court martial for the accused person. It will be interesting to see how it develops. It is a move to greater efficiency and it is welcomed but one would hope that the registrar acts with extreme caution bearing in mind some very very considerable authority throughout the Commonwealth particularly in Britain on questions of conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest must remain as an inherent concern in my argument under the new section 139 as it will be if this matter goes through. 
The other matter about this bill is that clauses 13 and 14 which we find on page 27 go against trends in some Commonwealth countries in relation to the double jeopardy rule and also against the trend that is in fact in business presently before the House with the Criminal Procedure Bill. Clause 13 deals with the circumstances of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict which are the grounds for a double jeopardy defence. A double jeopardy defence of course is a technical defence raised by an accused person at the outset of any charges. It is a longstanding common law tradition and basic principle that has been changed somewhat in the last 10 years in some countries—principally England and two states of Australia. If the argument of double jeopardy is advanced and accepted by the court that brings matters to an end. 
Under clause 13 of this bill the double jeopardy rule is in fact reinforced and given a wide ambit. Clause 13(3) brings in a new subsection (4) to section (21) of the principal Act and relates to a previous acquittal or conviction or any offence taken into consideration by that court martial or tribunal in sentencing him or her for another offence. It goes on to define with some degree of exactitude the width of offences that might have been taken into consideration. This is really a codification of the double jeopardy rule that until this moment has been a common law concept and not often codified. In fact it is very rarely codified—although it is dealt with explicitly in the constitution of Canada and in the US constitution for example. 
This codification of the double jeopardy rule is perhaps at first glance at odds with the Criminal Procedure Bill presently before Parliament. That then takes me to the third area I want to deal with—the quite different concept of discipline in the armed forces as opposed to discipline in civilian life because the armed forces deal with a wider range of circumstances than civilian life. Effectively under armed forces discipline we are giving to an accused person’s superior officer the right to exercise summary judgment in a very expedient way. This is demonstrated no more clearly than in new section 117ZD that gives a cut-off point between when the accused person may have legal representation or not. If the accused person elects to go for a court martial that person has the right to legal representation but if he or she elects to have the matter dealt with summarily then he or she loses the right to legal representation. That is a departure from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am not saying it is a breach because it has passed that test but the person has 24 hours in which to— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Since when has Labour been interested in the Bill of Rights? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: At least they can spell it. The accused person has 24 hours in which to reconsider his or her decision to be tried summarily and particularly to lose the right to legal counsel. 
This is legislation that brings the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act into the armed forces law in a direct way but of course it limits the right under sections 24 and 25 in that respect. Again it would emphasise the summary nature of that decision and it would reflect the importance of having fairness of trial. The due process provisions that give rise to fairness are dealt with in the new bill and enable the accused person to agree to a lot of shortened processes such as evidence by statement and various other concessions that accused person may make. A court of review would have to have regard to that due process aspect. But of course in the summary jurisdiction the penalty range is much restricted and in the main relates to a stoppage of grog curtailment of leave or a demotion of rank. So the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is brought in expressly but is then limited by the decision of an accused person to have the matter tried summarily. I note that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee dealt with this aspect and brought in the 24-hour cooling-down period and one would hope that that is enough and that the accused person is free from any influence. 
Finally I will deal with the fact that this bill brings in new section 117ZK to be found at page 73 of the bill. This new section brings in the Evidence Act that was passed this year then limits it in some respects. But this bill adopts into the discipline laws the Evidence Act which quite clearly was intended to be a codified provision. 
This is a welcome change to the armed forces. There are some bold moves in this bill particularly in establishing the Court Martial as a court of record and limiting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I look forward to the Committee stage of the bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Hei whaiwhai haere i te ia o te korero i tenei po ko taku noa ake ko te tautoko i nga poroporoaki ki tera o nga tama i ngau nei i rongo nei i te ahuatanga o aitua i te wiki kua hipa ake. Ko ia tenei e whai nei i te ahuatanga o te Whakahuihui Vercoe o Hirini Jackson i nga marama kua hipa. Ehara i te mea he haerenga mokemoke tenei. 
E te uri o te whanau o Solomon koutou ko te whanau Karkeek te taonga o te mate Byron moe mai. moe mai moe mai ra. 
Me penei rawa te korero waiho ko te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Anei tatau te hunga ora e wananga nei i nga korero i nga take o te wa. Huri noa i te Whare i tenei po tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
By way of following up the trend of the talk this evening my part is merely to support the tributes of farewell to that son who died last week. Indeed he follows Whakahuihui Vercoe and Hirini Jackson who passed away in the months gone by. This is therefore not a lonely journey for him. 
To you Byron treasure of death and relative of the Solomon family and you of the Karkeek family slumber there lie there rest there.  
Leave the dead to the dead is the saying. Here we are the living debating the issues and matters of the day so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us throughout the House tonight. 
] 
Kia ora tatou. Kei te tangi tonu te ngakau. 
[ 
Greetings to us. The grief inside continues. 
] 
As we mourn with the Carkeek and the Solomon whanau in the loss of their beloved son the able seaman Byron James Solomon it is to be noted how the values that came forth this last week—the values of bravery of courage and of heroic strength—are the same values that we commonly expect our armed forces to display every day every week. I have no intention of talking about the detail of this sad case other than to highlight the relevance of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill in reforming the military justice system in such a way as to ensure consistency fairness efficiency discipline and justice. He tika tonu tera mo Byron me pera ka tika. Byron James Solomon deserves nothing less. 
Under the current system as I understand it legal representation would be excluded from courts of inquiry in all cases in the armed forces. Some of the submitters to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee whom I heard about expressed the concern that this exclusion is inconsistent with the right to natural justice and that the accused should be entitled to legal representation at the summary trial. Mr Fairbrother talked a little bit about that. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I read concluded that in a situation in which a service member is facing a jail sentence if the disciplinary officer at least advises the accused of the right to legal representation in electing summary trial then that would satisfy the requirements for fairness and the need to maintain discipline. The crucial point is that the opportunity to benefit from legal representation is at least offered. 
The Maori Party does however share the concerns of the submitters in cases in which a sentence of being locked up is not going to be imposed. It would appear that this bill suggests that the right to legal representation is not relevant in these circumstances. Yet where a sentence is likely to lead to people being locked up those involved are offered and can have representation. So the question is how we can be assured that discipline fairness and accountability are maintained. Will we be seeing those subjected to disciplinary procedures having the nature of justice ranked and therefore having access to legal representation denied? The Maori Party knows full well about the nature of justice being denied—the damned Foreshore and Seabed Act showed us all about that. But another question we would ask is: if it is deemed that the accused does not require legal representation because the charge may be of little consequence why lay the charge in the first place? 
This is a very important bill. It is an opportunity to ensure that the armed forces—and consequently the regular force Territorial Force servicemen and servicewoman and civilian staff across the navy the army and the air force—are entitled to better human rights protections when encountering the military justice system. The bill is also important in taking explicit account of international human rights laws. This is a welcome change from the Government which has shown a little bit of disregard in terms of indigenous human rights as is apparent in its rejection of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples less than a month ago. 
But to put that aside I say that a particularly positive proposal is the recommendation that the bill be amended to provide that all judges of the Court Martial of New Zealand are appointed in the same manner as the Chief Judge. It is a proposal that endorses the constitutional value of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. It is also positive to see that the proposed terms of appointment and tenure of military judges are to be consistent with practice in Commonwealth jurisdictions—specifically the United Kingdom Australia and Canada. The separation of powers doctrine is an important means of maintaining accountability fairness and liberty which in effect ensures that each branch of Government by being kept separate places a check on the other. This principle of independence has also shaped the decision by the select committee to make the supervisory powers of the Solicitor-General over the director of military prosecutions less rigid. 
In much the same way we welcome the inclusion of clause 151 to reintroduce provisions to enable an accredited news media reporter to have access to courts martial. We were interested in the advice of the Media Freedom Committee of the Commonwealth Press Union which inevitably drew attention to the issue of public interest associated with military transgressions. The comment that “the best sunlight is disinfectant” caught my eye. If we are at all committed to removing any bacteria corruption or disease of injustices that may occur in courts martial then I suspect that media exposure is one sure way of achieving this. Our armed forces must be open towards upholding the highest codes of personal integrity and accountability and the freedom of disclosure of information through the media is a key means of promoting this. 
Mind you I am always worried about the looseness of interpretation with phrases such as that information should be prevented that “might otherwise be harmful to New Zealand” as we see in the report from the select committee. One might say that the reporting of a particular rugby game last weekend might otherwise be harmful to New Zealand or indeed the exposure to the fact that New Zealand is one of four countries that opposed the good judgment of 143 other countries across the world to support indigenous human rights in the recent actions of this Government in rejecting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
In considering the notion of harm we are supportive of the intention for a 24-hour grace period to be established in relation to the accused electing trial by court martial. The space for the accused to consider the full implications of his or her decisions—a cooling-off period if you like—and a new offence created to punish any officer who attempts to improperly influence the service member during this time are both useful additions to the legislation. That time to reflect and to contemplate the full ramifications of the decision to go to trial by court martial we believe will only benefit the process in preventing hastily made and easily regretted decisions. 
The pursuit of justice is also facilitated through amendments to clause 38 which put in place procedures by which the accused can be advised of the right to appeal. The appeals system is a particularly important innovation to ensure consistency across all strategic environments. Currently the New Zealand Defence Force is characterised by two different summary disposal systems. There has been an absence of an appeals system which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bill rightly corrects this error. 
I believe that three particular events of recent occurrence are appropriate to refer to in the context of this bill. The first is the heroic rescue undertaken by the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s Orion crew who on the weekend saved the lives of six fishermen by rescuing them from their boat that was drifting north of Tonga. The Royal New Zealand Air Force is responsible for search and rescue operations within New Zealand’s maritime search and rescue area which encompasses some 6 million square miles including much of the South Pacific. As such the saving of lives is if you like part of its core business. 
The second event was the diversity award won by the New Zealand Defence Force in the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust’s annual Work and Life Awards in Auckland last month. That policy was explained by the human resource manager Laura Gillan as aiming to tackle “the pervasiveness of masculinity in the military culture and the pressures put on women to conform to the masculine set of values and standards”. 
The third event of course is the exceptional act of bravery that saw Corporal Willy Apiata honoured in New Zealand with the Victoria Cross for his actions while serving in Afghanistan in 2004. This Ngapuhi hero risked a direct line of fire to save the life of a comrade then carried his mate across 70 metres of broken rocky fire-swept ground while facing the glare of enemy battle fire before returning to counter-attack. Those are three events that represent the capacity to upskill and to change with the times the courage and capability to demonstrate remarkable leadership and the highest personal integrity and the selfless service of those who truly know the value of human life. 
We in the Maori Party hope that in supporting this Armed Forces Law Reform Bill the principles guiding the reform of New Zealand’s military justice system are aligned with the gallantry and inspiration that its own servicemen and servicewomen live by. We are heartened in this by the view of the New Zealand Law Society that the bill represents a principled attempt to find the right point of balance between the requirement of discipline in the armed forces and the requirement of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Kia ora tatou. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to add some comments in support of the report back to the House on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Interestingly I note right from the outset that the Minister of Defence Phil Goff was quite open in consulting cross-party on this bill. In fact I recall being in meetings with the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp at the beginning of the process and it is good to note that on an issue such as this there has been cross-party co-operation right from the outset. I have noted that the need for the bill was clearly highlighted and there was definitely a need to upgrade to modernise and to bring into the 21st century the armed forces’ justice systems. There was a definite need to recognise the human rights declaration and we were briefed quite well on the need to incorporate within the law the principles contained in what the military referred to as the seven samurai. 
The first the maintenance of discipline is absolutely essential in such an organisation as the New Zealand Defence Force. I must say that about the maintenance of discipline under what can be very trying and very difficult circumstances—circumstances that average New Zealanders really would not have a clue about and would never understand until they themselves chose to don uniforms pick up firearms and put themselves in the same situation and under the same risk. 
The second is consistency in all strategic environments and that is specifically with reference to and recognition of the fact that the defence forces are deployed all over the world in the air at sea and on land. They can be in foreign countries and in differing types of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations where the rules of engagement differ where the political scenarios can often be very very delicate and where the rights of the soldier the sailor and the airman so engaged can very often be described as being razor-blade-ish. One decision—interpreted by the media as being an inappropriate decision regardless of the circumstances—can have huge political consequences that can reverberate internationally and drag the country into political debate far far beyond the imaginations of the average rifleman in one battalion. 
The third is portability which again emphasises the need for military law to be able to be transported to be enacted and to be implemented anywhere around the world under the most difficult and trying of circumstances. 
Expedition is the fourth and it is exceedingly important that matters of discipline within the military be dealt with expeditiously. If there is one lament that New Zealand First continues to have in this House it is that we do not see the same devotion or same commitment towards the expeditious implementation of disciplinary measures within the police force. By contrast the police seem to have had a habit—in fact they seem to have made an art form—of dragging their officers through the grill year after year without any regard to the consequences for their families and children. All too often at the end of those rather lengthy processes where officers have been stood down on full pay for years and have not known fully where they stood they are found to be innocent or it is found that charges will not be laid. People have an expectation that the officers will put that behind them forgive everybody’s tardiness or lack of expeditiousness and simply get on with the job as though nothing had happened. 
Thankfully the military cannot and does not act in such a way but I do recall—and I would like to put it into  
Hansard 
—an incident up in Helwan Camp. I am reflecting back to about 1983 a time after I had come back from a tour of duty in the Middle East as part of the inaugural deployment into the Sinai Peninsula. I was second-in-command of a unit and I watched three New Zealand soldiers get rammed through hearings at 1.30 in the morning in a tent in the field without being given the opportunity to seek legal counsel or to get legal advice as to what the consequences of a guilty plea would be. That was despite the fact that the police had initially been called in to investigate the allegations against the three soldiers and that the police had told the commanding officer—in fact the task force commander—that they would not refer charges because there was no case to answer. The military of course has differing standards—and rightly so—as to what is proper or improper conduct and therefore reserves the right to charge a person even though the police may believe there is no charge to answer. As the second in command of a unit what I found reprehensible—and what I put myself in the firing line on—was the fact that those soldiers were put through the disciplinary process in a manner that could only be described as showing undue and unfair haste which seriously jeopardised and compromised the ability to prove their innocence or to at least mitigate their case. 
I am not going to tell the House what the charges involved were; all I am going to say is that my primary concern then as a captain in the New Zealand Army was that justice was fair consistent and properly carried out. I still to this day look back on that incident with some discomfort. I tell members that in defence of those soldiers I led the charge for a redress of wrongs. I put their case and attempted to get their case reheard. Unfortunately I was posted on a course for 3 months and some people rushed the redress through while I was away and got the same result. It still leaves a very sour and bitter taste in my mouth that we could act in such a way. 
The charges these soldiers were facing were serious and involved a young lady and a young soldier whom was married at the time. I want to put on the record that in that particular incident one officer—whom I will not name out of fairness to him—took it upon himself to put the young soldier into a car which was driven all the way back to Linton camp and had him front up under escort to his wife and tell her what he had done. His wife got very upset punched the window and slashed her arm. They called an ambulance put the soldier back in the car drove him back to Waiouru and locked him up. That was an appalling incident; one that I have never forgotten. I shall never forget the name of the officer who ordered that to be done. It has always left me feeling that there are some things about the military justice system and the way in which it is implemented that clearly no matter how perfect the system will always rely on the judgment and integrity of the officers charged with its implementation and the responsibility of that. New Zealand First could probably go into history and look at a number of cases in which military justice is seen to be pretty ruthless. Thankfully the military is not what it was in years gone by. We have a distinctly different class of leadership today to what we had in some other eras. We are very comfortable with that. 
New Zealand First notes and wants to put on the record that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has made numerous recommendations for adjustments to the bill that the Minister of Defence has said he supports. I have read this report. I have looked for a minority report from the National Party. I simply say to the House that unlike with the Criminal Justice Reform Bill I hope that if an issue should arise out of here that the select committee and the National Party did not see fit to write about we will not see another outrageous claim by someone in National—such as with Simon Power on the Bail Act—that they were always against that element when quite clearly there is no mention of that in this report. Other parties that do not sit on these select committees rely on the integrity of the select committee members to report back fully and completely. New Zealand First is taking this report as a true and accurate feeling of what National sees as necessary. We will look with interest at any further amendments that might be brought to the floor through necessity by National in particular in the Committee stage. But at this point as the bill sits we will support it through the House and look forward to its passage and final assent. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
Ka mihi ki a Byron Solomon kua hinga atu nei. Haere e te tama a Tumatauenga. Haere haere haere atu ra. Nga mihi aroha ki to whanau tuturu me to whanau heramana. Moe mai ra.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
My respects to Byron Solomon who has passed away. Farewell the son of Tumatauenga god of war. Farewell farewell depart. Fond love to your very own family and your Navy family as well. Rest there 
.] 
I also wish to salute all current New Zealand Defence Force personnel. It is good to have an opportunity to do so. They put themselves forward in the defence of our country. In the current times that can mean putting themselves at extreme risk. It certainly has meant that in the past but it is also the case now. I salute each and every one of those personnel currently serving. This week also being the week in which we commemorate Passchendaele I also take the time to remember all of those from generations past right to the present who have served this nation well and particularly those who have lost their lives in the service of our country. 
The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill as has been noted earlier makes amendments to three pieces of legislation. It is the result of a very extensive review of the New Zealand military justice system that was initiated by the New Zealand Defence Force for which it also ought to be commended and conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force in a very professional comprehensive and consultative manner. This was recognised by the select committee on which colleagues of mine—and particularly Dr Wayne Mapp—participated in the discussions and questions and in clarifying issues. The select committee recognised the purpose of the bill and has worked diligently to assist the modernisation of New Zealand’s military justice system. It is not before time. 
The purpose of the bill is to update the military justice system to bring it into line with international developments and also with changing societal and political developments both here and internationally. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been a primary driver we are told in the proposed amendments. Overall this bill is a welcome timely modernisation and National supports it. The big thing is the comfort and confidence that the serving armed forces can take from the changes that have been proposed here. They are entitled to know that just because they are in a workplace that depends for its efficacy on strict discipline they are no less entitled to the rights and freedoms that all New Zealand citizens enjoy. Therefore they can have every confidence that those rights and freedoms are theirs—no more and no less than for any of us—and that they can expect these rights and freedoms from a modern democratic nation. As I said overall the bill is a welcome addition to our legislative programme and it is good to see that all parties are on board with it. 
As a result of the bill the actual military offences do not change but what does change is the way that those offences are dealt with—the processes and procedures that the military now becomes subject to and part of. In respect of the summary discipline system there has been an overall comprehensive review of those procedures. One can say that there have been some very sensible changes. For instance prior to these changes the army navy and air force were dealt with separately. They now all come under the one comprehensive system. There is a cohesiveness and efficiency to it that makes sense. The bill also takes note of the fact that over the last few years there has been an integration of our forces in any event. From that point of view it is also very sensible. 
For the much more serious offences we have the courts martial system. In that regard we have a new office—the director of military prosecutions—appointed as a way of adding extra security and confidence into the system. In fact the changes that are made in relation to those processes are more attuned to the notion that men and women serving in the armed forces are indeed New Zealand citizens and that should they have the misfortune to be looking to this system they are entitled to be dealt with in no less a proper manner than if they were facing similar circumstances outside of the military. 
 Overall as I have already said and as other speakers have referred to there is a unity of the processes; they are much more coherent much more efficient and more closely aligned to what happens in the justice system per se in New Zealand. By and large we have a very good justice system nationally. It obviously needs a bit of a boot up when National comes into power as there are gaps there at the moment. But as I say it is very important that those of our citizens who willingly put themselves in harm’s way can be confident about the justice system under which they fall. 
The only other comment I would make is on the issue about media freedom. I think as a colleague said earlier it is a tenet of our justice system in New Zealand—a tenet of a democratic justice system—that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. That tenet is certainly what drives the justice system overall and it certainly must be the case here as well. The select committee apparently was concerned that the bill as introduced removed the current provision in the Armed Forces Discipline Act that allows media access to courts martial under section 131 (4). The committee rightly recommended that that right be included in the bill. It is a further protection particularly for those who come before the courts martial. Those people are able to have confidence that they are being given the greatest rights and freedoms that we all enjoy. 
In closing I say again that it is good work we do in this House when we see the results of some very hard and professional work by all concerned when the changes we will finally pass into law are such that they give ourselves as citizens confidence about the way in which we deal with offences against the law and when the armed forces themselves are also included in those changes. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
Arbitration Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 September. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. This bill is a milestone bill for the Maori Party. When my colleague the honourable Mr Hone Harawira last spoke on this bill on 8 May this year he said that land issues are so important to Maori that we were considering an amendment to this bill to refer all Maori land disputes to the Maori Land Court. Within 24 hours we had the amendment on the table to put into effect the idea that Hone had initiated. 
That 24-hour period in May 2007 signalled quite an important moment in  
Hansard 
 when the proposal of an MMP party such as the Maori Party was almost seen to have an opportunity to influence the parliamentary debate. I remember that night quite well. The motion was put “That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Arbitration Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell relating to the arbitration of disputes concerning Maori land.” It was a pretty straightforward argument I thought that centred around the Maori Land Court. 
As I am sure all members of this Parliament would agree the Maori Land Court is the court charged with the responsibility to judge on matters relating to Maori land. It is under the mantle of that responsibility that where there is dispute such matters are rightly put in its hands. But with the Arbitration Amendment Bill there is the potential for decisions and processes to effectively cut across the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court. 
Therefore we came to the House with a simple request to have the korero to have the debate. We asked the House to accept that we had the power within this Parliament to consider and if it was thought fit at the time to adopt the amendment relating to the arbitration of disputes concerning Maori land. All we wanted was the opportunity for the debate on the amendment to occur. So a party vote was called for in order to determine whether the debate would be held. The scorecard read: New Zealand National 48 Green Party 6 Maori Party 3 ACT New Zealand 2 in support; and New Zealand Labour 49 New Zealand First 7 United Future 3 Progressive 1 Independent 1 against. So the scorecard came up Noes 61 Ayes 59—amendment lost. 
I recount this history because it seems almost ironic now. Here we had measures to improve the processes of arbitration and disputes resolution and to enhance communication—qualities that this House would support and strive towards—yet the House could not return a majority vote of support for my amendment. The request put to the House was not an all-out “open the envelope” recommendation for the support to ensure all Maori aspirations could be transformed into tangible outcomes. It was not even a request for the utilisation of tikanga Maori as an appropriate and apt foundation for disputes resolution processes. All it was about was just having the korero. What was the harm in that? 
We believe the amendments proposed in this bill are now at least positive. We certainly endorse the process of arbitration as an effective method in resolving disputes particularly in regard to commercial litigation. We appreciate too the significant advances that have taken place to ensure that arbitration is now based on an international model developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law rather than being a simple rehashing of the English arbitration procedures of 1908. 
The Maori Party believes that the process of arbitration as a consensual method of disputes resolution is particularly aligned with kaupapa Maori particularly the attainment of kotahitanga—the oneness of purpose. The demonstration and influence of consensus models are illustrated in the many many hui throughout the country and have been commented on in many reports of that esteemed body the Waitangi Tribunal. That is the same tribunal by the way that is charged with the function of determining whether matters are inconsistent with the Treaty principles and commenting on proposed legislation if and when requested to do so by Parliament. That is the same tribunal whose recommendations are consistently ignored or shelved to gather dust. 
That aside what has the tribunal said about consensus models? The  
Ngai Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992 
 put it fairly clearly when it said: “The Maori consensus process requires a high level of community involvement and debate. New ideas must be allowed to lie for a long time and there are inhibitions on all tribal leaders in expressing a view that has not been tribally approved. Under the consultative processes of Maori nothing can be hurried along.” Consensus therefore which underpins the arbitration process may be one area in which the Crown is prepared to learn from Maori as to effective strategies and time-tested experiences can be applied to resolve commercial and other disputes. 
Another key issue on which the Maori Party sought the influence of an independent Maori voice was the concept of consumer protection. The bill improves the level of protection provided to consumers by proposing that an arbitration agreement takes effect only if arbitration has specifically been agreed to by consumer and business enterprise. In addition jurisdiction of disputes tribunals is removed if both parties agree that arbitration is the most appropriate form of disputes resolution. These are important initiatives that may well lead to a decrease in the disputes resolved through the court process as well as protecting the interests of the consumers and the Maori Party supports them. 
I want to take us back to the issue that I introduced tonight the concept that where Maori land is the subject of dispute it should be dealt with by the Maori Land Court. If we are looking to truly respect the concept of consensus and if we are truly looking to pay heed to the interests and priorities of consumers then accordingly we must rely on protocols and procedures that are already in place rather than walking roughshod over Maori—again. The Maori Land Court would be able to deal with disputes regarding Maori land even when one of the parties is not Maori. The Maori Land Court has the capacity to deal with such disputes in an effective and cost-efficient manner because of its awareness of tikanga Maori and how this affects Maori attitudes towards land. 
We know also that there is a precedent for Maori land disputes to be taken from the general courts to their rightful home the Maori Land Court in two other current pieces of legislation. In the Fencing Act jurisdiction Maori land disputes are able to be dealt with in the Maori Land Court under section 26 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Similarly in the property law jurisdiction similar models apply that are relevant to sections 2 to 25 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. So if it has been done before it can be done again. 
We continue to support this bill because we do support the promotion of arbitration as a useful tool in solving disputes. We know that the practice of arbitration has not been as extensive as was originally envisaged. In the Ministry of Justice’s 2004 report into alternative disputes resolution it stated that arbitration was used only in the very smallest of cases—some 6 percent of 1274 disputes—so anything that can increase the satisfaction and confidence from lawyers mediators and consumers that arbitration can be effective is worthy of our support. But we cannot leave this debate without expressing our profound disappointment at the inability of Government parties to consider any ideas other than the ones that they put forward. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Arbitration Amendment Bill is worthy legislation. Of course there has been a bit of a rise in the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures not just in New Zealand but in most Western countries around the world. This has partly been a response to court processes becoming expensive some of the courts being a bit bound up in their own processes and therefore people seeing that there are advantages in using alternative dispute resolution methodologies to resolve their disputes. 
The two main sorts of alternative dispute resolution are mediation and arbitration. The main difference between them of course is that mediation does not lead to an imposed solution; it leads to an agreed solution. That is not always appropriate. There are occasions when parties have disputes that will not be amenable to agreed solutions and when those parties want to have a solution imposed by a fair and impartial decision maker. Of course arbitration can achieve that. 
Arbitration is more formal than mediation because it does lead to a binding decision. But none the less it can still have advantages over traditional court processes. Parties can agree to the structure of the arbitration in a manner that suits their individual needs easily. There is also flexibility that might make it easier for a positive relationship to be maintained between the parties to the dispute which can be particularly important where the dispute is in a commercial context involving ongoing commercial relationships between parties. They might disagree on a particular issue but want to maintain an ongoing working relationship. Arbitration can provide a means by which the parties can resolve their dispute while taking a slightly less adversarial approach perhaps. Arbitration certainly can on occasion result in a less public airing of the issues if parties do not want to air their dirty laundry in public. As a consequence compared with some litigation there is probably less of a chance that the relationship will break down. 
Other advantages can relate to cost though I would note that that is not always the case. The court provides a very cost-effective service most of the time. The cost of services particularly where expert arbitrators are involved can be higher than the cost of traditional courts. Another advantage for arbitration is that the arbitrators can bring specialist skills. The parties to dispute can decide that it would be more fairly determined if the arbitrator was someone with knowledge of the industry concerned or some specialist knowledge of the matters that are in dispute. It is for them to choose who the arbitrator will be if they can agree and often the instruments or the contracts if they have a contractual relationship will set out a process for the appointment of the arbitrator if they cannot agree on an appropriate arbitrator. So arbitration is a very important part of a developed country that is trying to provide cost-effective and practical ways for people to resolve disputes between themselves. 
This bill makes a number of small changes to the existing Arbitration Act. The Act itself was a consequence of the review of the law in this area made by the Law Commission and this amendment bill which came to the attention of the House some 10 or 11 years after the original 1996 Arbitration Act was passed is probably a timely look at whether some minor changes are needed to the Act. The changes are relatively minor and that is testament to the fact that the Law Commission and Parliament at that time generally got it right. The changes that are brought about by this bill do not suggest any fundamental failure with the existing Act. Indeed it is pleasing to see that the existing Act has proven to be a well used and workable framework. None the less a few tune-ups are needed. Some of these come as a consequence of changes made to the international models for arbitration. In the Arbitration Act 1996 New Zealand adopted the model law on international commercial arbitration and recently changes have been made to that international model law. Accordingly this bill incorporates those changes into the New Zealand law and makes New Zealand one of the first countries to update its legislation to reflect those changes. 
So what are some of those changes? First the changes give the arbitrators more power to ensure that the arbitration proceedings are worthwhile. They enable arbitrators to have the power to make orders that preserve property so that a successful party will be able to enforce its arbitration award and there will be something there to enforce it against. Another change is that there will be more powers given to arbitrators to make orders preserving evidence so that the evidence will be preserved for a fair trial. Again these new powers will help to enhance the attractiveness of arbitration as an option. Although these are mainly technical changes to the existing Arbitration Act they are none the less good changes and I recommend them to the House. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill during its third reading. The bill was introduced to the House on 10 October 2006. In the introduction the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Clayton Cosgrove explained that the bill is the result of a review by the Law Commission of the Arbitration Act 1996 in conjunction with two other bills under review the Wills Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill both of which have been keeping pace with the passage of this bill. The Minister described the alternative dispute resolution as a growing trend in New Zealand and as receiving in general support throughout the country. Of particular note is the use of arbitration in disputes in regard to commercial contracts property and contractual situations. It is an observation one could make that the surprise is not that arbitration is having such general acceptance but that it has taken quite so long for such a sensible way of resolving disputes to come about. 
The system of arbitration in New Zealand largely inherited from the UK was in 1996 overhauled and updated. The resulting 1996 Arbitration Act reflected the model of law on international arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1985. The Act is a complete code applying to both domestic and international arbitrations. Since then the Law Commission in 2003 reported on the 1996 Act and proposed amendments to it. If I might make an observation again I remember when we spoke with officials of the Law Commission at the Justice and Electoral Committee the sense of frustration that was expressed by them on the lack of Government attention to matters the commission brings to the Government’s attention for review. It is comforting to think that since then we have at least these three pieces of legislation going through as a consequence of the commission’s report. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If it is the Government it is not comforting. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well that is right. Is it comforting if the Government is doing it? I say to Dr Mapp that I will be speaking a little later about that. 
National supported the first reading of the bill and supported it to the select committee. We concentrated particularly on issues arising from clause 6 which deals with the important issue of confidentiality. Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution. It enables parties to identify parameters to determine the rules that they wish to apply to the resolution of the dispute to adjudicate then make a binding decision. This is quite a delicate and sensitive way of dispute resolution and involves a considerable amount of trust by all parties in reaching a point of resolution. It is not a simple matter any more than is negotiation. Looking at the way the present Government negotiates we see that it seems to expect a particular standpoint to be adopted by all parties before it will begin. That is a great mistake. In my own experience of dispute resolution—and indeed in negotiation—I have never entered a negotiation where all the parties are in agreement initially. If that were the case there would be no negotiation required. Similarly with arbitration there will obviously be considerable differences between the views of the parties that have to be resolved initially so that the rules are plainly clear to everybody. 
Confidentiality as my colleague Mr Finlayson said in the first reading is a key issue. The Law Commission report stated that the key issues were firstly whether section 14 of the Act dealt adequately with the issues of confidentiality and if not how the Act should be amended to deal adequately with that issue. The second issue was when it is necessary for parties in arbitration to have recourse to the courts of general jurisdiction—in other words if the arbitration simply does not work in spite of the best intentions of all parties then they have to have recourse to the courts of general jurisdiction—should the otherwise confidential nature of this arbitral process yield to principles of open justice which of course apply in the courts of general jurisdiction. That was a fairly key question of the whole amendment process for the bill. The bill seeks to deal with this issue in clauses 14F to 14I. The general principle is that if one moves to the court system from arbitration the general principle of open justice will apply unless one can come within the exceptions set out in these clauses. National considered this to be the right balance. 
Other speakers in the first reading applauded other aspects of the bill. We have heard this evening from my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on the views of the Act held by the Maori Party and its support of arbitration in the resolution of disputes. 
The second reading seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to come back to the House and I am not quite sure why that was. Certainly the Justice and Electoral Committee moved with some determination and considerable progress on the select committee part of the bill but it seemed to take a long time to come back for the second reading. Aspects of the debate during that reading included technical discussion and the inclusion of amendments to clause 8. It was noted that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked well together in a constructive manner to build and strengthen the legislation. This is where I revert to the point of Dr Mapp’s very useful interjection in terms of the usefulness of the approach of the current Government. The Justice and Electoral Committee is the same select committee that is currently at risk of being riven over the way the Electoral Finance Bill is being processed. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: At risk? It has been riven already. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well we are a pretty determined lot on that select committee and I think it would be fair to say that so far there is a body of opinion that we on this side of the House are winning the intellectual arguments in most cases that are brought up. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: It’s not hard. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is not hard. I think we have them intellectually surrounded. The sad thing is the lack of reason in the approach being used by the select committee. This is the same select committee that has demonstrated that we can all work together— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You were deluded. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I do not think we were deluded because I think the willingness is there on our part. But as I said before before one can negotiate before one can arbitrate and before one can work together one has to have a fair basis for discussion. We will no doubt be saying more about that as we get closer to the time. 
The arbitration system has significant advantages. I will be echoing the comments that have been made by previous speakers this evening when I talk about the advantages to dispute resolution. One could say that arbitration is a fight without blows. Through an arbitration system nobody should really get hurt. Arbitration should not necessarily be an adversarial type of resolution. It is enforceable; the results of it can be enforced on all parties. It matches the international models and is in harmony with them. It provides remedies. The bill is principally a series of technical amendments to the existing system to bring it right in to the new model. Indeed as has already been mentioned New Zealand has become one of the first countries to adopt the new international model of arbitration systems. The bill provides powers to preserve evidence enhance arbitration and protect property. I am pleased to support this bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. I move to clause 8; a clause that no one appears to have mentioned in this debate. It inserts new article 35 of schedule 1 which relates to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. First of all it makes clear that awards no matter in which country they are given can be recognised in New Zealand and are binding in New Zealand. It also provides what the material is that a party relying on an award must supply to the enforcement court. But what this bill does significantly is that it takes the jurisdiction for enforcement out of the sole court as it was previously—namely the High Court. Of course as many awards are for less than $250000 it is sensible that this bill amends the Arbitration Act to give the District Court jurisdiction in cases where the amount of money—the subject of the arbitration—does not exceed the jurisdiction of the District Court. So the availability of the District Court to parties to an arbitration—should there be a need to enforce that agreement—is hopefully a quicker resolution source. Certainly it is usually a less expensive avenue to enforce the judgment. 
I turn to the issue of confidentiality which has already been discussed considerably in this debate. I think it is worth mentioning again that this bill is a determined departure as is the original Act it amends from the basic principle that justice must be seen to be done. Of course it is a fundamental principle that everyone is entitled to know what is going on in our courts and that is why obtaining suppression orders in the civil court is very difficult indeed and is usually possible only if some statute authorises it. However in this case decisions of arbitration remain determinedly confidential. One may think that that is to abrogate the principle of open justice but on further reflection one can see that the real principle of arbitration is not for a dispute to be resolved in the conventional concept of our justice system but to be resolved in the parameters of keeping a relationship going. So the parties to arbitration are first of all recognising that they are in an existing and often ongoing relationship and recourse to arbitration occurs when they want to resolve disputes without destroying that relationship. If one gets to an adversarial system of justice as happens in the civil proceedings then parties can be driven even further apart than when they started as the dispute materialised. 
The principle for open justice can be easily set aside if one looks at the purpose of the Arbitration Act and this Arbitration Amendment Bill. The purpose simply is to ensure that disputes between parties can be resolved speedily and with a degree of informality by leaving every avenue available for the parties to keep their relationship as harmonious as is possible given the disputes they face. This offer of confidentiality is very important in many many cases—in particular commercial cases—and that adds a further inducement to speed the process along and to ensure that errors of dispute are minimised. So the risk that arbitration will not come about because one party is taking a dogmatic approach on a point which is not the main point of dispute is overcome because the risk of going to the court is to leave open for public examination the contractual affairs between parties which normally would remain private to those parties. The principle of open justice can safely be set aside in the Arbitration Amendment Bill because the principle at work here is to allow parties to resolve disputes with a degree of informality and with confidentiality. 
The confidentiality provisions are extensive. The parties cannot disclose any of the material between themselves except as defined in the clauses of this bill without the leave of the arbitrator. Of course once the arbitration process is complete then that arbitrator is functus officio. If there is any issue as to what can be disclosed subsequently then new section 14E inserted by clause 5 provides for that by way of application to the High Court. The court has a wide discretion after considering all the matters as to how much the disclosure and confidentiality should be lifted. The provision is very wide and is underscored again by new section 14E(2)(b) which provides: “the disclosure is no more than what is reasonably required to serve the other considerations referred to in paragraph (a).” The High Court is given wide powers but subsection (2) is a strong reminder that those powers are not to be a springboard to the concept of open justice. 
We find the definition of “confidential information” in the interpretation clause. It inserts two definitions which are the key to this amending legislation. The first is “confidential information” in relation to arbitral proceedings and the second is “disclose”. The definition of “confidential information” is worth canvassing in this debate. It means “information that relates to the arbitral proceedings or to an award made in those proceedings”. It includes such things as pleadings submissions and evidence—and that often is what is most important to retain some degree of privacy about. It includes any notes made by the tribunal any transcript any rulings of the tribunal on the way to the final resolution and of course the award of the tribunal so that one party cannot then run off and publicly proclaim that that party has scored a significant win over the other side. It would even be improper as many litigants tend to do in these procedures to say: “I can’t disclose what the award was but I’ve got to say that we’re very happy with the outcome.” When I have read those comments in newspapers I have often thought that is a party that is pushing the contempt proceedings to the absolute limit. So we find that the definition of “confidential information” is as extensive as the prohibition on publication is penetrating. 
The definition “disclose” in relation to confidential information is inclusive of all aspects such as publishing communicating or otherwise supplying the confidential information. One cannot pass on to another party in a stated relationship of confidence information that was obtained during the arbitration proceedings. This definition of “disclose” is inclusive and exhaustive and it does not leave and should not leave any way for a party to exploit the vulnerability of the other side in arbitral proceedings when the party in fact discloses information in the course of having an arbitration become effective and a party cannot then by swearing a third party to secrecy pass information on. This bill clearly defines the term “disclose” and puts absolute parameters on what can be done. 
This is an important bill. It is a bill that reflects the thoughts of the Law Commission 4 years ago and it certainly carries through into statute what is a desirable practice in the civil litigation community. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. I would very much like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its hard work and indeed acknowledge the work of the staff and advisers who gave us really good advice and support during our consideration of and deliberation on this important bill. I have been reflecting that this bill amends the Arbitration Act 1996 which is not that long ago. Before that the Arbitration Act replaced the outmoded Act of 1908 which we inherited from England. We can see with this bill the culmination of the progressive approach to alternative dispute resolution in our country. If I reflect on the background that I come from—working in the union movement—I recall that mediation and arbitration was the preferred way of resolving disputes. I see now that arbitration has become a growing trend in New Zealand and I am pleased to say it is a trend that this Government supports. 
Maryan Street 
: It works. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: My friend Maryan Street says that is because it works and she is right. Arbitration encourages the parties to sit down and talk through those disputes in a less adversarial way than they would do by going through the court process. The advantage of that is a speedier resolution and that is a very good thing. It is a very effective form of dispute resolution but there is also the cost to consider. When we are looking at contractual law and at the associated costs borne by the parties arbitration provides benefits when compared with the more traditional adversarial approach. 
This is a very good bill and it represents an enhanced way of dealing with disputes in this country. Once again I acknowledge the Law Commission because this bill is based on the 2003 Law Commission report on the Arbitration Act. Although it was acknowledged that the Arbitration Act was working well some very common-sense recommendations were made as to how the Act could work better and really that is what this bill is about. It is technical and there is nothing particularly controversial about it but it goes a long way towards making things work better. 
Part 1 amends the Arbitration Act. Part 2 amends the Disputes Tribunals Act. Many of the features of the bill are relatively small and are intended to clarify the legislation. The most significant change is the insertion of new sections 14 to 14I into the Arbitration Act by clause 6 of the bill which will ensure total confidentiality in the proceedings with a very few well-defined exceptions. Confidentiality is a really important aspect of arbitration and mediation because it gives a chance for the parties to talk things through in a generally positive way that should lead to a resolution. If those matters were not kept confidential then there would not be open dialogue and the outcome would not be as positive. I am pleased that that is one of the key features of the bill. Also as a general rule if court action takes place after arbitration it is conducted publicly. 
I am pleased to say that the changes the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended were all agreed to in the Committee stage so at this third reading the bill has been reported without amendment. The first recommendation was that the current practice in relation to getting approval from the tribunal be maintained. That was not in the original bill but after careful consideration we believed that the bill would be enhanced if we retained the requirement to get approval from the tribunal. The second recommendation was to recognise the changes to the model law on universal commercial arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law. Those recent changes are included so the Arbitration Amendment Bill before us is very much up to date internationally. There was another recommendation that clause 9(2) be deleted because it would be contrary to the bill’s intent to reduce judicial involvement in the arbitration process. 
As I said before it is excellent that those amendments were agreed to and that there was no argy-bargy about them. The result is that in arbitration now a binding decision can be reached. Although the parties can agree to structure and go through the negotiation and discussion around reaching resolution—and that is a good thing—the decision in the end is binding on all parties. That really enhances the process. As I said before it is a less adversarial approach and although cost is not the only issue in a dispute it is a key issue. 
My view which I am sure would be shared by a number of my colleagues is that arbitration gives more access to justice because the cost is not so great. With a focus on wanting to resolve the dispute and with the parties accepting that it can be binding— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Absolute drivel. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I see that Mr Finlayson does not agree but we do from time to time not agree. I have to say that from time to time we do not agree and that perhaps I have more of a grassroots experience. He tends to focus more on the experience of his background within the law profession and perhaps has just a little less life experience should I say of dealing with people. Certainly it would be fair to say that his experience would not be of the same mediation and communication skills that many at the grassroots level enjoy. 
I really cannot think of much more to add except to thank the committee again and to also say that it is good to see this legislation go through and make the progress that it has made in this House. We know soon that it will be in place and offering an enhanced process for arbitration which has become a much more popular process with the people who use it. I think that is very good for relationships especially contractual relationships and for ongoing relationships in the future. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Succession (Homicide) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 September. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In rising to support the third reading of the Succession (Homicide) Bill which is intended to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person I want to mention just a couple of cautions. I had mentioned these in the Committee stage of the bill and I would have to admit that they were brushed aside somewhat carelessly and indeed in my mind recklessly. My concern as raised initially not only by me but by some of the submissions concerns the fact that this bill does not take any account of differing degrees of moral culpability. The bill itself defines “homicide” as “the killing of a person … intentionally or recklessly by any means that would be an offence under New Zealand law … but does not include (a) a killing caused by negligent act or omission; or (b) infanticide … or (c) a killing of a person by another in pursuance of a suicide pact; or (d) an assisted suicide”. 
 This code this bill has a degree of inflexibility. Bearing in mind that flexibility of laws must always be balanced with certainty I note that with any inflexible law there is always the danger of unintended consequences of harsh and perhaps even unreasonable results. To illustrate this I repeat some of the examples I gave in earlier addresses on the bill. There may be domestic killings that on compassionate grounds do not have the same moral abhorrence as a cold-blooded murder. A battered woman abused over a long period of time may suddenly snap and kill the abuser with whom she may have shared and owned a house. Under this bill she would not inherit her share of that family house. Is it fair that she is treated exactly the same as a cold-blooded serial killer? Or is it fair that the judge be given discretion and although not condoning such a situation at least give some understanding and compassion to the issue? Why should the judge not be able to determine that in such a circumstance extraordinary though it may be—and extraordinary it would have to be—the abused woman would be subject to punishment but would not also lose her family home to which she would have been entitled? 
In the case of a person convicted of failing to provide the necessities of life for some reason—again in very extraordinary circumstances—is there any reason why a judge could not exercise a discretion if he or she finds that the moral culpability is at the lower end of the scale and therefore enable any inheritance to stand? 
My last example was that of the reckless driver. Let us suppose he has a car accident recklessly but not necessarily negligently—recklessness has a higher threshold than negligence—and kills his loving wife. He is punished enough by losing his wife. He is punished enough by being convicted of recklessness. Does he really need to be punished again by being deprived of the ability to inherit his share of the family home—something his deceased wife would have wanted in any event? These situations could so easily have been provided for by inserting a simple proviso for the judge to have discretion in exceptional circumstances. That would not go so far as to condone any killing because any killing whatever the circumstances should not be so condoned but it would merely provide that after taking into account all the evidence and all the circumstances there may be exceptional enough circumstances whereby it is right that the killer should be able to inherit. 
I raise these matters again now because when I raised them initially the answers I received came in two somewhat surprising versions. Firstly we were told that “given the wide-ranging definition of homicide in the legislation there is probably sufficient flexibility for a judge to do justice in individual cases with the flexibility afforded.” I do not agree that there is that much flexibility in the definition and more important I am not convinced that it is usual for a judge to look first at the penalty and then decide the offence. That I would have to suggest is totally the wrong way round. The penalty should fit the crime not the crime fit the penalty. 
The other reason or justification that was suggested by the Government in earlier debates to my example of the reckless driver was that “Recklessness is included because it involves an element of intention.” Actually no; it does not. Being reckless is not caring whether something happens. There is no intention component to recklessness. A reckless driver does not intend to kill. His actions are such that he is reckless whether or not death results. In fact the Crimes Act definition of murder or culpable homicide is: “if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known by the offender to be likely to cause death and is reckless whether death ensues or not:”. There is not an intention component to recklessness. In fact if we look at the actual offence of reckless driving we see that there is no intent to kill by driving. It is driving in a manner that is or might be dangerous but in which the driver gives no thought to whether it is dangerous. In other words he is reckless as to the consequences but there is not intent. So to exclude “recklessness” in the definition of homicide in this bill because someone erroneously thought recklessness involves intent is misguided at best reckless at worst but certainly careless as to the consequences. 
The other issue I have with this bill is in relation to the burden of proof. Currently for a person to be convicted of murder the burden of proof is the criminal burden namely “beyond reasonable doubt”. Yet under this bill for the purposes of benefiting from the murderer’s estate one need only to prove murder on the balance of probabilities—in other words the civil burden of proof. I find that these mixtures of the burdens of proof are somewhat concerning and we certainly have a similar issue with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. A murderer for example could be acquitted of murder on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt but for the purposes of this bill could be deemed guilty on the balance of probabilities. I am not convinced that this is good law or good justice. On the lesser burden of proof an innocent person could be deprived of his or her rightful inheritance. 
On top of that there is the issue of the time delays that it may take to even get the matter to court. We constantly hear of the court logjams of median waiting times of 200 300 or 400 days. For the administration of an estate to be delayed or deferred for a year or more may certainly be unconscionable and unreasonable and lead to harsh effects especially in relation to the beneficiaries of that estate. 
I will repeat what the New Zealand Law Society submitted on the bill which was that the society “acknowledges the need for legislation to regulate the common law principle that precludes a killer from benefiting financially from the death of his or her victim” but it “opposes the proposed codification in its present form because it takes insufficient account of differing degrees of moral culpability … it is concerned that an inflexible code will lead to harsh results in certain circumstances.” At this stage I point out that the code does differ from other approaches in the UK and in some Australian states which do in fact give the courts a discretion to modify the rules except in cases where the moral culpability of the killer did not warrant the application of the rules. In other words if the circumstances are extraordinary enough then the judge has a suitable discretion. 
So although we support the bill there are still fishhooks in it. But the intent of the bill is right. A person should not benefit from his or her own unlawful action or from the death of the very person he or she is responsible for killing. The bill is supported. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i te Whare. I thank the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson for some of the points she raised. There were some very good points there. 
The Maori Party will also be supporting the Succession (Homicide) Bill which aims to tidy up the law around killers not being able to inherit from their victims’ estates. We do so because like others we believe that those who commit crimes should not benefit from the outcomes of those crimes. But we are also interested to note that such an important issue as the law on succession has been treated with rather a careless disregard for its significance and for the significance of the advisory bodies that provide the Government with much of its guidance. I am talking here about the Law Commission which investigates and reports back to Parliament on how laws can be improved including the laws and processes constituting succession law. The Waitangi Tribunal whose role is laid out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is similar to the Law Commission in that it is also charged with inquiring into and making recommendations on claims and examining and reporting on proposed legislation. 
We see when we look at the commission and the tribunal how sometimes Government can be fickle in dealing with the authority of these bodies. With the Waitangi Tribunal for instance we see recommendations ignored urgent directives treated with disdain and findings denied. In fact members of this House may recall the comment of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal are generally not binding and that only a small percentage of those recommendations are followed by the Government. The committee also stated outright that such arrangements deprived claimants of a right to an effective remedy and weakened their position when entering into negotiations with the Crown. It went so far as to recommend that Government consider granting the Waitangi Tribunal legally binding powers to deal with Treaty matters and providing the tribunal with increased financial resources. 
As it has been with the tribunal so too we see that the Law Commission is poorly treated in its role of enhancing and improving legislation such that its recommendations can take up to 10 years to see the light of day as it was with its July 1977 report  
Succession Law: Homicidal Heirs.  
The Law Commission had responded to a request from the Minister and in 1997 recommended that Parliament codify our homicidal heirs laws in one plain-language statute through the legislation we are considering today. The commission did its job; it was the Government that dragged the chain. 
In much the same way a major report produced by Pat Hohepa and David Williams called  
The Taking into Account of 
Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession: A Working Paper 
 published by the Law Commission in 1996 was also ignored by the Government in considering this bill. Specifically ignored was one of the report’s key recommendations that Government engage in specific consultation with Maori. 
I was present too at the Justice and Electoral Committee to speak on the issue of Maori land succession. Under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act Maori landowners can will their land to people in their whanau. I note where the select committee stated: “We are satisfied that Maori land succession under that Act would not be unduly affected by this bill.” The House is aware of the importance of using correct terminology. I cite again a recent Waitangi Tribunal report on Tamaki-makau-rau as a case for using the correct language to convey accurate meaning. In that report the tribunal warned against using loaded language such as referring to claimants as overlapping or cross-claimants rather than properly referring to them as other tangata whenua groups in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
In much the same way we need also to be careful about the language we use in the commentaries and debates in this House. Although the debate on the issue concluded that the use of the lazy adverb “unduly” was inappropriate it still remains on the record from the commentary back to the House. Although we were assured that the application of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was absolutely unaffected by this legislation we still need to be clear in this final reading that Maori land succession under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will not be affected by this bill. 
Another issue of interpretation was the point raised by the National Council of Women in its submission about the lack of clarity around the definition of homicide in this bill. The first clause of the definition of homicide says that homicide does not include “a killing caused by negligent act or omission;”. The National Council of Women’s concern was that causing death by deliberate negligence should also be included as in the case of a person driving recklessly and causing the deaths of passengers in the car. This was a point raised by Age Concern in respect of elder abuse and the New Zealand Police Association as well. The committee report did not really deal adequately with these matters and there are certain grounds for further work on the issues and interpretations around neglect and acts of negligence. 
A final note on the matter of interpretation which we have raised previously is the impact of clause 7 on our whakapapa particularly our concern that a person’s conviction for murder not disenfranchise his or her tamariki or mokopuna from their rightful inheritance. We sincerely hope that these issues will be properly dealt with in the operational enactment of this bill to ensure all parties understand the implications of this important legislation. 
The Maori Party supports the principle that no one should gain from an act of wrongdoing as an important principle of moral and social significance. Although this bill is dealing with the extreme end of wrongdoing we will support it at its third reading. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Succession (Homicide) Bill at its third reading. Again as I did in my former speech I acknowledge the assistance from the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee and also the hard-working support team staff and advisers and a number of people who assisted with this bill. It was a difficult bill because it is not the most pleasant of subjects to be dealing with in a select committee. The principle that no one should profit by being a killer is not exactly a subject that one finds the most enjoyable to discuss at a select committee. Despite that I believe it is a very important bill because as the previous speaker Hone Harawira said it is really repugnant to think that someone would go through the act of killing somebody and then profit from that action. It is certainly a settled principle in New Zealand law that that is the case but this legislation is really to clarify those uncertainties that could often have led to quite costly and time-consuming litigation at a time when family members and friends are under considerable stress distress and anxiety. For those people to have to go through a process around those uncertainties at that time is not a good thing so I am really pleased that this bill clarifies those uncertainties. 
Again the legislation is based on work that the Law Commission carried out this time in 1997 in which it recommended clarifying and codifying the law in regard to homicide. The bill is a very clear following of the Law Commission’s recommendations. A perpetrator who intentionally or recklessly kills another person or an unborn child will now be excluded from any profit from that act. Such people will not be able to run an argument that they should be entitled to profit—that exclusion is quite absolute. Thus the property of the deceased will be distributed as if that killer had died before the victim so the killer is in no way eligible. Those who kill by negligence or in other ways such as suicide pacts or assisted suicide will not necessarily be excluded from profiting. That is because they are not so morally repugnant as I guess a cold-blooded killer. Also those who kill their abuser—battered women or children for example—will also be able to profit if they are found not guilty of murder. 
So those are the few instances where they are— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What if they are found guilty? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is just a silly question from a silly person over the other side of the House. At the time of quite a serious bill that member is sitting there chattering away and calling out silly comments like that. He should just be ashamed of himself. I think it is appalling I really do. I stood in this House before talking about women’s rights and had another inane butting-in from that member on that instance. I think that if he perhaps concentrated on trying to find out what his party’s policies were and stopped chipping in and making a fool of himself in this House things would be a bit better for everybody. 
To go back to the bill I say that if someone is convicted of homicide the bill uses that conviction as conclusive evidence that the killer was criminally responsible for the victim’s death. That clarifies things very well. The Wills Bill was recently passed by this House and it was considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. That legislation alongside this bill improves the framework governing succession law. 
I really cannot think of much more to say except that I am really pleased to see this bill go through its third and final reading. The submission process was quite emotional at times but everybody in this House would accept that the last thing that a family needs when it is mourning the loss of a loved one is a legal debate over the distribution of the estate and particularly a legal argument with the very killer who was responsible for the death of their loved one. I believe that this legislation will reduce the number of disputes in these instances and also reduce the scope of any disputes that arise. It is with pleasure that I stand in this House and commend this bill. Thank you. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not actually going to take a call in this third reading debate because pretty much everything that needs to be said about the Succession (Homicide) Bill which is an eminently sensible bill has been said. I was caught somewhat off guard in listening to a speech from Kate Wilkinson. I swear to God I thought it was a Labour speech coming from out of her mouth which is interesting. I will have to make sure the speech is published down in Canterbury for all those National Party farmers to read. I know that people down in the National Party heartland or that part of the Waimakariri that one could rightly say is pro-National will be just as curious in reading that speech in  
Hansard  
as I was in listening to it. That speech forced me to go back and read the select committee report again. I am now doing so with a great deal of emphasis particularly because of Simon Power’s really outrageous statements as a result of the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill which was subsequently split off into a number of bills one of which was the Bail Amendment Bill of 2007. 
We in this House often say that the select committees are the engine room of Parliament. Within the select committees we sit on a cross-party basis. Although we may take opposing views on some aspects of some bills or on some bills in their entirety that is where we try to thrash out the bills and through recommendations and agreements—or not—clearly identify the areas that we can change that we can agree on and that we can work on and clearly mark out the parts that we do not agree on. 
So with Ms Wilkinson’s speech ringing in my ears I went back and reread the select committee report because I thought I had missed something. But I know that throughout the report it states: “We recommend” not “The majority of us recommend” not “Labour the Greens and the Maori Party recommend”; it states: “We recommend” which includes National. I searched in vain for a minority report where National identified with passion the areas that its members disagreed with. I could not find this minority report because it does not exist. So everything that Ms Kate Wilkinson has now stridently argued for she had no regard for whatsoever during the select committee phase. In fact it was of such great moment that she did not write anything about it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: She wasn’t even there! 
RON MARK 
: Well Chris Auchinvole was there Christopher Finlayson was there Nicky Wagner was there and Dr Richard Worth was there. Dr Worth is an eminent lawyer who is telling people around the country that he fully expects to be the Attorney-General. But that is a bit of a problem because Simon Power told me he was going to be the Attorney-General in the next Government. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Richard wasn’t there. 
RON MARK 
: Well Richard was there until 6 December 2006. It is written here and I say to Mr Auchinvole that the select committee does not lie. Mr Auchinvole was there and I do not see National’s minority report highlighting the issues that Ms Wilkinson was talking about. So either Mr Auchinvole is going to get a slap on the ear from Ms Wilkinson later on for being tardy in his work or she is not being at all serious. I am inclined to think she is not being serious and that fits very perfectly with Simon Power’s outrageous claims about the Bail Amendment Bill which he now says makes it easier for everyone to get bail. 
Let us analyse the only reason Mr Power gave for voting against that bill. His reason was contained in his speech and it said: “We do not think the Bail Amendment Bill is going to do much at all.” End of story! It was not a case of: “We think the Bail Amendment Bill is going to make it easier for people to get bail who should not get bail. We think it is outrageous and we oppose it at every step because…”. Well that argument— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: At the Committee stage he said he was going to support it. 
RON MARK 
: At the Committee stage he said he would support the Bail Amendment Bill. This is political opportunism and convenience so hollow that one could write a book about it. One could title it—let me think— 
The Hollow Men 
. One could probably persuade someone to write a play about it and who knows even a movie. Let us hope that movie will be released in election year next year because by crikey we all want to see that. 
I simply say that we in New Zealand First absolutely and unreservedly support this bill. We have no comments to make of any adverse nature about it. We think the select committee’s unanimous recommendations were clearly taken on board by the Government clearly understood and clearly accepted. Therefore any rhetoric about reservations about battered woman’s syndrome and about poor old homicidal persons who unfortunately kill someone being sorely misrepresented and not duly considered are meaningless. 
We believe that this bill is actually long long overdue. There should have been an adjustment made in this House some time ago. We have only to think about a case down in Dunsandel where a man killed his wife supposedly in a burning Land Rover and supposedly it was an accident but he stood to gain very very well from it. There are a range of other cases where people have stood to gain from their heinous crimes. This House should have been moving on this long before I came to this House—things should have been adjusted at that time. But this Government has moved. The select committee unanimously without any reservation reported back to the House that it too concurred that this legislation as amended should proceed. New Zealand First endorses that view. We do not expect to hear any rhetoric out on the street about the weaknesses of it because clearly there were none. If there had been weaknesses Mr Auchinvole Dr Worth and Mr Finlayson would clearly have said so in a minority report would they not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I express some disappointment at Ron Mark’s comments because he stole my speech. That was exactly what I was going to say. After listening to Kate Wilkinson speak in this House so vehemently about the concerns she had about the Succession (Homicide) Bill I thought there had to be a minority report in this select committee report. So I grabbed a copy of the bill off the Table and I searched through the report which was not a lengthy one. I went all the way through the report and got to the appendix and there was nothing about a minority report. Even a “minority minority report” would have been useful to explain why Ms Kate Wilkinson was somehow distanced from the people who represented her party on the Justice and Electoral Committee. Not one of them raised those concerns at the select committee and it is a bit rich for her to stand in this House and say that nobody took any notice of her at the Committee stage when she could not even persuade her own party to move those amendments at the select committee level. 
 This bill is as the previous speaker said well overdue. In fact it was written as a result of a report of the Law Commission that dates back to 1997. I do not think Labour was in Government in 1997. The Law Commission actually noted that there were a significant number of culpable homicides between 1982 and 1992—over a 10-year period—and that these raised serious issues about the administering of estates particularly when the person who had died was intestate. There were considerable uncertainties about how those issues were going to be dealt with so they had to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The Law Commission recommended that this law be settled by our passing a statute such as the one we are addressing today. 
So I think it is really important that we address this. It is well settled already in New Zealand law that a killer may not receive any benefit under his or her victim’s will or the victim’s intestacy but we have not had settled law to guide the resolution of these particular cases other than to have them before the courts on a case by case basis which can cause delay and costs in the administration of estates that are often of only modest value. That was the point that the Law Commission made. So I think this bill is very timely and it is important that this Parliament does pass it through its final reading today. 
One of the things that really alarmed me though about what Kate Wilkinson said—and maybe I have misunderstood what she said—was that I got the impression she was saying that murdering people in a domestic situation was somehow less culpable than killing people in other than a domestic setting. She went on to use the very rare example of a female having killed her male partner as a result of being a victim of domestic violence. In fact that is a very rare example because of 56 domestic murder cases in this country only three were perpetrated by women against men; the other 53 were perpetrated by men against women. This is a gender issue. Partner violence in this country is a gender issue and it is an outrage to suggest in this House that some lower standard should be applied to people who are murdered in a domestic setting. I think that one of the problems we have had in this country is that people have not treated domestic violence as seriously as they have other forms of violence. 
I want to make the point that of those homicides the Law Commission reported on—and it talked about culpable homicides and attempted homicides rising from 53 to 103 between 1982 and 1992—about half occurred in a domestic setting. So a significant number of people who die in this country do die in a domestic setting. It is appalling to try to undermine the seriousness of the type of violence we are trying to address in this country by saying that somehow a lesser standard should be applied in those cases. 
I think it is important to place on record how important it is that we have law that is well settled by statute rather than relying on judge-made rules in terms of what the Law Commission described as homicidal heirs. It is important that we take up the recommendation of the Law Commission’s proposals because the idea was to enable in most cases administrators and trustees to carry out their functions without needing to refer matters of uncertainty to the courts and to reduce the scope of any dispute that arises. Again I think this is straightforward stuff and I cannot see why the Opposition members want to raise a particular question that they did not raise at the select committee. 
But I want to challenge the comment made concerning whether a lower standard would apply. The interpretation provision clause 4—and maybe I have got this wrong because I did not sit on the select committee—states: “ ‘homicide’ means the killing of a person or a child who has not become a person by another person intentionally or recklessly by any means that would be an offence under New Zealand law”. Well it has to be “an offence under New Zealand law” so all the references to negligence and all those other matters would not arise in the context of the definition of homicide the killing of a person under this particular legislation. 
The reality is that the law is designed to codify the law that prevents a person who kills another person—the victim—by committing homicide from benefiting as a result of the victim’s death. So it is quite clear to me that the law is simply stating what judge-made law has made a reality anyway. Therefore it cannot be undermining that particular interpretation. So I really do not know why the member thinks that her proposed amendments—which apparently she moved at the Committee stage; I was not aware that she had moved any amendments—would somehow have made a difference to the interpretation of law that is simply clarifying the legal situation as it stands. Having it written into the law makes it much more sensible to me because it takes a lot of the pressure off those who are having to administer those estates. 
I also note from the Law Commission report that the Public Trust Office alone had identified eight estates it was dealing with at the time involving homicidal heirs that it had administered in the previous decade. I think again that that raises the serious issue as to the extent to which administrative uncertainty is creating costs on the whole system and causing unnecessary delays to the resolution of these important matters. 
I honestly believe that this is important legislation. I cannot for one minute accept that we should stand back from proceeding on this matter. I think the member was suggesting that we have a discretion applying in the case of the courts to undermine an established principle. In this regard it seems to me to be counter-productive and counter-intuitive. I think it is unfortunate that the member would want to raise those issues. Certainly in my own mind to raise serious concerns at this stage that somehow we should treat victims of domestic violence in a different way is unacceptable for the purposes of this legislation. This legislation recognises that most of those cases—or half of the cases concerned—did involve killings in a domestic situation. I think it is important that we see these things resolved in a sensible way and this bill certainly meets that purpose. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. As was mentioned in the first reading and I think in the second reading and Committee stage there has been a certain repugnance about this bill. Earlier speakers tonight have touched on that and on the fact that the bill covers situations that are repugnant to right-thinking people. 
The bill is designed to prevent a person from benefiting financially from criminal activities associated with homicide. That such situations are present in our society is an indictment on the moral standards of some members of the population. The fact that this seems to be an increasing trend is of great concern and anxiety to people throughout New Zealand. But the fact that we have a law to cope with the situation and to address and redress it is also a tribute to the fact that this Parliament does not walk away from its responsibility to citizens even after they have become victims of an untimely death. We have an obligation and we recognise that obligation to look after everybody and to ensure that the perpetrators of crime are pursued and dealt to. The long arm of the law is a credit to our law enforcement agencies and the systems of justice are I think special to New Zealand in terms of quality. 
This bill clearly defines when an unlawful killing will prevent a killer from benefiting from his or her actions. Essentially a person who acting intentionally or recklessly unlawfully kills another person or an unborn child will be prevented from benefiting economically from that person’s death. In the course of debate this evening there has been discussion on that very point. Examples have been given of perhaps a father driving a car who turns to correct children and crosses the centre line. His wife a passenger in the car is killed and he is charged with reckless driving. Does this bill kick in? These are things that obviously have been discussed and considered at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill will not answer every situation that occurs. 
But this of course has been a general rule within law for some considerable time. It was in 1997 that the Law Commission reviewed the operation of this precedent rule handed down from judgment as part of a wider review of succession law. The Law Commission recommended enacting legislation to codify and clarify the general rule. It needed codifying because the application of it as a precedent through individual cases can be uncertain. It can cause delays in the administration of estates and can be costly for modest estates. The fact is that these cases are more common than one would like to think. A significant proportion of homicides have been occurring in a domestic setting. I think figures were given by earlier speakers. I guess that one can reflect on the retrial that is occurring in the David Bain case. The property of his family was no doubt distributed elsewhere rather than David Bain being a beneficiary in the circumstances of his initial conviction. 
To give cohesion to the rule of succession the Succession (Homicide) Bill was introduced to the House at the same time as the Wills Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. These three bills were designed by the Law Commission to give effect to reforms recommended by the commission. I would ask however why it has taken this Government quite so long to introduce them. It is 10 years since they were first raised. It is 10 years since the Law Commission reviewed the operation of this judge-made ruling. In other words Labour has been in office without raising a finger to bring in these laws before now. 
Throughout the passage of this bill the complexities have been highlighted by a number of speakers on both sides of the House and by submissions made to the select committee. That is understandable. The bill had to clearly define when a killer will be prevented from benefiting from his or her victim’s death and how properties should be disposed of in such cases. 
Another feature of this bill is that it had bipartisan support from the very beginning. I would just like to say that again for my colleagues across the other side of the House: this bill had bipartisan support from the very beginning. I guess this reflects back through to the significance of the point made by my friend and colleague Mr Chris Finlayson National’s shadow Attorney-General who said that law reform matters are often seen as lawyers’ law. They do not grab headlines. So it is good to see bipartisan support for this bill which is coming largely as a product of Law Commission recommendation. The Law Commission was consulted heavily on the provisions of the bill and provided very useful information during the select committee process. There was little in this bill that caused partisan approaches to be taken by any of the parties attending the select committee. 
Just reflecting back over the speakers in the first reading I noticed again that Mr Ron Mark when speaking on the bill explained that people in New Zealand First were tolerant and would be watching the select committee do its work. I hope that when they come to this third reading Mr Mark will be satisfied with the results of his vigilance. I noticed that the Greens too heralded this legislation as a good indication of the MMP environment working well for law reform. I think the quote from Nandor Tanczos was “Yay for the MMP environment!”. During the second reading the Hon Ruth Dyson took the opportunity to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough and efficient consideration of the bill. I think that is very fair and very proper because there was very thorough and detailed consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. A number of sensible changes have been made such as those brought up by Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson whereby a killer and his or her victim own property as joint tenants—joint tenancy being a form of co-ownership of property. The amendment that came from the select committee was endorsed by speakers at the second reading as was clause 12. 
 Similarly the bill was amended to provide that a killer could claim under testamentary promises legislation for debts owed or promises made by the victim—something that was initially revoked by clause 7. 
Of particular interest was a point made by the Hon Mark Gosche who took great comfort from the fact that the bill would save people from going through agony twice. In the past these matters had to be dealt with on a case by case basis going through the courts and it would have been a very painful experience indeed for those involved. He stated that he thought it was good that we were passing legislation that would remove people from having to challenge these things on a case by case basis which as he said in his speech must have been a painful exercise—sometimes excruciatingly painful—for the people involved as well as being incredibly expensive. 
That brings me to the concluding point I would like to make. The Succession (Homicide) Bill was well prepared modifying earlier legislation and giving full consideration to the possible effects. It was a bill that was introduced in a bipartisan manner—a bill that was ultimately for the betterment of New Zealanders rather than a political party. Its passage from the first reading and select committee submissions to the second reading and Committee stage has been a tribute to all involved. It is a bill that has been spoken to by both sides of the House with I would like to say equal strength. It is a bill that should have no difficulty in terms of being understood and applied in the most even-handed way. The question that this bill asks out loud is why the present Government could not see the sense in applying itself with the same amount of rigour when it comes to the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill which is already mired in controversy. Why cannot the Government get it right? Why cannot it think ahead? Why cannot it stop acting with self-interest as its prime mover? 
Finally why is the present Government behaving in an increasingly malevolent manner towards any who do not share its increasingly myopic view and practice of producing clumsy legislation to meet its own ends and purposes thereby reducing the reputation and regard that Parliament should have from the recipient public? If the Government kills the purpose of parliamentary procedure it will not inherit much from it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The substance of the Succession (Homicide) Bill has already been rehearsed in detail by previous speakers—including the customarily fine contribution we have just heard from Mr Auchinvole—so I will not repeat what has already been said. Instead because the bill comes to the House by way of a Law Commission recommendation I would like to take this opportunity to commend the excellent record of the Minister responsible for the Law Commission the Hon Mark Burton in bringing such legislation before this Parliament in a prompt fashion. 
In 2006 in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament it was said that the Government would give priority to law reform proposals already received from the Law Commission that update key statutes—for example in the property law area. Accordingly the Property Law Bill was introduced in October 2006. That is important legislation that deals with fundamental issues concerning property dealings the protection of property rights leases powers of attorney and that subject dear to almost all New Zealanders mortgages. Although it numbers some 260 pages there was virtually no political controversy attached to it. Yet we will have witnessed more than a 13-year delay in enacting it since the report was completed—which again goes to the commendation due to the Minister in seeing it through. 
The Evidence Act is also legislation that arises from a very substantive and important law reform project of the commission yet it took more than 6 years from the completion of the report to get the measure on the statute book—again a credit to the Minister for seeing that reform through finally. In light of the unsatisfactory rate of progress on law reform over the last 20 years the Government asked the Law Commission last year for advice on any other reports that had been carefully worked through and consulted on but not enacted. As a result of that exercise the Government was able to move to introduce a number of pieces of legislation including the Wills Bill which has rewritten the previous 1837 English legislation; the present bill the Succession (Homicide) Bill; and the Arbitration Amendment Bill which the House read a third time earlier this evening. 
A further look was then taken at Law Commission reports on which no action had been taken for some time. As a result a 2002 report dealing with some problems in the law of trusts is likely to be the subject of a bill soon. The Law Commission report on costs in criminal cases was completed in 2000 and again a bill enacting its recommendations is likely to see the light of day at some stage soon. Similarly a bill on a 2001 report  
Minority Buy-Outs 
 is close to introduction. A bill reforming the law relating to limitation times in civil cases is likely to be introduced this year. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mapp that this latter topic has been the subject of two previous Law Commission reports the first in 1988— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can understand why the member would want to defend the Minister of Justice’s record but I refer you to Speakers’ rulings on page 112 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 about what a third reading speech is all about. Members should confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerges from the Committee and not give a eulogy to a soon to be sacked Minister. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I simply point out with the greatest respect that on 22 August 2007 during the third reading of the Wills Bill Mr Finlayson gave a long and discursive address on what he said was the Government’s failure to progress Law Commission report recommendations. I am simply replying. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Would Mr Chauvel please continue his speech. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Hard work is also being undertaken to implement other Law Commission reports. A bill based on the Law Commission’s 2007 report on the law of sedition is due to come back before the House shortly. Cabinet will shortly be considering how to proceed on the commission’s customs report of 2006. Consultation with stakeholders has been occurring on a draft waka umanga bill following the Law Commission’s 2006 report on the very important issue of Maori entities and we are likely to see a bill introduced this year. The Law Commission’s 2006 report on access to court records will be considered in the near future by a select committee. This is an excellent record of progress in implementing Law Commission reports and recommendations and the Minister is to be commended on getting on with the job. He has addressed what had become a logjam and has got on with implementing reforms urged on us by the commission. 
I was present at the Law Commission’s 20th anniversary seminar when the Hon Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia pointed out that this sort of logjam was not unique to the New Zealand jurisdiction. This is what the judge said—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Mapp may not be interested in what Justice Kirby had to say but perhaps other members will be. He said: “So what can be done about the apparent logjam that remains as much an impediment to law reform action today as it was in earlier times? What can be done to address this systemic obstacle to institutional effectiveness that is as real in Britain and Australia as it is in New Zealand? Consistently with our notions of a democratic and responsible Parliament is it impossible to alter the means by which law reform reports secure their appropriate share of parliamentary time? This is the central question that requires and deserves our attention. Beside it all other institutional problems seem readily capable of solution.” 
In conclusion I am proud that this Government—through the Prime Minister on 24 July at an occasion at Bell Gully that launched the publication of the speeches given at the Law Commission’s 20th anniversary seminar—announced a systemic and careful procedure by which from now on all Law Commission reports will be considered and actioned by the Government through the Cabinet process. That system will lead to the logjam that once developed over Law Commission reports to truly become a thing of the past in New Zealand and I commend the Government and the Minister on the introduction of those excellent procedures. 
Bill read a third time. 
Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee which recommends that it be passed with no amendments. The bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. In the report the Law Commission concludes that the seditious offences are overly broad and uncertain that they infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and that they have the potential for abuse. 
I thank the committee for its efficient yet thorough consideration of this bill. I also thank those people in groups that made submissions on the bill; there were 17 in all. The overwhelming majority of submissions received were in support of the bill and echoed the arguments for repeals advanced by the Law Commission. This is reflected in the report of the select committee which did not propose any changes to the bill as introduced to this House. 
This bill repeals the seditious offences in New Zealand which are contained in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961. These offences cover making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention conspiring with a seditious intention and using apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. 
The offences hinge on a seditious intention. This is defined in the Crimes Act extremely broadly. A seditious intention is an intention “To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice;” or “To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the constitution laws or Government of New Zealand;” or “To incite procure or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder;” or “To incite procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order;” or “To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger public safety.” 
Behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law that do not carry with them the historical baggage that is attached to sedition. Offences relevant to sedition are dealt with in other statutes including the Summary Offences Act and other provisions of the Crimes Act. Of particular relevance are the ancillary offences of incitement and conspiracy which can be used in conjunction with other offences to cover some of the seditious offences—for example the incitement to commit treason or a riot. There are also other offences that may be applicable with or without incitement of conspiracy. These include for example the threatening offences under the Crimes Act or inciting racial disharmony under the Human Rights Act. 
I am pleased that this bill enjoys considerable parliamentary support. Indeed we saw the almost unique situation on 24 April when the Greens United Future ACT and the Maori Party called on the Government in a united sense to repeal sedition laws saying: “they are an archaic piece of legislation that is damaging to freedom of expression in democracy”. The Government agrees as did the select committee. 
In conclusion it is time for the sun to set on these now outmoded provisions of seditious offences and to retire them once and for all from the statute book. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee again for its consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will give a relevant second reading speech about the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and simply say as the Minister Mark Burton has said the bill follows on from a report prepared by the Law Commission entitled  
Reforming the Law of Sedition 
. The Minister was quite right to say the issue came to a head relatively quickly at the beginning of the year when some of the minor parties went to the Government and said that sedition should be removed as an offence. Whether those parties were anticipating the imminent passage of the Electoral Finance Bill I do not know. In any event there was unanimity in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the law of sedition ought to be reformed and that this legislation ought to be supported. National supports the bill. 
The select committee received a number of submissions on the bill. In my opinion there were disappointingly few submissions. In fact only two submissions were opposed to the bill; submissions were primarily in favour of it. We had some very good submissions that made the point very clearly as the Minister has said that this is a crime that has done its time. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.