Volume 654 Week 14 - Tuesday 2 June 2009 
Volume 654 Week 14 - Tuesday 2 June 2009 
[Volume:654;Page:4049] 
Tuesday 2 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Sri Lanka—Humanitarian Situation 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without debate members’ motion No. 4 in my name on Sri Lanka. I have consulted the party whips and they are agreeable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House note its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka and call upon the Sri Lankan Government to accede to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call for UN agencies to be given “immediate unhindered access” into the internally displaced persons camps in order to bring aid to those who desperately need it and ask the Sri Lankan Government to allow media access to the camps.  
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Superannuation—Commitments 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his commitments relating to New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. My cast-iron commitment has always been that the Government will maintain payments at a minimum of 66 percent of the after-tax average wage and that people will continue to be eligible for superannuation when they reach the age of 65. I am happy to say that as part of last Thursday’s Budget future funding at this level is locked into the Government’s long-term spending path and is reflected in all of the Budget’s projections. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister’s commitment to maintain superannuation entitlements as cast-iron as the personal written guarantee that he gave to New Zealanders just 6 months ago that he would give them specific tax cuts that they could trust and believe in which he has now reneged upon? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I say that obviously there will be a delay in tax cuts. That was announced on Thursday. The overwhelming feedback I have had on Friday Saturday Sunday and Monday has all been from New Zealanders thanking the Government for the economic leadership we are showing. New Zealanders are saying quite clearly how delighted they are that they have elected a National Government that has a good sense of priorities and can lead New Zealand through these troubled economic times. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to pretend that the Government can go on meeting superannuation entitlements when he has cut the funding that makes it possible to do that when there is a $37 billion hole in the Superannuation Fund and given that to make up that shortfall he will have to either cut entitlements or raise taxes? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That question just shows the level of miscomprehension from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to superannuation. Let us understand one point: prior to the Budget we thought the fund at its height would pre-fund New Zealand superannuation by 14 percent but the new number from Treasury is only 12 percent. To put it another way 88 percent of superannuation comes from the general tax base anyway and one of the strongest ways to make sure we can ensure that future superannuation is there is to have a strong economy without having an indebted economy. That is exactly what we will be getting under National—not under Labour. 
Nathan Guy 
: How does the Government intend to secure New Zealand superannuation entitlements in the future? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: New Zealand superannuation entitlements will be secured if in the mid-2020s the Government is in surplus has a moderate level of debt and is not burdened with high borrowing costs. That is what Treasury is now forecasting thanks to the measures we have taken in the Budget including temporarily suspending Superannuation Fund contributions. Therefore far from putting anything at risk the Budget actually secures future superannuation entitlements. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was it similarly a miscomprehension by Richard Long and by Gareth Morgan in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning when they described the Prime Minister’s pretence that he could maintain entitlements and cut funding as “Canute-like” and “Political cowardice”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The policies of the Government are written by the Government not by independent commentators. All I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that there will be no increase in the age of eligibility under a National Government—I cannot be sure about a Labour one—and there will be no difference in the 66 percent paid of the after-tax average wage. While we are looking at commentary I suggest—and I would not strongly suggest this—that if members want to look at Phil Goff’s report they will find that on page 2— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot hear a word back here and I suggest as the noise level rises that you quieten members down a bit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a valid point. Members will please show just a little courtesy to the members at the back of the House who struggle to hear. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He touches his nose when he’s about to lie! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Sorry Trevor? What was that buddy? I go back to Phil Goff’s report. It states that the focus of my first Budget should have been on protecting jobs and that it failed. The No. 1 way to see New Zealanders down the road from their jobs is if their businesses cannot be funded. That is what happens when we have a credit downgrade and that is what we would have had under a Labour Government. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Do the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance intend to be in Parliament in their present positions in the mid-2020s to honour the commitments they have made today or will an 11-year moratorium on Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund resulting in a $37 billion shortfall by 2030 not lead to significant changes like tax increases lowering payment levels and raising the age of entitlement; and if all of those changes are remotely likely why does the Prime Minister not do the honourable thing and resign now in order to meet the commitment he made before the election? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly it is my intention to be here in 2020 but that of course is in the hands of the good people of Helensville and the National caucus. Secondly that is 11 years away which will make me by then—on my calculations—about 58 or 59 and I will know that I am 6 years away from getting New Zealand superannuation which will be paid at the age of 65. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: On what basis does the Prime Minister disagree with the Treasury official who sent an email to Television New Zealand describing his announcement on superannuation as a fraud—a $9.2 billion fraud—because that is the amount by which the return on investment and taxes on the superannuation contribution exceeds its cost? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We utterly refute that that is the advice from Treasury. I suggest that the member looks at the official papers where he will see that Treasury’s advice supported the view taken by this Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from a Treasury official to Television New Zealand that says that the New Zealand Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Nathan Guy 
: To what extent in the first half of this century does the Superannuation Fund actually pre-fund New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Superannuation Fund is actually a small part of the equation. Even if the Government continued to make full contributions the fund would at most pay for 12 percent of the annual cost of New Zealand superannuation assuming everything went right in the fund’s return. That means as I said earlier that 88 percent of superannuation at any point in New Zealand’s future is paid from the general tax base. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister in the interests of transparency and honesty prepared to immediately release all of the Treasury advice that he and his Government have received on the implications impact and consequences of the actions he took in gutting the Superannuation Fund? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we will be releasing all of the Treasury papers— 
Hon Member 
: When? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Very soon. I strongly suggest that the Leader of the Opposition read them learn something about economics and then apologise to the New Zealand public for wanting to ensure that their credit rating was downgraded that they had to pay more for their interest rates that they could not borrow money and that their jobs were put at stake. Those members are a credit card Opposition and they are proving it. In fact their credit card is about to be cut up for a very long time. 
Budget 2009—Reports 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The reports we have received on Budget 2009 are almost all positive. Most ordinary New Zealanders understand that the Government has made pragmatic decisions that will keep this economy on the right track and ensure that they do not face large burdens of debt and higher interest rates in the future which they would have done if the Government had not struck the right balance between supporting the economy in the short term and supporting thousands of jobs but in the long term making sure that our debt does not get out of control. 
Craig Foss 
: What support does Budget 2009 provide for the most vulnerable in society? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I told the House last Thursday protecting the most vulnerable has been a priority in Budget 2009. The Budget maintains New Zealand superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage to be paid at age 65 and it maintains benefit levels student support and Working for Families. We have managed to do this despite facing the worst global recession since the 1930s and despite having inherited an economy that was already in its fourth quarter of recession. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen the report from Television One’s  
NZI Business 
 presenter Corin Dann entitled “Super Fund suspension a big mistake?” and does he agree that his Government has blown its credibility by suspending $37 billion worth of contributions over 10 years and showing no plan for how to make up the difference; if so can the Minister confirm now whether he plans to vastly increase taxes on our children or to slash the pension available to baby boomers and seniors in order to make the impossible happen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports like that and I disagree with them. That member should go back and look at the legislation he voted for. It provides a mechanism to ensure that Governments that find they do not have surpluses with which to make contributions to the fund can suspend those contributions. I ask that member why he supported that then but does not support it now when the Government is facing a decade of deficits. 
Craig Foss 
: How does the Budget support jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget supports jobs in a number of ways. Firstly it supports them through the significant spending programmes that the Government has undertaken including a major home insulation programme. Our intention is to spend $7.5 billion on infrastructure over the next 5 years despite the fact that the Government’s books are not in great shape. These measures will support thousands of jobs building and upgrading schools roads houses and hospitals. The Government is also supporting jobs through the fact that because we have debt under control our credit rating has not been downgraded. That means that businesses will be able to access credit more easily than they would have and New Zealand householders will face lower interest rates than they would have. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with the  
Sunday Star-Times  
business columnist Rod Oram who said “by scrimping and saving to make the books look better he seriously set back efforts to make this a bigger and more resilient economy” including his gutting KiwiSaver scrapping the research and development tax credits and allocating “a handful of uncoordinated strategy-devoid dollops of money for science”; does the Minister therefore agree that “Overall one can only wonder how English has spent his first six months in office. … now that he has compromised the present and forfeited the future for New Zealand.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I happen to disagree with Mr Oram. He seems to share the view of the Opposition that this is the time to be completely reckless—to borrow as much as possible and to spend as much as possible. I tell him that both Mr Oram and the Labour Opposition are out of step with the New Zealand public who have an instinctive and sensible grip of the issues. 
Chris Tremain 
: What will the Budget’s effect on New Zealand’s credit rating mean for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s made an announcement on Thursday that means that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world whose credit rating appears to have improved if only slightly as a result of the Budget. That means that the people who lend us money from overseas who take notice of credit ratings will now be more willing to lend us money. A Treasury analysis shows that a downgrade could push interest rates up by as much as 1.5 percent. That would mean an extra $50 a week in repayments for a family with a $175000 mortgage. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How craven is that! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Labour does not seem to be concerned at all about the costs. There is no doubt that it is quite clear now that anyone who supports Labour is supporting more debt and higher interest rates. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the front benches on both sides to please show a little respect to their colleagues who are seeking to ask questions. 
Chris Tremain 
: Does Budget 2009 continue the previous practice of making large unfunded commitments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No Budget 2009 stops the previous practice of making large unfunded commitments. The Opposition has not stopped it and I think the Prime Minister correctly labelled its approach as “Slap-it-on-the-bill-Phil”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I need to take a point of order or are we going to have some intervention at some stage from you to maintain order in the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has called for a point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was an offensive comment. It was way outside the Standing Orders and you know it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness objection has been taken to the comment. I ask the member to withdraw the comment. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is time those guys toughened up and you too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked the member to withdraw the comment. I think it is not an unreasonable thing to ask because offence was taken. We all know that in this House we are meant to use members’ correct names and the name the member used was not the full name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to withdraw the comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thanks very much. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you had listened earlier this afternoon you would have heard many potentially offensive comments being made on the other side of the House. We tend to ignore them because that is what the rest of the country does. It would only be fair if you were prepared to pull those members up a little more quickly particularly the member who was just offended by a comment that was freely used in the debate last week with no offence being taken then. I can only assume that the weekend commentary has made that particular name offensive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members there is no need to interject while a point of order is being heard. The point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is correct. It is true that I have heard some highly questionable interjections coming across the House. I tend not to pull the House up on them because I do not want to interrupt the proceedings all the time. But I ask honourable members on both sides to please show some courtesy to each other. That is what it is all about; it is about respect for this House and courtesy to each other. 
Pathways to Partnership—Funding 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House: “I can assure the non-governmental organisations out there that the money from Pathways to Partnership is staying there”; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. This Government is committed to exactly the same spend as Labour was over the next 3 years despite the worst economic conditions in decades. With help from the sector we have developed a different way of delivering the fund for the next 2 years as a response to the recession. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did she allow over $100 million of Pathways to Partnership funding to be stripped from her budget and locked away in a contingency fund under the control of the Minister of Finance and therefore not allocated to non-governmental organisations as she promised in her Budget statement; and why did she not tell the non-governmental organisations that “staying there” did not mean with them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am actually very pleased to say that that $104 million has been put into a contingency fund just as we announced last week. Forty million dollars of that is for this year; it is for the Community Response Fund. The other $64 million will be spent next year. Actually that is a really good news story for those non-governmental organisations. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What money has been put aside for the Community Response Fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will just reiterate this one more time because this is a good news story for those non-governmental organisations out there that are struggling. One hundred and four million dollars has been put into a contingency fund that will be spent via the Community Response Fund. That will be distributed by the communities to organisations that are seeing an increase in demand and a decrease in their non-Government funding. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why has the Minister cut funding to the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Barnados Family Start programmes in South Auckland the Anglican Family Care Centre Family Wellbeing Services counselling and rehabilitation services and the Open Home Foundation to name some as set out on pages 119 120 and 121 of the social development Budget documents; and how does this start-stop approach enable non-governmental organisations to plan for the provision of services let alone provide them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I cannot say it any more clearly: the money that was put aside by Labour is being spent and all of that money is there. As far as individual organisations go contracts come up for renewal on 30 June. They are all being looked at. This is a ministry that is spending $19 billion this year alone. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did Budget 2009 deliver little to vulnerable families and instead effectively cut Pathways to Partnership cut training incentive allowances to sole parents and cut much-needed scholarships for low-income students if the Government is keeping its word to address what she and John Key called a “growing underclass”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government makes no apologies for looking at each line and making sure that New Zealanders are getting value for money and that money is being distributed well and fairly. That money has not been cut. I think the member is scaremongering. 
Primary Sector—Primary Growth Partnership 
4.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent major initiatives has the Government announced to support primary sector innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Budget 2009 confirmed a significant enduring and transparent investment by the Government in primary sector innovation through the Primary Growth Partnership. The Primary Growth Partnership will see the Government investing $70 million annually in innovation and in research and development in the primary sector industries. When matched dollar for dollar by industry the Primary Growth Partnership will be investing $140 million a year. The initiative is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to boosting productivity across our economically vital primary sectors and it has been warmly welcomed. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why has the Government made such a significant investment in primary sector innovation in this challenging economic environment? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Budget 2009 was about putting our economy back on to the road to recovery. The primary sector will lead that recovery which is why it is so important that the Government invests in boosting the sector’s productivity. The Primary Growth Partnership is not about business as usual; it is about the Government putting forward the money to drive ambitious changes in productivity and build world-class expertise. It is not some $700 million fairytale but a real commitment by this Government. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister tell the House what new innovative creative and dynamic new chairmanship he is proposing for the new administrative bureaucracy the investment advisory panel to replace the former administrative bureaucracy the New Zealand Fast Forward board which was chaired by the highly regarded Mr Bill Falconer? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The panel will be chaired by Mr Bill Falconer one of the very satisfactory appointments made by the previous Minister of Agriculture. I concur that he is highly regarded and he will lead this sector forward as the chair of the panel. 
Shane Ardern 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the Primary Growth Partnership? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen a large number of reports on the Primary Growth Partnership that welcome it and praise the Government’s support. At last count 14 different organisations—from Zespri to Fonterra to Science New Zealand to the Seafood Industry Council—all welcomed the Government’s significant investment. The only people who have not welcomed it are Labour members and Mr Anderton who are clearly out of touch with New Zealand’s primary sector. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why he said in a post-Budget speech in Christchurch today that the National Government had “assessed Fast Forward and decided we could do better.” when a $700 million deposit in the non-departmental non-capital expenditure Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry account is not better than a $190 million appropriation over 4 years that will have only $30 million appropriated this financial year and could then be abolished at any time in the same way that New Zealand’s superannuation payments were put on moratorium for 11 years? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I can explain that very easily. The previous Government was to borrow $700 million when the debt problem now facing this Government is large enough. The commitment of Primary Growth Partnership will mean that close to $1 billion will be spent over the next 15 years and even Mr Anderton can work out that that figure is considerably more than the $700 million that he proposed. The Primary Growth Partnership is far larger than his New Zealand Fast Forward policy. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister understand that by his logic—because the Government’s deficit with borrowing is increasing to $16 billion—he is now saying that the Government is borrowing all the money it needs to fund education and health expenditure as well; or is he selecting the $700 million for New Zealand Fast Forward because it happens to suit his political persuasion? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I am not saying that at all. The unconventional way of attempting to fund New Zealand Fast Forward was not satisfactory to this Government nor to Rod Oram that well-known commentator for the left who said that New Zealand Fast Forward was one of several “shifting inadequately executed attempts at economic transformation. It is a big slug of money with no under-pinning strategic plan.” 
Superannuation—Funding of Projected Cost 
5.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How does he plan to cover the projected cost of New Zealand superannuation over the next 30 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We plan to cover it the same way the previous Government planned to cover it: from now until 2030 it will be covered out of general tax revenue. After 2030 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will make some contribution to the Government’s finances to assist with supporting New Zealand superannuation beyond that point. As the member will know if he listened to the previous Minister of Finance Dr Cullen there is no link between the fund and the pensions; the sole source of security for future retirees is that Government finances remain sound and the economy healthy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm therefore that his decision to suspend contributions to the Superannuation Fund for nearly 11 years means the fund will be around $37 billion smaller with interest than it otherwise would have been; and that the fund’s ability to smooth the growing cost of superannuation will be seriously compromised? Does he therefore agree that this hole makes no sense when according to Treasury the projected return on that investment is a full 2 percent higher than the Government’s cost of capital therefore having a positive effect on the Crown’s balance sheet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm that New Zealand superannuation will be funded from general tax revenue from now until 2030. That is a matter of fact not opinion. From now until 2030 nothing has changed: New Zealand superannuation will be funded from general tax revenue. I take the member up on his nonsense about the $37 billion shortfall. That calculation leaves out the large amount of borrowing that would have to be done in order to fund the contributions. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: If the Government were to make no contributions to the fund for another 11 years how would the future cost of pensions compare with that expected when the fund was established? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Whether there are contributions to the fund and for how many years they are made has no effect on the future cost of pensions compared with what was expected. When the fund was established back in 2000 the Government did projections that showed that by 2021 the total cost of New Zealand superannuation plus contributions would be 6.75 percent of GDP. Today’s projections available on Treasury’s website show that the total cost is now 5.43 percent of GDP in 2021. Maintaining New Zealand superannuation has actually become more sustainable because of changes in assumptions relating to demographics and rates of return. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has just given 37 billion reasons to young New Zealanders faced with a higher tax bill to leave because as Brian Gaynor has said there is no free lunch here? Does he therefore agree that a decision to stop contributing to a major fund and then to say to people that they will get their full entitlements at 65 means that John Key has joined a long line of National leaders adept at breaking promises to maintain superannuation entitlements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that member is joining a line of Labour MPs who have forgotten the legislation they voted for just a few years ago. That legislation allowed Governments to suspend contributions. At the time Dr Cullen basically said that it was there in case the Government did not have surpluses. Now that we have $10 billion of deficit and a decade of deficits ahead of us under what circumstances does the member believe he would suspend contributions if not now? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What were the Government’s intentions when it established the fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s intention at the time as I understand it was to set up a fund into which it would put surpluses because that represented real money that New Zealanders might be able to save and by 2030 the accumulation of those surpluses would pay for about 12 percent of New Zealand superannuation. That was an idea that the National Party supported. Dr Cullen said at the time that there is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Pension less GST. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should listen to what Dr Cullen said. At the time he said that there was no direct link between the Superannuation Fund and New Zealand superannuation payments and he also said that contributions should be made from surpluses. We now face 10 years of deficits. Opposition members need to tell us how much debt they would tolerate and under what conditions they would suspend contributions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister of Finance tell the difference between a short-term suspension with a plan to make up the difference and a decade of deferrals with no plan to make up the difference? Will the Minister admit that part of the reason why the Government’s Budget has a hole is that he made a choice to give billions of dollars worth of tax relief to the top 3 percent of income earners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a bit rich. We are giving out in tax cuts half of what the Labour Party promised—half of it. That member should tell us what he was going to do with his tax cut plan. In fact the Budget incorporates the resumption of contributions when the Budget goes into surplus. 
Amy Adams 
: What returns has the New Zealand Superannuation Fund returned to date? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Since the fund was set up it has averaged an annual return of 3.65 percent which is less than the return one could get over that time from putting the money in the bank. 
Amy Adams 
: Is there any guarantee that the fund will perform better over the long run? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A bunch of investment experts including Opposition members have suddenly decided that the smartest thing one can ever do is borrow money and invest it on world sharemarkets. I suggest they go along to the bank and try that. They should go along to the National Bank and tell it that they have a mortgage an overdraft a car on hire purchase and that by the way they want to borrow $200000 to invest on the US stock market because Phil Goff says it will do better than lending the money to the Government. It is ridiculous. In fact the accumulated evidence is that over the next 10 or 15 years stock markets are likely to do much worse than in the last 15 years. In any case it is a big risk to take with borrowed money. 
Budget 2009—Environment 
6.  
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he confident that his Government’s Budget will protect New Zealand’s environment which he recently described as “a huge part of our brand.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the member on her elevation to co-leader of the Greens. Secondly the answer is yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Prime Minister identify the species that he thinks can become extinct in light of his $54 million cut in the budget of the Department of Conservation and are those extinctions part of his vision for our brand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Department of Conservation like every other Government department will have to learn to live with the more difficult economic times that we find ourselves in. The member quoted a number that spanned a 4-year period. On the predictions that I have in those 4 years the Department of Conservation will spend roughly $1.7 billion. That is a lot of money going into conservation. 
Metiria Turei 
: How will reducing the biosecurity surveillance budget by 11 percent help to safeguard both the farm and forestry economies or are more introduced pests and diseases part of his vision for our brand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the cut of $9 million to the Department of Conservation output class for the management of national heritage—covering weed and pest control of national parks and other Department of Conservation land—will not result in significant job losses and unemployment for those who carry out pest and weed eradication? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: All I can say is that $419 million is going into conservation over the next 12 months. Yes the Department of Conservation will have to learn to live with more difficult economic conditions. That fact is not lost on every other New Zealander except members of the Labour Party who still think they are back in power with massive surpluses spending whatever they like and just whacking it on the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the Opposition and his front-bench colleagues should show a little courtesy to the co-leader of the Greens. They are interjecting so loudly across the House I had no chance of hearing Metiria Turei who has the floor. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously enjoined the House to respect the use of parliamentary questions to give straight answers. It is quite clear that in his response the Prime Minister by his use of the latest Crosby/Textor phrase has sought to bring disrepute on the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use a point of order to debate the quality of an answer given by the Prime Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Annette King should not keep interjecting while I am trying to rule on a matter. I just ask members to be reasonable. It is not unreasonable to show a little courtesy and I ask for courtesy for Metiria Turei. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Prime Minister describe how cutting back the Community Conservation Fund will “encourage the initiatives of thousands of volunteers and dozens of organisations [to participate] in community conservation projects.” a stated goal of the National Party’s 2008 election policy? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Community Conservation Fund was to have funding of $4 million; it now has funding of $2 million. All of the 46 community projects that have been started will continue to be funded. There are other options for funding community projects from the Lotteries Commission right through to regional councils. But as I say everyone will have to live with more difficult economic conditions. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister consider our conservation estate a vital attraction for tourists; if so how does he consider that funding cuts to those who track the pests to those who cuts the tracks and to those who pull the weeds will affect our indigenous flora and fauna upon which much of our tourism industry is based? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the first question: yes. In answer to the latter: because I expect the Department of Conservation to learn to live with $419 million not $431 million. I do not think that that is a big ask. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does cutting the budget for education for sustainability on for example the Matauranga Kura Taiao programme Education for Sustainability advisers and Enviroschools enhance our brand; or are eco-literate children not part of the Prime Minister’s vision of New Zealand’s future brand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the last part of the question: yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that New Zealand’s clean green reputation—indeed New Zealand’s “clean green” brand—is worth billions of dollars to the New Zealand economy and to thousands of struggling New Zealand businesses and that during a recession we should be doing more not less to protect our environment on which our economy is based? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the “clean green” image and that is one of the reasons why funding in the Budget has been as excessive as it has; it is very important we maintain that brand. But it is equally important that we realise we have to live within our economic means and I do not think that a very modest reduction in expenditure is out of the question for any Government department at the moment. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table the National Party’s 2008 conservation policy which encouraged community conservation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a press release describing a report from the PA Consulting group which identifies the extent of the effect of and the dollar value of New Zealand’s environment on our economy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Care—Policy 
7.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes that is our plan despite inheriting a public health system that has serious workforce shortages that has many services under severe pressure and that is on a track to a financial crisis. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What is better or more convenient for health professionals who have now been told there is no money for even a cost of living increase in their salary and wages as a direct result of the health portion of last week’s Budget? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is no doubt that the Government has put a lot more money into the health service which we are determined will provide more services for New Zealanders. But I think that all of us in the health service recognise that the country is under significant financial pressure and everybody will be asked to carry part of that. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Has the Minister seen the comment from Ian Powell of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists that “It is financial wastage to train doctors for the benefit of Australia and elsewhere.” rather than for New Zealand’s public health system; or is his plan to support better sooner more convenient public health services overseas? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I have seen those reports. I would reply that it was greater wastage that we had a Government that spent millions and millions of dollars on 54 workforce reports in the space of 9 years and the workforce crisis got worse. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What statements has the Minister seen in relation to the Budget announcements that advance a better sooner more convenient health service? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen a copy of an initial press statement issued by the Hon Ruth Dyson on Budget night which claimed that public health and primary health care would be cut by about $59 million. I have also seen a copy of her final statement and those claims had vanished because they were utterly wrong. The reality is that the Government has increased public health service purchasing by tens of millions of dollars. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he agreed to district health boards raising the threshold for entry to rest home care and cutting home support services what part of “better sooner and more convenient” did he think those actions would be for older New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That member can make whatever allegations she wants about various matters but the fact is she cannot substantiate them. New Zealanders realise that the economic situation is very tight and that many New Zealanders will have to look at their demands in terms of how we can improve the New Zealand public health service. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Why is the Minister continuing the previous Labour Government’s socialist policy of large increases in real health expenditure when under that Labour Government such a policy resulted in huge drops in productivity and little or no increase in outputs; and what is he doing differently to achieve a different result? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I certainly agree with the member’s summation of the lack of performance under the previous Government. But this Government is determined to work with our front-line health professionals to improve the services that New Zealanders receive and to work towards better sooner more convenient health care for more New Zealanders. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister believe in competition for goods and services; if so why is he not introducing more competition into the health sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is no doubt that there is an opportunity to secure better outcomes for New Zealand patients particularly in the area of the supplementary work that private hospitals can provide for the public health service. But we want to make sure that we enhance capacity within the public hospital service in addition to what is happening privately and that is why this Government is committed to its plan to build dedicated elective surgery capacity in New Zealand—and the Opposition hates it. 
Hospices—Funding 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made in relation to hospice funding? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite inheriting a public health system with serious workforce shortages the Government has committed an extra $60 million over the next 4 years for New Zealand hospices. Hospices have long been supported by public funding together with a very large amount of voluntary work and funding. This announcement will help sustain the work that these very good New Zealanders are undertaking. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What are the details of how this $15 million per year is to be shared among different regions? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Ministry of Health has been working with hospices and district health boards to establish individual shortfalls and has agreed allocations that essentially enable each hospice to have around 70 percent of its costs covered by Government or district health board funding. In addition for those areas without hospices palliative care funding has been allocated to ensure that those areas are not disadvantaged. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why has the Minister agreed to $10 million worth of cuts to home-based personal care and housework rest home and dementia level care respite care and carer support including palliative care in the Otago community and how does that $10 million cut per year for just one district health board compare with the $15 million increase for hospices across the whole country? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am completely unaware of where the numbers quoted by the member come from. I suspect they are like the document she tried to table in the House last week: she just made it up and she was found out. 
Conservation Department—Funding Cut 
9.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What services will be cut and how many jobs will be lost at the Department of Conservation as a result of the $54 million cut in funding over 4 years? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Let me repeat the essential point already made by the Prime Minister today in response to what was essentially exactly the same question. The $54 million of savings over the next 4 years have to be seen against the context of more than $1.5 billion of expenditure and the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. For the last 5 years money has been pouring into agencies of State; this Government is demanding productivity enhancements. I am happy to say that the Department of Conservation is among the better-managed agencies and I am confident that it can achieve these extremely modest savings without compromising any of its core objectives. In respect of job retention I say that we are seeing a large number of vacancies; the department will be relying on them plus natural attrition. I am confident that the core objectives will be achieved. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Government cut funding for the output class “Management of natural heritage” which covers weed and pest control in national parks and other Crown land managed by the Department of Conservation by $9 million this year alone? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Government has made a variety of very modest savings which have been expected of the department including some low-priority pest and weed control. On the other hand the department will be getting increased funding for a number of other conservation objectives that I think are a much higher priority. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister know that weed and pest control are labour-intensive and are a relatively inexpensive source of jobs in a time of recession and that this funding cut may result in the loss of as many jobs as have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I have already made it clear that the department will be relying on vacancies and natural attrition to achieve its objectives. We have also increased spending on two of the non-departmental votes that will contribute to exactly those objectives and I am confident that the core principles of the department will be adequately maintained. I note that the total spend of $419 million is $100 million more than the department’s budget as recently as 2007. 
Police—Numbers 
10.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is the Government doing to put more police on the streets of New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 As promised the Budget has provided $182.5 million for 600 extra police to help keep New Zealanders safe. Three hundred will go to the Counties-Manukau Police District by the end of next year and there will be 300 more across the country by the end of 2011. The Government’s top priority has been to increase the number of front-line police and this funding honours that commitment. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What will the impact be of 300 extra police in Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I expect that it will lead to a police service that is better able to respond to crime and whose visibly increased presence will deter crime in the Counties-Manukau region. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will other districts in New Zealand benefit from the Government’s commitment to provide extra police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As a result of this Government’s commitment to achieving a police to population ratio of 1:500 by the end of 2011 another 300 police will have been recruited and will be serving throughout other parts of New Zealand to boost current district policing requirements. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that 600 extra police are being put on the streets by National when she knows that approximately 380 of those new police recruits had already been funded by Labour in Budget 2008 which means in fact that National’s total contribution over the next 3 years is just 75 more police officers a year—not much more than one police officer per electorate? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As everybody in New Zealand should now know most of the Labour Government’s policies were not actually funded. These ones are. 
Budget 2009—Tertiary Funding 
11.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Has she received any reports on the impact of funding announced in Budget 2009 on tertiary students? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister seen reports from Canterbury University which is being forced to restrict entry to second-year courses as a result of a $17 million funding cut in this Budget; if so how does she think this will contribute to upskilling New Zealand’s workforce and taking New Zealand “aggressively” out of the recession as the Prime Minister promised? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that institutions such as that university already restrict entry to some courses. In fact when that member was Associate Minister for Tertiary Education her Government was unable to fund institutions so that they were able to accept every student into every course and that was in much better economic times than we are facing now. During these tough economic times this Government is acting responsibly and ensuring that there is quality investment in high-quality tertiary education. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What initiatives has the Government funded for tertiary students through Budget 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am very proud of the initiatives that this Government has funded through Budget 2009. They include the voluntary bonding scheme for the health veterinary and education sectors in order to help to get those professionals into hard-to-staff areas. They include a voluntary repayment bonus to help graduates to pay off their debt sooner. They also include a commitment to meet the universities on a dollar for dollar scheme of $4 million for a summer internship scheme to give students paid work over the summer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Maryan Street—and I apologise for interrupting her—I say to the front-bench members on both sides that I do not mind interjections that relate to the question that is being answered. But where we have interjections to each other continually being shouted across the front benches interjections that are actually quite nasty and that I do not think are very helpful to this House I ask members on both sides to cease that behaviour. It is very discourteous to members who are either asking or answering questions. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does she agree with the import of the following quotation: “Damn the Nats who bring cuts to our education system make us pay for them out of our student loans that will take many people decades to pay off.”; if not has she taken up the issue with the author of that statement the president of the Albany Students’ Association in 1996 Paula Bennett? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That member might like to study the Budget carefully because the increase for tertiary education rises from $2.66 billion in 2008-09 to $2.78 billion in 2009. I think that student would now be saying “Hurray for the Nats.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had a discussion about this previously. I think the member has made an error. The increase could not be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot dispute an answer by way of a point of order. It is simply not provided for. He can ask a supplementary question that puts the Minister on the spot over some information she has given in an answer. That is the way to handle the issue: to ask a supplementary question about it. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Why has she refused to front up to the New Zealand University Students Association conference that is being held in July of this year and is that because the effective cuts to tertiary education including the axing of $98 million worth of scholarship funding have “resurrected financial barriers to tertiary education” as the association claims? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would say to that member that she probably needs to get her facts straight. I have not refused to front up. Perhaps she might like to check with the association as to who is actually appearing at the conference. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Minister serious when she suggested in response to an earlier supplementary question that tertiary funding had increased by $2.66 billion or was she just confused? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I did not say that so I could not possibly have been serious. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What programmes will be considered as a part of the higher priority provision as discussed in Budget 2009 for tertiary students in adult and community education and what consultation process will be undertaken with Maori stakeholders on these priorities in order to maintain the momentum of Maori gaining a kick-start from these educational initiatives to get into higher learning? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Higher priority provisions will be courses that focus on literacy and numeracy and on other foundations skills that offer good staircasing opportunities for future training and employment. I have already had a number of discussions around this with the wananga about how they can continue to boost Maori participation in higher learning. In fact I have a meeting with them this week to discuss those very issues. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister read the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that concluded that community-based education has an estimated economic benefit of up to $6.3 billion annually; and does she agree that adult and community education is likely to have one of the highest added values in economic terms as it is largely focused on improving people’s productive lives through learning? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I have seen that report. But the advice I have received is that the courses on literacy and numeracy and on the foundation skills do the heavy lifting in terms of producing the economic benefit from community-based education. That is why the Government is going to prioritise its spending in those areas and not on courses that teach people hobbies such as concrete shell mosaics and Moroccan cooking. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table a copy of “Prez Talk” from  
Satellite 
 which is the Albany Students’ Association magazine with the quotation from Paula Bennett to which I referred. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kahawai Fishery—Supreme Court Judgment 
12.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What judgment was handed down recently by the Supreme Court on the management of the kahawai fishery? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 The Supreme Court recently ruled on a 2004-05 ministerial decision regarding kahawai stocks. It has ruled that ultimately the question of the allocation between fishers is a matter of judgment for the Minister of Fisheries. This provides clarity for me as the Minister and I would like to assure all fishers—commercial recreational and customary—and the member that I understand the responsibility I have as the Minister to make sound decisions to protect the health of the fish stock and to provide all with fair access to and a fair share of our fisheries. 
Colin King 
: What are the next steps to be taken with regard to the review of the kahawai catch limits? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am committed to reviewing the kahawai catch limits and allowances. However there is not enough time left to properly review the catch limits before the start of the next fishing year on 1 October 2009. Given the history and the importance of this fishery I want the review to be done properly. I am not prepared to act in haste. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Freedom of Speech of Members of Parliament—Court Orders 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of Privileges Committee) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege relating to the exercise of the freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders.  
Last year the Hon David Parker raised as a matter of privilege statements made in the House on Thursday 26 June 2008 by the Hon—as she is now—Heather Roy. Mr Parker was concerned that these statements might be in breach of the suppression order made in the High Court sitting in Nelson on 4 December 2007. On 3 July 2008 the Speaker’s predecessor ruled that the specific question raised did not constitute a matter of privilege but instead referred to the Privileges Committee the general issue of the interplay between court orders—particularly those suppressing the free availability of information—and the privilege of freedom of speech of members of the House. The reference included the important question of the protections that exist for the reporting and broadcasting of what is said in Parliament and in parliamentary proceedings. Shortly after the referral to it the Privileges Committee of the last Parliament adopted terms of reference for its consideration of the matter. The present committee adopted those terms of reference heard evidence considered the matter and resolved at its meeting last week to report to the House. 
The work of the committee covered a number of key areas. Firstly we discussed the constitutional principle that the judicial and legislative branches ought to maintain comity in their relations and as a subset of this work we considered the much-misunderstood sub judice rule. The Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the Crown was passed by the English Parliament in 1689 and it was renamed by that Parliament in 1896 when it passed the Short Titles Act as the Bill of Rights Act. It is beyond doubt that that Act is part of the laws of New Zealand. The position was affirmed by Chief Justice Wild in the 1976 case of  
Fitzgerald v Muldoon 
. The Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 of this Parliament refers to the legislation as the Bill of Rights 1688 and confirms that it is in force here. The preamble to the bill recites that James II endeavoured to subvert the laws and liberties of this kingdom by prosecutions in court for matters and causes cognisable only in Parliament. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights goes on to provide that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. 
So it is that members of this House and others participating in the proceedings of Parliament have a constitutional right to freedom of speech in the course of those proceedings that may not be controlled or limited by any external body but only by the authority of this House itself. In particular the courts are constitutionally limited from performing their usual role in preventing or otherwise regulating breaches of the law when it comes to what is said in parliamentary proceedings. Because of the breadth of this constitutional exception and the scope for abuse that it contains it follows that Parliament tries to ensure that the privilege of free speech is exercised responsibly. It does so via the Standing Orders and via legislation. These should embody the principle that although Parliament is sovereign in our system this does not mean that each branch of Government should wilfully or discourteously impinge on the functions of others. It is this balance that is known as the comity principle. 
An aspect of this principle is that the other branches of Government should not act in a way so as to prejudice the administration of justice in any individual case that is before a court. This is known as the sub judice rule. It applies particularly when a court has been persuaded to make an order that varies the usual position that justice is to be done openly—in other words when the court has suppressed some evidence such as the name or details of a witness. At the moment article 9 of the Bill of Rights means that such an order has no force in this House or in proceedings before a select committee except in so far as the Standing Orders and the discretion of the Speaker or the chairperson of the committee determines otherwise. We think that if a member believes that the public interest requires that member to breach a suppression order or otherwise refer to a matter in front of a court then there should remain facility for this. However we seek in our recommended amendments to the Standing Orders to make it clear that this should be exceptional as a breach of the ordinary constitutional arrangements that have evolved in this country. We also seek to make the reference subject to the discretion of the Speaker to first consider and take advice on whether the statement that is sought to be made is truly in the public interest. 
Having considered the position in relation to proceedings of Parliament we discussed whether there are sufficient protections for the reporting and broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. In common with representatives of the media who came before us we were surprised to learn that these are inadequate. Members have absolute freedom of speech for any statements that they may make in the House. However parliamentary privilege does not completely extend to protecting the publication of records of the proceedings of the House. An amendment to the Legislature Act provides protection for “parliamentary papers” that are published by or under the authority of Parliament. The New Zealand courts have so far given a wide interpretation to the term “parliamentary papers” so by analogy they may well include information in the form of electronic documents video tape recordings computer disks or television broadcasts. But the matter is not clear and the gaps in legal protection may well mean that publishers and broadcasters could face civil or criminal liability for publishing or broadcasting in breach of a court order even if inadvertently. 
The committee considers it manifestly unsatisfactory that the broadcasting of Parliament’s proceedings under the direct authority of the House may leave the Clerk of the House or any person later authorised by the House open to legal action. We have therefore recommended to the Government that it introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act 1908 to provide that the live and delayed broadcast of parliamentary proceedings under the authority of the House including select committee hearings should be protected by absolute privilege. The committee also considered the broadcasting and publication of extracts from a broadcast of proceedings or from parliamentary papers along with the publication of fair and accurate reports or summaries of proceedings of the House. 
Clearly the media plays an important role in providing the public with information about the business of the House. In recognition of that role some protections are already provided in the Defamation Act to allow fair and accurate reports or summaries of the House to be covered by qualified privilege that applies to delayed broadcasts of proceedings publications of fair and accurate reports of proceedings and publications of fair and accurate extracts or summaries of a report of proceedings. So the committee recommends that the Government introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act 1908 to provide that a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House or a summary using extracts of proceedings of the House made by any person is protected by qualified privilege. Particular issues clearly arise from the use of extracts. They can be taken out of context and timing or repetition can be manipulated in a manner that is unfair or misleading. In recognition of those issues the committee suggests that the lesser protection of qualified privilege should apply to the broadcasting and other publication of extracts of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of the Defamation Act 1992. In other words we recommend that the protections that are contained in the Defamation Act 1992 be made broadly consistent with those in the Legislature Act 1908. 
Finally the committee has considered the effect of the decision of a majority in the Court of Appeal and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in  
Buchanan v Jennings 
. We endorse the report of the Privileges Committee of the forty-seventh Parliament as yet unactioned and the minority reasons for judgment in the Court of Appeal of Justice Tipping that that decision was wrong and excessively broad in scope. We reiterate our recommendation of the former committee’s view that the scope of that decision should be narrowed. 
Unusually because the recommendations of the Privileges Committee on this occasion relate not to a specific breach of privilege but to a wider issue I am not proposing a motion encapsulating recommended changes to the Standing Orders. Under Standing Order 6 a Standing Order may be amended or revoked only by a motion with notice. If I were to move the committee’s suggested amendments by way of opening the debate on this report I would effectively negate Standing Order 6 since there would be no notice of the proposed amendments. Instead I understand that the Government intends to move a motion incorporating the suggested Standing Orders changes so I have moved only that the House take note of the committee’s report. I look forward to the Government promoting the sessional orders and the legislative amendments recommended and I commend the committee’s report to the House. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank Charles Chauvel for leading the debate on the report back on this very important matter of the Privileges Committee’s report and I congratulate him on taking up the role of chairperson of that committee. I am reliably told that it is not an easy job so I wish him well in that task. The Hon Michael Cullen commenced the chairing of this issue in the new Parliament. When he departed from the House Mr Chauvel stepped up to the mark and he has done a very good job of putting a very complex matter into relatively straightforward terminology. I also thank other committee members for their work on this issue. 
As the chairperson of the Privileges Committee said in June 2008 the Hon David Parker referred to statements made by Heather Roy as a matter of privilege. He was concerned that they may have been in breach of a suppression order made in the Nelson High Court. As Mr Chauvel said the Speaker ruled that the immediate complaint could not be regarded as tending to impede the House in the discharge of its functions. However the Speaker referred the general matter of the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech in the context of court orders to the last Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Another matter came to the Privileges Committee at that time which saw this particular issue sidelined at that point. However the new Privileges Committee in this Parliament took up the challenge of dealing with this very technical area. The principle which determines the balance to be struck between the courts’ role in making orders suppressing information and members’ freedom of speech was referred to as “comity” by Mr Chauvel and several submitters. Simply put it means that there is mutual respect and restraint between the legislative and judicial branches. Whatever is under discussion or determination by either should not be discussed or determined by the other. Over the time I have been in this House members tend to be very careful about that issue in particular when commenting to the media or when members are involved in the justice or law and order areas. The temptation to comment on cases that are before the courts and to offer an opinion is always available but my experience has been that members on all sides of the House have exercised considerable and rightful restraint in that area. 
As Mr Chauvel said the committee recommended that the sub judice rule be revised to clearly recognise that there are two strands to the rule of issues concerning prejudice to a matter awaiting or under adjudication in any New Zealand court including one awaiting sentencing. I was particularly keen to see that addition to the summary of recommendations because I can recall a number of occasions over the last 9 or so years when the issue of what stage a matter was up to in the court proceedings became an issue for debate during question time or in other proceedings in this House. It was always the intention in my view that matters relating to sentencing should be included in that rule even though the actual judicial discretion and process may have been concluded at that point. The second part of that rule is that the principle of comity comes between Parliament and the courts. 
As Mr Chauvel stated the committee has made a second series of recommendations to the Government. The first recommendation is that it “recommends to the Government that it introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act 1908 to provide that the live broadcast of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings is protected by absolute privilege” that “delayed broadcasts or rebroadcasts of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings that are made by order or under the authority of the House of Representatives are protected by absolute privilege” and that “a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House”—that is a fair and accurate report of matters and proceedings in the House—“or summary using extracts of proceedings in the House by any person is protected by qualified privilege.” It is a matter that will no doubt be of some interest to New Zealand’s media. The recommendations continue: “the broadcast and other publication of extracts of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings that are not made by order or under the authority of the House of Representatives are protected by qualified privilege in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Defamation Act 1992.” Significantly—and this is something that will particularly interest members—the Privileges Committee has recommended that the Government introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act to provide that “the criticisms made of the decision in  
Buchanan v Jennings 
 be addressed so that a Member of Parliament or any other person participating directly in or reporting on parliamentary proceedings who makes an oral or written statement that affirms or adopts what he or she or another person has said in the House or its committees will not be liable to criminal or civil proceedings.” 
I think it is fair to say that the vast bulk of the committee’s work when it came to the consideration of this report was to have the specific nature of the wording on that last point put together in such a way that the Government’s legislative response to these recommendations would get the least ambiguous steer possible as to what the committee was recommending. It is quite a step and as the chairperson indicated it will require the Government to respond formally in due course. It covers a range of issues that up to now have seen many a member of Parliament walk straight from the Chamber to his or office and past the media without saying anything since that particular— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s expensive for some of us too. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Mr Mallard can have his contribution shortly under the new circumstances. We have to wait until the new legislation comes to the House. 
I do not want to say anything more other than the Privileges Committee work is often done in a very tightly held way that sees matters of some weight considered by the committee. From time to time the committee has been referred to in a slightly flippant way as the “all-powerful Privileges Committee” but it is one of those few committees in Parliament that genuinely acts in the interests of this institution and does so in a way whereby all members of that committee leave their politics and party affiliations at the door. That is to be encouraged because members on the committee take seriously this House its proceedings and their obligations to each other and this House. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to convey the Green Party’s support for the report of the Privileges Committee on its inquiry into freedom of speech in the context of court orders. I state at the outset that we support all of the committee’s recommendations. Given that this country is genetically disposed to downplay issues of a constitutional nature I believe that we were well advised to explore this fundamental issue and that the recommendations before us demand careful attention. 
The issue rests centrally on the House’s absolute privilege of free speech. Our law in this respect rests on the Bill of Rights Act which was adopted by the English Parliament in 1689 and implemented in statute law in this country by means of the Legislature Act 1908 and the Defamation Act 1992. Absolute parliamentary privilege was originally designed to protect the members of the English Parliament from the King’s tyranny. Three centuries later—and on the other side of the world—we retain the principle in the name of the public interest rather than the taming of unbridled royal power. In today’s world we value absolute privilege as the measure of the health of a democracy rather than of the fever of the monarchy. Yet some of today’s citizens remain sceptical of its far-reaching effect. It follows I believe that such extraordinary freedoms so distantly anchored in time and space to the original perhaps warrant even greater diligence today than may have been required in those dramatic and formative times. 
Those endowed with privilege as the generations go by whether it be wealth power or freedom are increasingly disposed to claim inherited right rather than acknowledge enduring responsibility. The laws of human nature apply to this House as acutely as anywhere else. As members of our country’s Parliament we are not immune to the siren call of unlicensed freedom or power. To allay any possible doubt on this matter we need only recall  
Fitzgerald v Muldoon 
 barely three decades ago. The Chief Justice was then moved to declare a Prime Minister’s actions unlawful for having violated article 1 of the 1689 Bill of Rights. That article states that the “pretended power of suspending laws … by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.” That the New Zealand judiciary was forced to reach back into English law in defence of fundamental liberties of 20th century Aotearoa offers a sobering reminder of the fragility of our constitutional structures. Let no one take these matters lightly. 
The recommendations in the report carry us forward in securing the constitutional relationship between the legislature and the judiciary in this country and in refining the relative protections accorded to the House and others in society. Of overarching importance is the principle of comity between Parliament and the courts as has been noted. The relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of Government secures the constitutional stability of any country. Yet the separation of powers is not as clearly developed in our parliamentary system as it is in presidential republics at least as it pertains to the relationship between the legislature and the executive. Indeed in one area there is I contend in passing an imperfection in the constitutional clarity of our political structure. The conflation of two fundamentally different roles those of legal administrator of and legal adviser to the Government in the single person of the Attorney-General presents a serious derogation from that principle to deleterious effect on our democracy. But at least the separation of role between our legislature and judiciary is clear and discrete. It is important that nothing be done to bring that into doubt. The principle of comity requiring mutual respect and restraint between the two branches must never be allowed to corrode. That underlying principle guided all of the deliberations of our committee. 
With that in mind I turn now to some of the more specific issues in the report before us. The first issue relates to the sub judice rule. It was clear to the committee that the relevant Standing Order does not currently reflect the accumulated wisdom of Speakers’ rulings in this House. It does not refer to the two strands of the rule but only one—namely prejudice to the trial of a court case; it is imperative that members not say anything that might influence its outcome. The Standing Orders currently omit explicit reference to the principle of comity so the committee recommends its inclusion. The Green Party supports that recommendation. 
The committee was of the view that a wilful and serious breach of the sub judice rule could be considered a contempt of the House. Opinions divided over whether the Standing Orders should explicitly state that. Some members harboured a concern that doing so might imply a diminution of absolute privilege. It was suggested that the Standing Orders Committee might revisit this matter. For my own part I form the view that absolute parliamentary privilege should not be left today on the farthest perimeter of freedom. If the exclusive cognisance of this House concerning members’ actions remains the sole method of self-regulation then the broader public interest is surely to be found in explicit and clear constraint strictly applied by the collective upon the individual. Only then will public confidence in the integrity of this institution be objectively secured. 
The second issue is the question of effective repetition. The committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to ensure that absolute privilege be extended beyond statements in the House to include effective repetition outside. No member would thus be liable to civil or criminal proceedings for effective repetition. This would restore the legal understanding before the  
Buchanan v Jennings 
 decision in order to remove the so-called chilling effect on free speech in the House and in public debate. This protection would also be extended to persons directly participating in or reporting on parliamentary proceedings. Although the Green Party supports extension of that protection we believe that once again such far-reaching privilege through a process of self-endowment simply imposes a commensurably heavier responsibility upon members to meet the standards of behaviour expected of us by the public. 
Thirdly I address the broadcasts of this House’s proceedings. For better or worse absolute privilege does not currently extend to protecting the publication of records of proceedings of the House.  
Hansard 
 let us recognise is the only official report. Broadcasts whether on television or radio are not official yet they provide a verbatim record identical to  
Hansard 
 including statements that may be defamatory or constitute contempt. Under current law there appears to be no protection for broadcast or for publication in the print media. But the suggestions that televised proceedings be subject to a time delay and that the Speaker be empowered to technically mute offending words do not appeal to us as the answer. We did however regard it as particularly unsatisfactory that for example even the Clerk of the House remains in theory vulnerable to legal action for the broadcasting of Parliament’s proceedings. The Green Party supports the recommendation that the Legislature Act be amended to extend absolute privilege to cover live broadcasting of Parliament’s proceedings including in select committees and that delayed broadcasts under the authority of the House also enjoy absolute privilege. 
Fourthly and finally I address the media’s reporting on House proceedings. At present the Defamation Act extends only qualified privilege to the media for extracts reported of proceedings. This applies to delayed broadcasts fair and accurate reports and fair and accurate extracts. It seems that some in the media erroneously believe that they are protected by absolute privilege as long as their reports are fair and accurate. That is not so. We were therefore of the view that qualified privilege for fair and accurate reports of all proceedings be extended to all persons. The Green Party supports this proposal as well. 
On balance the recommendations comprise an important step forward in clarifying both legislation and our parliamentary Standing Orders as they pertain to privileges covering the behaviour of members of this House Officers of Parliament and the media reporting on proceedings. The Green Party is disposed to fully support them and to recommend such action by this House and by this Government. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Privileges Committee’s report and its recommendations. It is somewhat trite to note that free speech of MPs is an absolutely vital part of our democracy. It is also important that there be a balance against or with the potential damage that can be caused to reputations. The phrase “Say it outside the House.” is often heard and it is an important check on MPs who may choose to make unsubstantiated allegations as some members have found to their cost. 
Charles Chauvel referred to the sub judice rule as the “much-misunderstood sub judice rule” and I note that the previous speaker Kennedy Graham seems a little confused even as to the pronunciation of it. As previous speakers have said it is an important part of our law. It is clearly important that Parliament should not interfere with the courts and vice versa as conveyed in the comity principle. However in my view it is wrong for anyone—the police or MPs included—to wrongly sit behind the so-called sub judice rule as an all-embracing smokescreen in all circumstances. It is not a smokescreen and it ought not to be. The report addresses the present lack of clarity of the sub judice rule and it correctly points out the difficulty MPs have of knowing the boundary of comity which relates to the mutual respect relationship between the courts and Parliament. The committee’s report refers to a need for a clear statement of principle on the comity rule and we agree entirely with that view. The committee has recommended that the rule be amended and made clear and crucially it has recommended that the rule preserves the discretion of the Speaker to decide on a case by case basis whether a breach of privilege in that regard is justified. I also believe it is important that the committee acknowledged that it always remains open for a member of this House knowing that he or she must bear the consequences to breach the rule. It is imaginable that in some circumstances that action may well be justified and may be the duty of a member. But like everything else such an action would come with a cost and that is recognised in the committee’s report. 
This party has more reason than most to agree with previous speakers on the unsatisfactory nature of the law with regard to effective repetition. I do not believe that it is breaching any kind of rule of comity to say that most commentators and many if not most lawyers believe that  
Buchanan v Jennings  
was bad law. It cannot be either sensible or right for a member of this House who says in the hallway “I do not resile from what I said in the House” to then become liable for what he or she said in the Chamber. That is bad law badly decided and it sets a bad precedent. As Mr Chauvel noted it was recommended in the Privileges Committee of the forty-seventh Parliament that the effective repetition rule be abolished. Here we are 4 years and two Parliaments later and the recommendation has been made as clearly as it possibly could be. The committee in my view quite rightly expressed its disappointment that the change recommended in 2005 had not been actioned and said that it expected action to be taken on that point as soon as possible. The ACT Party completely concurs with that statement but notes that it is in the hands of the National Party as the majority party in the House to place that change on the legislative programme. It would receive the full support of the ACT Party. It is hoped that the Hon Simon Power’s reference to “in due course” is sooner rather than later and that the Privileges Committee of the next Parliament is not forced to again say that it is long past time for this rule to be abolished. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou e te Whare. When I was first appointed a member of Parliament in 2005 I never thought that part of my role would be considering the principle of comity. Yet essentially our task in the Privileges Committee over the last 3 months was to consider the constitutional boundaries as they relate to the freedom of speech and court orders. My first experience on the Privileges Committee was a relatively straightforward exercise to consider a matter regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a “did he” or “did he not” issue. This present issue however was about interpreting the law and clarifying the Standing Orders. 
If one is not a lawyer it is quite an interesting exercise to listen to all the lawyers have their way with words such as “in so far as” “furthermost” “therefore after” etc. and I am afraid that in the main I had to leave the majority of the discussion to the experts. My contribution was to consider getting training for MPs on the issues having tripped myself up when discussing the raids on the Tuhoe nation over a year ago and on the implications of broadcasters and the media in general. I will give some overview on those matters shortly. 
In its most simple interpretation I have found that comity is sometimes described as the separation of powers or as previous speakers have said the desire that the legislature and courts should not intrude into areas reserved for each other. It is not as though these are new issues. The House has already stipulated in Standing Orders 111 and 112 that matters awaiting adjudication in the courts come within the terms of the sub judice rule. In effect this means that members have been encouraged to observe court orders or be accused of abusing the privilege of free speech. A case of particular interest to our report was the incident just less than a year ago when our colleague Heather Roy made statements in the House that another colleague the Hon David Parker thought constituted a breach of suppression orders and therefore was a matter of privilege. The previous Speaker ruled on 3 July 2008 that there was not a case of privilege to be answered for that particular incident but that the generic issue of the constitutional relationship of respect between the House of Representatives and the judiciary was worthy of further inquiry. 
Having gone through the process I suggested to the committee that the interpretation of freedom of speech and the constraints of court orders was something that we could all usefully have a wananga or discussion about. I think the chance to sit and consider together how this relationship impacts on our everyday work as MPs could be really useful. I suggested further that for new members in particular a workshop outlining the extent of the respect and restraint operating between the judiciary and the legislature might quickly prepare parliamentarians for understanding the role in a far better way. How does one check with the Speaker about the wish to raise an issue of privilege? Is it done in writing? When should notice be given? These are basic logistical questions that I believe need consideration now in light of the proposed changes to the rules. A key issue for example was whether any distinction should be made if a member knowingly breached a court order. A Parliament-wide workshop could be useful in order that all members would know the conditions around what might be considered contempt what might be considered likely to bring this House into disrepute and what might be involved in breaching a court order. We concluded as a committee that Standing Order 401 should be extended to include whether a member knowingly makes reference to a matter suppressed by a court order. 
Another matter that came within the terms of reference for the review was the context of reporting on the proceedings of Parliament. The increased openness the access to Parliament through web broadcasting podcasting and televised channels has made it even more important that we consider the publication of proceedings outside of Parliament. I admit to having genuine empathy for broadcasters who are doing their very best to provide an accurate birds-eye view of the day in Parliament yet could very well be flouting the rules in doing so. The Solicitor-General in his advice to the committee drew on a statement from  
Media Law in New Zealand 
 that concluded there is much greater doubt about whether the media are safe in publishing these types of statements either directly from Parliament or by way of delayed coverage. I am pleased for our broadcasters that there are specific recommendations in the report that introduce the idea that legislation should be created to deal with live broadcasts delayed broadcasts and rebroadcasts. It is also useful that the recommendations include the precautionary principle of ensuring that the broadcasts are “a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House”. 
Finally from the perspective of the Maori Party this issue about the constitutional boundaries associated with the principle of comity between Parliament and the courts came to a head some 2 years ago in the context of the “Black Friday” raids on the Tuhoe nation which happened in the Ruatoki Valley. In this matter of extreme public interest our questions in the House were frequently shut down as being potentially in breach of court orders or in breach of privilege. As members of Parliament we have to be able to raise issues of legitimate concern to our constituency. There is no denial that the case of the raids under the so-called shadow of terrorism was of extreme concern not only to the people of Ruatoki but more important throughout the greater Waiariki electorate and indeed to Maoridom as a whole. What makes the situation even more intense is that not only was the case of particular concern in October 2007 but in the long weeks and months to follow the debate was effectively shut down because the process had been drawn out for such a length of time. We need to know if a case is held over what mechanisms are in place to guarantee the issues can benefit from exposure to the light of parliamentary scrutiny. 
These are critical issues for any political party when an event of major political sensitivity is unable to be debated because of the sub judice rules and the Standing Orders. We fully support the clarification provided for in the procedures now outlined in this report about matters awaiting judicial decision. The process of making application to the Speaker is described in full and it is now clear that the discretion of the Speaker will be called upon in matters where there is some doubt. I humbly suggest that the situation emerging out of the Tuhoe raids would have certainly constituted the exercise of particular discretion to balance the privilege of freedom of speech against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes. This is even more apparent when 18 months have passed yet still we appear no further along in terms of reaching a judicial resolution. 
The principle of comity the constitutional dilemmas and the application of the Standing Orders were all matters before the committee that required sufficient specialist skills to understand the full implications for Parliament as I stated at the outset. In that context I acknowledge the Privileges Committee staff—Debra Angus Catherine Parkin and Mary Harris the Clerk of the House—for their professional commitment to supporting us in whatever capacity was required. We received some excellent expert advice from Dr David Collins as Solicitor-General and also from Professor Philip Joseph Associate Professor Andrew Geddis and Tim Murphy and Tim Pankhurst from the media freedom committee of the Commonwealth Press Union. It is a real eye-opener for me in my parliamentary role that we are able to access such excellent sources of advice. I also acknowledge the chairs of the committee—the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and more recently Charles Chauvel—for their leadership as others have mentioned and all of the members of the committee for a job well done. I say in closing that when and if the committee sits again I hope that we can keep it to a “yes they did; no they didn’t” question. It will save me a hell of a lot from having to listen again to the foreign language of lawyer-speak. I say that with due respect to my lawyer colleagues. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 One of the most important privileges that this House has if not the most important is the privilege of free speech. We can talk about any issue in this Parliament and we can do it without threat of being sued for defamation outside this Parliament. However it is important to reflect on the fact that freedom of speech is a privilege of this House; it is not my privilege as a member of Parliament. It is the privilege of this Parliament rather than the privilege of each member of Parliament. I make that point because when we consider issues such as the division of powers and responsibilities between the judiciary and Parliament we have to remember that it is Parliament’s rights that we are protecting into the future. We are also protecting the rights of the judicial branch as a group first and foremost rather than as individuals. 
We have heard wise contributions today from all parties about the fact that in order to maintain the balance between the judicial arm of Government—the judiciary—and the parliamentary arm of Government it is important that we respect each other’s roles. That balance can be upset when one side or the other goes too far in the exercise of its rights and stands on the toes of the other branch of Government. The risk we take is that if we as a Parliament do not properly regulate our conduct then we actually invite the sort of response from the other branch of Government—the judiciary—that we would not want. So one of the things we have to do in order to jealously guard our right to freedom of expression which is so important to us is to make sure we do not abuse that right. 
We do that through the Standing Orders. Our current Standing Orders are inadequate in that regard because as was shown last year one can make a statement in breach of a suppression order—for example in the case of someone’s name being suppressed for ever. The case in point here was where someone was on the witness protection programme. Members of this House including myself the Hon Nick Smith and others thought that the identity of that person had been suppressed by the courts and that accordingly his or her name ought not to be mentioned in this House. It transpired that there was a misunderstanding as to what the effect of the court order was. None the less if our understanding of the court order had been right a member who had mentioned the name of the person on the witness protection programme in breach of the court order would not have been in breach of our Standing Orders. That is wrong. 
We need to consider why it is that sometimes people’s identities are protected. It is because the courts have found that injustices can be caused if this does not happen. In the case I have mentioned the injustice could be that the person on the witness protection programme might be identified. We have only to think about why that person might be on the witness protection programme in order to realise how serious the consequences could be. I am not talking about this particular case but if for example that person had turned Crown’s evidence in a serious drug trial against very evil people then his or her life might be at risk. Such people might be no angels but none the less the consequences of their becoming publicly known in terms of their acts on behalf of the Crown in bringing people to justice could be such that they could be subject to torture or death in an extreme case. 
Those are very real consequences that the courts grapple with from time to time and in their wisdom they occasionally say that the identity of people should be suppressed. When they do that we in this Parliament have a duty to respect that decision. That is what our Standing Orders ought to provide for and currently they do not. So the Standing Orders ought to be changed so as to make it clear that it would be a breach of the privileges that we hold in this House—a breach of our privilege of freedom of expression—to use our rights of freedom of expression to name a person in that situation. That would be wrong. 
There can always be exceptions to these rules and one always has to allow for exceptions. On most occasions the political point can be made in terms of bringing the Government or the police to account without actually naming the name. The point at issue can be resolved satisfactorily without naming the name. But occasionally the name can be appropriately used despite a court order to the contrary. I can envisage in very rare circumstances that there could be a public interest in favour of members of this Parliament being able to name the name. That is why Parliament would be going too far if it decided to give away its privilege of freedom of speech rather than to limit it. 
So we have not given it away. If this proposed change to the Standing Orders is brought into effect the right of freedom of expression—the privilege of members of the House to say anything—would exist but it would effectively be monitored by the Speaker so that if a member wanted to breach a court order or make reference to a court action that is not yet complete he or she could go to the Speaker in advance and ask whether the reference could be made on that particular occasion. The Speaker could say yes or no and we would rely upon the Speaker to make wise decisions on this matter; we have confidence in the Speaker to make those wise decisions. 
There are other remedies for members of Parliament. A member could having received an adverse decision come to this House and actually breach privilege by making that statement. That would be the wrong thing to do as a matter of practice but it could happen. So there is an additional layer of protection. If a member did that he or she would be at risk of censure by the Privileges Committee and unless there was a fantastic justification the member ought to be appropriately censured by the Privileges Committee. 
A couple of other issues were thrown up through this inquiry. One of the issues I raised when I looked into the issue was that it seemed to me that the repetition of matters through modern media raised new issues that perhaps had not been thought of when the original absolute protection was granted to  
Hansard 
. I did not foresee some of the lacunae—the gaps in the current law that provide for absolute privilege to  
Hansard 
—that leave it in doubt as to whether the likes of the podcasts one can pick up from Radio New Zealand National or through other means of repeat or delayed broadcast are properly protected. That puts the Officers of Parliament at risk. It also puts the media who are relied upon to re-report these proceedings at unnecessary risk. That issue should be clarified by changes to the relevant legislation. 
I refer again to the issue of freedom of speech in respect of suppression orders. There is a misunderstanding on the part of many in the media that if we say something in Parliament the media are absolutely privileged in terms of their repetition of it. That is not the case. It is the privilege of Parliament; it is not the privilege of the media. If the media choose to repeat something that is said in Parliament they are entitled to qualified privilege but not absolute privilege. That is the case in respect of defamation proceedings. In respect of contempt proceedings in a court they are not protected at all. So if members of the media were to repeat a name that had been suppressed by the court but mentioned in Parliament they would not be protected at law for repeating the name in a newspaper or in any other medium—and neither should they be. There is no change proposed to that law. 
I refer back to the underlying philosophy that I talked about at the start. I referred to the balance between freedoms and the responsible use of those freedoms and I said that if one branch of Government be it the judiciary or Parliament goes too far it can expect a reaction from the other branch. This same logic needs to be applied in the context of  
Buchanan v Jennings 
 which was a Privy Council decision that supported the majority decision of the Court of Appeal. It found that effective repetition outside this House of what had been said inside the House was not protected by parliamentary privilege. It is a nonsense in the eyes of most people that a member can be sued for defamation if he or she says something in this House and then when asked while walking along the corridor whether he or she still stands by the statement says “Yes.” or “I don’t resile from that.” 
It seems to be an unusual interpretation of the rights of freedom of expression that we enjoy in this House to say no more than “I stand by what I said.” or “I don’t resile from it.” yet be subject to the threat of defamation. That was a step too far in the opinion of the Privileges Committee and that balance needs to be drawn back to restore the position to that which was commonly understood prior to the decision in  
Buchanan v Jennings 
. 
The Labour Party will be supporting all of the recommendations of the Privileges Committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise too to support the report of the Privileges Committee and in doing so I also wish to compliment both the former chair the Hon Michael Cullen who was very keen to see the issues raised in this report resolved by the House and Charles Chauvel who has taken up the chair’s role on the retirement of Dr Cullen. Having listened to Mr Chauvel’s contribution to this debate I believe that the committee has chosen a worthy successor. I am not reflecting on anything other than my own background in law and speaking as someone who has been on the Privileges Committee for over 15 years when I say that I am pleased that a lawyer again chairs the committee. 
I know that the chair wanted to acknowledge all of the people who have served on the committee both during the original referral of the question of privilege and currently. Members who served on the committee after the referral of the question to it during the last Parliament but who no longer sit as members of Parliament are the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Russell Fairbrother. Hone Harawira sat as a member of the committee until 8 November 2008 and members who have served on the committee throughout the process are the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Hon Wayne Mapp and the Hon Simon Power. Mr Power of course chaired the committee until 8 November last year. Members not already mentioned but who are members of the current committee are the Hon Murray McCully the Hon David Parker who has just resumed his seat and Dr Kennedy Graham. We have also heard from Te Ururoa Flavell and David Garrett. 
I am also sure that the House as a whole wants to acknowledge the very valuable assistance provided to the committee by Mary Harris Debbie Angus and Catherine Parkin and by the Solicitor-General Dr David Collins. I place on record special thanks to Professor Philip Joseph of Canterbury University one of my old lecturers and Associate Professor Andrew Geddis of the University of Otago. Members might also note that the committee heard evidence from Tim Pankhurst and Tim Murphy from the New Zealand section of the Commonwealth Press Union and I think that that was a very valuable contribution for what they gained from it as much as from what we gained from it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How little they knew. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: How little they knew—as my colleague interjects at my side. 
I will briefly comment on the issue that brought this matter to our attention. There is no question that the Hon David Parker was justified in referring to the Speaker a statement that may have been a breach of a suppression order. As it turned out it was not but I think that the Speaker correctly ruled that the particular matter could not be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its function. I say though that if the member concerned did believe she had been breaching a suppression order then that is something we ought to reflect on. If a media outlet wants to avoid a suppression order it could simply use a member of Parliament to breach that order in the House to publish the proceedings in the House and circumvent the order. Would an MP collude with the media in this way? Someone looking for publicity might be tempted. The risks of this occurring are simply too great so I strongly support the Privileges Committee report where it speaks of the need for the sub judice rule to be restated within the Standing Orders and also for the relationship of comity between the House and the courts to be addressed. 
I thought that the aside from ACT member David Garrett was unfortunate as any dictionary will confirm that the method of pronouncing the words “sub judice” is a matter of taste. It is equally pronounced “sub ju-di-kay”. It is simply a matter of taste; both pronunciations are catered for in the two dictionaries we have checked since that rather unfortunate statement was made. 
The current Standing Order is not sufficiently well articulated to express what it is intended to do. In fact with a quick look at that particular Standing Order one can see immediately why there is a problem with it. Standing Order 111 states that “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to—(a) in any motion or (b) in any debate or (c) in any question including a supplementary question—if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Well that is a very difficult matter for a Speaker to respond to in the middle of a sometimes heated debate. Therefore the proposal within the Privileges Committee report to replace that provision with one that enables the individual concerned who is wanting to raise the particular matter in the House to refer the matter to the Speaker for consideration for the exercise of his discretion that he continues to have under new paragraph (1) of Standing Order 111. The new wording that is proposed is that “In exercising his or her discretion the Speaker—(a) balances the privilege of freedom of speech against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes and (b) takes into account the constitutional relationship of mutual respect that exists between the legislative and judicial branches of Government in the risk of prejudicing a matter awaiting or under adjudication in any New Zealand court including one awaiting sentencing.” I think the change that will apply to the Speaker for the exercise of that discretion is a much more preferable situation to one that is exposed to considerable risk as I believe the current wording of the Standing Order allows. 
As others have said freedom of speech is an important privilege that the Speaker claims on our behalf from the Governor-General after each general election it is something that the House jealously guards it is something that belongs to the whole House and it is not something that ought to be circumvented. I believe that entering into an arrangement with a journalist to circumvent a suppression order would actually be an intolerable abuse of that privilege. That is why I believe that the approach an individual MP would have to make to the Speaker would considerably minimise and possibly even remove the risk that the media would even approach an individual MP to have the sub judice matter referred to in Parliament. 
The recommendations to the Government to amend the Legislative Act 1908 updates the law which some of those appearing before the committee already considered existed to protect them. I have already mentioned that in respect of the Commonwealth Press Union. Its members had made the point to us in the committee that they sought to have qualified privilege apply as it did in an existing way. But when in fact we were provided with some information to back that up we found that absolute privilege did not exist nor did the qualified privilege to the use of certain proceedings and reports. I am glad that this has also represented an opportunity to resolve these protections that rightly apply for those who are reporting proceedings. There is absolute privilege for the modern technology that essentially does what the Hansard Office does and also qualified privilege for the use of proceedings in reports. 
Finally I am very pleased to add my weight to the recommendations to address  
Buchanan v Jennings 
. I believe that this is something we ought to have addressed earlier and it was the recommendation of a previous Privileges Committee report to this House. I have felt for a long time that the decision was not incorrect—of course I would not say that—but it was unfair. Its result was unfair because effective repetition—for example if asked whether one stood by the report or statement one had made in the House whether one was prepared to resile from it or not or simply one stating that one stood by something one had said in the House—is to me a choke on the freedom of speech. I believe that it is important we take the opportunity we have been given in terms of debating this report and adopting its recommendations and to finally resolve what I believe acts as an unnecessary fetter on what is an important privilege. It is one that this House as I said before will always jealously guard. 
Motion agreed to. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 28 May on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 One of the interesting things about the delivery of the Budget last week and the public commentary on it afterwards has been the way in which the Government has been greeted almost universally as having delivered exactly the right mix that is required for the times. I say “almost universally” because it has also been interesting to watch the Labour Party being totally caught in the headlights and unable to deal with this Budget in any concise or I suppose we could say organised fashion. 
At the start of the debate on the Appropriation (2009/10) Estimates Bill the Hon Phil Goff moved an amendment that amongst its many requests of the House suggested that the Budget needed to have a “plan to address the growing number of jobs lost and the increasing number of New Zealanders worried about losing their livelihoods and their homes.” At the same time we have Mr Goff out there railing against the decision to postpone payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Mr Goff appears not to understand that the money for those payments would have had to be borrowed. Each year that would have made a $2 billion addition to the growing deficit that the Government is currently trying to deal with. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No effect at all on the net debt. The member would know that if he understood it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Goff can sit over there for as long as he likes saying it would have had no effect but the reality is that when someone borrows money that creates debt. There is no way that someone can borrow money without having debt. The consequence of that borrowing might well have been that the various rating agencies throughout the world took a dimmer view of the New Zealand economy. 
It gets interesting here because Mr Goff says we should not listen to the rating agencies as they are the people who loaned into the US markets in the last few years. His classic response is to say those agencies said Enron had a triple A rating and all the rest of it so we should just ignore them. Well if New Zealand was to just ignore them we would pay the price of their putting a negative rating on us. The reality is that this Government past Governments and all Governments for as long as New Zealand has existed as a sovereign nation have borrowed and need to borrow at the most favourable rates. The effect of what Mr Goff is suggesting would have been perhaps a 1 to 1.5 percent increase in the mortgage rates of all the people out there whom he claims in his amendment to be concerned about. So he is saying his party wants the Government to go into more debt in order to try to hold up a superannuation fund that may or may not be successful over the years to come and in so doing Labour is quite happy for the mortgage rates of New Zealanders out there to be put up by 1 to 1.5 percent. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: What about the personal guarantees? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s right. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He is saying that is right. I ask him what sort of analysis he is getting there in Opposition. How many people in his research unit really understand anything about economics at all? 
The first point that needs to be made is that if the Superannuation Fund continued to receive its contributions at the current rate right out to 2030 at the very best it would have started to contribute to the payment of New Zealand superannuation at a rate of about 12 percent. That would mean that beyond 2030 the total amount of superannuation paid to New Zealanders under current entitlements from revenue collected at that time would be no less than 88 percent. Effectively that means that Mr Goff is prepared to say he wants a couple of generations of New Zealanders to pay higher interest rates for what might be a 12 percent discount on future superannuation payments. That is completely unacceptable. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: You’re cutting the pension Gerry. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Unfortunately Mr Goff has managed to convince some of the more gullible members in his caucus to believe in the sort of wizardry that he is trying to put out there such as the idea that we can just stack the bills up or whack it on the bill as has been suggested and expect future generations to pay for it. 
I heard Mr Jones over there ask about entitlements. I say to Mr Jones that he should breathe easy. I know that he is a man who is approaching 65 and that he is looking forward to collecting the pension. There is an absolute certainty that he will collect it and that successive generations of New Zealanders will collect it. A long time ago this country went through the argument about the age of entitlement and the percentage basis of the entitlement and all the rest of it. The National Government stands by those decisions completely utterly and totally to the extent that the Prime Minister has said he would resign if that was ever changed. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: He’ll be gone in 3 years. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well he may not be gone by 2030. Things are going very well at the moment I say to Mr Jones. Mr Key is a young man and by 2030 he will be just a young chap. He will be only 69 and what would be wrong with him continuing in the role of Prime Minister? I find the ageist attitude from the Labour Party is just a little too much to take. 
Mr Goff also expressed in his amendment concern about the livelihoods of New Zealanders. Another thing he does not seem to understand is that ensuring access to capital for businesses is paramount for the maintenance of the workforce. There is absolutely no question about that. Not only would Mr Goff’s recipe see mortgage rates rise but also it would cause business lending to become much more costly putting considerable stress on the businesses that employ many New Zealanders. Mr Goff wanted to talk about his recipe in the House even today suggesting that some Treasury official backs him up. He is saying there is more money to be made by borrowing and putting money into foreign stock markets than by saving the money and putting it back into the economy of New Zealand. I ask whether Mr Goff and his finance spokesperson Mr Cunliffe are prepared to give a few tips to New Zealanders about where they might put their money in order to make such fantastic returns on the stock market. The alleged Treasury advice—and I stress that it is “alleged” Treasury advice—suggests that this particular method would return some 6.75 percent. The history of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is that it has had an average return of just 3.65 percent since it started. 
We all know that if we ring up a broker and we have some sort of superannuation policy we are likely to be told that over a 30-year period we rely on about 10 to 15 good days in order to seriously move the funds forward. We know that in the last year thousands tens of thousands hundreds of thousands indeed millions of people throughout the world have had their retirement savings slashed to bits because those same funds had at least 10 to 15 bad days in a much shorter period of time. If Mr Goff and Mr Cunliffe know something that the rest of the world does not they need to share that information with Parliament today so that New Zealanders can make the decision to go down to their banks to raise loans and to put their borrowed money into the stock market or into other funds that Mr Cunliffe and Mr Goff seem to think would be very good for New Zealand. 
This Budget has focused on protecting jobs in the economy and indeed on creating jobs. In that regard I am delighted by the funding that has been committed to the fund for home insulation. Jeanette Fitzsimons and I have worked on that and we will be announcing further details of it on 18 June. We know it will effectively be a billion-dollar exercise because the Government contribution over the next 4 years of $323 million is just one-third of what will be spent on the insulation of New Zealand homes. Let us be clear that there are significant health benefits to be had through this programme. We are told that for a person who suffers from respiratory illness the cost of staying one night in Wellington Regional Hospital is about the same as the cost of insulating one home. Once again I congratulate the Greens on being able to get something out of a Government for once. Nine years of trying to cooperate with Labour gave them very very little indeed. It did not take a lot of convincing on our part that this was a very good policy and I am delighted to have been part of negotiating the policy and its design with Ms Fitzsimons. Appropriately this policy was announced prior to her stepping aside as co-leader of the Greens. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Last week my colleague the Green co-leader Russel Norman said that environment funding had been shaved to the scalp—shaved to the scalp. We know that for every dollar invested in our environment many many more dollars are returned in the form of clean water flood protection native forest regeneration tourism sustainable fisheries healthy forests and high-quality agricultural products. New Zealand’s economy is 100 percent dependent on our environment. So only the foolish would use the scarce funds we have in a recession in such a way as to reduce our medium-term economic prosperity and our long-term environmental prosperity. Investment in our environment is an investment in our economy. 
We need only look at the hard numbers to see this proved. Some research that was commissioned from the period 2004-07 showed that economic activities arising on public conservation land on the West Coast led to 1900 extra jobs and extra spending in that region of $200 million a year. The Fiordland National Park produced 1600 extra jobs and nearly $200 million a year was spent in the Southland and Queenstown Lakes districts. Work on the Abel Tasman National Park produced 370 jobs and resulted in $45 million a year spent in that region. Work on the Queen Charlotte Track produced 98 jobs and resulted in $9.5 million a year spent in Marlborough. At Te Papanui Conservation Park in Otago near where I live something like $136 million of freshwater services were provided from that conservation area to the Otago region. The Department of Conservation does essential work environmentally and economically but because of underfunding it is forced to triage species and ecosystems. It has to care intensively for the few often at the cost of the many which continue to decline. 
The Department of Conservation is mandated to advocate for our natural heritage by the Conservation Act but it is forced to ration its advocacy for our natural heritage as a result of the Government’s fiscal actions. These cuts come at a time when New Zealand desperately needs to protect the clean green brand that underpins many of our export industries as well as our tourism industry. This is a time when we should increase our efforts to restore our environment and to look after the wildlife and the wild places that make Aotearoa New Zealand unique. From 2007 the tourism industry alone in this country has been worth $20 billion to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand businesses. 
Last year under Labour the Department of Conservation was forced to restructure in order to save $8 million. But of course that was only a precursor to the new National Government’s crippling blow of a further cut in last week’s Budget—a cut that is $54 million deep. Communities around the country in long-established conservation organisations continue to pour their time and energy into protecting our water land and wildlife. The Government abandoned those organisations by cutting the Community Conservation Fund which is designed to support that local volunteer effort. Earlier today the Prime Minister described these cuts as modest and said it was not such a big ask to require the Department of Conservation to spend less in the current difficult economic times. Only 20 percent of the Department of Conservation estate receives the pest and weed control that is needed for it to thrive. The areas that do receive that service are already the highest-priority areas in the continuing battle to protect native trees native bird species and native plant species. The Minister of Conservation Tim Groser clearly knows nothing about the issues when he claims to be reducing low-priority pest and weed controls. Those areas that are of low priority get no service because this Government and previous Governments have failed to invest in that control. 
Similarly farmers fishers and tourism operators might respond to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Conservation by saying that it is not such a big ask to make protecting vital industries and the reputation of our country the Government’s highest priority and they may take issue with the Prime Minister for his description today of the conservation budget as excessive. On the contrary for New Zealand this budget is essential. The Bluegreens as Russel Norman said in his Budget speech will hang their heads in shame at the actions of the National-led Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: So they should. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I agree. As the Department of Conservation must reduce its work one wonders which further species and places will have to be abandoned. Which of our special places will the Department of Conservation no longer be able to defend? Which of our indigenous species does John Key think are OK to go extinct? That is the effect of last week’s Budget. It is outrageous. 
One area where our environmental protection laws are the weakest and where destruction and degradation continues—out of sight of course—is that of our oceans. Our ocean area is 15 times larger than our land area and we have recently gained the continental shelf to manage as well. There is no environmental regulation of the ocean beyond our coastal zone. We have no marine reserves in exclusive economic zone. Our much-vaunted oceans policy has been lost at sea for a decade. Scientists tell us that the oceans are acidifying and absorbing extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is changing the pH level of the sea. This makes it much harder for sea life such as corals shellfish and krill to create the shells and skeletons they need. The impact of this on our marine biodiversity will be devastating and it will damage our kai moana resources and the communities and the jobs on which they rely. The UN reports that 80 percent of the world’s coral reefs may die within decades. Let us be clear that the seafood industry in this country contributes $1.7 billion to GDP and more than 26000 full-time jobs. Those jobs and that contribution are at risk if we do not protect our marine environment. 
In this context of weak laws vast geographic areas and vital economic interests budget cuts to fisheries compliance including cuts to the observer programmes are a form of economic suicide as well as being a form of environmental genocide. Members may have noticed recently that the seafood industry is running TV advertisements promoting its supposedly sustainable and environmentally friendly credentials to the New Zealand public. Indeed the Government has provided funding to the seafood industry to seek Marine Stewardship Council certification for a further five species. But this is utter “greenwash” by the seafood industry. The fishing industry knows that many of its practices are not sustainable yet rather than move to responsible and ecologically acceptable practices it seeks to woo the public with feel-good public relations. But it is the fishing industry that will suffer if our marine environment is allowed to degrade any further and our fish stocks fall any lower. It is its industry that will suffer and its jobs that will go. We cannot afford that at this time of economic recession. 
Similarly this Government has cut biosecurity surveillance by more than 10 percent. This is an invitation for disaster and economic hardship. These surveillance measures are essential to protect both our ecosystems and our export resources. On this point I think the Government will find that environmental groups and industry groups are agreed. On this point the Government will find that the Green Party and Federated Farmers agree that we need good-quality biosecurity surveillance not more cuts. Our future depends on our environment yet despite National’s platitudes about our children being our future this Government has cut off at the knees the opportunity to develop in our children the high level of ecological literacy that they and we need if they are to continue to work to protect the environment on which their future economic prosperity depends. 
The slashing of funding to education for sustainability is a disaster for our future. We already have something like 675 schools in the Enviroschools programme; that is nearly one-quarter of New Zealand schools are involved in the programme. Something like 210000 children benefit from the Enviroschools programme the Matauranga Taiao and the Education for Sustainability teaching advisers. John Key obviously thinks that conservation gets too much money and that the $1 billion allocated over 4 years is excessive. Yet we know that the conservation funding has in the period 2004-07 produced some $22.5 billion in returns to our country and to our economy. But despite the facts it appears that this Government will choose foolishness over wisdom choose short-term profits for the few over the long-term economic and environmental prosperity of our children and their welfare. Kia ora. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to briefly congratulate the member who has just resumed her seat Metiria Turei on behalf of the Labour Opposition. We congratulate her on becoming the new co-leader of the Green Party and look forward to working closely with her and her colleagues in the years to come to demonstrate to New Zealanders that there is an alternative to the current Government: one that is red with a good hint of green. Growth that is not sustainable is not true growth; it is stealing from the future to give to the past. Although we may not have all the perfect answers we look forward to working together with the Greens on the same pathway. We know that that pathway is not slashing the conservation budget gutting the Resource Management Act weakening controls on our environment by the Overseas Investment Office review— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Squandering fisheries. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —squandering fisheries or pretending that climate change does not exist. New Zealanders face a clear choice and it will come from this side of the House. 
The importance of the Budget debate is to provide the public an opportunity to reflect in more depth on the issues that have been raised in the Budget. It is incumbent on us to understand how this Government and the Prime Minister can look in the eye the 50-something-year-old New Zealanders who have been told in the last week in effect that they can no longer count on superannuation as they knew it that the superannuation accord is dead and gone and that there is no way that their pension can be funded on current assumptions. How does Bill English look in the eye the young people of this country—the bright and hopeful Generation X and Generation Y or the vulnerable Maori and Pasifika young people—who will be the first to be thrown on the unemployment queue and say to those people that not only do they have to make it on their own but they have to pay for the superannuation of our old people and that the Government does not have the courage to partially pre-fund them now. That is why in the last week the level of insecurity in our nation has grown as the older and middle-aged New Zealanders wonder how they will provide for themselves and their families and our younger people wonder why on earth it should be left to them to make up the difference. There are 37 billion reasons why there is no free lunch and the Government is not answering any of them. 
If we strip it down there are four key issues that are wrong with this Budget. Firstly it replaces one great con with another. It says there is a free lunch: we can have all the superannuation benefits we have now we do not need to pre-fund superannuation and we will not have to make up the amount out of taxes. Secondly it exposes for ever the great con of election 2008. A party campaigned for tax cuts it knew it could not afford and rammed them through Parliament in a charade before Christmas and now has to own up and say the cuts could never have been done. Thirdly this Budget lacks vision and strategy it is a “Road to Nowhere Budget” it slashes the programmes that would have fuelled the engine of growth and it slashes the confidence of businesses in this country that there is a pathway through this thicket of recession. Finally and perhaps of most concern to members opposite it is a political time bomb. Although it preserves something of the previous Government’s programmes for 1 year it defers to next year and the one after which happens to be an election year the savage cuts that are unavoidable if projections are to be believed. Members opposite know this. 
I return to the first of those four themes. Budget 2009 replaces one great con with another. It is the great con of superannuation; 37 billion reasons why it cannot be true that we can have our lunch and eat it too. There are 37 billion reasons why our young people either are being asked to pay the bill for middle and older New Zealanders or will have their pension entitlements cut. They cannot have it both ways. Mr English cannot have it both ways. The superannuation accord is broken. Superannuation entitlements as we knew them are dead and New Zealand has been plunged into a generational debate about superannuation that I bet that Government did not want to have because it has been caught telling porkies once again on the same day it broke the last monumental con to New Zealanders. 
Let us reflect on the only two real counterarguments that Mr English has raised to that proposition. The first is that pre-funding does not matter as the Superannuation Fund was only ever going to pay 12 percent of the cost of superannuation. We checked back on the previous Government’s analysis and statements and it turns out that after tax the fund was going to pay 25 percent of the cost of superannuation. That is now largely gone because the Government has created a $37 billion hole with no way of filling it. Mr English repeated the second counterargument today in question time. He asked if I had a mortgage whether I would invest in superannuation. Well most New Zealanders have mortgages and we have been encouraging them to have savings and a superannuation plan without which this country’s finances are screwed. So of course it is reasonable to have a mortgage and a superannuation plan because people cannot eat their houses. They either have to sell their houses to pay for their retirement or they have to have a pension plan too. Thirdly it is completely illegitimate to say that a Government is borrowing for superannuation any more than they might be borrowing to fund tax cuts of which it gave one-third to the top 3 percent of earners. They cannot have that argument both ways either. 
The second great theme of this Budget is that is exposes the great con of 2008. There has been a lot of public resonance on this one and it is not because the Government is repealing the tax cuts. Everyone knew the tax cuts were ridiculous everyone knew they were unaffordable and people are relieved to have the truth told. The tax cuts were ridiculous because on 1 April the Government took $750 million off the poor and gave it to the wealthy. The Government gave one-third of the total value of its 1 April tax cuts to the top 3 percent of earners. No wonder people are glad to see the tax cuts go! 
Hon Member 
: How much did they get? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: One-third to 3 percent of earners. Look at the members of the Government hanging their heads in shame. Did they really campaign throughout 2008 to do that? 
I note the cynicism of it. Mr Key is a smart guy. New Zealanders think he is a smart guy. He was on the Federal Reserve Board of New York no less which is a pretty good achievement for a boy from Christchurch. He expects us to believe that Lehman Brothers and his old firm Merrill Lynch could have hit the wall and he did not notice. Two months before New Zealand’s general election Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. One month before the election the IMF warned of a catastrophic recession yet Mr Key did not notice. He gave his personal guarantee to 3 years of tax cuts. He wrote that down on a piece of paper and here is the rub: that personal guarantee is worth exactly the same as his personal guarantee on superannuation. That is why New Zealanders are worried now. 
I have only 1½ minutes left and there is so much more to say; I will have another call later. Let me introduce two other key things we have to say. The first is that this Budget is a road to nowhere. As Rod Oram questioned what was Bill English doing for the last 6 months? Could members imagine even Sir Roger Douglas being made Minister of Finance and twiddling his thumbs for 6 months while Rome burnt? There are no new ideas in this Budget. There is no positive solution. There is no programme for growth. It is a road to nowhere. Even the programmes that were there—the research and development tax cuts KiwiSaver economic development with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to get exports up—are all gone or cut back. What is there to replace them? There is nothing. There is no vision no strategy and no plan which means no confidence for New Zealanders and Kiwi businesses that they can grow their way through. Was that not the great lesson of the 1930s? Mickey Savage and Franklin Roosevelt built confidence with a plan. Bill English has no plan and that will drive New Zealand deeper into debt and deeper into the ground. 
Finally there was the political time bomb. National did not want to break the commitment that it would completely gut social spending in the first year so with a bit of sleight of hand it managed to keep most of it going for a year and then flatlined it. Only an idiot would pretend that there are no automatic inflators in health costs or superannuation. As a former Minister of Health I can tell members that one cannot avoid about $500 million a year of extra spending just to stand still because of the costs of medicines and our ageing population. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 26 May. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying when the debate was interrupted the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill has a number of fundamental principles attached to it one of which is the provision of stable housing. It attempts to clarify the rights and obligations of both tenants and landlords. That is important because we need to recognise that like the employment situation the residential tenancy situation is not always a level playing field and the stakes for people are quite different. For people renting their house that is their home. It is a place where they live with their family and bring up their family. Hopefully they make connections in their community and their children go to school there and so on. Although it is important to get right that balance of the rights of both tenants and landlords it is also important to know that tenants have a lot at stake in terms of their residential property. 
So when we look at this bill we see that some changes have been made to the original Labour bill and I want to highlight them for people. We have supported this bill going to a select committee but we will be scrutinising some of these changes. In the bill that Labour put forward we talked about limiting the tenant liability for damage to their rental premises to 4 weeks’ rent if the Tenancy Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant neither caused the damage intentionally or recklessly nor intentionally or recklessly encouraged or permitted another person to damage the premises. We also allowed for tenants’ breaches such as subletting without consent overpopulating the premises or becoming a problem neighbour to be subject to exemplary damages as an alternative to eviction. That is important because eviction means ultimately that people are on the street without a house in some situations. Those provisions have been removed from the bill. So during the select committee consideration we will certainly be looking to improve the bill along those lines and if necessary introducing amendments to that effect. 
Clause 35 would require the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in a case where a tenant has permitted someone else to assault or threaten to assault specified persons including the tenant’s landlord and neighbours. That has related to a particular Housing New Zealand Corporation case of recent incident. In that case gang members staying with Housing New Zealand Corporation - tenanted partners allegedly threatened neighbours. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call as we go forward with the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill this evening. It is great to be able to welcome the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley to the House tonight. He has introduced the bill into the House and it is great to see him here doing such a wonderful job with it. 
It is important that the bill sets the basis of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. It is a good thing that we review the various parts of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as we take it forward into a new century and consider the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. The fact is we have all been tenants at some stage of our lives. The bill is not about the rich versus the poor; it is about the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. Right now many MPs in this House continue to be tenants; they rent properties in the Greater Wellington central business district. It is important that we continue to update the legislation as time goes on; it is important legislation. 
One of the key features of the bill is that it will extend the Act’s coverage. One point which I saw briefly is that the Act will be rolled out to cover boarding houses. Some members will remember that towards the end of the previous Labour Government’s term there was a significant issue about the way in which the landlords of boarding houses were treating their tenants. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: That’s why we put them in the bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is good to see Maryan Street who was the Minister of Housing at that time in the House tonight and good to hear that she brought that matter into the legislation at that point in time. It is very important that we consider the relationship between boarding-house owners and their tenants. While I am talking about the previous Minister I must say that she brought into a previous bill an item regarding the tenant’s requirement— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Liability! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Liability for damage. It got defeated in the House if I recall correctly. It is one measure that I do not see going forward in any sort of legislation. It is irresponsible for us to take away the liability of a tenant for damage caused while that person is the tenant. It is irresponsible and it takes away the responsibility of the relationship. When one takes on the tenancy of a property one is responsible for that property. If a tenant holds a party and someone comes along as a guest—or even not as a guest—and kicks a hole in the door then I am sorry but the tenant is responsible. As I see it it will remain that way. That is a small point I wanted to make. 
There is a range of changes in the bill. They extend the Act’s coverage as I have mentioned. They clarify the responsibility for outgoings so that it is clear who is responsible for rates electricity charges and those sorts of expenses. We are clarifying the status of body corporate rules and providing remedies should they change during the course of a tenancy. We are introducing new processes for terminating and renewing tenancies. I think it is extremely important to know how they will work within the contract. 
We are encouraging landlords and tenants to comply with their obligations. At the end of the day that is the important thing. The reality is that by far the majority of tenancies in this country work extremely well. There is a strong relationship between the landlord and the tenant. In fact it is in the landlord’s interest for the tenant to remain there and to continue to pay the rent. It is in the landlord’s interest to keep the tenant happy. That has been my experience and I believe that that is the way that the legislation will be implemented as we go forward. I recommend the bill to the House. It is good legislation. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committee consider the bill; 
 that the committee report to the House on or before 5 October 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before Thursday 10 September 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday on a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
For far too long the residents of our cities and towns have been subject to excessive noise danger and in some cases intimidation from people using vehicles in an antisocial manner. The extent to which this problem has got out of control was seen in February this year when a lone police officer was attacked when he approached approximately 300 illegal street racers and their supporters in Christchurch. In a similar incident last week a lone female aviation security service officer was attacked by a mob of around 100 illegal street racers as she carried out a routine task at Christchurch International Airport. She was surrounded by those people and the windows of her vehicle were smashed. She must have feared for her life. 
Although the activities that I have described are clearly already illegal this legislation is about putting a stop to the antisocial behaviour that can sometimes lead to that kind of pack mentality and thuggish behaviour. Currently apprehending a driver caught in the act of illegal street racing is difficult. Although existing legislation allows vehicle confiscation the actual rate of confiscation is very low—less than 2 percent. This bill will enhance the powers of police and road-controlling authorities to tackle illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that comes with it. It will also adjust penalties so that they are appropriate to the level of offending and they discourage repeat offending. This bill takes a comprehensive approach to the problem with 16 changes to existing provisions. In developing this bill the Ministry of Transport has worked closely with the New Zealand Police as well as the Ministry of Justice and the courts. 
Of course this bill alone will not completely solve the problem. These issues go wider than the transport sector. But together with the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill introduced by the Minister of Police the provisions in this bill will send a clear message that illegal street racing and irresponsible vehicle use is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. This bill will allow road controlling authorities like local authorities or in the case of State highways the New Zealand Transport Agency to create by-laws that prevent vehicles cruising city streets—that is circling the same streets without good reason in a manner that draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the vehicle being driven or creates a convoy that impedes traffic flow. I am sure members will appreciate that such an activity at a late hour with a loud exhaust can be extremely disruptive for communities and businesses. 
An example is Bealey Avenue in Christchurch where the level of disruption is so high that motel owners have lost business and a hospital was forced to move patients. To support any such by-law the bill will also empower police to attach warning notices to vehicles that are used in breach of illegal street racing by-laws. If a vehicle is used in a second or subsequent offence within 90 days it will be impounded. This bill will also require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective metered noise test. Currently we have requirements for exhaust noise that are enforced at warrant of fitness checks but some drivers will swap or tamper with their exhaust once they have obtained their warrant of fitness. This provision is designed to reduce and control this practice. 
This bill will rebalance the penalties for breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver licensing system so they can be more effectively enforced. These types of offences are frequently detected at police enforcement operations that target illegal street racing. Conditions of the licensing system include limitations on the hours during which a restricted licence holder can drive and restrictions around carrying passengers. These conditions are there for good reason: we know that young and inexperienced drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes at night. They can be easily distracted when driving and encouraged by their peers to show off and take risks. However these licence conditions are often ignored. What is more the $400 infringement fee for those breaches is also often ignored or pooled and shared by all occupants of the car or paid by parents. In short its deterrent value is low. This bill will reduce this fee to $100 and will instead increase the demerit points for graduated driver licence system condition breaches. We know that it is demerit points that have the real deterrent value for young drivers and it is important that that message is clear. 
This increase in demerit points will not apply to those who fail to display an L-plate. Demerit points for that offence will remain at the current level. We know that on many occasions once police leave the scene after issuing a ticket for a licence breach the novice driver will drive away once again in breach of his or her licence conditions. This bill will also give police a greater range of powers to deal with drivers who breach licence conditions. They include the power to direct a vehicle to be driven to a specified place to forbid the person to drive to take possession of the vehicle keys to take other necessary steps to immobilise the vehicle or to move it to a place where it does not constitute a traffic hazard. 
Currently police with the assistance of qualified vehicle inspectors conduct operations to target illegally modified vehicles. The inspectors usually operate from a temporary site within the area of operation. However while police may direct a vehicle to the site by the roadside for inspection they do not have the power to direct a vehicle to be driven from the road site to an inspection site. It does not take very great powers of imagination to consider the outcome of a scenario where drivers of illegally modified vehicles are asked to voluntarily proceed to an inspection site. This bill will empower police to direct a vehicle suspected of not complying with vehicle standards to be inspected at a specified place of inspection nearby. This will greatly assist police in their ability to crack down on illegally modified vehicles. 
We know that people who participate in illegal street racing often make an effort to obscure vehicle registration plates or use false or stolen plates. There is an infringement fee for this offence but as I have already explained monetary penalties alone can be ineffective against people who have neither the funds nor the inclination to pay them. This bill will allow for the issuing of 25 demerit points for registration plate offences on top of the current infringement fee. 
This bill will toughen up on those who fail to stop for police. That offence can lead to high-speed pursuits where the offenders drive recklessly in their efforts to evade the police. In 2008 80 pursuits resulted in the offender crashing. The current penalty for failing to stop when directed to by police is a fine and 35 demerit points. For many drivers especially those who could face a prison sentence there is a temptation to flee and risk adding only a fine to their punishment. This bill will introduce a mandatory 3-month minimum driver licence disqualification for evading a police request to stop. It will also require failing to stop when directed to by an enforcement officer to be taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing for dangerous and/or reckless driving offences. In addition it will introduce a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months and a mandatory 12-month licence disqualification for a third or subsequent failure-to-stop offence. 
Under the current law police can require a vehicle owner or hirer to provide details of the driver after an offence is committed in a vehicle. A driver who does not comply is liable to a fine of up to $10000. However many drivers respond to this simply by stating that they have no knowledge of who was driving their vehicle when the incident took place. Unfortunately there is an incentive in the law for owners especially if they were the driver to refuse to give this information and thereby avoid a significant penalty. This is a particular problem when the driver already has a high level of demerit points and the alleged driving offence is punishable by demerit points. The current maximum fine of $10000 does not have deterrent value for offenders who have committed serious driving offences. Courts rarely award anywhere near this maximum amount and most fines range from $200 to $300. The bill will increase the maximum fine to $20000 to highlight the need for more substantial fines. This will increase owner responsibility and help to improve road safety. 
Furthermore this bill will make mandatory the impoundment of vehicles involved in illegal street racing or sustained loss of traction like burnouts. Currently this is at the discretion of the enforcement officer. Making impoundment mandatory makes it consistent with other impoundment provisions and more accurately reflects the fact that these activities are extremely dangerous not only for the drivers but also for other road users and bystanders. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I need to be clear that Labour supports this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just as we support further measures to help combat the problem of illegal street racing. We have said we will work with National to achieve that goal. However we do not believe that the Government’s new bills will add anything to the current laws that are already in place. 
It was pleasing to hear the Minister of Police Judith Collins acknowledging the work done by the previous Government to tackle boy racers and reckless and dangerous driving. The previous Labour Government did many years of work to reduce the incidence of young driver offending. Underpinning our work was not only concern about the nuisance caused by illegal street racing but concern for young and novice drivers speedsters and those who persistently break the road rules. Labour implemented many measures to crack down on reckless and dangerous driving but we need to find ways to change the behaviour if we really want to end it. I remain to be convinced that this particular bill will change that behaviour and that the current legislation already in place is not sufficient. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which will consider the bill I look forward to the discussion. 
To some extent there have always been noisy young drivers—at least since cars have been invented. This problem is not new but I suspect that it is exacerbated by faster cars and easier access to alcohol by young people. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for residents who have to tolerate the awful behaviour of illegal street racers. It is even worse when such behaviour results in injury or death such as the recent case of a former Glenfield College student who was struck by an out-of-control car driven by a young driver on Manuka Road. Although this case was characterised—as so often happens—as a boy-racer incident alcohol and speed were the main contributing factors in those tragic circumstances. Alcohol and speed are the evils not the owning of a car. 
I also sympathise with communities that are struggling with exhaust noise and Fatboy mufflers. To that extent the proposal in this legislation to order vehicles off the road for excessive exhaust noises and to require them to undergo an objective measured noise test are worth looking at to see whether they enhance existing laws although I will suggest that as the police have said to me it is a case of catch them if you can. 
However as I have already said I believe that many of the actions permitted under this bill can already be undertaken within existing legislation particularly Labour’s Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003. I propose to outline my reason for saying so. 
The explanatory note of the bill states that it empowers enforcement officers “to attach warning notices to motor vehicles that are used in breaches of qualifying bylaws and to impound the motor vehicle on a second or subsequent offence within 90 days:”. Under existing law when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race an unnecessary exhibition of speed or a burnout the officer may impound the vehicle for 28 days at the owner’s expense effective immediately. 
Under the bill as stated in the explanatory note there is a proposal to “require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective (metered) noise test to reduce the occurrence of exhaust swapping or tampering:”. Under existing law when a vehicle is impounded for racer offences its warrant of fitness is automatically cancelled. This means that on release from impoundment the vehicle will have to undergo a new warrant of fitness inspection and any illegal modifications such as lowered suspension extra lights and noisy exhausts will have to be rectified. 
The explanatory note also states that the bill proposes that “impoundment of motor vehicles involved in illegal street racing or sustained loss of traction currently at the discretion of the enforcement officer be made mandatory:”. It also facilitates the confiscation and seizure of impounded motor vehicles. Under existing law when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race an unnecessary exhibition of speed or a burnout the officer may impound the vehicle for 28 days at the owner’s expense effective immediately. If a person is subsequently convicted of operating a vehicle in an unauthorised race or performing wheel spins the penalties are the same as the penalties for reckless or dangerous driving. If no one is injured the court may sentence a person to a maximum of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4500 and it must disqualify the person from driving for 6 months or more. If someone is injured or killed under current law the court may sentence a person to a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20000 and it must disqualify the person from driving for 1 year or more. In addition the court may confiscate the vehicle if it wishes. If the person is convicted of racing offences committed twice within 4 years the court must confiscate the vehicle except in cases of extreme hardship. 
Another proposal in the bill is to “require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective (metered) noise test to reduce the occurrence of exhaust swapping or tampering:”. I have mentioned this already but under existing law another provision is that if any vehicle’s exhaust is considered to be louder than the original exhaust fitted by the manufacturer the vehicle must be given a green sticker and those vehicles must apply for a new warrant of fitness. 
The bill proposes to “give enforcement officers a range of powers to deal with drivers breaching the conditions of the graduated driver-licensing system including the powers to direct a motor vehicle to be driven to a specified place to forbid the person to drive or to take possession of the ignition keys or other keys of the motor vehicle or to take other necessary steps to immobilise the motor vehicle or remove it to a place where it does not constitute a traffic hazard:”. Under existing law if a police officer finds someone racing or performing wheel spins the officer may either charge the person—in other words the person has to go to court—or charge the person and impound the vehicle. The officer may also choose to simply issue a warning. 
As I have outlined there are many existing provisions but dealing with the bill before us I agree with the proposed changes to breaches of the graduated driver-licensing system and note that some of these changes were mooted by the Labour Government after consultation with public and road safety stakeholders and were reported back at the end of 2007. That consultation confirmed the view that demerit points are a far more effective deterrent than fines. So I look forward to considering more closely the measures proposed to discourage breaches of the graduated licensing system. The bill proposes to decrease the infringement fee for all breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver licensing system because fines may be paid by parents pooled and shared by occupants of the car or ignored completely. Instead the bill proposes to increase the demerit points for such breaches from 25 to 35 points. That makes sense. 
Some people call for the driving age to be increased but I am not convinced that that is the answer. Measures such as zero tolerance of alcohol consumption by young drivers would have a much greater impact. One of the things that have come to my notice when considering the issues of young drivers reckless drivers and the graduated licensing system is the large number of students who drive their cars to school these days. It is very different from when I was at school. The police tell me that breaches such as driving with unlicensed passengers or driving outside the prescribed hours occur reasonably frequently among these students and that it is often their parents who are most indignant when their little Johnny is pulled up. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Just wait until the first car’s impounded. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right! Other measures such as the issuing of 25 demerit points for registration plate offences and a minimum 3-month driver-licensing disqualification for failing to stop when signalled to do so by an enforcement officer may well be useful to consider. 
I am however somewhat intrigued by the definition of “cruising” that appears in the bill. I wonder whether that definition appears anywhere else. In my day cruising had a different meaning but anyway I think the discussion in the select committee on that topic will be somewhat lively. 
I look forward to scrutinising the bill and hearing from the public on these matters. But I would caution the House and the Minister that although I know good intent is behind the bill there is no silver bullet and I do not think this bill is that. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and commend the Minister of Transport for bringing the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill before the House for its first reading. I also note with pleasure that the Labour Opposition supports the bill’s referral to a select committee and I look forward as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to working constructively and positively with Ms Fenton and her colleagues. This legislation is needed. I do not feel any need at all to go back through the clauses and provisions of the Land Transport Act; the Minister did that superbly well. I will make a couple of observations. 
The first is that this Government once again is acting decisively and quickly in the interests of the community. The community wants this measure the Government is acting and it is good that there will be agreement across the House on this legislation. I reflect on how it could be that in this country as a result of the behaviour of boy racers patients in a Christchurch hospital had to be moved out of road-facing rooms. There was a time in this country when that would never ever have been necessary. The lesson for the boy racers coming from this bill is that the scales are being tipped against them. Boy racers may have become accustomed to ignoring the law to flouting it and to believing that there were no consequences. This bill begins to change that. The message is clear: the community and this Parliament will no longer put up with having the law treated with contempt. This bill makes significant steps forward as I say in shifting the balance to the good people of the community. I commend it to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou. Before I stand and support other speakers I will acknowledge the success enjoyed by Metiria Turei in her new status as a co-leader Te Ropu Kakariki and it is a pleasure to see such an obliging progressive and future-orientated Maori woman taking such a position of responsibility in a minority party. I wish her well in the future. 
As my colleagues have said this is a rare occasion: I find myself agreeing with the Hon Steven Joyce the Minister in charge of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. However the other person I agree with in commending this bill to go to the select committee is Clayton Cosgrove. To borrow an expression of a slightly divine nature he did the Lord’s work in highlighting the hazardous nature of the owners of these cars or the operators of these cars and brought legislation to the House in times gone by. We discovered that despite what this House does in relation to exercising its sovereignty—the sovereignty of Parliament—once the legislation is enacted and once the regulatory scheme is implemented it falls into the lap of the judiciary. In the form of democracy we practise we have the Diceyean split. In the classic Westminster model we make the law the judiciary construes the law and the executive executes the law. 
I say to the Minister bringing forward this legislation that he should not overlook the challenges that the existing code has. It contains a range of punitive measures which to date the courts have been reluctant to visit upon these perpetual recidivist wretched and villainous offenders who destroy the good peace of that English countryside atmosphere down there in Christchurch. That really is the challenge for us as parliamentarians especially those of us who will be on the select committee listening to the submissions and refining this law. Law needs to be written in such a way that it does not just please the pugilistic tendencies of the current Minister. Rather it is designed— 
Chris Tremain 
: Pugilistic tendencies? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That is part of Ngapuhi dialect; it may not be in Hawke’s Bay. Law must be designed so that it can be implemented and enforced by the courts. 
For the purposes of the record let us identify what some of the problems have been. Mr Joyce and Darien Fenton have alerted us to the fact that God-fearing garden-variety Kiwis as Mr Peachey said in hospital and other places have been driven to distraction. There was the dreadful incident where the woman working for airport security in the South Island was attacked. I think that has less to do with kids wanting to race fast cars and more to do with thuggery criminality and I should imagine drugs and alcohol. The sooner those people are rounded up the better for the reputation of people who actually enjoy fast cars and motorbikes. I come from the far north where it never rains and it is constantly winterless. One way in which we deal with these sorts of challenges happens in a little township called Taipa. It is a pleasant harmonious place so it never sees Hone Harawira. However we have there a North Auckland Tai Tokerau version carved out of sandstone. I would enjoin Mr Joyce when he goes up there to put the culvert under the road near our township in Mangonui. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’s nodding his head. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes; Wayne Brown assures me that the Minister has committed to saving the local environment and to putting a culvert under there. 
Chris Tremain 
: He’ll personally dig it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: He is digging enough holes; we do not need him to dig one up there. However the consequence of having this speedway is that those families—those kids their parents and the teenage lads—can go there burn tyres and let off steam. Bizarrely enough it is only a couple of hundred metres from the marae. Given that it is one of our marae called Karipori named for the return of the Gallipoli veterans of the Maori Pioneer Battalion there have been various loud noises coming from parties there so I guess the events compete with each other from time to time. But the point is that those of us who want to drive a better outcome for the situation where people are breaking the law by using these cars in this fashion should not overlook the fact that they have to go somewhere. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And they will. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: As my senior colleague says they will find some space. 
I say to Mr Joyce that there is the ongoing difficulty of who will own the car. I look forward one day to a cartoon that will show Mr Joyce and possibly Minister Collins being responsible for taking granny’s waka or mother’s waka because we should not underestimate the infinite ingenuity of the younger generation— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Only if granny doesn’t know what it is. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I did not talk about Minister Collins’ granny. That was Steven Joyce and those guys. I did not refer to her in that fashion. The select committee will need to look at that issue—that is whether people will seek to make an ass of the law by simply circumventing those provisions. I think that that will take a great deal of the committee’s time and attention. In effecting a change to people’s driving behaviour and how they relate to vehicles we should draw a distinction between people who use vehicles as a missile or a projection of their own distorted personalities and people who are just out there to do harm to others create mayhem and hurt innocent members of the public. They should be preyed upon on a regular basis. 
I refer to the point that Minister Collins made about this bill being a sudden answer to a longstanding problem. I will not borrow those tired metaphors about “crusher” etc. but the reality is that she has refused to give suitable credit to the work that Clayton Cosgrove completed in this area. These are iterative things. Each politician who takes an interest in a certain matter convinces his or her colleagues and then the force of Parliament is brought to bear. There is not some apocalyptic response and there is not some single conclusive word. I think it behoves the Minister if she wants a win-win situation when this bill comes back to the House to ensure that the members who are on the committee take a very pragmatic and open-minded approach to the ideas that will inevitably come from our side of the House. Mr Joyce has made a number of remarks about all sides. Far be it from me to be partisan on this troublesome issue. However I will not be standing before some granny or mother who discovers that her flash car in Tolaga Bay—oh that is a waka not a car; that is a hoiho—will be confiscated. There will end up being a little bit of wriggle room in the hands of judges. I encourage Minister Collins and those members of the committee to adopt that spirit. 
Apparently under this law councils can ban what is to be called cruising. [ 
Interruption 
] I have this image I say to Mr Tremain. I know that Mr Heatley is a bit of a cruiser around Whangarei but he has now abandoned Whangarei. He does not live there. He has shut his office. His office has closed. I know that the member who represents Horowhenua has a reputation for cruising but when he goes around Foxton and Levin no one is awake so it does not make any difference. I can just imagine the Minister of Police in a big V8 cruising around searching for offenders finding people who are wandering around in a souped-up waka and pouncing on them from a great height—a cruiser looking for a bruiser. 
I will finish on a more important note. Many people have been driven to distraction over this issue and we support the effort that the Minister is bringing to the House. We look forward to working in a collegial and constructive way to bring back a law that is capable of being implemented by the judiciary so that it hurts the people who deserve to be penalised and does not represent unnecessary levels of regulatory creep. I am noticing a tendency of this new Government to become like a nanny State in regulating against everything. It is starting to infringe and constrict and it is starting to limit the liberties of us as citizens. It really must stop. Thank you very much. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill being referred to the select committee. As the previous speaker Darien Fenton said in her elaboration on the bill we are not necessarily convinced that all of these new measures are required to deal with street racing and the particular problems of road safety noise and public nuisance that ensue particularly for people in the neighbourhood. We will be interested in going through the select committee process to see whether each of the proposed measures is needed or whether they are covered by existing legislation. 
Before discussion in the select committee we do support the idea of demerit points rather than fines but we are always a bit worried about a lack of flexibility in law and making the impoundment of cars involved in street racing mandatory in certain situations is not necessarily the best course. It is going beyond the existing provisions for some flexibility by enforcement officers. I think it is good to have that flexibility. 
As has been pointed out the definition of cruising can be rather broad. In fact I am worried how it could apply to some politicians. The word can have two definitions. One definition says that cruising creates a convoy that is formed otherwise than in trade and impedes traffic flow. I have been around the electorate of Mt Albert of late. I have seen convoys of cars sometimes with red sometimes with blue and sometimes with green on them going around and formed otherwise than in trade. Or are we defining trade as the political trade in which case we might be excluded? It is true that the longer the convoy in a political procession the more it impedes traffic flow. We may be in line for cruising as political parties engaging in the by-election in Mt Albert. I draw that fact to members’ attention. 
The other definition of cruising draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven. Again that is fairly broad because sometimes at traffic lights people will just rev up their engines a little bit. It is not of great concern. But if people’s cars are making a really prolonged loud noise then it is of concern. I am just a bit worried about the breadth of that definition. 
Then we throw by-laws into this. Sometimes by-laws can be useful but it is the police under national jurisdiction who enforce these laws. We do not want too many by-laws that create inconsistencies in the application of the law. Sure we can create a by-law and Bealey Avenue in Christchurch was mentioned as a place where boy racers tend to have a go on a Saturday night. We could make a by-law that they should not drive down Bealey Avenue but then they will just move to another street. A by-law does not necessarily solve the problem. What Shane Jones said about the creation of places away from populated areas for people to do their speed-running and wheelies and all that they like to do is a much better solution combined with the provision of more social alternatives for young people on a Saturday night or Sunday or whenever they do it. That is a challenge for society rather than just coming down totally with the heavy hand of the law. 
I think there are other problems involved too that need to be addressed as has been referred to. Alcohol is a big issue as is binge drinking and often but not always that is associated with boy racers. That is the dangerous edge of it and it creates a lot of the accidents. A lot of it relates to having the right police resources. Bealey Avenue is not too far from the Christchurch Police Station. If the police know as they do that boy racers will regularly be there then being present with the right number of officers and applying the existing law is perhaps a better way to go. We are particularly worried about the bill that is to follow this bill’s first reading and which is associated with it. It is the one that allows for the crushing of cars. I think that goes too far but we will speak about that further when that particular debate takes place. 
We are concerned that this bill may go a little too far. I think Parliament has to address the alienation of some young people and the fact that their only way of expressing themselves collectively seems to be by having cars that create these loud noises and annoy people. We need to find the root of the problem and provide outlets for them. One of the outlets is countryside tracks. It is not all wrong. Motor racing is very popular amongst New Zealanders. Often these people are engaged on their own behalf with their own cars or that of their parents and if it is in a safe place and away from causing any public nuisance then it is not necessarily bad. So we do not want to infringe too much on the civil liberties of people. 
With those few comments the Green Party will be looking at the detail of the bill and listening closely to the submissions to see which if any of those provisions are absolutely required. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to indicate our support also for the bill at least at the first reading stage but before getting to the speech I have prepared I just want to touch on comments made by the last speaker which I think I could summarise as: “What’s really needed here is some nice healthy safe outlets for these people”—I will come to what I call them in a moment—“and if we only had some nice safe healthy outlets for these people who want to do burnouts and rev-ups and whatever else they do then we’d be fine.” 
Well we do have those outlets. There is a drag racing strip south of Auckland. Whenever I have driven past it on a weekend it is almost never used. I think I have seen it once or twice with a big crowd. There are car-rallying clubs where roads are closed and if people wish to drive at high speed and take their car out on a tree they can. I can imagine the thrill of that. I have certainly been a youth in a car and as the previous speaker said there is motor racing and stock car racing all of which are legal outlets for people who wish to get a thrill from speed and from cars and from noise and from contest. So it is not a matter of a lack of outlets. In my view it is a matter of lack of discipline and lack of respect for other people’s rights. It has been a pleasure to hear speakers on the other side of the House with whom I can almost wholly agree—among them the Hon Shane Jones. He and I are probably fairly far apart on the political spectrum but I could not disagree with much of what he said. 
On this issue I want to start with talking about the language and this very term “boy racer”. It tends to suggest at first hearing and to someone who was not a New Zealander young boys in go-carts or on trolleys as we used to call them. These people are not in fact boy racers; they are road criminals. They are road criminals who kill people. It has happened in Christchurch on more than one occasion. A man emailed me just today regarding a case presently before the courts that he was concerned about which arose from just one of those types of events. Mr Shane Jones referred to the case of the security guard and I would like if I may to read from an excerpt from the Christchurch  
Press 
 which fleshes out that incident a bit: “As she rounded a bend she came across about 100 boy racers some of whom approached her car smashing the driver’s window and two passenger windows with what were thought to be bottles.” Aviation Security general manager Mark Everitt said: “The car in front was right up against the bonnet. It was like they had her imprisoned. … She was really scared. She didn’t think she was going to get out of it.” What a terrible terrible situation for a person simply doing her job round the back of Christchurch airport. Why should she be subjected to that kind of behaviour by those criminals? They are not boy racers. They are not frustrated healthy car-racers. They are criminals. 
The ACT Party will be supporting this bill to a select committee. We do not do so because we see it as perfect. Speakers on the other side of the House and indeed from the National side have raised several issues that need closer scrutiny. The “cruising” definition is one such example. But a select committee is the place to flesh this out and to improve it. I would like to pay tribute to Minister Joyce and Minister Collins for the work they have put into this bill and the next one to be considered and to my National Party colleague Nicky Wagner for her tireless efforts in lobbying on behalf of the residents of Christchurch and other centres plagued by those criminals. And plagued they are! 
The incident I just referred to and which the Hon Shane Jones referred to concerning the security guard is well known but it is not the only one. It is happening all around the country. I hear sadly I think from Labour and from Darien Fenton what I would call Clayton’s support. She said that Labour will support the bill to the select committee but that laws like this will not add anything. I believe that is shorthand for: “We are pretending to be open-minded but we won’t support it any further because it won’t change behaviour.” She said it would not change behaviour. There is a limit to what legislators can do. We cannot make people respect each other. We cannot make people understand that their rights are subject to the rights of others. We can only make laws. All we can do is make laws and perhaps make speeches on them. That is the only way we can attempt to change behaviour. We can only legislate punishing bad behaviour. 
I would join other speakers in agreeing that the Labour Party made a good effort in its last term to get laws in place but sadly it has been proven that they have not worked. We have still got the problem. Mr Jones touched on the point—and I am delighted to take his point further—that the laws are frequently ignored by the judiciary. That is a problem and it is one of the problems that lie behind our proposals of a “three strikes” law for violence with a mandatory sentence. Sadly Parliament can indicate all it likes but at the end of the day the judges make up their mind unless Parliament says “This is what will happen.” Perhaps this issue is an illustration of where the softly softly approach was put in place by the Labour Government yet we still have the problem. We still see people like that lady being terrified while going about her lawful business around the back of the airport and the judiciary is not applying the law. So maybe this is an illustration that on some occasions we need to get a bit firmer and say to the judges: “This is the law. These are the punishments after people have had two chances; they don’t get 102.” It highlights the need to be firmer perhaps on some occasions. The ACT Party is delighted to support the bill at this stage. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I would like to join with some of my other colleagues in the House and congratulate Metiria Turei on her appointment as co-leader of the Green Party. Tena koe Metiria. 
This bill that we are talking about today introduces a new offence—the offence of cruising. Of course cruising is not a new phenomenon. Even in my day there was a fascination for the young in driving hotted-up cars through the main street. It depended on what one was driving: mum’s Morris Minor hardly stacked up against a Mark II Zephyr but there is a big difference between idling down the avenue in second gear and the horrific speeds and risk-taking behaviour that we are responding to in this bill. This bill responds to the alarming data that in the period between 2003 and 2007 there was an average of 101 crashes per year from street racing and related activities. The estimated social cost of such offending was over $30 million. We should not minimise this behaviour or this issue. For those crashes we have a roll-call that must be attended to—that is an average of 10 deaths 46 serious injuries and 125 minor injuries each and every year. Those deaths have resulted from the sheer reckless disregard for human life and about 10 people every year have lost their lives because of the illegal street racing that has been going on for far too long. When it comes down to it the choice is the destruction of a car or the loss of a human life. There is no choice. 
There are vital public safety issues at the core of this debate that we cannot ignore. The Maori Party is pleased that this House is giving time to this issue to ensure that no more injuries and no more deaths result from such antisocial behaviour. This bill amends the Land Transport Act to increase the powers available to councils and police to disrupt deter apprehend and prosecute drivers who are street racing. By far the most vivid representation of why such a bill is necessary was seen just last week in Christchurch when a hundred-strong group of young boy racers threatened a lone female security guard—surrounding her smashing the windows of her car and causing general havoc at the Christchurch International Airport. The attack occurred at 10.30 p.m. in the middle of a routine check on behalf of the Aviation Security Service. I can only begin to imagine the fear that woman must have felt when her vehicle was blocked in the windows were smashed and she was then attacked. 
I want to raise the question of why this subculture appears to have taken root in Christchurch. The bill fails to throw any light as to the psychology or the profile of these boy racers; the remedy is focused instead on a punishment for the vehicles they drive. Yet many questions are left unanswered as to the nature of the membership of this community. I am curious as to why there appears to be a disproportionate amount of offending of this nature taking place in the South Island. In the top eight areas for which the police received complaints regarding boy racers four alone were in Christchurch City and the other was in Nelson. The only areas in the North Island that appear to be problem areas were the Auckland motorways Henderson and Tauranga. 
Then when we break down the total number of fines handed out by the police in the last 12 months between March 2008 and March 2009 we find that the results are quite staggering. For the offence of operating a motor vehicle causing sustained loss of traction only 89 such offences were recorded in Greater Auckland but a massive number of 342 cases were recorded in Canterbury. But the phenomenon is even more curious when we learn that these racers are predominantly male aged between 16 and 28 employed and middle-class. They are also often without—supposedly—a criminal history although they have received a number of fines for driving offences. However I suggest that some of the results of their behaviour and driving have certainly been criminal. 
Even more of interest to the Maori Party is the analysis from Paul Beere of Waikato University who suggests that there is no distinctive dress music political stance socio-economic group or other readily identifiable badges to mark these individuals. In fact if no one noticed I tell them that the only usual variable missing from this list is that of ethnicity which one would think would be worthy of note. In an article in the  
Press  
earlier this year: “Boy racers: What makes them tick?” a direct association was made with what the article referred to as “a skinhead ‘white pride’ group”. That article suggested that conflict was brewing amongst that community in reaction to tighter policing—conflict that erupted in open hostilities in Wigram late last January when a lone policeman was targeted by several hundred boy racers bottling his patrol car and taking pot-shots with an air rifle. 
The antisocial nature of these pack attacks goes beyond horrifying. We are not talking about recreational activities or young boys playing around with an imitation Grand Prix. Christchurch mayor Bob Parker declares: “This is embarrassing and it is ugly.” Our greatest concern must surely be that these cowardly attack on individuals will escalate and when combined with alcohol consumption stunt driving and excessive speed we are looking at horrendous injuries and large-scale damage—and we have heard about a lot of the horrendous injuries. 
So we welcome this bill insomuch as we welcome any interventions that will assist in protecting public safety and indeed in protecting these young people themselves from themselves. In addition to the new offence of cruising there is a raft of legislation to give councils the powers to create by-laws in relation to illegal street racing and cruising. Yet the spectacle of boy racing is so region-specific that I had to ring my son to find out where the boy-racing circuits in Wanganui were located. His response was reassuring even if it raised more questions. He told me that although there were definitely groups of young people in Wanganui who might constitute this category apart from a few fast drives at the top of the avenue it was not really commonplace. There is the odd wheelspin on the grassed areas out at the beach where I live but very little of this behaviour goes on thankfully. 
His answer left me wondering about the need for such wide-ranging by-laws and powers of seizure and for the impounding of cars breaching street racing and cruising by-laws when it appears that the extent of the problem across the land is variable. Even more puzzling to me is that although all the additional provisions introduced in this bill will inevitably impact on the tools of trade for the boy-racer industry can we be convinced that it will really create the enduring solutions that we need? Questions that we will be seeking to find answers for during the select committee process of this bill are: what are the outcomes we seek to ensure that boy racers are prevented from offending? How will we support these young people to desist from using their cars as vehicles for self destruction? How will we support the families of these young people to encourage the young people to take active responsibility not just for their passengers but also for those who may come into their path? How do we invest in communities to develop enduring solutions and to create environments in which boy-racer traffic-offending is no longer viable? The Maori Party will support this Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill to go through to the select committee in the hope that these more complex issues will be able to be explored. Kia ora. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have said for as long as there have been cars there has been a small number of mostly men but increasingly of women who have viewed the cars they drive as a symbol of their virility—of a thing to look cool in a tool in the mating ritual perhaps and certainly a means of light rebellion. The member Keith Locke’s comments about finding an outlet for using vehicles in that way might be valid for some but increasingly a number of these people do not actually seek to race their cars; they want to use them to intimidate to crowd out to commit property offences and increasingly to commit violent crimes against people. Certainly too often they are people in authority. So the impact of these changes that I think we are seeing in our society is that what we once would have considered a sort of James Dean act has now become an act of lawlessness on a scale that by any measure is completely intolerable. 
The Minister introducing the bill the Hon Steven Joyce and some others have talked about some quite high-profile incidents in Christchurch. Although the highest-profile cases appear to be in Christchurch even in my home city of Dunedin this problem is a growing one. At the weekend six cars were seized by police and bailiffs in a fines blitz that netted $21000 out of several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of outstanding fines. So that goes I think to the reason this legislation is necessary. There are two reasons as I see it: firstly the sanctions described by Ms Fenton and Mr Jones are not having the effect of moderating behaviour. Secondly although young people should be free to have a bit of rebellion so too should other members of our community be free from the sorts of things that are happening and be free to go about their business and their quiet enjoyment without the sorts of intolerable acts that are taking place. When we have moteliers not able to fill certain rooms because of the noise when hospital patients are being moved and when farm stock and horses are being spooked by this sort of behaviour then it behoves this House to do something about it. 
The so-called boy racers have thrown down a gauntlet to this House. They have thumbed their noses at its authority and scoffed at comments made by members of this Parliament that they should somehow be called to account for their illegal behaviour. I congratulate and wholeheartedly support the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Police and this Government which is prepared to take up that gauntlet. Those people who have been conducting these acts almost with impunity should look out because the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill along with a bill that will be introduced subsequently will have a serious impact on their freedom to terrorise other people in our community. I support the bill for that reason. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Like my colleagues I rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill at least its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We are doing so because there are a number of issues involved and I will discuss those at a later point in this speech. I start by saying that judging from the debate it is obvious that everyone in this House is concerned about the issues of illegal street racing the boy-racer phenomenon and associated antisocial behaviour. 
Those activities have a range of consequences that fall into a whole number of different categories including issues of intimidation of other people safety—both of other people and of the drivers and their passengers—noise and public nuisance. Those consequences have implications for individuals. Already a couple of previous speakers have referred to the incident involving the security officer in Christchurch. Like others I can only begin to imagine how hideous that situation must have been for the woman involved. I listened to a hotelier in Christchurch talking about the implications of noise for his business and about customers saying they would not come back. There are implications for whole communities too and as Tariana Turia mentioned the problem seems to have particular implications in Christchurch and it would be very interesting to try to analyse why that is so. But Christchurch is not the only place in New Zealand where this issue has currency. 
It is important that we start to address the issues and certainly Labour has made a number of attempts to get to this issue in a way that is meaningful and will have some sort of effect. At the moment police are perhaps hampered in trying to deal with some of the issues because they must clearly identify the suspect in the act of committing the offence. It can sometimes be quite difficult to do so when a group of people in cars is involved. Bystanders are often unwilling to be involved in identification as well so there are low apprehension rates. There is no question about that. Arguably the deterrent value of the existing law may also be low. 
This bill is an attempt to disrupt and deter illegal street racing and related activities such as cruising by enhancing the powers of road-controlling authorities. Presumably given the comments made so far this bill will be passed by the House in some form but a number of factors will come into play in determining whether we can expect to see some changes as a result. They include whether sufficient officers will be present at the right times and the right places to make arrests and to safely intervene. We can look at cases where police officers have been put in very difficult circumstances in group situations as is often the case with boy racers. By itself this bill will not tackle those kinds of issues. It does not tackle the question of whether there will be sufficient police at the right time and the right place. 
Current law also provides a number of solutions to this issue but tough law works only when the courts back up the lawmakers. There is a question about whether the current provisions are being used to their full effect. If we are keeping an open mind about what needs to change here I think the select committee will need to look at what is currently in place and whether there are any barriers to that law being actioned by the courts. For example at the moment confiscation of vehicles is taking place only in a relatively small proportion of cases. The select committee will need to ask why that is. 
If the courts do not back up legislation that is passed by this House we get into a situation like that referred to by Michael Woodhouse where people who are committing crimes are effectively able to thumb their noses at Parliament. In a civilised society like New Zealand that is not an acceptable outcome. We need to know that the laws we pass will be enforced and also that they are enforceable practical and all of those things. As I have said we will support this legislation’s referral to the select committee for further scrutiny but we do not want to see this as just “tough talking” or Judith Collins taking on the boy racers as if this issue has not been considered quite significantly in this House by people who have tried to deal with it. 
Let us recognise that there have been a number of attempts and that this is not just a case of finally Parliament acting tough and talking tough and sorting it out. That is the attitude we will take to the select committee to try to actively engage with the issues here. Some provisions in the bill have been raised in other situations. One of those is around demerit points for breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver-licensing system. I draw the attention of the House to a case where this issue was dealt with quite significantly in a previous road safety consultation the See You There—Safe As consultation. In that case a number of propositions were put up about the graduated driver-licensing system and how to use it better. I would commend that work to the select committee as well and suggest that it should be part of the committee’s considerations. 
Reference was made to my colleague Darien Fenton who went through a number of the actions that are permitted under this bill. She was not trying as David Garrett suggested to brush off this issue as unimportant or to say it is all OK. She was trying to point out that many of the actions permitted under this bill can already be undertaken within existing legislation particularly the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. I would urge people as part of the select committee’s consideration to think about why existing provisions are not adequate and if they seem to be adequate why they are not being enforced in a way that is meaningful. 
I will go to some of the points that have been raised and which are more to do with why this happens rather than what we do in relation to the events of illegal street racing and boy racers. Keith Locke and Tariana Turia have both made some points that I think are really important. What is it that leads the young people who are involved in these activities to do that? What sense of alienation is leading them to find in their cases a sense of belonging among groups of other people with vehicles and in behaving in a way that is intimidating a public nuisance and unsafe? We need to think about those things and to do so is not to adopt some sort of “soft on crime” approach as Mr Garrett was I think referring to before. 
It actually is important that we as legislators look not only at the particular events and how we respond to those acts or events but also at what leads up those acts and events and what the consequences of those acts or events are and what the outcomes from our intervention potentially could be. Will we stop those acts or events taking place in the future? Will we create a different sort of climate or culture that will make them less acceptable? Will we change the attitudes of people who are breaching the law? I think it is very important that the select committee also tries to analyse why these events happen and what interventions are likely to stop them happening rather than just saying straight up that this is the punishment people will get if they do those things. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the chance to rise and speak in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill this evening. I will begin by saying that it was in my electorate of Selwyn that on Wednesday last week a female security officer was attacked behind Christchurch International Airport. I know that that incident has been spoken about before in the House during this debate but as the MP representing the area I want to say that it was an action and an event that absolutely horrified us. I know that none of us would wish to see it repeated and I am sure all of us would come together in absolutely deploring it. 
This Government will not tolerate loutish offensive intimidating behaviour by these illegal street racers. Although the bill focuses on the impact of the drivers the point made before the dinner break was a good one—that although we are dealing with traffic offences the real issue has become not just the driving but what has evolved from that which is a culture of bullying intimidation and mob mentality that has to be put to an end. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that issue. 
It is true to say that many of the actions we talk about concerning illegal street racers are already illegal. The problem is that the tools in the law are simply not adequate for the police to make a significant difference and significant inroads. I believe that this bill and the sister bill that will follow it will see significant inroads being made into the problem as we give the police the tools that will start to make a real difference—tools that will allow the police to clamp down on this cowardly and reprehensible conduct. 
We have heard these matters talked about already but some of the specific points to note are the ability that councils and road controlling authorities now have to put in place specific by-laws in relation to cruising and other matters and the compulsory impounding of cars involved in illegal street racing whereas previously that had been discretionary. The measure that I think is particularly relevant is not only making the penalties tougher but also making them far more relevant to boy and girl racers and focusing on the fact that fines mean nothing to that crowd. I have walked into many houses and seen thick bundles of fines pinned to the wall that frankly are a badge of honour. Piling up more fines will do nothing. We will make a difference only by getting stuck into their cars and their licences. 
This bill closes up a lot of the loopholes that exist in the law. It casts the net wider so that we can be more effective. It will help the courts and the police finally to make inroads into the problem of street racing. It is a significant problem there is no simple answer but this bill is an excellent start as is the bill that will follow it and I commend it to the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I signal to the Minister of Transport that I have found a mistake in the explanatory note and I want to see whether the Minister can find the mistake by the end of my speech. I will give him a hint: it is on the third page. I will return to that point when the Minister has got to it. The Minister is now getting a copy of the bill which is a good start for a Minister sponsoring legislation through the House. 
As previous Opposition speakers have said Labour will support this bill being referred to a select committee. The previous speaker Amy Adams talked about the difficulties a lot of communities have faced with what are colloquially known as boy racers and the terror and fear that they can strike into communities. I do not think there is any debate in Parliament tonight about the impacts and the effects of such activity. What is more difficult is to know exactly how to respond to such activity in a way that will actually change behaviour. We are very good in here at giving all the right speeches making all the right noises and saying all the right slogans about how to clamp down on boy racers and the aspect of their activity that we do not appreciate or approve of as a society but it has been much harder to enforce the will of Parliament and bring about proper change in communities. That has been very difficult indeed to achieve. 
Some aspects of the bill pick up on work that the previous Government was doing and that is welcome. It is a very good thing. I refer particularly to the work we were doing on road safety goals for 2010. 
I think a couple of parts of the bill are quite interesting and I look forward to seeing what the select committee has to say about them and equally how they will act once they are in operation. For example when Parliament has wanted to send a signal about activity that we do not approve of we have—for a long time—raised fines. That has been the way in which we have signalled to the community that this is something that Parliament is worried about—we have raised the maximum fines that can be imposed. But I think all members know from their work in their communities that sometimes a fine of $1000 may as well be $100000 in terms of the ability of the person being fined to pay that fine. People can rake up significant levels of debt and it becomes quite meaningless. It can become almost a competition in itself in relation to how many fines can be incurred. 
This bill in one area actually lowers the fine to a much more realistic payable level of $100 but in order to balance that with the comments of members across the House about their disapproval of aspects of the behaviour of boy racers the bill increases the demerit points. I think that is a really interesting innovation that the Government has put in the bill and we look forward to seeing how it will play out particularly at the select committee. It raises the issue as to what happens down the track when drivers get to the end of their demerit points and their licence is taken off them but they continue to drive. What options are open to law enforcement agencies and the courts at that point? We may be just delaying the cycle we have been on with people not wanting to pay their fines; we may be getting back into that area. But it is certainly worth the attempt because in addition to the tough side of this bill and the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill we are trying to send a signal about community expectations. 
I do not think people are against people enjoying the use of their motor vehicles against performance vehicles or against organised displays of cars. In fact a lot of people get a lot of joy out of that. I do not think this is Parliament being anti-fun; I think this is Parliament saying that many of these boy racers cross a line and seek to use what might have started out as a hobby for them as a tool of intimidation against law-abiding people. I do not think it is fair at all for people to use their own personal interests to intimidate people who are law abiding and who want to enjoy life in their community. So striking that balance is important. A lot of young people in all of our communities will say to us: “Hang on it’s all very well to be toughening up the law but what avenues are you giving us to explore our hobby? Where can we go to have organised safe controlled burn-offs? Where can we go to be in our cars?”. I think it is a challenge for all communities to try to find platforms to enable people to use— 
Hon David Parker 
: The Chatham Islands. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Parker suggests the Chatham Islands but I do not think the vehicular ferry has been going to the Chatham Islands for quite some time. We might have to put that suggestion on the bright ideas list to come back to at some point. 
I think all the examples that have been given of people’s behaviour being reprehensible show that we do require a much tougher approach. That is the challenge here. There has been very good language from the Government and it has been supported by the Opposition but making this actually happen will be a real challenge for the Government. The proof will be in the pudding. 
On previous occasions Parliament thought that it had toughened up the law only to find that the tools it thought it had given had not been used. I know that the Minister of Police in particular is aware that that will be the test of the legislation and we are all very interested to see how it will work. I think back about 6 years to the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill which set out yet another response of Parliament in relation to the impounding and confiscation of cars. I think we heard in the House the other day that for a first offence less than 2 percent of cars have been taken under some of those provisions. Sometimes it is not just a case of Parliament not acting; it is a case of our making sure we send that message as carefully as we can. 
Unfortunately I missed the Minister of Transport’s speech but I pore over his  
Hansard 
 record so I look forward to checking it at a later time. I am not sure what costs he thought will be associated with the bill. I have read the regulatory impact statement and I am waiting for the Minister to add the cost of this law to the cost of the Waterview Connection project in Auckland because every cost the Government faces gets piled on to the cost of that particular project. I look forward to that. 
The bill raises the issue of Government policy with regard to road policing. In the recently issued Government policy statement—GPS2 I believe it is known as—in May the Government has cut $49 million out of future funding increases for road policing. It seems to me that just as important as the measures we are passing tonight is being able to police the law. We are sending as strong a message as we are able about enforcement by the court. Anyone reading  
Hansard 
 will see a certain level of frustration by Parliament that previous measures have not resulted in the full extent of the law being exercised in that respect. But we also have to focus on what happens on the night when these things are occurring. Often our first line of response is the police when there is community frustration and intimidation. We know that one police officer or a couple of cops in a patrol car will be hopelessly outmanned in a lot of these situations when they turn up. So we have to try to make sure we have effective road policing. This Government is overseeing a $49 million cut in future funding for road policing and I think those two things have to be put together. If they are not there is no point in our passing this law. For this law to be used to its full extent will require arrests and for those arrests to take place will require the containment of situations. 
All members have spoken about the way that members of the community feel intimidated and I suspect that when the police arrive in some of these situations they advance feeling a degree of intimidation themselves. They need resources behind them. So the cutback in road policing is relevant. It is not just the effect on the safety component—and once again this weekend we have seen why that was so misjudged. I think that in the operation of this law we will need to see a much stronger commitment from the Minister of Transport to those resources that his colleague the Minister of Police needs. 
A lot of speakers have covered what the bill does. I do not plan to go over that but only to re-emphasise some of the behavioural aspects of the bill around the lowering of the fine and the increase in the demerit points. I signal a concern about the cycle we will get into when some of these drivers reach the maximum demerit points. Obviously there is a strong need for us to be backing up the police when they are there on the ground. 
Finally the select committee will hear submissions on the bill throughout the rest of the year it will come back for the third reading and it will be law before Christmas. So it will be 12 to 18 months before we know whether the measures that we have put together have worked. Labour supports the bill. We wish the process well and we come to it with a great deal of support but I make it clear that we are not trying to target all young people and say that every young person everywhere in a car is a problem. We know that is not true. There must be opportunities for young people to enjoy the safe use of motor vehicles. But where that line is crossed we need legislation like this and Labour is pleased to support it being referred to the select committee. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill because as a member of Parliament living in central Christchurch the home of the boy racer I have lobbied long and hard to bring legislation to deal with this issue. Listening to the speakers today I have found it very satisfying to hear that all parties support the bill being referred to a select committee. But the question is why it has taken so long for this issue to be dealt with. 
General horror has been expressed by many people in the House about the latest behaviour of boy racers. There is the story of the lone policeman ambushed by a pack of violent and belligerent boy racers. Just last week there was the attack on the innocent woman security guard at the back of the airport. But these are not new; these are just extreme manifestations of the boy-racer culture. 
Let me explain to members about how the boy-racer culture has grown and developed over the last decade. Tonight several Labour speakers have spoken about everything their Government had done to control the problem. But I have to say that in the last 4 years while I have been lobbying they have done absolutely nothing. During that time the boy-racer culture has been allowed to develop from noisy nuisance to violent antisocial behaviour. The number of boy racers has increased and a whole new criminal element has been attracted. The intimidation is not new. Over the years boy racers have ruined the lives of many families and many businesses. 
I have several examples of this intimidation in the city of Christchurch: in particular one business in Bealey Avenue that was targeted by boy racers over the last 2 years. The owner had made the fatal mistake of complaining about boy-racer behaviour in the media. The boy racers decided to punish him and they were very successful. The motel had bottles thrown at it every weekend night it was graffitied signs smashed and the door of the office was regularly urinated on. I visited the motel one day and went into the owner’s suite. The double bed was in the middle of the internal sitting room of the unit because the owner and his wife were too frightened to sleep in the bedroom which had open windows. The owner was even attacked and beaten one night when he went out and disturbed people on his property. Eventually this couple sold out; they dropped $150000 on the value of their motel and migrated to Australia. 
That is not the only case. I know of at least half a dozen moteliers who have been driven out of business by boy racers since I have been a member of Parliament. No one should have to put up with this type of intimidation. No group of people has the right to make life miserable for others or to bully them so much that they have to leave the city. So I would like to thank the Hon Steven Joyce for this legislation. I look forward to the select committee working through the detail of the bill to make sure it is well drafted and will be effective. The antisocial dangerous behaviour of boy racers needs to be curbed and this bill will provide the mechanism to provide consequences for those who choose to break the law. Boy racers make choices. They make choices about how they behave and this bill provides outcomes that may just help them reconsider some of those choices and that has to be a good thing for everyone. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 consider the bill; that the committee report to the House on or before 10 September 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet 
 at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 10 September 2009 and that the committee has the authority to meet to examine the bill at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Recent events have demonstrated that illegal street racing and the associated antisocial behaviour leads to violence disorder and road fatalities. New Zealand clearly has an illegal street racing problem. The correspondence I have received from members of the public has confirmed that New Zealanders have had enough. The relentless noise uncontrollable behaviour and general disruption to people’s lives has called for a strong and comprehensive response. 
The Government’s response to illegal street racing takes the form of two separate bills that are designed to work in unison to stop illegal street racers in their tracks. The Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill led by the Minister of Transport will enhance the powers of police and road controlling authorities to tackle illegal street racing and the associated antisocial behaviour. This legislation builds upon the earlier street racing legislation introduced in 2002 by the previous Government. The Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 2002 introduced specific new offences for illegal street racing. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill makes use of these specific offences but goes a lot further in penalising individuals who persist in breaking the law. 
This bill aims to significantly reduce the harm and nuisance to communities caused by illegal street racers by strengthening the powers of the courts to order the confiscation of motor vehicles by empowering the courts to order the destruction of motor vehicles used by persistent illegal street racing offenders and by strengthening the provisions to seize motor vehicles to enforce the collection of unpaid fines and reparation. 
Both the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill aim to close existing loopholes that permit illegal street racers to circumvent the law. We know that illegal street racers frequently avoid being penalised for breaking the law by exhibiting such practices as switching vehicles with each other registering their vehicle to another person and selling their vehicle to a friend for a nominal fee before a court appearance. Illegal street racers will no longer be able to commit an offence in another person’s car and avoid being penalised. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill amends the Sentencing Act to allow the courts to confiscate and in some instances destroy a vehicle used by an offender that a third party owns or has an interest in. 
In the past finance companies have been unaware of illegal street racing offending committed in cars in which they have an interest. This bill includes anyone who has an interest in the vehicle under the definition of “substitute”. This will mean a finance company would receive a written caution if a vehicle that had finance owing on it was used to commit an illegal street racing offence. There has also been difficulty with illegal street racers accruing fines and failing to pay them. Part 2 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill inserts into the Summary Proceedings Act new powers that strengthen the court’s power to seize a vehicle and sell it if there are outstanding fines. 
This bill allows a three-step approach to stop recidivist illegal street racers. The Sentencing Act 2002 already authorises the court to confiscate and sell the vehicle of an offender convicted of specific offences. If an offender is convicted of a second serious traffic offence within 4 years the court must confiscate the vehicle unless this would result in extreme hardship for the offender. This bill amends the confiscation regime in the Sentencing Act to give the courts discretion to allow the confiscation and destruction of a vehicle if an offender commits a third illegal street racing offence within 4 years. This is designed to be a last-resort option to deter and punish the most serious repeat offenders. 
Upon an offender being convicted of an illegal street racing offence the court will have discretion to order the confiscation and destruction of a vehicle used to commit the offence if the offender has two prior convictions for such offending imposed on different occasions within the preceding 4 years and the offender owns or has an interest in the vehicle or if a third party who has been issued with a written caution in respect of the offender for an illegal street racing offence within the previous 4 years owns or has an interest in the vehicle. Under a confiscation and destruction order the vehicle will be confiscated and sold to a vehicle wrecker or scrapyard. It will be a condition of sale that the purchaser remove any sellable parts and destroy the remainder of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is confiscated and sold or confiscated and destroyed the proceeds of sale are applied in the following order of priority: firstly to pay the cost of the sale which includes all costs incurred in seizing the motor vehicle towing and storing it including any prior impoundment costs; secondly to pay any amount owing pursuant to a security interest; thirdly to pay any fines and/or reparation or court costs owed by the offender; and fourthly to pay any surplus to the offender. 
As I stated earlier we know that offenders commit illegal street racing offences in cars that do not belong to them in order to avoid being penalised. This bill closes that loophole by extending confiscation to vehicles that are owned by a third party who allows an offender to use his or her vehicle. If an offender commits an illegal street racing offence in another person’s car the owner is personally served with a written caution. This written caution warns the recipient that any vehicle he or she owns that is used by the offender to commit a further illegal street racing offence is liable to be confiscated. If a third illegal street racing offence is committed the vehicle may be confiscated and destroyed. The intention of this provision is that it will encourage parents and friends to withdraw access to a vehicle if it is being used for illegal street racing. This also encourages people to take a greater level of responsibility for their vehicles and to think more carefully as to whom they lend them. 
The bill contains safeguards to prevent third parties from circumventing the law by selling a car before appearing before the court. Currently the court can reverse any vehicle sale that occurred between the commission of the offence and conviction if the sale was not genuine. This bill provides that the same will apply to third parties. That means if an offender is convicted of a second offence in a vehicle belonging to a third party who has received a written caution but has since sold the vehicle the court can also reverse the sale if it is not bona fide. 
Part 2 focuses on the collection of unpaid fines and subsequent seizure of motor vehicles. The bill proposes to insert new sections into the Summary Proceedings Act. They will strengthen existing provisions to seize motor vehicles enforce the collection of unpaid fines and therefore reduce opportunities for illegal street racing. Motor vehicles will be able to be sold if fines remain unpaid. If fines remain unpaid after the vehicle has been seized then the vehicle can be sold at public auction or in any other manner directed by a District Court judge. The proceeds of the sale are applied in the same way as those for confiscation and destruction. 
Part 3 amends the Privacy Act 1993 to authorise police to automatically release personal information about the driver or registered owner of a car that has been impounded by the Ministry of Justice. This will enable the Ministry of Justice to locate drivers and owners who may have overdue fines by using more up-to-date information. 
I invite the select committee to ensure that the bill meets its objective of reducing the harm and nuisance that illegal street racing causes to communities. I am open to and indeed anticipate changes through the select committee process to better reflect this intention. I encourage all interested parties to remain actively involved in the development of the bill through the select committee process. This will ensure that we have legislation that is workable and effective. 
I would like to acknowledge all those who have contributed to this bill being introduced and all those people who have taken the time to write to my office and explain how illegal street racing has affected them and their families. I acknowledge the officials from the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Justice the New Zealand Police and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the work that has gone into the drafting of this bill. I acknowledge the support parties for their backing of this important piece of legislation and also the previous Government for its past efforts to address the issue of illegal street racing. 
This bill responds to the demands of New Zealanders to live in their homes in peace and to drive on their roads without mayhem. Illegal street racing is dangerous irresponsible and infuriating. This Government will not tolerate the wayward behaviour of a few people who are ruining the quality of life for many. This bill delivers a tightened vehicle confiscation regime with severe penalties for those offenders who have no respect for the law or the people of New Zealand. I therefore commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Labour will support the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We will reserve judgment on the bill until that time so that as the Minister in charge of the bill Judith Collins has said people can have their say and others can contribute to it. I acknowledge the Minister’s speech. It was a far more measured communication than the others she has launched on this issue to date. She has worn the tag I think of “Crusher Collins”—somebody called her that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should be careful. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not adhere to that name but she has worn that tag as a sort of badge of honour. 
I say that history will judge this bill for what it is. We will examine it closely in the select committee. As someone who was in this Parliament as a backbencher and attempted to address this issue I learned a lot from listening to submitters. When my member’s bill—which was then adopted as a Government bill by the Government—was being passed I recall saying in my third reading speech that I did not believe that my legislation would be a panacea nor a silver bullet. I invite the Minister to look closely at her rhetoric about crushing cars and at the Dirty Harry routine that she has perfected par excellence in many areas of her portfolio and I invite her to reflect very carefully on making promises that she cannot deliver on. 
I agree with the Minister and unlike many on that side I have personally been threatened and my family has been the subject of intimidatory tactics by some of these thugs. I do not speak from a position of theory; I speak from a position of personally being on the receiving end of some of those tactics. I share the Government’s view and I share the view of all New Zealanders that this sort of stuff is grotesque. It has moved on. I note there is an ACT member in the House and I note that ACT was one of the few parties in the last Parliament in 2002 and 2003 that voted against my legislation. I will be waiting for the speech from Mr Garrett the man who is tough on law and order. My legislation provided the New Zealand judiciary with more extensive powers than those of their Australian counterparts even though that legislation was based on an Australian model. It is true today that if a judge is of a mind to that judge can confiscate a vehicle for ever on a first offence. Judges have that power today. Sadly—and I choose my words carefully—our judiciary choose to use that power in only 2 percent of cases. 
My simple view of the world is that if people do not have their wagons or their souped-up death machines they cannot do a lot to destroy communities and the lives of communities around them nor more important can they do a lot to kill themselves or their mates. That is also an issue in our communities. I sympathise absolutely with and have lived amongst as Christchurch members have communities that have been subject to thuggery and intimidation. It has actually gone beyond that. There were those who wrung their hands as I recall when I put my legislation through and said: “Cosgrove’s being a killjoy. It’s always been a bit of fun hasn’t it? Our dads did it—those of our dads who had a wagon that had got to fourth gear when they reached the party.” It has actually gone well beyond that to now hundreds if not thousands of mostly young people but also not-so-young people—some slightly closer to the pension than a number of us—who do not engage only in the odd doughnut in the footy club car park but also in intimidation. I have walked through crowds where I have seen violence and people being set upon. As we know good police have been set upon by thugs. It has gone beyond just burning a bit of testosterone and live and let live as I think members of the ACT Party back in 2002 tried to put it. Communities have been done over and are done over nightly. 
We have a hospital in Christchurch we know where patients are moved from one side of the ward to the other on a Friday night. Our tourism is in jeopardy. Now there is a group with one member who was beatified I believe by the Christchurch  
Press 
 at the time one Mr Hemi. He has got a record longer than my arm I am told. He was beatified by the  
Press 
 because he wrote a few letters to the editor defending boy racers. Then we found out what he was like as he committed very serious offences. There is now a group that likes a fair bit of violence. 
We will support this legislation to the select committee but I make a couple of points. Many of the aspects that are trumpeted in this legislation are available today. It is interesting that we move from a position where in my legislation after one offence over 4 years a judge can and after two offences over 4 years a judge must confiscate the vehicle to a situation now where the Minister says it is three offences over 4 years. I invite members to reflect on that. Some would call that a weakening of the legislation that is before us today. 
Then we come to the so-called car crushing. I have to say that I do not really care how you dispose of the vehicle. If it is off the road and communities are set free and lives are saved I am for it. But I am also for legislation that works. If judges in only 2 percent of cases use their discretion to confiscate a car on a first offence this Minister has given them the discretion—yet again; it will not be mandatory—after three offences in 4 years not only to confiscate the vehicle but also to have it destroyed. I raise this issue with the Minister. One reason we did not put crushing in my legislation was because I did not want to be a politician who passed a law that was very populist with everybody’s support at the time and then have the problem that everybody but the offender paid the bill for it. 
In many cases the only asset some of these thugs have—and many are thugs—is the souped-up death machine worth two or three grand. If we take it and crush it and they owe fines reparation and court costs they have nothing else that can be clawed back from them. So who ends up paying the bill? The taxpayer does—the innocent party. I raise that as an issue not to defend boy racers but to defend the community. It should be I would have thought the offenders who pay the bill out of their asset base rather than everybody who did not offend—that being the community and the taxpayer. 
I raise another issue. One would think listening to the Minister that it was the first time in history that we could seize property or assets in the form of motor vehicles or other property to pay people’s fines. Well in the Justice and Electoral Committee last week members asked justice officials about this and they confirmed that we have been able to do it for years. In fact in Christchurch and other places I have sat in the back of a police car as the police have pulled over people—not for boy racing but just because they have thought they would check those people out—run them through the computer and found they owed thousands of dollars’ worth of fines and court costs. The cops ring up the bailiffs. The bailiffs come get the car on the tow-truck and tow the car away. There is nothing more pleasing in my view than to see the tears in the eyes of generally grown men as the souped-up jalopy is taken away. On one particular night the police said: “Well how are you getting home young fella?”. He said his mates were going to come and pick him up. So the police waited for his mates to pick him up and did their car as well. Cars can be confiscated. The bailiffs do it all the time. They confiscate property and have it disposed of to pay fines. 
I say that there is a fair bit of window dressing in this bill. It does promise much. If the bill matches the rhetoric then I am sure all New Zealanders will be happy. But the Minister said in respect of crushing that she expects only 10 cars per year to be crushed or destroyed. Now people who live in Christchurch Hamilton or Auckland know there are a heck of a lot more cars out there with hoons doing the business on communities. So it will be interesting as this legislation progresses to see whether the practical effect matches the reality. I say to the Minister in good faith that it is worth a go. I said in my third reading speech on my legislation similarly to the Minister’s that I hoped people—because I do not have a monopoly on all knowledge—would bring better ideas in the select committee process. 
I do also recall that in 2002 not one Opposition member in the 9 years those members were in Opposition got off his or her chuff and put up a private member’s bill in respect of—[ 
Interruption 
] no not noise—the boy-racer and speed issue. So we will support this to the select committee because we will back our communities. But it will be interesting to see as I say whether the rhetoric matches the practical effect. We will back what works. We will not back rhetoric. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is interesting that when I had a look at the overview of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill I saw that it states that the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill is an omnibus bill. I thought it stated that the bill is an ominous bill. It will be an ominous bill for the street racers. 
It is all about reducing traffic offending. It strengthens the power to order the confiscation of motor vehicles. It empowers the courts “to order the destruction of motor vehicles used by persistent illegal street racing offenders:”. I emphasise the phrase “persistent illegal street racing offenders”. The bill strengthens the seizure provisions to enhance the collection of unpaid fines and reparations. It is about getting rid of harm and the nuisance issue of the illegal street racers. I suppose that in the vein of the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove—the Walter Mitty of New Zealand politics the congenital strutter of New Zealand politics and the forever hard man of New Zealand politics—I say to the illegal street racers that they should use their cars properly or lose them entirely. 
The bill is not about noise or even modification; it is about behaviour and about what people do with the modifications to their cars. I come from two areas. I am a one-time long-serving resident of South Auckland and am now ensconced in west Auckland. I suppose the view of west Aucklanders has been of them wearing black t-shirts and driving big V8 Ford Fairlane 500s that make a lot of noise. Everybody in every generation has modified cars since the Ford Model T but only of late have they used the modifications in terms of the street race culture. There is a guy who lives up the road from me whose dad owns the dairy who is a car nut. Quite frankly he is appalled by what is going on in terms of illegal street racing and the harm it does to communities. This bill is about sending a message. It is about taking the toys off the illegal street racers. Essentially that is what the cars are; they are very expensive toys. 
David Garrett 
: Dangerous toys. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And they are dangerous toys. I thank the member from ACT. 
I will say just a couple of things about my learned colleague Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The honourable. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove. It is all well and good to talk tough talk hard and rumble round as if one is doing the rumble in the jungle but it would have been better if he had been like that about this issue when he was in Government. I have never heard a speech with more use of the words “my” and “I”. That is what his speech was all about: “When I was there” “This was my bill” “My this my that my everything else” and “I did this and I did that but basically I didn’t do anything and that was why we got kicked out.” Labour members can say platitudes and talk about reserving their judgment. What does that mean? Their reserving judgment means that they have not come to a position. They have never been able to come to a position on this issue. This is the first time— 
Hon David Carter 
: They’re soft on crime. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —they are soft on crime—that a Government has actually brought the issue right to the fore. Quite frankly it is about time. Not only do I commend this bill to the House and to the select committee but I give a warning to those illegal street racers: their time is up. They will lose their toys and their babies. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will not enter into a competition of who is toughest on boy racers which was happening with that member’s contribution to the debate. I support the referral of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill to the select committee but I reject the idea from Tau Henare that this side of the House ought not to be raising in this Parliament the need to have a detailed debate on a bill that we fear has been overcooked by the Minister. I do not think that is an unreasonable point or position for us to adopt. 
The bill has already been labelled the “Three Strikes and You’re Crushed Bill”—and for a very good reason. There have to be three separate offences over a 4-year period before a car is up for crushing. The only thing that is really being crushed is the hope that this bill will actually do something about what is a very serious problem particularly in my home city of Christchurch. I happen to have lived in all of the streets where the street racers undertake their particular interest although I should say that illegal street racing is not always the nub of the problem. The previous bill that was debated will go some way to addressing the problem where there is a congregation of individuals who have nothing better to do with their time than to show off their rather fancy cars and who by clustering in groups and driving up and down particular streets cause a huge problem to people who are trying to spend their nights sleeping as I think most of us want to do. 
We were told by the Minister that this legislation was designed to close existing loopholes. As I said I have a really serious concern that the Minister has completely overcooked this particular legislation. It does not do almost anything she said it would do. I went right through the regulatory impact statement as I am wont to do because I often find that regulatory impact statements are very useful for establishing the analysis that the Government undertook in order to establish the nature of the problem the options for addressing the problem and the most appropriate of those options for going forward. Here is the adequacy statement from the regulatory impact statement: “This regulatory impact statement is based on the RIS submitted at the time Cabinet approval of the policy of this Bill and its companion Bill amending the Land Transport Act 1998 was sought.” Well that is really not a statement of adequacy or otherwise; I would say that is completely inadequate. That has become a practice of this Government which is the first Government to have a Minister for Regulatory Reform so it is a bit unfortunate it has established this as a practice. 
The essence of the next part of the regulatory impact statement is that it sets out the status quo and through the status quo says that it is stating the problem. But in fact it does not do so. I want to draw the House’s attention to the following part of the regulatory impact statement. It states that “Apprehending a driver or drivers in the act of an illegal street racing activity occurs infrequently and randomly. In the 2003-2007 period there were on average 1659 convictions for illegal street racing activity a year. It is hard to know the true extent of illegal street racing as the participants are transitory and highly organised.” 
The regulatory impact statement goes on to state: “Current penalties for illegal street racing are disqualification and a fine or jail. If a person is convicted twice in 4 years for an illegal street racing offence the court must order that their vehicle be confiscated unless it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person. Despite confiscation being a discretionary penalty after conviction for 1 qualifying offence and a mandatory penalty after 2 convictions the actual rate of confiscations is very low. In 2006 there were 9600 offences in which mandatory confiscation applied and over 50000 in which discretionary confiscation applied. There were only 1062 confiscation orders granted. This puts the current rate of confiscation at less than 2% (or 1 in 10 for mandatory confiscations).” 
I heard the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Judith Collins say that this legislation would close the loopholes that exist. She said there were issues around people switching vehicles registering vehicles in another name and selling a vehicle for a nominal fee. There is not one ounce of information in the regulatory impact statement to justify the approach that has been adopted in this area. There is no estimate showing how many people did not see the mandatory confiscation of their vehicle as required by the law. In the 9600 offences in which mandatory confiscation applied with only 1062 confiscation orders granted in that year the confiscation period of the mandatory confiscation was even lower than that at one in 10. If that is the case then surely we need to know why the mandatory confiscations were not made. We need to know how many people switched vehicles how many registered their vehicles in another name and how many sold their vehicle for a nominal fee to avoid the application of that particular provision. 
There is absolutely nothing in the regulatory impact statement that sets out the basis for the change being promoted. The alternative options outlined in the explanatory note are very interesting. The non-legislative option of local authorities designating areas for burn-out pads and racing was considered by officials in early discussions but not progressed. That was the Government’s statement of the alternative options. The regulatory impact statement then states: “Experience of this type of intervention in the past has done little to reduce or rectify the illegal street racing problem.” There is absolutely nothing to grapple with there. The preferred option is to introduce these two bills the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill to apparently deal with the nature of the problem the Government has failed to identify. 
The regulatory impact statement then goes on to outline the benefits and costs to consumers and wider society. It states: “The threat of vehicle confiscation and destruction will deter and reduce the opportunities to use vehicles for street racing offending.” There is absolutely nothing in this regulatory impact statement to back up this claim at all. I think that the select committee will really have its work cut out for it in going through the evidence the Government is hiding from public view because the Government certainly has not put it in the regulatory impact statement. The Government says that the incidence of illegal street racing will decline as a result of this bill and that the police will be able to reallocate their resources to other front-line duties. I am afraid that just saying so in a regulatory impact statement does not make it so. I think there is considerable work to be done. 
Then we are told that if rates of vehicle confiscation increase then finance companies will be more inclined to undertake rigorous background checks on vehicle owners before financing a vehicle. How will they know before they finance a vehicle whether it will be used in an illegal street race? It is hardly the sort of thing that will come up in a disclosure document. Vehicle owners can already have their vehicles confiscated; there is mandatory confiscation after two offences in a 4-year period. In fact this regulatory impact statement states that this should not be an additional burden on finance companies. Well it will not be because this regulatory impact statement does not explain how the bill will be effective. 
We are told under the heading about the costs that will apply that an increase in Vote Courts has been sought in anticipation that the courts will order the confiscation of an additional 3000 vehicles annually. The Government is saying it will not even make the current law work because over 9000 vehicles should have been confiscated under the previous law. So even the Government is not very ambitious in what it believes this legislation ought to do. 
Finally I will comment on the last little bit of the regulatory impact statement which states: “While less may be recovered from vehicles intended for destruction the number of orders is likely to be small. In 2007 only 10 offenders were convicted of a third illegal street racing offence within 4 years.” That is why I come back to the name of this bill which really ought to be the “Three Strikes and You’re Crushed Bill”. This has been a crushing defeat for the Minister. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not support this ridiculous legislation. It is a waste of taxpayers’ time—and money certainly—and a waste of this House’s time. I will outline some of the reasons why that is the case. 
It really is quite remarkable how much time National members will waste on legislation that sounds good and that makes them feel better but that does absolutely nothing to deal with the real problems our communities face. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill will not make any difference at all to those Christchurch people in particular who suffer from the nuisance intimidation and illegal behaviour of not only young people but also often grown-ups and the misuse of their vehicles. 
In 2002 this Parliament passed what the Green Party considered to be quite Draconian legislation. At that time it was Clayton Cosgrove’s bill. It gave the police significant new powers to deal with dangerous driving and its related behaviour particularly around illegal street racing. After that legislation was passed it was found to be a very serious breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. At the time of the debate my colleague Nandor Tanczos led the issue for our party. He made it clear for example that all of the police powers in that 2002 legislation were already available to the police. It is the same case here. All of the powers the police need to deal with dangerous driving its associated behaviour and the nuisance and intimidating effect it has on our communities are available to them as we speak. We simply do not need to keep passing more legislation to give the police more powers because they already have them. 
The difficulty is that no Government whether it was Labour in the previous term or National in this term is prepared to resource the enforcement agencies so that they are able to use that law effectively to protect the community. I know that National members have been going on about the fact that they have invested more in policing and that they are expecting to have 600 new police. Well 300 of them are going into one area Counties-Manukau and they may very well be needed there. But scattering 300 other new police around the country will do nothing. It will do nothing to support the police who are already trying to do that work and it will do nothing for Christchurch people in particular who are the most vocal about their problems with illegal street racing. In effect all that the National Government is doing is throwing law rather than money at a problem and it is not doing anything that will make a real difference. 
I heard Lianne Dalziel talk about the regulatory impact statement and the expression of confidence in it that this legislation will have some kind of deterrent effect. It was great to hear Tau Henare putting out his message to those boy racers. He told them that they should just watch it as the Government is going to get their cars. But no the boy racers are not listening. They are not listening to Tau Henare they are not listening to the National Government and they are not listening to the Minister who is going on about some cars being confiscated. Ten cars out of 10000 might be confiscated and destroyed under the powers given in this legislation. The Government says that that is supposed to provide some kind of deterrent to those—mostly adult men—who are using and misusing their vehicles in this way and causing intimidation and concern in the community. Confiscating and destroying 10 cars out of 10000 will not be a deterrent. Here we are spending hours and hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money passing legislation that will have no effect. 
The cost to the Crown which is mentioned in the regulatory impact statement is worth noting. The operating costs for the courts are estimated to be around $470000 a year going up to around nearly $1.5 million a year in year 2 and out-years. The argument is that somehow the fines that will be imposed on these people when their cars are confiscated and then destroyed will provide some revenue back into the Crown coffers. That will not happen. The Minister has already talked about the fact that a number of these people owe large amounts in outstanding fines. If there are already significant amounts of money owed by people who are engaged in illegal street racing why does the National Government think that more legislation that will impose more fines will somehow make people pay more of their fines back? It will not do that. It never has worked like that and it never will. 
Again these are ineffective and wasteful actions on the part of National and meanwhile the community continues to look for real solutions to the problem. And those solutions are complicated. I guess that is why the National Government has failed to provide any decent solutions. The solutions involve a great deal of community engagement. It means more real money not just in producing more police but in providing proper support for the police who are already engaged particularly in community policing. It means giving councils greater capacity to engage with their communities so that they can find alternatives that will enable these people to do their driving elsewhere in places that are safer. But the Government has no intention of engaging in real solutions or practical ideas that involve working with communities towards addressing the things that need to be changed. What it wants to do instead is waste time and money by putting up legislation that looks good and sounds good and gives the Government something to beat its drum about but is utterly ineffective. That is a serious shame and a real concern for the communities that need help. These communities are desperately trying to find some peace. 
I also note the strange priorities of the Government. It will pass legislation to confiscate and destroy cars that are noisy and create a nuisance yet it does nothing in response to the owners of cars that kill people or seriously maim them. Somehow it is more important to confiscate and destroy cars that are noisy than it is to destroy cars that have been used to maim and kill people. Just this year 189 people have died on our roads as a result of road accidents. Yet this Government instead of focusing on those kinds of transport issues that are of importance and concern to the community and instead of looking at ways of dealing with those kinds of issues is wasting time passing legislation that will crush 10 cars that cause a nuisance. This Government’s priority is out of whack with what the community really needs. The Green Party simply will not support such unprincipled useless and distorted legislation that will do nothing to help our communities that are so desperately in need of help. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. For the second time today I am happy to say that I am surprised to be able to support a speaker from the other side of the House who normally is not on the same wavelength as me. I refer of course to Mr Cosgrove. When debating the previous bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill it was Mr Jones whom I supported. Mr Cosgrove made a great deal of sense as indeed did many of the speakers from the other side of the House. 
Before I get into the speech I have prepared I want to turn to the speech made by the new co-leader of the Green Party Metiria Turei on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. As usual she found that everything is incredibly complicated. Her speech reminded me of the reaction in New York state about 15 years ago after the zero-tolerance policies—commonly known as Broken Windows—were instituted in New York City by a former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The policies resulted in a plummeting crime rate for both large and small crimes and changed the city from being one of the most dangerous in the country to being one of the safest. It changed Times Square from being a place where I personally witnessed drug dealing and was offered a hooker at 4 o’clock in the afternoon to being a place where families now go to celebrate New Year’s Eve. When the crime rate plummeted the American equivalent of Ms Turei and other left-wing academics and politicians were absolutely shocked. They launched a fevered search for any other reason because it could not have been something as simple as Broken Windows; all those questions on the causes of crime are so complicated! They desperately searched and they came up with the availability of abortions as the reason for the plummeting crime rate. 
In our view sometimes things are quite simple. Here is an example from this bill. For 30 or 40 years New Zealand has allowed boy racers to behave inappropriately in cars without consequences. Mr Cosgrove and the previous Labour Government introduced commendable efforts to do something about it. What I have heard mostly from the speakers on the other side of the House are very helpful indications of how this bill could be improved at the select committee which of course is the major reason we are supporting the bill being referred there. 
The bill is not perfect. It is far from perfect. In fact Ms Dalziel referred to the fact which I noticed myself that there is a discretion whether to confiscate and destroy a vehicle after the third offence which is contained in the proposed section 129A of the Sentencing Act 2002 inserted by clause 8. The court “may order the confiscation and destruction of any motor vehicle” blah blah blah. Perhaps at the select committee there will be submissions that say that that word should be changed to “shall” or “must”. As members will know that is a huge difference in law. There will be all sorts of suggestions at the select committee. No doubt more faults will be identified. Although I am not certain of the Maori Party’s position it is quite clear that with the support of three parties in the House there will be a multipartisan effort to improve whatever faults are found. 
One of the reasons the ACT Party is supporting this bill is that it is entirely consistent with its “three strikes” bill for more serious violent crime. The bill is based on a “three strikes” principle which is an escalation principle. If an offender offends once there is a penalty; if the offender offends a second time there is a stronger penalty; an offender who offends a third time may lose his or her vehicle altogether as the bill is drafted. The “three strikes” principle has been derided as a silly American idea. Actually it is not. Getting a second chance is a very very Kiwi idea. New Zealanders by and large believe that people should be given a second chance at all sorts of things but not 102 chances. 
The bill recognises that fines have become largely voluntary in this country. How often do we hear judges say that they are remitting $20000 $30000 or $50000 in fines? As one of the National speakers noted fines pasted up on walls have become a badge of honour among the idiots whom this bill attempts to deal with. Of course in days gone by there were no overdue fines because fines used to be an alternative to imprisonment. In the old days judges would hand down a fine of $100 or $200 and in default 14 days’ imprisonment. There were never any overdue fines. But we have moved on from those days—sadly in my view. Maybe we need to have a look at it again. 
But in the meantime—and without using those lovely words “Draconian legislation” that members on the other side love to use so much—this bill addresses the problem of people not paying fines by taking a different tack: the demerit point tack. The bill states that on someone’s third offence he or she has had his or her chance and that is it. As I have said it may well be that at the select committee submitters will say that the confiscation and destruction of a car should be mandatory not discretionary. 
The Labour Party has very usefully identified the fact that only 2 percent of cars eligible for confiscation have been confiscated under the current law. That fact is a strong indication of a need and here again I am happy to agree with Mr Cosgrove to send a signal to the judiciary. Because this House is where the law of the land is made not over the road at the Ministry of Justice it may be time for Parliament to tell the judiciary what needs to happen with these people. They are not just boy racers. In my speech on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill I referred to them very deliberately as road criminals. 
Members on both sides of the House have talked about death and serious injury as well as intimidation. That is not some kind of cap-on-backwards group of idiots playing with their trolleys; that is dangerous criminal activity. I agree with other speakers that this bill will not be a panacea. But it will reduce the number of ridiculous vehicles on the road whose drivers do not use them for the purpose of shopping or taking the kids out or doing any of the other things we use our cars for but to intimidate and cause mayhem. 
But one thing that is correct is that those boy racers do love their cars. In that sense they are car enthusiasts. I am a car enthusiast: I have an old Jaguar which sucks up a lot of money. My club is the Jaguar club. The only thing that I have in common with boy-racer clowns is that I love my old car too although it costs me lots of money. Often those guys have their manhood tied up in their cars too. They are not legitimate car enthusiasts but they love their cars. This bill gives the eventual option of destroying their pride and joy as they say. It will make them think twice. It will make them think twice about buying another car which could also be destroyed. 
So far I have covered all the positives. The ACT Party is very very aware of the bill’s potential risk to private property rights to lenders and to other owners. But the bill is a very careful attempt to address those problems and to make sure that innocent people do not suffer as a result of some clown who may have access to their car. But it may well be that at the select committee other problems are shown in that regard. With the tripartisan approach to the bill at this stage I am quite sure the National ACT and Labour members and possibly the Maori Party members on the select committee will be able to find solutions to that problem. So at this stage the ACT Party is very happy to support the bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tatou e te Whare kua hui mai i tenei po. 
The phenomenon of boy racing is not one of the biggest problems confronting Ngongotaha in Rotorua where I live so I needed to look a little bit wider throughout my electorate to see the extent of boy racing across the Waiariki electorate. The results were quite interesting. In one calendar year between March 2008 and March 2009 the Bay of Plenty witnessed 195 incidents of operating a vehicle in a noisy manner 60 incidents of operating a vehicle in an unnecessary exhibition of speed and 251 incidents of operating a vehicle causing sustained loss of traction. Beyond these criminal offences sit other stories and anecdotes of violence of consistent defiance of way-out noise violations and of antisocial behaviour. 
The explanatory note of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill describes the nature of the harm that arises from illegal street racing as being broken into three categories: road safety noise and the public nuisance or disorder associated with what is certainly perceived as antisocial behaviour. It then goes on to address the confiscation of vehicles. It establishes new confiscation and destruction orders. It enables vehicles owned by or used by people with overdue fines to be seized and sold to pay for those fines. It allows a vehicle to be seized not just to recover fines but also to reduce opportunities for traffic offending. Those are all things that we can do today and we should do so. 
But I note that the extent of the problem we are debating tonight is really difficult to get a handle on. The very origins of this bill emerged from the knowledge that the current laws are insufficient to deal with the issue and apprehending drivers in the act of street racing is really really difficult. We know that many participants take great pride in being able to avoid detection by the police and that there is a complex web of communications in train in which word of mouth and text messaging are able to quickly sort out a new venue where those involved in this activity can gather together. I believe that the latest  
Sunday 
 television programme told us all about that. In short this is a subversive subculture which this bill still leaves basically intact. The issues will not go away even if the vehicles do. That is the problem that all of us in this House must continue to explore in order to achieve the outcomes of safer streets and healthier communities. 
The bill amends three separate pieces of legislation the Sentencing Act 2002 the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and the Privacy Act 1993 in order to reduce boy-racer traffic offending. The amendments are required to firstly strengthen the powers of the courts to order the confiscation of cars; secondly to empower the courts to order the destruction of cars; and thirdly to strengthen provisions to seize cars in order to enforce the collection of unpaid fines and reparations. Suddenly the investment of 600 front-line police and an extra $950 million in Ministry of Justice spending makes sense. In particular the $16 million put aside for improving fines collection I am sure will be immediately put to use with this bill. 
But I guess the question remains of what we should be doing to address the problem of boy racers. I would like to take a little bit of time to note some of the ambiguities around the charges that will be brought in under this bill. Part 2 of the bill according to the explanatory note authorises the confiscation of vehicles that “appear” to belong to offenders. It enables vehicles owned by apparently owned by or used by people or organisations with overdue fines to be seized and sold to pay for overdue fines. Those are the qualifiers. The inclusion of vehicles that are “apparently” owned opens up considerable room for speculation and indecision. The Maori Party would hope that during the select committee process these uncertainties will be tidied up. 
I return again to the question of what those changes will do to encourage these gangs that there is more to life than pushing their souped up vehicles beyond their limits irrespective of the speed zones or the safety of their passengers. What work has gone into exploring the reasons why Christchurch and Hamilton seem particularly attractive to potential boy-racers? Is it a peculiarity of the landscape design where both centres appear pretty flush with long flat roads made for cruising? Or is it something about the populations of Canterbury and Waikato? Are they more inclined to complain to the police than those in other regions? Perhaps it is that the police force is cracking down on boy racers in these areas while other police squads are putting out their fires. Are there more alternative recreations in other cities? Is the car market to blame perhaps? Are souped up imports chock-a-block in Christchurch car yards boy-racing vehicles waiting to happen? Those are the sorts of questions that we wanted to raise. 
There are other theories abounding about the subjects of this bill. A particularly interesting analysis was undertaken in the  
New Zealand Geographer  
journal in a study called “Driving people crazy”. The study tried to come to terms with the activity of boy racers by unpacking the fundamental principles on which this subculture sits. The research identified that the males participating in the study used the car as a prop to situate themselves socially. That was alluded to by Mr Garrett. In other words those who drove the flashier cars were “the man” amongst all men. Apparently that is not just a phenomenon of the young: an ACNielsen survey revealed that more than half of New Zealanders prefer cars with 2-litre engines. A Toyota Starlet or a Honda Civic does not seem to cut it as my colleague Hone Harawira would be quick to point out. But I come back to the boy racers. Other reasons why these vehicles have become a symbol of status appear to be about experiencing a rush getting some relief from the daily routine showing off escaping the boredom perhaps. 
As a father of five I am not of course immune from some of those trials of teenage-hood and the consistent desire for some excitement in life. That in itself is not a bad thing. Indeed one of the Tuhoe nation Tamati Kruger talks about these sensations in terms of te ihi te wehi te wana—those experiences that all of us search for in our pursuit of the mystery of life. But the problem is that for the subculture of boy racers these sensations when closely linked with alcohol consumption stunt driving drag racing doughnuts wilful damage of property and the mass culture surrounding all of that take on a whole new edge. 
Throughout this korero I have attempted to raise some of the issues the Maori Party has debated in our caucus. It is evident that for us the Maori Party members the spectacle of boy-racing convoys leaves us with more questions than answers. We read about the damage to and devastation of property the impact on the reputation of safe communities and the adverse effects upon the tourism industry as alluded to by Mr Cosgrove. But the real costs of the deaths injuries and the mayhem that are created so needlessly on city roads is what has got us all searching for solutions. 
In closing I need to say that I have difficulty with this issue when considering that umpteen armed police entered the Ruatoki valley and the Taneatua communities against the so-called threat of terrorism about 18 months ago. Yet if we were to take as gospel many of the accounts from people like Nicky Wagner Clayton Cosgrove and others tonight that there is intimidation bullying stand-over tactics and so on why then is it not possible to send those same umpteen armed police to Christchurch to deal with the real criminals? The issues in Ruatoki and Taneatua are still perceived at this point in time; innocent people’s lives were seriously disrupted when the police moved. The issues in Christchurch and Hamilton are known and seen as expressed in the House tonight; surely a similar show of force might be worth considering. 
In closing we commend this bill to the select committee process in order that possible solutions may come to the fore. We therefore support this bill at its first reading. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill follows on from the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill to form the Government’s legislative response to illegal street racing. First of all my congratulations go to Judith Collins who has been determined in her crusade against illegal street racing. I also acknowledge my colleague Nicky Wagner who has been waging a war against the noise that boy racers make. These two bills the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill will give the police courts and local authorities greater powers to tackle illegal street racers and to crush their vehicles as a last resort. Together these bills will send a strong message to illegal street racers that dangerous disruptive and antisocial use of vehicles is not acceptable. Illegal street racers cause excessive noise disruption and intimidation. 
The public have had enough. The police have had enough. The Government is determined to see illegal street racing off our roads. This Government will not accept that the laws of our land have been flouted. The Government and the public have lost patience with drivers who use their vehicles in an antisocial manner and who put the safety of the public and the police at risk. Illegal street racing is fairly widespread in New Zealand; it threatens public safety. Earlier this year there was an attack on a lone police officer by a mob of illegal street racers and their friends. Indeed this was nothing less than cowardly mob behaviour. Following that attack the Prime Minister Minister Joyce and Minister Collins asked officials from the police the New Zealand Transport Agency and the ministries of transport and justice to work together to create this new legislation. 
The public are simply fed up with hoons running riot and with cars doing skids churning up grass verges and scattering rubbish. It is not just about the dangerous driving and the putting the public at risk; it is also about what these hoons leave in their wake—soggy beer cartons broken bottles and flattened cans littering pavements and roads and spray-painted start and finish lines on the roads. It is also about property being damaged fences destroyed and grass areas ripped up. These idiots have gone on far too long and got away with it. Well they will not be getting away with it any more under this new legislation. Residents are sick of being woken up and having to listen to boy racers’ antisocial behaviour. 
I digress a wee bit to say that I live in a street in Auckland that does not normally have street racing but I tell members that not so long ago I was woken up at 2 a.m. by the searing screeching noise of tyres. I looked out and the road was full of smoke. It was rubber burning; wheels were on fire. The noise was tremendous and quite frankly I was intimidated. It was a frightening experience. 
The public are living in fear of reprisals if any of them complain. Then there is the concern of vigilante action being taken by residents—the situation where they could take the law into their own hands. We all know that two wrongs do not make a right but these two laws together will send a powerful message that members of the public do not have to live in fear in their own homes and that they will not have to take the law into their own hands. The Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill which has already passed its first reading will include provisions firstly to allow local authorities to create by-laws that will prevent vehicles from repeatedly cruising city streets. Secondly they will allow a compulsory impoundment of vehicles involved in illegal street racing. Thirdly they will produce demerit points for noise offences licence breaches and registration plate offences. This will ensure that repeat offenders will lose their licences rather than just accrue fines. 
The Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill is about ensuring that the penalties for this antisocial behaviour are a strong deterrent to repeat offending. This Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill aims to take the worst boy racers off the road by taking away their vehicles permanently. Crushing cars will be the last resort for dealing with only the most serious of repeat offenders but every offence will bring them closer to the crusher. 
The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill will allow vehicles to be seized and destroyed as a new penalty against illegal street racing. It will allow vehicles repeatedly used by people with overdue traffic fines to be seized and sold to pay for those fines. It will enable the police and courts to target illegal street racers who commit offences in another person’s vehicle. 
Illegal street racing is detrimental at every level. The police and our city councils need to have the tools to deal with this issue. These two bills will give the police the tools they urgently need. Indeed the current law is not working; it has not stopped illegal street racing. There have been thousands of offences under the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act since it was passed in 2003. Each year the number has grown and more than 90 percent of these offences have resulted in the police impounding cars. But the threat of having a car impounded for only 28 days is not a deterrent. As well the number of fatalities where showing off or racing has contributed to deaths has actually risen since the law was passed. By taking away the vehicles of illegal street racers permanently they will be prevented from buying back their cars and reoffending. By enabling the police and courts to target illegal street racers who use another person’s car to offend car owners will be encouraged to take a greater level of responsibility for their property. 
Many illegal street racers rack up huge fines which they refuse to pay; under this bill cars will be seized and sold to pay the fines of the worst offenders. Motor vehicles will be able to be seized if fines and reparations remain unpaid. If these penalties remain unpaid after the vehicle has been seized then the vehicle will be able to be sold at public auction. The proceeds of the sale will be applied in the same order of priority as for confiscation and destruction. 
A number of deaths reported in the media have been attributed to boy-racer - type activities and I include some of the following: in May 2008 Scott Finn 20 years died during an illegal street race in Mount Maunganui. He was hit as one of the vehicles returned at high speed on the wrong side of the road. In May 2008 Laureen Helen Reilly 60 years was killed after being hit when a 25-year-old lost control of his high-performance car while racing in Christchurch. In March 2008 Ratu Victor Vikash Junior Lal 23 years and his 18-year-old passenger Adam Herrick were killed in an apparent street racing accident in Birkenhead on Auckland’s North Shore. In May 2007 two girls both 16 were killed and 17 party-goers were injured when Lipine Sila drove into a crowd at a Christchurch party. Sila 23 years was sentenced to a non-parole period of 17 years and was jailed on two charges of murder and eight of grievous bodily harm. In August 2006 pedestrian Amy Edward-Minton was killed while crossing Cambridge Terrace in Wellington during a drag race by two boy racers. In December 2005 Billy Wall 12 years was killed on State Highway 1 south of Taupo when one of two speeding cars crashed into him as he crossed the road on New Year’s Eve 2005. 
I could go on for this is the face the tragic face of illegal street racing. This Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill which follows on from the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill will make our streets and our communities safer. I commend this bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. As the member of Parliament whose electorate is acknowledged to be most plagued by boy racers I support the introduction of this bill and its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish to make it clear that if this bill contributes to reducing the menace and annoyance that hundreds of my constituents face every weekend I am for it. 
I have lived off Fitzgerald Avenue and been kept awake at night by the boy racers. I have sat with constituents watching and listening as boy racers roar up and down Fitzgerald Avenue. I have met people who live off Edgeware Road and whose quiet street has become an occasional drag strip. I have worked with boy racers to try to get a burnout strip established attended numerous meetings to try to make some progress and visited Bealey Avenue moteliers who are in despair yet still we have appalling incidents like last week’s attack on a female airport security guard and earlier in the year the attack on a police sergeant. Those were despicable and cowardly attacks. This legislation is part of a continuum of attempts to deal with such thuggery. 
In February of last year at my first public meeting as the Labour candidate in Christchurch Central I chose to front and chair a meeting and invite the then Minister for Transport Safety Harry Duynhoven to come and outline what the Labour Government was doing. Changes were announced in late 2007 including such things as a specific warrant of fitness noise-level test; a move away from fines which are often left unpaid and run to thousands of dollars; a move towards faster accumulation of demerit points which boy racers take seriously because they want to retain their licences; and moves to set new car-noise limits at 90 decibels. 
After that meeting I told Mr Duynhoven that my firm view was that we as a Government needed to do more. Within a month we had some new regulations giving police more powers to take cars with noisy exhausts straight off the road to have car-owners pay for their cars to be noise-tested and if the cars were over the prevailing 95 decibel limit to have them modified to not exceed 90 decibels at the car-owners’ expense. So no member of this House should be under any illusion that there has not already been a considerable legislative and regulatory effort to deal with the boy-racer issue. We should also acknowledge that the legislation in front of us now will provide some of the same remedies as those that have been passed before. I am pleased to acknowledge the comments tonight from the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Judith Collins who acknowledged that there has been a concerted effort in the past to deal with these issues. 
I believe that this issue will require ongoing effort and resources. Last year in Canterbury alone the police issued 1500 offence notices to boy racers. That is 10 times the number issued in Auckland. I wish to say without prejudging the scrutiny that the House and the select committee might provide that the bill before the House now is unlikely to provide any silver bullet for the problems caused by boy racers even when one associates it with the tandem legislation discussed earlier this evening. Personally I think that this bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill are as likely to solve the problem of boy racers in Christchurch and to see them park up quietly to drink sarsaparilla as Paul Quinn is to become the Prime Minister. I am sure this bill will though tighten the tourniquet. But the fact is that the measures are already there for the judiciary. 
I acknowledge the contribution to this House of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove whose Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 7 years ago dealt with the problem of street racing burnouts and wheel spinning. It targeted those issues. It gave the police the power to impound a vehicle that is operated in an illegal street race for 28 days immediately if they so wished. It also gave the power to require that an offending car emerge from impoundment with a new warrant of fitness one that did away with illegal modifications such as lower suspensions and noisy exhausts and it gave the courts the power to confiscate a vehicle on the first offence. If the boy racer was caught twice within 4 years the Land Transport Act as amended by the House back in 2003 stated that the court must confiscate the vehicle barring extreme hardship. 
Part 1 of this bill requires three strikes before a car can be confiscated and that in effect is a weaker power. I acknowledge that on that third offence the car can now be crushed. Just how much better than confiscation that will work remains to be seen. Certainly there is a strong public view that crushing should be introduced but Minister Collins has said that perhaps only nine or 10 cars a year will be crushed under this bill. 
If members saw on the weekend the  
Sunday 
 documentary on boy racers they will have some idea of the scale of the problem in my electorate alone not to mention other electorates. There are sometimes hundreds of cars roaring up and down the avenues in Christchurch and I think we need to ask the courts why judges are not using the stiffer sentences that are already available such as the provision that for a first offence offenders lose their cars which is a power already available to the court. I would like to know whether the Minister has any information on that issue. I ask whether she got briefings from officials and whether she can tell us why after people have been charged with tens of thousands of the offences as defined under the legislation introduced by Clayton Cosgrove only about 2 percent of the cars involved have been confiscated. 
I think the police have every reason to be frustrated by this issue. We are in effect wasting valuable police time and sapping their efforts when we do not see the courts use the powers that are already available to them in a wider way. I would like to know whether the Minister has asked for a report on those issues. 
If the courts and judges are not using the powers they already have then one has to ask why they would use the added power that is provided by this bill even if it takes three strikes and not one strike to see a car confiscated and then crushed. Will the turning of 10 cars into cubes each year really send the sort of signal that will be understood and acted on by people who seem immune to anything but their own egos? I am not criticising the Government for adding to what the previous Labour Government did; I just say we should not put all our hopes on the idea that this bill and its companion measure will do what previous efforts sometimes described as Draconian have failed to do. 
The funny thing is that at about this time last year I started getting feedback that the collective efforts were starting to work. I was told by people at two inner-city residents association meetings that the problem of the boy racers was reducing. 
Amy Adams 
: Yeah they’re moving out to Selwyn. How does that fix it? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well they may have been moving somewhere but we were quite delighted that the problem seemed to be abating in Christchurch Central. 
Amy Adams 
: Oh! Yeah just wash your hands of it. Wash your hands. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am not washing my hands; I am acknowledging what people in the community were saying last year. Then came summer and the problem returned. Perhaps its abating was a result of some stronger police action last year the measures that were introduced or a cocktail of things although I suspect the real reason why the problem abated last year was that the petrol price went to $2.20 a litre. Perhaps that is a signal that when financial constraints are applied the boy-racer problem can reduce. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Like fines. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well this bill also includes a move away from fines towards the whole issue of using the other options. I note that there is nothing in these two bills to reduce exhaust noise to a maximum of 90 decibels as has been long and noisily promoted by at least one member opposite even to the point of two parliamentary petitions. Perhaps that is being kept in reserve in case these two bills do not deliver the crushing victory against boy racers that is being suggested. 
Certainly we need to refer this bill with its companion bill to a select committee to make sure they add some real measures to what is already in place. But I do not believe that this legislation with its companion bill will provide the silver bullet. I remain in conversation with constituents the police and even boy racers to try to see what more might be done. I believe that Parliament will return to this issue. In the interim I am very pleased to support this bill’s referral to the select committee to have whatever measures need to be added to it to improve and strengthen it. I hope that we can see a beginning to some end of this issue. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. It is part of a bill combination designed to deal with the issue of boy racers. Coupled with the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill it will make a difference—and it is about time. 
I have been campaigning for action on boy racers for the last 4 years. During that time the previous Labour Government did absolutely nothing to deal with the boy-racer problem—absolutely nothing. Boy-racer culture has grown and flourished right across the country. Back in the early 2000s boy-racer behaviour was mostly noise and nuisance; it should have been nipped in the bud then. Over the years the nature of the boy-racer community has changed dramatically. In 2009 there is a much bigger group and it is much more antisocial. Boy racers now move in packs and they generate a much larger number of offences. 
In my home town of Christchurch City the downtown area in the centre of the city has long been a target of boy-racer behaviour but now more and more boy-racer packs congregate outside the city in rural areas. The police play a game of cat and mouse as they try to contain noisy violent and destructive groups. The police are working hard to contain offences but they need more tools to curb the problem. The police are losing the race against boy racers. The public is absolutely tired of the noise and the destruction from these groups and they want to see something done about it. For far too long Christchurch City and its environs have been labelled noisy and violent and businesses and families have borne the brunt of that noise and destruction. 
As members have heard tonight the boy-racer problem reached its height in Christchurch earlier this year when a police officer was ambushed by a pack of boy racers who pelted his car with bottles and shot at him. It was an example of premeditated violence and the stimulus for this legislation. Since then we have seen an even worse situation when an innocent driver was attacked by a pack of boy racers. Last week a lone female aviation security officer was stopped by boy racers while she was driving behind the airport. Her car was attacked all the windows were smashed and she felt that her life was at risk. There is absolutely no justification or excuse for this type of behaviour so I am very pleased to support this bill at its first reading. 
The New Zealand public are delighted to see a bill that will allow the confiscation and crushing of cars. People whose lives have been disrupted regularly by boy racers are very keen to crush cars. Reports from other countries that tell of car crushing are eagerly discussed and calls for New Zealand to do the same have been constant. But Kiwis are also fair-minded. They want to curb boy-racer behaviour but they also understand that the cars may not belong to the drivers and equally they do not want to see wasteful car crushing if there is some other way to deal with the problem. This bill has solved the problem neatly by seeking a “three strikes and you’re out” regime. Upon the first offence a letter will be sent to all owners of the vehicle to tell them about the danger of confiscation and car crushing if there are three offences involving the vehicle within 4 years. The letter will be sent again after the second offence. If finance companies families and friends as owners of the vehicle continue to allow the offender to drive that vehicle and the offender continues to break the law then the owners are obviously prepared to take the risk of losing their property. There is no compulsion for the boy racer to continue to offend. I believe that the vast majority of car owners will act after the first letter and certainly after the second letter. It is hoped that the offenders will lose their cars not by car crushing but by repossession of the cars by their owners. For a small number of persistent unrepentant offenders who are unable to live within the law car crushing is a good solution for their offences. Crushed cars cannot do burnouts; crushed cars cannot race illegally; crushed cars cannot become part of a boy-racer pack. 
This is a tough new law that is useful and timely. Combined with the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill it will allow the police to deal with boy racers across the country. It is time that noisy violent and disruptive behaviour has some real consequences. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. I begin by acknowledging the commonality that exists in this debate across both sides of the House. In this particular case I think we are all in agreement that a sector of our society is behaving in an absolutely abhorrent way that is to the detriment of our communities and is potentially very very harmful to various sectors of our society. We have already heard about the negative consequences of that behaviour from a list that was read out in another member’s speech. 
But I also acknowledge that this is an issue of degrees. We can start at the very small lesser end of the scale. Coming from a town like Morrinsville I have seen and even experienced the lesser end of the scale. As a teenager I once foolishly chose to teach my sister how to do a burnout on my gravel driveway. It was a foolish act given that my father is a policeman and it did not take him long to figure out who the culprit was; I raked the driveway for almost 3 hours. This is an issue of degrees. We are not talking about the foolish acts of young people doing rark-ups on their parents’ driveways; we are talking about a group who are flouting the law and as has been pointed out have no interest in abiding by the law set out in this House. I think that is a really important point to keep in mind when we analyse whether this bill will impact on the serious situation we are trying to grapple with and I will come back to that point when I go through some clauses that I think deserve particular scrutiny. 
It is also important to keep in mind that we have been here before. As has been pointed out by my colleagues we already have legislation that is tougher than what our counterparts in Australia currently use—that is the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003. As we all know Clayton Cosgrove introduced that legislation to deal with the very group of people we are trying to deal with again today. That amendment Act allowed two very important things. First it enabled the police to impound vehicles on the spot. It may be a matter of our needing to go back to the police and ask them why that provision is not being used frequently enough. Perhaps a safety issue is involved whereby impounding a car on the spot causes an unnecessary risk to the personal safety of police officers in heightened potentially violent situations. We should perhaps be putting these questions to the police. 
The second provision in the amendment Act is that the courts have the power to confiscate vehicles on a first offence. We have already heard some of the statistics repeated in the House tonight. In 2006 alone there were 9600 offences in which mandatory confiscation could have applied. But it did not. We have already heard that the rate of confiscation was a mere 2 percent. Lianne Dalziel has already brought up the question of why we have not seen a higher rate of confiscation under the Land Transport Act as it currently stands and I have to say I am very disappointed that the regulatory impact statement in the explanatory note of the bill does not touch on the gaps in the existing Act and reflect on why the courts are not using this mandatory power more. I would have given a lot more kudos to the Government if it had asked where it is going wrong now because I think that might have meant that we would be debating something that had a little more teeth than the bill we are currently looking at. 
Let us reflect on that. We currently have the power to enact mandatory confiscation. Mandatory implies that all those 9600 cars would have been confiscated but they have not. There is one provision that allows a court the discretion not to confiscate. What is that? A judge is able when considering confiscation to take into account extreme or undue hardship. That is not an unusual provision; it is something that we see for instance in the Sentencing Act where a judge has the discretion to take into account the situation of the individual before him or her when factoring in reparations and the payment of fines. It is not unusual that we give judges that discretion. Currently that discretion has obviously meant that cars are not being confiscated frequently. If this Government is truly serious about being as tough as possible on boy racers why has it not looked at that provision? Currently the bill keeps that discretion for the courts. I am not arguing either way as to whether that is good or bad but I would have at least expected the regulatory impact assessment to say why in 98 percent of cases judges are not mandatorily ordering confiscation of cars. What is going on in those 98 percent of cases? There has been no analysis of that and I think that is a failure on behalf of the Government. 
So what is different about this bill? If all of those provisions actually remain the same that discretion is still there and we are likely to see very little change as a consequence then what is different about this legislation? I want to spend a bit of time reflecting on the much talked about crushing aspect of the bill. It is contained primarily in clause 8 of the bill where new section 129A enables courts to order the destruction of motor vehicles where an offender who is convicted of a street racing offence has two previous convictions for similar offences committed within the last 4 years. The court may order the destruction of a motor vehicle if the offender was driving or was in charge of it at the material time and if it is owned by the offender or a substitute for the offender. The court must not order the destruction of a motor vehicle if it would result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person including to a substitute. 
Let us just run through what process we would see happen what procedures must happen and which hurdles must be overcome in order to see the ultimate end point that the Minister is hoping to see: the crushing of vehicles. What will happen? The first criterion is that two previous convictions must have occurred. Members should keep in mind that this bill is not retrospective so it is saying that starting from Royal assent two convictions must be incurred by an offender for similar offences. We are expecting to see someone convicted through the courts of two similar offences. Second those convictions must be received in a certain time frame; hurdle No. 2 is that they must happen with a 4-year period. Third the court can then order destruction if the person who is driving the vehicle also owns the vehicle. I would have liked to see more analysis in the explanatory note of this bill of the situations of those who have come before the court where they already own the vehicle. In 98 percent of cases a judge is not ordering confiscation. Is that because in 96 percent of cases those people do not in fact own the car? Why have we not seen any analysis of that in the explanatory note? That is the third criterion; it is the third hurdle to toughness if you will. The fourth hurdle to toughness is the issue of undue hardship that the judge is able to take into account. 
Those are four reasonably tight hurdles to overcome before we will see the Government reach its ultimate end point of crushing vehicles. It may well be that in this case the Government was after the ability to say that it was going to crush cars but without actually reaching an end point of doing so. I do not want to be too cynical about it though; that might not be its intention. But if it was not surely we would not have seen such a high bar set by the Government before the end point of crushing was reached. 
Of course I acknowledge that we have an issue in New Zealand that we need to tackle. I am not denying that. But what would I have liked to see? I recently had the privilege of spending some time with a group of young people at a WE-Speak conference which is where young people in Christchurch come together to discuss the issues in their community. They raised this as an issue; they want to debate it. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. This bill is about the rubber hitting the road or more important the Minister of Police standing up to do something about stopping some of that. This bill is a step along the path of doing something about that activity and about the 10 deaths per year that are reported to be the result of illegal street racing. It will help to stop and get rid of a persistent core group and do something about those who take away lives. The horrific costs to society of illegal street racing are estimated to be in excess of $30 million per annum. That is outlined in the regulatory impact statement but it was not touched on by any speaker here tonight. As awful as that may be it is also the case that these actions lead to other important things for those who survive: fear pain and suffering. There are cases such as the bottle attack on a lone police officer in Wigram which we have heard about tonight and the spineless attack last week on an aviation security officer behind Christchurch International Airport. This bill will not stop these incidents. It will not stop the thuggery completely but it may just save the life of someone we love or know or maybe it will just save those people from experiencing the pain suffering or fear caused by such activity. 
This bill amends three Acts as was mentioned earlier: the Privacy Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Sentencing Act. To achieve this there will be some costs. The Greens mentioned earlier some of these costs and they focused on that issue as a reason why this bill should not go ahead. It is estimated that in excess of 3000 vehicles per annum will be seized which is up from the current 1000 vehicles per annum. The additional cost of this to the Crown will be a little under $2 million. If that saves one life or two lives is that worth it? I think so. It may save 10 lives. If it saves 10 lives is it worth it? I think so. 
We heard members opposite also talk about how the finance companies may make decisions and change how they finance the cars owned by these people. How will they do that? It will be just like what insurance companies do with regard to insurance. Actuaries calculate the risk that exists for people in order to change their behaviour. That is what actuaries do best; they will calculate the probability of the risks around whether boy racers may or may not participate in that activity and cause problems and issues down the track. 
This bill will take away some of the rights of those people some of those who cause us pain and fear. I am told by the police that many of the boy racers in Christchurch come from my side of town and head to the west side of town where my colleague Amy Adams lives. Some of these people I knew; some of them have passed away murdered in some way by boy racers. Some of these people I grew up with. Some of them still drive these cars. And some of them I hope may change their behaviour as a result of these laws. Some of them may not. This bill will not harm the rights of the good law-abiding citizens who appreciate the artistry of fine automobiles or take part in car rallies. But it will deal with some of the innate fear and hatred that exists regarding boy racers. 
One of the members on the other side of the Chamber spoke tonight of being the only member who has experienced the thuggery of those people. Since that member spoke many other members have spoken about it. I have experienced it as well; so have all the other members of this House to varying degrees. Some members have simply had their sleep ruined; some have had more permanent scars—some emotional some physical. If this bill by removing some cars off our streets and by crushing a few cars takes boy racers’ pride and joy off the streets I say let us do it. It will not make the problem go away entirely but it may make it better. It may save one life or two lives or it may save more than that. It may save pain and suffering for a loved one in the future. Many people have young children as I do and this measure may save them from being impacted on by these thugs in the future. If this bill does that I say it is a good bill. I look forward to this bill being enacted. 
The speaker who has just resumed her seat spoke about why not enough confiscation and impounding of cars by the police have occurred. I tell that member I sat in a meeting about 4 or 5 months ago with district commander Cliff of the Christchurch police and with the member from Waimakariri and the member from Christchurch Central. In that meeting it was outlined why the current impounding does not work—and it does not work currently. Mr Cosgrove did not believe Superintendent Cliff but I back the police over why this law change needs to go ahead. It is because the current law does not work. 
I look forward to this bill being enacted and I look forward to some of the changes that it may bring about. As a member opposite said it is worth giving it a go. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill 
; that the committee report to the House on or before 10 September 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190 (1) (b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee that the committee present its report to the House on or before the 30 September 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill will address the limited prospects of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 generating settlement assets for iwi by 2014 by providing the Crown with an additional option for complying with its pre-commencement aquaculture space obligation. The additional settlement option is regional agreements where iwi aquaculture organisations or recognised iwi organisations in a region and the Crown plus the trustee agree on how to settle the pre-commencement space obligation in that region. Additionally the bill will give effect to an agreement between the Crown and iwi of the South Island and Hauraki for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement aquaculture space obligations in those regions. 
In 1992 the Crown reached a full and final settlement with Maori for all claims under the Treaty of Waitangi relating to New Zealand’s wild fisheries. Since 1992 settling Maori claims to commercial aquaculture with the principal Act in 2004 has been an important element in the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. Unfortunately the transfer of aquaculture settlement assets to iwi did not happen as was anticipated in 2004. Engagement between the Crown and the iwi of Te Tau Ihu Ngai Tahu and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board over how to meet Crown obligations for pre-commencement aquaculture space has identified a wonderful option to settle the Crown’s pre-commencement aquaculture space obligation for those iwi in a single transaction. The Crown and iwi have agreed that it is the best way to meet the Crown’s obligation and have signed a deed of settlement agreeing to this approach. Indeed I signed that deed. 
It is historic that so many iwi would come together to sign a settlement like this. It is historic that the settlement would be agreed on so quickly and that all the iwi of the South Island could put aside old differences and come to an agreement together. It is a fantastic achievement to reach this point. I acknowledge and thank everyone who has contributed to the successful negotiation of an early settlement on this matter. That includes both current and previous Ministers including my colleague Parekura Horomia. I would like to acknowledge his work along with that of Dr Cullen iwi leaders negotiators of course Te Ohu Kaimoana and Crown officials led by the Ministry of Fisheries all of whom contributed to the negotiations. 
The bill that I am introducing today is required to give effect to this agreement. It will settle the vast majority of the Crown’s pre-commencement aquaculture space obligations in the Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay—would you believe it—and the Hauraki Gulf along with the rest of the South Island. The bill provides for regional agreements which will allow for the early financial settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement aquaculture space obligations in other regions as well. The Crown is willing to engage with iwi in the remaining regions on this issue. It is absolutely willing. We need to finalise these aquaculture settlements. We need to ensure that settlements reach their targets and start to provide the benefits that they promise as soon as possible. 
This bill demonstrates that the Crown and iwi can work through these issues together in good faith and in partnership. Those are the qualities that underlie the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 This is a historic moment in this country’s history: we have got to a general agreement with iwi. We will support the Minister of Fisheries going forward in relation to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. The matter has had a whole lot of ups and downs and there was a period of time from 1992 to 2004 when issues relevant to coming to agreement put us to the test. 
We hope that this bill will unlock the potential of the aquaculture industry. The industry has set a target of having a turnover of $1 billion per annum by 2025. We all recognise that changes will be necessary in order for that target to be realised. Through this settlement iwi in key regions will be in a position to play their part along with the new Minister. Iwi have been clear about their support for the bill and their desire for politics to be put aside in the name of progress. 
I reiterate the points that the Minister earlier referred to. I point out that the aquaculture industry is currently worth about $300 million to the New Zealand economy. It is the fastest-growing sector of New Zealand’s seafood industry. There are basic things to understand like the fact that New Zealand’s contribution to global aquaculture is about 0.02 percent. With the opening up of India and China even in recessionary times this is a huge opportunity for Maori to be involved not only as growers but also as exporters in getting their hand in to further the great experience they have in managing external and international markets. 
The deed of settlement signed at Te Papa by the Minister and Co. covered the vast majority of New Zealand’s aquaculture development areas including the Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay and the Hauraki Gulf along with the rest of the South Island. It gives effect to the pre-election agreement in principle signed in October last year. At the heart of the agreement is a one-off cash payment of $97 million and final settlement of the current Crown obligations for pre-commencement space—that is aquaculture space that was approved between 21 September 1992 and 31 December 2004 under previous marine farming regimes. The beauty of this agreement is that it also marks a historic level of cooperation between the iwi of Hauraki Ngati Apa ki Te Ra To Ngati Koata Ngati Kuia Ngati Rarua Ngai Tahu Ngati Tama Ngati Toa Rangitane and Te Atiawa ki Te Tou Ihu. The iwi have worked together to develop a fair estimate of their entitlements in respect of pre-commencement space and in the case of Te Wai Pounamu to agree how the resulting payment will be shared between them. It is a model of how a whole lot of different iwi can get together and come to a general agreement for the benefit of their people. 
As was earlier mentioned the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act obliged the Crown to before 2014 provide iwi with the equivalent of 20 percent of existing aquaculture space created between 21 September 1992 and 31 December 2004 called pre-commencement space. The equivalent could take the form of a percentage of new aquaculture space marine farming permits purchased by the Crown for that purpose or the equivalent financial value. In 2008 the Crown acknowledged that it would have to pay some kind of financial equivalent in a number of regions. The Act also provided iwi with 20 percent of all new aquaculture space created from 1 January 2005. New space will supposedly continue to be dealt with under the Act as it arises. 
Harry Mikaere from the Hauraki Maori Trust Board said the agreement was fair and reasonable and that a lot of work had been done on the market value of the iwi entitlements in reaching the settlement figure. The settlement amount “represents the value of the space that iwi would have been entitled to if space was available. Many of the iwi parties to the settlement are involved in the aquaculture industry and could not have settled for anything less than fair value. In doing the valuation work we had a great deal of support from Te Ohu Kaimoana (Trustee of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Trust) and industry leaders.” In relation to the leaders of those iwi that I have mentioned I say that there has been a huge effort by them to bring themselves together. I do not say that lightly. 
We support this legislation which secures a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture. It is certainly a privilege to understand that Maori will be a key driver in the matter. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill and in doing so I acknowledge the speakers who spoke before me. I have great confidence in the Minister of Fisheries as he is very determined and has the understanding to get across the line on this very very sensitive issue. I also recognise Parekura Horomia and his sincere words with regard to what Maori will contribute in the long run to aquaculture to the economy and to the recovery of New Zealand from this recession. 
I just draw the House’s attention to how difficult it has been to get to this stage. In settling this matter we are increasing the options to the Crown by allowing it to use a cash settlement. That is because up until recently—May last year—every other avenue was looked at in the context of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. There was no way through and it was seen quite clearly to be an impediment to the industry going forward that 20 percent was to be awarded to Maori around the allocation of space prior to 2004. Everything came to a halt so it is great to see that a way has been found to get through this situation. I realise that those people who represent the iwi in the top of the South Island will be heartened. They will be anxious and enthusiastic to see this bill go forward to the Maori Affairs Committee and be given the due consideration it deserves. 
We have great faith also that the aquaculture industry will reach $1 billion by the year 2025. In thinking of that I cannot help imagining the Marlborough Sounds where there is Pelorus Sound which is a working sound and Queen Charlotte Sound which is basically a recreational sound. Effectively there is not a great deal of space left in that area. We have Tasman Bay and the Hauraki Gulf which are particular areas suited to aquaculture. However as much as they are suited to aquaculture they are also faced with tremendous obstacles to increasing the coastal plans that regional councils have put together to make sure more room is available. 
It is a great encouragement to see this bill have its first reading. We look forward to seeing it go to the select committee so that it comes back and is passed into law. But in doing so I just highlight to the House how much more our thinking must develop around the coastal occupation and coastal plans before we can realise an industry of aquaculture that will contribute $1 billion by the year 2025. Having said that this bill is a good bill. I look forward to seeing it go to the select committee and becoming law. On that basis I have pleasure in supporting the bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I support the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. Iwi and the Crown have formalised an agreement over pre-commencement aquaculture interests in Te Wai Pounamu and the Hauraki Gulf. The deed of settlement signed at Te Papa covers the vast majority of New Zealand’s aquaculture development areas including the Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay and the Hauraki Gulf along with the rest of the South Island. The bill gives effect to a pre-election agreement in principle signed in October last year. The bill seeks to simplify and settle the process for Maori to enter into the aquaculture industry and amongst other things offers cash payments in lieu of aquaculture space.  
I congratulate and acknowledge the former Ministers who have worked to get this bill to the stage it has got to. The Hon Phil Heatley has acknowledged Parekura Horomia Dr Cullen and others who worked on this bill in order to get it to this stage. It is only fair that those Ministers from the previous Government are acknowledged along with the Hon Phil Heatley. For me it does not matter that the National Government has come along and got the signatures on the bottom line of the last page of this deal; what matters to me is that Maori have opportunities to develop and grow not just in the aquaculture industry but in all industries.  
Maori have been sustained by kai moana or mataitai as we also call it since time immemorial. It has fed and nourished us. Therefore it stands to reason that Maori should be able to enter into the aquaculture industry and continue to sustain our whanau hapu and iwi. I noted in schedule 2 of the principal Act that the first nine harbours listed are from up in the north. Not only have my tupuna sustained themselves and our whanau hapu and iwi from the mataitai of those wahapu but I too have an intimate knowledge of a number of those harbours from fishing diving and gathering kai moana.  
The Waikare inlet in the Bay of Islands in particular I know very well. Before the oyster farms up there succumbed to the disease and pollution that ruined not just the farms but also the livelihoods of a number of the oyster farmers we were able to gather literally sacks of oysters for our marae. When every Bluff oyster season came around we used to laugh when we saw people paying $20 for a dozen oysters when for next to nothing we could get a dozen sacks of oysters. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And they’re bigger. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: They were a lot bigger and in our opinion they were a lot sweeter. We could literally go along the banks of the Waikare and Taumarere rivers and gather up sacks of oysters. 
My tupuna Pomare build a pa on that very river by the name of Otuihu. Being the entrepreneur that he was he ran a few grog shops and a few other dens of iniquity until the day the British ship the  
North Star 
 came along and shelled the pa and British troops set the whole settlement on fire. Then we had to move off and head up to Karetu. But in those days and right through until even as recently as the 1970s my whanau from Ngati Manu have gathered pipi and tio which are oysters and kutai. We have caught tuna tamure—which is snapper—patiki herrings mullet and many other fish to sustain us not just for our marae hui but for our daily sustenance. So I support this bill which enables Maori to again derive sustenance for the whanau through the development of the aquaculture industry and I support all the jobs that will be generated for Maori because of it. 
This bill has been developed to enable the Government to deliver a one-off cash payment of $97 million in full and final settlement of all Crown obligations for pre-commencement aquaculture space—that is aquaculture space approved between 21 September 1992 and 31 December 2004 under the previous marine farming regime. This settlement covers the vast majority of New Zealand’s current aquaculture development areas including as has been mentioned the Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay and Hauraki Gulf. This settlement will give a financial boost to iwi as well as help to give certainty to the aquaculture industry. I commend this Government for continuing the work of the previous Government. I commend it for the sense of urgency it is giving to the settlements. Maori deserve settlements to be made as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the business of being successful of footing it with non-Maori in industry and of working in industries that appeal to us by virtue of their nature and through our heritage. 
The aquaculture industry will create employment for Maori near their homes. They will not necessarily have to uproot their families and settle away from home. Aquaculture is an industry that will suit our people in the north because no matter where one lives in the north one is not more than an hour away from a harbour where aquaculture industries exist. I think of the Sanford factory in the small town of Kaeo in the beautiful Whangaroa where the aquaculture industry is the biggest employer in town. It draws employees not just from Kaeo itself but also from across the north from Kawakawa and Kaikohe. People are able to travel to and from work daily from their home towns. There will be even more employment opportunities for Maori and all others in the far north when the other harbours there also begin to develop fully their aquaculture industries. 
The proposed changes in this bill allow a practical solution to the outstanding issues in the principal Act without having to renegotiate the underlying intent of the settlement. I support this legislation which secures a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry. That industry is a growing one and New Zealand is recognised internationally for it. The quality of our seafood is famous worldwide. I have a friend who owns his own oyster farm in Te Hapua in the very very far north. His business cannot keep up with the demand and he employs a number of locals. 
I recall being in Canada 5 years ago and ordering a plate of Canadian scallops. Having been away from home for a couple of months I was desperate for a feed of seafood only to have my plate arrive in front of me and be bitterly disappointed with what I was served. I later found out that Canadian scallops are made from the flaps of fish that have been stamped with something akin to a biscuit cutter but they are about one-fifth of the size of a biscuit. That is not seafood. Feeding fake seafood to a Maori is tantamount to an act of treason. It is a criminal act. I am not sure whom the restaurateur thought he was feeding but I was not going to let him get away with feeding me counterfeit scallops. Unfortunately Canadian seafood restaurants do not come under this Parliament’s jurisdiction but if there was ever a case for bringing back the punishment of hanging drawing and quartering somebody it would be for selling fake kai moana to a hungry Maori. 
I look forward to seeing the aquaculture industry develop further and having those Canadians buy up our seafood in bulk so that if I am ever fortunate enough to be over there again they can serve me the real McCoy not imitation kai moana. I am especially eager for my whanaunga to be right there in the thick of the aquaculture action creating businesses and financial success for themselves creating employment in our Maori communities and contributing fully to our economy and country. This bill will go a long way towards assisting that to occur and again I congratulate all the Ministers who have brought this settlement and this bill to this point be they Ministers from the current Government or from the previous Government. Tena koutou. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. It is a sensible solution to the impasse that we have found ourselves in when trying to deliver on the Treaty settlements division of the fisheries between Maori and other fishers and at the same time finding that the space in many areas was already largely full. The best spots had gone and finding 20 percent of the available area for allocation to Maori was going to be very difficult. It raised all sorts of questions about 20 percent of what exactly—20 percent nationwide or 20 percent regionally. It was a nightmare to try to deliver on that agreement regarding 20 percent of the total available area. 
That was made further difficult by some of the sustainability requirements for aquaculture as people have gradually realised that this gold rush industry does have limits. Those are not just that there are limits in terms of the visual space and the conflicts with other users of the marine environment but also that there is only so much in the way of nutrients that flow through a particular bay. If we put too many seafood farms in there then they will all starve each other. 
We can add to that the fact that most regional councils had not established aquaculture management areas as they are required to do under legislation and were relying on applicants to apply for plan changes in order to establish aquaculture management areas in particular areas where they wanted to put a farm. We could hardly expect Maori to do that for the sake of 20 percent of the total area. 
This bill is a sensible solution; it is a negotiated solution. It is good to see that the Crown and iwi were able to sit down together under two successive Governments and negotiate a solution that allows for cash to be paid so that Maori may purchase the rights to areas of the coastal space for fish farms from those who already have them thus keeping within the sustainability limits and delivering at the same time on the Treaty settlements that have been concluded in the past. It is a solution that everybody supports. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 The National Government is very supportive of the aquaculture industry and indeed it is with a sense of privilege that I rise this evening to speak on the first reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. We believe that the aquaculture industry has the potential to provide large long-term economic gains. What I mean by that is that there will be sustainability for the coastline but also the creation of more jobs. We are investing $16 million a year in scientific research into the aquaculture industry which is very very important. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.