Volume 658 Week 28 - Tuesday 27 October 2009(continued on Wednesday 28 October 2009) 
Volume 658 Week 28 - Tuesday 27 October 2009(continued on Wednesday 28 October 2009) 
[Volume:658;Page:7495] 
Tuesday 27 October 2009 
( 
continued on Wednesday 28 October 2009 
) 
Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Justice and Electoral Committee had the benefit of receiving guidance from Michael Rowe of the criminology department at Victoria University. Mr Rowe was able to share his experience of the British DNA database a system that was meant to include samples of only convicted criminals but that was slowly ratcheted up to include samples of all those who had been arrested. He also noted that courts in Britain have agreed that the keeping of DNA records in databases breaches human rights legislation. This is information that the Maori Party simply could not ignore. Research from other countries whether it relates to efficacy or matters of accuracy indicates that such records are not a hugely useful tool. 
I will go back to the topic of ethnic differences in the database. Our concern is that there is the risk of unethical use of the DNA database to conduct research and to make population statements about certain groups having a criminal gene. This was a particular concern of Dr Papaarangi Reid the tumuaki at the faculty of health and medical sciences Auckland University. It was her view that there was much to cause us alarm in the setting of appropriate parameters on the use of a DNA police database which would make statements about whole populations and not just individual offenders. As we know too well recent genetic inquiry has sought to discover genetic causes of behaviour—do members remember the warrior gene—so there is a risk that such a database could be accessed for research into a criminal gene. Such research even though unethical has been able to be conducted in the absence of proper ethical controls. 
Dr Reid had a number of concerns that the Maori Party has taken seriously. It was her view that the positive benefits of convicting serious offenders sit alongside a host of issues of great concern. The general question of ethics and human rights suggests that DNA testing will affect Maori disproportionately given the existing police bias and the over-scrutiny of Maori. It will create a level of truth summed up best as “Crime will be found where it is most looked for.” Another concern is that DNA testing has implications for whanau as well as individuals because first and second-degree relatives can be identified through genetic testing thereby allowing the authorities to build up a family history. DNA testing would enable the police to create a DNA profile of the wider Maori population. 
Finally trust issues are involved when the police hold such information and when we ask whether the rules about who is tested and how the information is used will change over time. As we saw with the Taser gun trial the police function independently from parliamentary or ministerial scrutiny on operational matters so we have considerable concern whenever discretion is to be applied. We are as I said earlier absolutely committed to the protection of the sacred genetic make-up inherent in whakapapa and as such we cannot support this bill. There are simply other approaches that we should use rather than tamper with DNA. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. The first priority of this Government has been to improve law and order and public safety. The bill contributes to that goal by giving the police tools to resolve more crimes and catch more offenders. It accompanies other important law enforcement initiatives such as the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill the Search and Surveillance Bill the recently passed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and many more. This bill is one of the many steps this Government has swiftly taken following the election to fulfil its promise to the public of New Zealand. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of useful amendments to the bill particularly around improving the process of taking DNA samples from young people. One of the changes is to limit the range of offences for which a sample can be taken from a young person to more serious relevant offences specified in the bill. That will ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to this law. In addition the criteria for taking DNA samples from a young person have been significantly simplified. The Justice and Electoral Committee concluded that the criteria for taking samples from young people repeated the protection that already exists in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act specifically in section 208. As such the bill has been amended to provide that section 208 of the Act will apply and will provide adequate protection for young people in custody. 
DNA carries a unique genetic code for an individual. Current technology allows bodily samples like blood saliva and semen to be processed and reassembled in a form of barcode that can be matched with the other samples taken from a crime scene. This procedure is an important investigative tool resulting in virtually conclusive proof of identity. It may be used to pinpoint an offender as well as to clear an innocent suspect. 
The bill will allow the police to collect DNA from a person whom they intend to charge with an offence and prior to that person’s conviction or acquittal the police will be able to match that person’s DNA against the profile from the scene of the crime in unresolved cases. Offenders who go on to commit serious offences in the future will be identified a lot earlier because their DNA will have been kept after they committed an offence in the very very early stages of their criminal offending. 
Over this year the Government has proudly brought before the Parliament a number of measures that impact squarely on the victims for the better. This legislation is one of them. It will save more victims than probably any other legislation that we have seen before this Parliament in a very long time. I commend this bill to the House. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I shall take a short call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. It is opposed by the Green Party. It has been opposed by the Green Party the whole way. The fact that this bill is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Attorney-General’s report states that it has significant human rights abuses is of extremely serious concern to the Greens and should be to Parliament as a whole. The forcible taking of DNA samples where the police only intend to charge a person—the person has not been convicted of any offence—is a gross assault on that person. Under any other circumstances but for it being authorised in law that would constitute an assault against that person. The Green Party does not believe that the law should be authorising assaults against a person simply because the police say they intend to charge that person with a crime where there is no evidence to suggest that that person will be convicted of that crime. 
I would like to reiterate the point or support the points made by Charles Chauvel about the serious concern that there will be no judicial oversight of the forcible taking of these bodily samples from citizens of this country. He set out a very clear description of the importance of judicial oversight in this matter the fact that the law provides for that already and that there does not seem to be any reason why that should change; it is obviously working currently. It does raise a concern for me too as to why Labour is supporting this legislation despite the very clear concerns by Labour and by Labour members for the breach of human rights the lack of judicial oversight and in regard to young people and to Maori and to others of other ethnic minorities the risk of abuse by the police against those communities. I would urge Labour members to rescind their view and to oppose this legislation for all of the good reasons that Labour itself has put out in the debate over the last day or so. 
Another concern of mine is around systemic bias racism that exists within the legal system. At least two good studies one produced by the Department of Corrections and the other by the Christchurch medical school I think in 2003 clearly showed that the legal system contains bias against Maori and that that bias leads to an overrepresentation of Maori in various parts of the legal system. The Department of Corrections study looked at a number of factors. Despite all the other social indicators it concluded that there is a degree of overrepresentation related solely to the ethnicity of Maori at key points in the legal system. Although at each of those key points the overrepresentation might be small none the less the cumulative effect of that bias is exacerbated over time. 
One of those areas is arrests. This was proven by the subsequent Christchurch study which looked at cannabis arrests and convictions. It found that despite all other risk factors such as a person’s being known to the police Maori men are still more likely than anyone else to be stopped arrested and convicted of cannabis offences. That is despite all other risk factors including frequency of use for example. It shows that the police are more likely to stop Maori men. It proves that. Now with this bill there will be no need for a conviction before a DNA sample is taken. The police have been trying to do some good work on the issue of systemic bias and to deal with it internally but they have not fixed it. Systemic bias within the police still occurs in various parts of the legal system. With this bill the police are able to take a DNA sample based simply on an intention to charge. Maori will be proportionally more likely to suffer from that forcible assault than others in the community. 
This legislation is a form of enactment of systemic racism against Maori communities. Cam Calder can sit there and wave his hands about and think that that is perfectly fine but what he cannot do is find the evidence to the contrary because the evidence proves that such systemic racism and bias is in the system. It may be small but for the individuals and whanau who suffer from it the effects are considerable. It cannot be denied by anyone in this House that those families suffer as a result. 
The changes in this bill also undermine the protections of young people in particular. I am especially disturbed to see that the police will be able to nominate a person to come and support a young person from whom a bodily sample is to be forcibly taken. It should not be for the police to decide who a support person for a young person in that circumstance should be. It is for the young person and for his or her whanau to decide yet the police will be given the power to make that decision in this bill. 
I also highlight the other changes in the process around law enforcement that exacerbate the concerns I have about this bill. One is the concept of mobile justice units which was proposed in September of this year I think. Police will be able to not only arrest and charge people but also convict people on the street from the back of their cop car and they will be able to take various pieces of evidence from people. Presumably now they will also be able to take bodily samples from people as a means of managing what is called mobile justice. This gives the police an extraordinary power. Not only do the police have the power to stop people and to arrest and charge them—and it is reasonable that enforcement agencies are able to do that kind of work—but also the police will now have a judicial role as they will be able to decide whether to convict people and they will be able to fine them or otherwise punish them for that crime. This bill continues to increase the powers of the police by enabling them to have a mobile justice unit in the back of cop cars and now the police can forcibly assault people and take bodily samples while only intending to charge them. The power of the police in these circumstances is enormous. It is incredible. 
Last night I heard some National members going on about extreme cases and that is fine. But we are talking here about perfectly ordinary citizens who have not committed a crime who find themselves in a situation where the police might for some reason or another want to talk with them because of a concern around a crime forcibly assault them take bodily samples from them and never charge them. Perfectly ordinary New Zealanders who are going about their lawful business and who might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time will find themselves being assaulted by the police. That is the consequence of this legislation. There is no doubt that the taking of bodily samples DNA from those who have been charged—for example where there is real concern about the possibility of their being involved in other crimes—might be the way to resolve some of those issues. There is an argument that can be made there but not when the police are simply allowed by this legislation to roam around the country finding people with whom perhaps they have a problem or perhaps finding ordinary law-abiding citizens who have never been in trouble but have found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and who are forcibly assaulted by the cops who have no intention of charging them but who can use the measures in this bill as a way of getting through it. 
Many of our police do a fine job and are working to improve the culture of the police but it is not improved yet; it is not fixed yet. Until it is giving the police these kinds of powers is an abuse of their power and it is an abuse of citizens. It puts the majority of citizens at risk of the abuse of this power. This bill provides no protection for those people. It is clearly a breach of human rights and enacts systemic racism into our system. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa i tenei rangi paki. I join with my Labour colleagues in supporting the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I support it because hard-working New Zealanders need protection from those in our community who wish them harm and in particular I speak for our women and children who need protection from those who have no respect for others. I want to play my part in making New Zealand a safer place where those who wish harm on our women and children are identified and apprehended as quickly as possible so that the harm those people cause is minimised. 
A number of very salient points were made by colleagues last night and I will touch on a few of them. Firstly as was said last night this bill creates great power. But with great power there is also great responsibility and it is our duty to hard-working New Zealanders that we do not create injustices as we attempt to eliminate other injustices. When we hear the Attorney-General himself report that this legislation has inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then we need to tread carefully. The Hon Chris Finlayson said that the DNA plan appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it would give police the power to take DNA from those whom they intend to charge with an imprisonable offence without the safeguard of judicial or other independent approval. The Hon Chris Finlayson said that such safeguards were required in jurisdictions that use the comparable DNA scheme including New South Wales Victoria Canada the United States Germany Japan and the Netherlands. He said that he could not see any special circumstances in New Zealand to justify not having statutory safeguards. 
Charles Chauvel last night described in some detail the circuitous route that may see this legislation challenged and New Zealand being judged to be acting contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So we may find ourselves here again ironing out those inconsistencies in months to come. Charles Chauvel also proposed a Supplementary Order Paper that would have avoided this but unfortunately it was voted down. 
As my colleague Moana Mackey described in the second reading it is incredibly important that we ensure that the process of taking a sample and putting it through a laboratory can be tested in court. People who are facing a lifetime in prison for crimes they say they did not commit must be able to challenge not just the results but the process of storage and the testing of samples. There must be effective procedures that guarantee against the contamination of samples. It is hugely important to ensure the integrity of samples and of their transmission storage testing reportage and preservation and that this can stand the scrutiny of independent experts. We have created the situation whereby the police can arrest and “intend to charge” someone and take a DNA sample from a person. There are questions around what happens to DNA samples that are taken and eventually no charges are laid against the person or when charges are laid but the person is not convicted—in other words when the person is innocent. That raises questions about the destruction of DNA samples and profiles. How can people who have had samples taken be really sure that in the event of their being totally exonerated all traces of their DNA samples and profiles will be destroyed? I guess they have to take the system at its word. 
I was involved in a very small way in a case where an autopsy was performed on a baby’s body and some months after the funeral very small samples of tissue were returned to the family. The family members who believed that they had buried all of the baby at once were understandably very upset. It illustrates the fact that at times the system does let people down. I note the concerns that the Maori Party and the Green Party have with institutional racism. In the instance of this baby there was no intention to let the family down but the story illustrates how issues may arise and cause a lot of angst and grief when people have put trust in the system. I also ask: once one’s information is on the computer how can it ever be totally deleted? We just have to put our faith in the system but as I have said at times the system fails. 
As most people have come to accept DNA has become the 21st century equivalent of taking fingerprints. Others disagree and I note that the Green Party is concerned about the intrusion on people’s bodies. As a Maori I know there is a whole cultural side to the sanctity of parts of a person’s body although I acknowledge that the persons from whom these bodily samples are taken as a generalisation have probably failed to respect the sanctity of another person’s body. So I have little sympathy for those people; it is the person who has had a sample taken and is either not charged in the end or exonerated for whom I have empathy. 
I have described the way in which Maori traditionally have jealously guarded personal possessions—not just body parts like hair and fingernails but other personal items that come into contact with a person’s body such as clothes and hairbrushes etc. This is because of the belief that if we physically take a part of a person then we also capture a part of the person’s wairua and we can then use that to cause misfortune to the person. We call it makutu. In fact the ultimate insult in days gone by was to consume one’s enemy after battle. We can say that Maori collected their enemy’s DNA by eating it; I have been told that the hands and feet were particularly juicy. 
In no way do I want to be seen to be creating special treatment for Maori offenders. If someone has done the crime then as my colleague Stuart Nash said last night they need to take responsibility for what they have done. The Labour Party believes that we all need to take personal responsibility for our actions. If we have stuffed up there will be consequences. This goes for all New Zealanders. We just need to be cognisant of the fact that even if people are to be charged I presume they are still innocent until proven guilty. Therefore there needs to be a large measure of respect and sensitivity around the collection of DNA samples. 
I understand that the police have developed procedures to deal with cultural issues but that in the past when there was a higher threshold for collecting samples the police were dealing with higher-level criminals. Because the threshold has dropped the police may be dealing with less seasoned suspects who are unfamiliar with the system and who are not so sure about what has been asked of them. I would hate to see a relatively minor procedure escalate into something bigger which could mean that the alleged offender was charged with other offences such as assaulting a police officer especially if that person was innocent of the initial offence. 
I note that when taking a sample a constable has to hand to the person a written notice containing the particulars specified as well as inform the person “in a manner and in a language that the person is likely to understand” what the triggering offence is and the effect of certain sections in the Act—that the sample will be analysed and that the DNA profile derived from the sample cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings etc. On the face of it all this seems pretty straightforward: a written explanation in plain language and a plain language verbal explanation as to what is going to happen. This all seems well and good until we factor in the human elements. As I said last night as a teacher I know that just because a clear explanation is given and just because people are nodding their heads and saying yes it does not necessarily mean they understand what is going on. That is a mistaken belief. 
Labour supports this bill and we note that it complements work the previous Labour Government did by passing the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. That Act significantly increased the scope for DNA testing of suspects—for example burglary suspects could be compelled to provide a DNA sample. It provided that DNA samples could be obtained by compulsion from prison inmates convicted of serious offences before the 1995 Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act and that police no longer needed a court order to obtain a sample from a convicted person. It also brought in the use of mouth swabs which are cheaper less invasive and just as accurate as blood samples and other provisions. 
In summary I hope this legislation succeeds in making Kiwis and in particular our women and children safer. I hope there is sensitivity towards the cultural side of collecting DNA samples and that we will not be sitting here again in a few months ironing out the bill’s inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill but with considerable reservations. I am glad to see the Green Party co-leader is sitting down because I think I will probably cause her some shock later in my speech. 
The ACT Party as everyone knows proclaims itself proudly to be the party of freedom. I notice Kelvin Davis quoted one of our founding principles that one must take the consequences of one’s actions. That is typical of the thoughtful speeches made by that member that I have heard in the short time I have been in Parliament. There are divisions in our party because of our founding doctrine of freedom—freedom of the individual. Others in our party say that we should take a DNA sample from everyone. Everyone who is a decent citizen should volunteer and if they do not a sample should just be taken. No one who is not criminally minded has anything to fear. That is one argument and it has much to commend it. Others in our party say this is yet another unwarranted intrusion by the State especially when we are talking about persons who have not even been charged much less convicted. That causes me concern personally and it causes concern to many of our members. 
I am personally in that uncomfortable place of straddling the fence on this one but we cannot do that in this House. We have to make a call and collectively ACT has made a call to support the bill. The Green Party speaker talked about systemic racism in the police. I personally do not believe that is the case. However it is undoubtedly true sadly that the offence that the Americans call “driving while black” which here is “driving while brown” is indeed a reason in the absence of anything else for the police to pull Maori people over. Again some will say that that is justified because Maori are overrepresented in the criminal population. That is simply a fact whatever the reason for it. But to say that our police are completely colour-blind would be to deny reality. 
The other day I was reviewing the case in Whakatane where four policemen over an extended period pepper sprayed a Maori man who was helpless in a cell. They were charged and acquitted by a jury which I found astounding having looked at the video tapes of what occurred. So to say that the police are entirely free of racist attitudes would be wrong and I will not stand here and say that. 
This is not an easy speech to make because it is a very difficult question. As Kelvin Davis has touched on I too share concerns about samples being taken where someone is intended to be charged but no charge ever follows. I have concerns and have had concerns. I am old enough as probably now only a minority of members are to remember the Arthur Alan Thomas case. I have read the 1981 royal commission report on the Thomas case and it is a shocking read. I am prepared to bet that nobody else in this House has read it but I can tell members that from that day on blind trust in the police was misplaced. So I share Kelvin Davis’ concern and I share Metiria Turei’s concern in that regard. 
But the argument is finely balanced. We have become a much more violent society than we once were; there is no doubt of that. To anyone who tends to argue otherwise whether he or she wants to split hairs about domestic violence or whatever I say that that is simply a fact. At this point I will depart from the Greens who use the usual hyperbole when talking about anything to do with law and order on the issue of grievous assaults when taking samples. Well I have just assaulted my colleague Rahui Katene when I touched her. I remember studying torts 20 years ago. I got a D in the mid-sessional exam but got an A in the final exam because I swotted. I can remember the exact phrase “Even the slightest touching is an assault”. So I have just assaulted Rahui Katene—although I am cheating because she gave me her consent first. To say that taking a sample is a grievous assault is silly; it is just silly. The worst that could possibly happen to people who refuse to give a sample would be to have their head held and a swab stuck in their mouth. That cannot be called a grievous assault or even a serious assault. 
This is a finely balanced exercise. I share the concerns of other speakers about the intrusions—the human rights concerns—and I do not have blind faith in the police. However as I said at the beginning of my speech sitting on the fence in this House is not what we are sent here to do. The ACT Party with some reservation will support this bill. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have spoken in both the first and the second readings so I will not take all of my allocated time. But I will talk about the— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Oh go on. Don’t let us down. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I could but I will not. I will talk about just three things. I will talk about the technology involved and some of the advances there. I will speak about the increase in the number of rightful convictions and the decrease in the number of wrongful ones that this bill will bring which is something that I see as being very important. Finally I will note something that Chester Borrows said. 
I have said at every stage of this bill that the technological increases and advances in this area are quite amazing. We have gone from the days not a very long time ago when large blobs of DNA were required to get a sample to the situation where a mere trace of DNA is all that is required. Often it is something not even visible to the human eye. The power of the technology has been amazing. Moana Mackey who knows a lot about this may be able to correct me but I do not believe we are yet at the stage where a mere breath is enough. We would still need physical contact. 
We have not gone down a much more controversial road either. Members will remember the Court of Appeal case regarding David Bain where there were issues to do with whether voice recognition and whether we could recognise what someone had said in a phone call could be admissible. It was not admissible in the Bain case. The inquiry went to whether there were words or merely heavy breathing. 
We could not say for example in a court case whether a person talking on the phone was David or Davina Hughes particularly if he or she was using a wrong name as Labour members sometimes do. We have powerful technology but we are not yet at the point where breath can be included. Certainly voice recognition is very controversial so we will not be able to tell which Labour members were making certain phone calls at certain times. 
Secondly I say that the number of rightful convictions will increase as a result of this bill. I think that is absolutely correct. It will also see innocent people vindicated as we saw with David Dougherty. 
I say to the Green member that I take seriously the point she makes about Maori and the justice system. I think that the overrepresentation of Maori in our justice system is of concern and I believe that it is also of concern to the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. But I disagree with the Green member in relation to her concerns with this bill which I think will be a friend not a foe. It is simply a factual position to say that DNA sampling will see people rightfully convicted or rightfully acquitted. Therefore it is not racially biased in any way; I do not think that Maori in this country should have anything to fear. 
Finally I agree with something Chester Borrows said yesterday in a fine contribution. When we look at the whole arsenal of laws in the law and order area this bill is one of the finest and it is more likely to create fewer victims than any of the other bills passed to date. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on the third reading of this important legislation. Labour will be supporting the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. As has been said in previous readings of the bill Labour did a lot of work in the area of DNA databases further enabling the police and the courts to use DNA as a powerful tool when it comes to gaining convictions for serious crimes. This bill extends that work a lot further. 
Although members have spoken at length about the advantages of this technology and the opportunities it will bring I once again will talk as I did in my other speeches about some of the safeguards that need to be put around this legislation. I make it clear that Labour supports this legislation. I believe that this technology can be used in an appropriate and safe way. I am concerned that none of the Government speakers seem to have taken our concern on board. I spoke about it in the second reading I spoke about it at the Committee stage and I am about to speak about it again in the third reading. I think one final Government member— 
Paul Quinn 
: Repetition! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is because no one in Mr Quinn’s party has even addressed any of the concerns I have raised. Mr Quinn is about to stand up and give a speech on this bill. I look to the final Government speaker on this legislation to address these issues because they have not been addressed. That is the reason why I repeat myself. Mr Bridges gave a speech where he made a joke that was not even funny—one should not make jokes if they are not funny—when he should really have been taking the bill a little bit more seriously and addressing some of the issues I raised. 
As I said in the other readings of this bill and in the Committee stage we have to understand that DNA technology is not foolproof. It is not infallible. It is very very powerful. The powerful aura that exists around it is one of the reasons why we need to make sure there are safeguards. If we walk in to a court and there is DNA evidence against us then we are toast. Let us face it: we are likely to go down for that conviction. We need to ensure that juries and the people of New Zealand on whose behalf we are passing this legislation understand that it is not infallible technology. DNA sequencing for criminal purposes is not the same as full genome sequencing. We test about 0.001 percent of DNA when we do a DNA sequence for criminal purposes. Professor Ian Shaw who runs the forensic science course at the University of Central Lancashire and who is viewed as an expert on this matter says that the results are never 100 percent certain. We need to be aware of this because we have to put safeguards in place if this technology is to be used appropriately. Professor Shaw says: “The problem is that we will never really know how many people we’ve locked in prison using DNA matches are not guilty.” He said that although the chances of that happening were remote the more samples we get—and this bill will dramatically increase the number of samples we take—the greater the chance that we find two samples that look the same but are not actually from the same person. I do not say that to undermine this technology; I say it because we need to be aware of it. It really concerns me that no Government member has got up and spoken about this issue or has even acknowledged that there are limitations. They have all got up and told us that DNA testing will free the innocent and condemn the guilty. They have given it superhero status in crime fighting. Yes it is very very powerful. But with such powerful technology safeguards become even more important because evidence against a person will almost always result in a conviction. 
One of the issues that I have been particularly concerned about is the funding of the testing. That is probably one of my biggest concerns. The Minister of Research Science and Technology who is responsible for Crown research institutes was in the Chamber last night and he refused to confirm that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research would get the funding required to implement this bill safely. He refused to confirm that. He said it was a contract. He knew how much it costs so why would he not guarantee that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research will get the money? It is not just for the extra testing the staff the equipment and all the reagents that come with it but also for the chain of custody: for the administration the storing the transfer and the reporting of the samples. If the institute does not have the money for those things there is no point in doing it. 
I refer to an incident that members may remember. Last night members were dismissing this issue as if somehow it would never happen. Members may remember a case in New Zealand not very long ago where due to cross-contaminations between samples a Christchurch assault victim spent 4 months under investigation for double murder. The only reason that he got off was that he had an airtight alibi: he was being assaulted in Christchurch at the time. His DNA was taken because he was an assault victim and because of cross-contamination he spent 4 months under investigation. That is why the funding has to be there. I am not making this up to be difficult or argumentative; it is a genuine concern. I have friends who work at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research; I used to work there. Those friends have said that they are concerned. They are already under enormous pressure in terms of their DNA testing. All they want to know is that the money will be there for this bill to be implemented safely. 
On top of that is the fact that this Government now requires Crown research institutes to return a 9 percent dividend to Government so suddenly that financial pressure becomes all the more pressing. If people are working in situations where they are overworked understaffed and under-resourced we get mistakes. We cannot afford mistakes in this area because mistakes in this area send innocent people to prison. We should all regard that as completely and entirely unacceptable. All I am asking is for just one Government member to please get up and guarantee to the House that the money that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research needs for this technology and for this increase—[ 
Interruption 
] Well Jo Goodhew can sneer at me but I am actually quite serious about this. The money must be there otherwise we run the risk of a miscarriage of justice. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why did you buy KiwiRail? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Government’s answer to this very serious problem is: “Why did you buy KiwiRail?”. Apparently Paul Quinn is now telling us that the money for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research will not be there because we have purchased KiwiRail. Mr Quinn might like to take this issue a little more seriously. He is the next Government speaker and I expect him to address this issue. It is important. 
I come back to my point that DNA testing is not a fingerprint and we need to be very careful about it. A very interesting paper was given to the New South Wales Parliament when it went through a similar process. It pointed out that if all of New South Wales’ 8000 prisoners—as there were at that time—were tested against the 15000 profiles currently in the New South Wales police database simple chance indicated that around 120 false positives would be found. Again I say that we can have safeguards around it. But if we are not aware of the issue and if the Government members regard it as just a joke because all they want to do is go out there and say they are tough on crime without putting adequate safeguards around the technology we need to be careful. 
Labour tried to put up an amendment which the Government voted down requiring judicial oversight of the taking of samples. I think that issue will come back to the House because I do not see why any Government would have a problem with judicial oversight over the taking of a sample that can convict someone. My colleague Carmel Sepuloni made a very good point when the member David Garrett was talking about the sample being taken. If a person did not commit a crime but is suddenly dragged in to give a DNA sample that person might get really upset especially if it is someone who has been hassled a lot by the police and knows he or she did not do it. People do not always act rationally particularly if they are accused of something that they did not do and they feel that they are being subjected to harassment. We need to be aware of that and that is why the judicial oversight clause was really important. I think Labour will bring that issue back to the House. 
I also want to come back briefly to the issue of funding and errors. A study was done in the United States where an external DNA proficiency test conducted by the California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors found a 1 percent error rate in DNA testing in those reviewed laboratories. We have to be very careful. That error rate is not mentioned in court. When we are given the statistical probability of someone having committed a crime that laboratory error rate is not included as far as I am aware in New Zealand. I know it is not given overseas. We need to fund the Institute of Environmental Science and Research properly because if the error rate is getting up to one in a hundred statistical odds of one in a million suddenly do not mean a lot. 
Again I do not say that to undermine the technology. These are safeguards on the fringes. In large part this technology is very powerful and accurate but we need to be aware of its shortcomings. We should not mystify DNA testing or put it on a pedestal and suggest it is all-seeing and all-knowing. DNA testing tells us that someone’s DNA was there. It does not necessarily tell us that that person committed a crime; it tells us that someone’s DNA was found at a scene and that it was positively identified to a certain probability. We as politicians need to be very careful about talking this technology up. My colleague Lianne Dalziel made a very good point last night. The flip side is that just because there is no DNA evidence that does not mean that someone did not commit a crime. Programmes like  
CSI 
 drive me absolutely nuts but I will not get started on that programme because that would be another whole speech. The fact is that police find it very difficult because juries now think that if we do not have DNA evidence the person cannot possibly have committed the crime. That is the flip side of this argument. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As my very good friend and colleague “Rusty Robertson” might say it is great to be up on my hind legs. I will focus on a couple of points in concluding this debate on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I will talk about judicial oversight and a wee bit about the cultural aspects that have been raised during the course of this debate and then I will wrap up by recommending the bill be given the Royal assent. 
There has been a lot of discussion during the course of this debate about judicial oversight the Bill of Rights Act and so on. The fact of the matter is that this legislation will be implemented in two parts. The first part sets out that the taking of a swab on the inside of the cheek will be implemented in the first round according to new Part 3 of the schedule. Swabs will be able to be taken on that basis. Once procedures have been established that comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we will go to a second round of implementation which is where a swab can be taken in the case of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment. There seems to have been a lack of understanding by members opposite about how this system is supposed to work. I think it is very important that we understand the system in the first instance. 
The second issue I raise is that although I agree with members opposite that we cannot legislate against stupidity or against the situation where people want to break the law the simple reality is that members on this side of the House believe that there are sufficient safeguards in this legislation to protect people and provide a proper mechanism for implementation. 
The final point I comment on is the issue of cultural impact to which a number of speakers have referred. I am happy to defer to my teina because of his much greater experience and understanding in these areas. But I know that I have expectorated on the rugby field any number of times and I am sure that when any of us have been driving trucks or working in the freezing works we have done the same. I cannot understand the objection to taking a swab from the inside of a cheek to be put into storage. 
With those few concluding remarks it gives me great pleasure to recommend to the House that this legislation now proceed to the Governor-General to receive the Royal assent. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13. 
Gangs and Organised Crime Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is great to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Part 1 proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 that will provide the police with more powers to investigate and disrupt organised criminal activity and assist the prosecution of those involved. Clause 4 increases the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group in section 98A of the Act from a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. This better reflects a range of culpability caught by offending under section 98A and offending by those who organise serious criminal activity such as methamphetamine manufacturing but who do not themselves directly offend. 
Part 1 also clarifies the evidential burden in section 98A necessary to prove participation in an organised criminal group. Section 98A contains a number of criteria including knowledge requirements that must be proved before the offence of participation in an organised criminal group is made out. The amendments in this part make interpretation of the section clearer and should improve its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. 
The Law and Order Committee proposed an amendment to section 98A to align the penalty for serious violent offences committed by organised criminal groups with the penalty threshold for such offences for the purpose of obtaining an interception warrant. This amendment will expand the range of serious violent offences that will be captured by section 98A to include perverting the course of justice with a violent component certain firearms offences and certain wounding and injury offences. 
Part 1 also amends the sections relating to obtaining interception warrants in Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1961. It provides the police with the authority to apply for an interception warrant to investigate those who participate in an organised criminal group. It also amends the definition of a “specified offence” for which police may apply for interception warrants expanding it to “an offence punishable by a period of imprisonment for a term of 7 years or more:” rather than “10 years or more:”. 
The select committee proposed additional amendments to this part by requiring that there be reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or is committing an offence under section 98A(1) in order for an interception warrant to be obtained. That amendment reflects more accurately the actual circumstances that may lead to the police applying for a warrant to intercept private communications. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As we have said throughout the previous stages of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill Labour will be supporting this legislation. It builds on a large amount of work that Labour did when in Government. In supporting Part 1 I will raise a couple of issues with the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy. I agree with the powers being given to the police in respect of attempts to disrupt crime and to disrupt those who participate in organised criminal groups especially gangs. 
The issue I raise which I have raised in respect of a number of other law enforcement bills that this Government has put up concerns resources for enforcement. I think the powers that are put forward here in terms of interception are appropriate. I think the recommendations that the select committee made in respect of reasonableness are appropriate as are the amendments to the definitions in section 98A of the Crimes Act on offences that are committed by participating in an organised criminal group. But I raise the following point with the Minister. Again as with other legislation the Government has proposed in order to empower police the measures are only as good as the resources that are provided to police to implement that legislation. 
Today we saw an interesting announcement by the New Zealand Police in my home town of Christchurch. Following the loss as the district commander himself has advised me of 32 police vehicles—and a number of those vehicles were from the front line when we were told they would not be—today there was an announcement which I have some support for that the police had gained four bicycles. So there was an announcement today that we will have police on four bicycles running around the four avenues in Christchurch. I have to say in all seriousness that in itself that is not a bad thing. A police press statement which rattled off the objective of this measure noted that the police laughed heartily at some particular issue. It was an interesting press release. 
We want police in our communities we want police within our suburbs and we want them visible. That is all true. But I just wonder whether it is a net gain for Cantabrians when they have lost 32 police vehicles— 
Paul Quinn 
: And the Ranfurly Shield! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —and they have gained four bikes. Mr Quinn makes another so-called useful contribution. 
The point I make to the Minister is that criminals as we know do not adhere to the ethical rules of law enforcement. For instance criminals will not say that because the cops are on bicycles they will not use cars but bikes. What is next? Horses? Donkeys possibly—and there are one or two donkeys opposite. Criminals do not adhere to the ethical rules of cricket. Just because the law enforcement men and women in blue are on a bicycle criminals will not decide to rob the bank or department store or shoplift or carry out an assault and then get away on a bike. They tend to use whatever means they can to circumvent the law and the law enforcement agencies. 
I say to the Minister that we are supportive of this bill. But again it comes down to the credibility of the resource packages through the Budget that are put up to implement these measures. We know for instance that 340 police vehicles have been taken from the police fleet. We know because the Minister Judith Collins is fond of telling us that she gave Counties-Manukau 43 new vehicles in the Budget. Yet as we look at Part 1 and the resourcing issues around it we see that we have to ask why the Minister of Police took 340 vehicles away from the police fleet. We know that $21 million has been required to be taken out of the police budget. Part of that budget related to dealing with organised crime and part of it was to deal with implementing this legislation. 
In all seriousness I make the point as I think I did with the Minister’s colleague that we are supportive of this legislation because gang and organised crime activity is insidious—and it is tragic. Some very interesting but tragic points were made on a show that I could watch when it aired last night on TV about the spouses of those in prison and about gangs and organised crime and their impact on families in our community. But this piece of paper is only as good as the resources that are given to the men and women in the blue and black uniforms to actually make it work. So I simply ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy whether he will consider giving us some reassurances around the resource implications of the bill. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. We on this side of the Chamber agree with the Government that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetrated by gangs and organised crime. Some of us in this Committee have had family members who have been traumatised by gangs or lured into involvement in gangs. The more we can do to take away the power of gangs and other organised crime units the better as far as we on this side of the Chamber are concerned. 
It is important to mention that the previous Labour Government had legislation similar to this bill before the Law and Order Committee when the National Government came into power. Had the National Government genuinely wanted to expedite this measure at a faster pace perhaps even within its first 100 days of action all the Minister of Justice needed to do was to support and possibly amend the bill that Labour had before the committee. Despite the fact that this Government decided to ignore that bill and start from scratch for the simple sake of political point-scoring Labour supports this bill and the intention behind it. 
Part 1 amends the Crimes Act 1961. It makes it easier for people to be charged with involvement in a gang. Its provisions cover the nature of participation in an organised crime gang and involvement in a crime where three or more people share one objective even if the person in question does not share this objective but merely knows that the three people do. It also broadens the scope of offences that are punishable and changes some penalties from 10 or more years’ imprisonment to 7 or more years’ imprisonment. The legislation also changes provisions on warrants. If a person is believed to be in a gang authorisation to intercept a private communication will be easier for the police to obtain. 
The Minister of Justice was right when he said that some concern about the bill was expressed to the Law and Order Committee. Some of the 11 submissions that were put forward were opposed to the bill because submitters were concerned that the proposals would impinge on the right to freedom of association freedom of expression or freedom from discrimination. Other submitters were concerned that it would infringe the rule against double jeopardy. Some submitters conveyed support for this bill while suggesting further proposals. Labour did not believe that those concerns were sufficient to propel us to oppose the bill; therefore we support it. 
Although we support this bill it is important to point out a slight contradiction or irony. It would be fair to say that the Ministry of Justice cannot work in isolation from some of the other Government departments. In fact it needs to work coherently alongside other departments like the New Zealand Police. Unfortunately the reality is that as we move to put this bill into place the police budget has been cut. That is something that Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier and it is concerning. 
It is concerning that as the Law and Order Committee is aware as we are putting through this legislation there has been a 10 percent cut in police vehicles a cut in police firearms training and a $21 million cut in the police budget. All of these things will limit the ability of the police to do their job well. We as New Zealanders know that if we intend to do something better as this bill purports to do and if we are asked to increase the workload our chances of being able to do so are minimal when funding is cut and when the expectation is that more can be achieved on a much smaller budget with much tighter resourcing levels. The Government cannot say it is backing the police to deal with issues like organised crime while it pulls away the resources that are necessary for police to do their job. 
Labour supports this bill because we are committed to removing criminal gangs from our society. We are prepared to work in a bipartisan way to tackle the scourge of gang crime and drug trafficking in our communities. We on this side of the Chamber recognise crime as a serious and growing problem. We also recognise the complexities that are involved in crime particularly and this is something that has not been raised often in respect of low socio-economic circumstances and high levels of unemployment and the impact that those two factors have on levels of crime. Those are two factors that the Government must address if it is serious about cutting crime levels. It is estimated that up to 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members or affiliates and that figure paints a thousand words. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak to the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. This bill is another great step forward by National in dealing with the law and order issues of New Zealand and making sure that people are safe in their homes and on the streets. 
I take up a couple of comments made by the previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni talking about the rights and freedoms of people who are involved in criminal activity and associated with gangs. Quite frankly when we think about their record of violence intimidation and theft perpetrated and the increase in the use of P why should anybody think that gang members have any rights and freedoms? We are not interested in their rights and freedoms. If they have done the crime they need to do the time. We will also make sure they pay for it. With the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act they will pay for it. We will strip them of their assets and proceeds of crime. 
This bill including Part 1 “Amendments to the Crimes Act 1961” is just a series of tools we will give the police in dealing with gangs and organised crimes. Gangs have infiltrated our communities in such a way that they are now virtually indistinguishable from other community groups and purport to do community work with the community’s interest at heart. Gangs infiltrate our communities to give them a sense of reasonableness to the community when in actual fact their primary occupation is the perpetration of violence intimidation theft and the use of methamphetamine or P in our communities. These sorts of actions should have been taken long before now and I am delighted that we are doing this now. National is making a difference on the law and order front and this is just another step in making that difference. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Without a sliver of doubt I will enjoy supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Unfortunately it is said too rarely that some of the greatest victims of gangs in my part of the world are the very people who are related to members of gangs. 
Although we have to be mindful that the police have to respect the bounds of the law—we have to have confidence for example in the ability of a judge to ascertain that the information being put before him or her is satisfactory—we should be under no illusion: when looking at gangs we see the worst of human nature. They are hugely well resourced and well organised. To those people who suffer some anxiety from time to time as to whether in our pursuit of gang criminality we are turning parts of our system into something that is aping a police State I say that if they were to fall into the clutches of a gang they would find that it made the police State look like a kindergarten. Gangs know no bounds. If people move into their business and threaten their existence then not only will they menace and threaten them and their children but also they will kill them. If members have any doubts then they should talk to the grieving families in Murupara. 
Let us take the gloves off here. This measure is the way that the deep menacing forces behind the dunderheads who run around wearing jackets and blazers with “Black Power” and other filth written on their backs can be dealt to. Interception warrants which at the end of the day presumably have to pass muster with a judge who is seized of all the information are not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that Dr Sharples is not here because when we deal with crimes associated with gangs we are dealing with organisations. We are not dealing with random events. We are not dealing with people who have had a wee bit too much to drink or who have been smoking dope or popping pills. We are dealing with well-oiled highly armed organisations. They have not one iota of respect for Parliament. They giggle mock and laugh if one ever asks them to contribute something to honour the legacy of the men and women who are memorialised in this Chamber. 
We need to get with the game plan. Gang members do not want to be a part of civil society. That is why I have not a sliver of doubt about the wisdom of supporting legislation that gives better powers and forces to those whom we trust to keep us safe because rest assured gangs do not want people to be safe. Gangs want people to be scared they want them to be fearful they want them to be constantly coughing up dough through their kids being addicted and they want their women to be afraid. People become so indifferent to life that they start slowly but surely to give up until such time when they are forced to begin to arm themselves to make themselves feel safe. That is the reality in large parts of the north which is where I come from. 
That is why I am sad that Dr Sharples is not here today. For those of us who are of Maori descent this bill is important. Not all gangs are Maori but they are disproportionately full of our young people and some of our people who are old fat and corpulent but still very violent. Dr Sharples has to stop believing that simply by holding wananga and hui we will get those people to change their lifestyles. Those leopards have deep-etched spots that ain’t going to change. The only way that those people will change is when they putrefy in the earth. Let us hope that not too many victims go through that process before we put the gang members where they belong: out of our sight and out of our lives. 
If this expansion of powers causes that to come to pass a poll taken tomorrow would show that a vast number of New Zealanders would be happy about it—although they might not feel proud that it is a feature of our modern society. People in gangs are driven by forces that are well fuelled and well funded. They do not want to join with the rest of us in terms of looking for markets jobs and new growth opportunities. They want to get rich on Easy Street and they want to come north and they do. That is why Part 1—and I acknowledge the sensibilities of some members of the Committee in relation to expansion of the State’s powers—needs to be supported. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Much like Mr Jones the previous speaker I have come across a number of gang members in my electorate and I am very familiar with the impact that some of their activities have on communities on the people who live in those communities and on many innocent victims including the families of the gang members concerned. Gangs are repugnant. Their activities are repugnant. The negative impact that they have on families young people and innocent members of the community absolutely must be dealt with. 
The Labour Party will support this bill to go through the Committee stage. We want to provide the police in particular who have to deal with gangs and organised crime with all of the resources that we possibly can so that they can do that effectively. If this bill contributes and adds a little bit more to their arsenal then that has to be a good thing. 
These are weighty issues and there are no easy solutions to them. They need to be dealt with properly. That is one of the reasons why at the last election the Labour Party pledged to establish a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. It was part of our manifesto at the last election. We need to draw on evidence and research not only from within New Zealand but also internationally. Although I would like to stand here and say that I think this bill will be the silver bullet to magically cure all of the problems relating to gangs I am realistic enough to know that it will not be. In fact a whole heap of issues this bill does not address need to be dealt with. They need to be aired and we have to draw on evidence to be able to do that. I know that that is something that the National Government— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Sandra Goudie in particular gets very bored when evidence is involved because it involves a bit of reading a bit of listening and a bit of thinking. I do not think that she is really engaged in that level of detail. I understand that she finds evidence-based policy and decision making quite frustrating— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She can’t spell it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —because she cannot spell it but it does work and it is worth thinking about. 
I will talk about a couple of things related to the things that drive gangs. I will go back to one of the pieces of legislation related to this one which we discussed earlier in the term of this Parliament and which was about choking off the supply of money to gangs—the criminal proceeds—and giving the police much greater powers in that respect. If we really want to go after gangs I think we have to go after two things. We have to go after the money and we have to go after the supply of recruits to the gangs. 
The supply of recruits for gangs is something we need to think quite carefully about. If we go to the prisons for example where 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members and affiliates we will find a couple of common characteristics amongst the prison population—illiteracy and innumeracy being two of the key ones. Coming from a lower socio-economic area is another characteristic of prisoners as is being victims themselves of child abuse or family violence at some point quite often in their childhood and being totally disconnected from society. The reason those prisoners relate to gangs is that they are the people gangs prey on in order to gain gang membership. Gangs prey on the same people who end up in prisons and that is how they draw their members. If we really want to go after gangs we will go after the gang recruits. We would choke off the supply of recruits by dealing with those issues—by dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy and by dealing with the massive socio-economic gap that exists in our society which gets bigger every year. 
We would also deal with domestic abuse child abuse and domestic violence. People who have been victims are much more likely to end up being offenders themselves. It is absolutely true. Those are the sorts of things that could be canvassed if we had a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. But unfortunately this Government has not picked up a proposal put forward by the previous Labour Government and I think that is a bit of a shame. 
Finally I want to pick up a theme from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove which is that all of the things in this bill may be worthy but if the police are not adequately resourced to use the powers they are being granted in this bill then it all amounts to very little. In my own area the police have had to give back the police cars they previously had access to; they have had to give them back. There are significantly fewer police cars on the streets in the Hutt Valley today than there were before the election. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I endorse the comments made by my colleagues earlier. Labour takes this issue very seriously. We believe that we need to listen— 
Sandra Goudie 
: How come they did nothing about it for 9 long years? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sandra Goudie should get up and make another speech. 
Hon Members 
: No no. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know that it may pain us but I think the public need to see the depth of talent on the Government benches. I think they need to see the extent of its thinking about this important legislation. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Marvellous marvellous! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The member says: “Marvellous marvellous”. I think the public needs to see the future front-bencher and future Minister of Finance Sandra Goudie and get to know her before her promotion comes. 
This is a very important bill. It extends work that Labour did when in Government to try to give police the tools to be able to deal with organised crime effectively. This is not an easy area of legislation. Parliamentarians constantly walk a fine line between ensuring that the rights of innocent citizens are protected and ensuring that our police are able to use whatever powers we can give them to bring criminals to justice. We need to do whatever we can to break down the organised crime that exists in New Zealand. This issue is not peculiar to New Zealand. Many countries grapple with how to deal with organised crime; New Zealand is not alone in that regard. 
The bill increases the penalty for participating in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment and it clarifies the evidential requirements under section 98A of the Crimes Act which will help to improve the rate of successful prosecutions. If the police are not able to get successful prosecutions then it will all come to nothing. The bill requires the sentencing judge to take into account any offending that is committed due to involvement with an organised criminal group as a specific aggravating factor. That is also another important aspect of this legislation. 
I endorse what my colleague Chris Hipkins said on two fronts. The first relates to resourcing which is an issue that I raised in the debate on the previous bill. If we do not resource this issue properly then all the legislation in the world will not mean a thing. I really endorse what Chris Hipkins said about evidence-based policy-making. It is crucially important especially in the area of law and order that we as parliamentarians are able to challenge our very strongly held views on law and order and stack them up against the evidence. When it comes down to a choice between doing what is popular and what works we should do what works every single time. We need to be prepared to challenge ourselves to say that something that we— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sandra Goudie thinks that is a joke. She does not think we should do what works. Sandra Goudie might want to look at the evidence about boot camps. I think that a reason why this Government does not want to go down an evidence-based approach which is very relevant to this bill before me is that if we look across the law and order spectrum we see that sometimes what we believe might not actually be what will work and help us to reduce organised crime in this country. 
One of the strongest pieces of evidence about what works in terms of reducing crime and organised crime is visible policing. It is having the police properly resourced to be out there—not to have cars taken away from them as we have heard is happening in Rimutaka and in Christchurch but to be out there. If we do not resource our police properly this bill will not do anything. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Try telling us about the bill. Have you even read it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes I have read it I say to Mrs Goudie; I have read it. If the member had been listening to me she would know that I told her what it was for. The bill will increase the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 years. It will require the sentencing judge to take into consideration involvement in a criminal organisation as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Does the member want me to go on? I know what the bill does. What I am saying is that it means nothing if our police are not resourced. All the nice words in the world do not put a police car on the road. Money puts a police car on the road. This Government has been cutting funding to the police. Labour’s point is that this legislation does not matter. We can keep passing law and order bills under urgency but they will not work if we are not adequately resourcing the police. That goes for the previous bill which was on DNA testing as well. 
The other point my colleague Chris Hipkins made—and it concerns the evidence-based approach to crime as well—is that we need a commission of inquiry into organised crime. I do not think that any one member of this House truly understands the range of organised crime that exists in New Zealand and how to deal with it. Do we know why people enter gangs? Do we know what stops them leaving gangs which is a very important point? Do we know the range of activities they are involved in? If we do not know the enemy how will we combat it? I say that we do not fully understand the extent of organised crime in New Zealand. I urge the Government as well as passing legislation like this to pick up that suggestion and say that we will go out there and find those things out. It might be scary for us to do that it might be intimidating and I guarantee that we will not like what we find but if we do not know what we are dealing with how can we as parliamentarians comes up with the adequate legislative tools to combat it? How can we give the police the tools they need if we do not know what we are dealing with? If we are serious about an evidence-based approach to policy in this area—and I know that Sandra Goudie is not; she has made that quite clear—then we need to be prepared to go out and find the evidence. We have very very good professionals and experts in New Zealand who can do this and who would be very happy to be funded to do this properly alongside the Government and I know that Labour would— 
Sandra Goudie 
: The evidence is that she’s being specious with the facts and specious with what’s been said in the House. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I have been what? I have been “specious with the facts”? I do not even know what that means but that is all right. The other thing that this legislation does is expand the ability of the police to undertake surveillance— 
Sandra Goudie 
: There’s a dictionary in the foyer. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you very much. I do not need the dictionary; that is fine. 
This bill expands the ability of the police to undertake surveillance of gangs by allowing the offence of participation in a criminal organisation to be used as a basis for an interception warrant. I know there are people who are concerned about the extension of powers in this area in particular. I come back to the point I made earlier which is that as parliamentarians we walk a fine line all the time. We want to be able to give the police tools and we know that this is an area in which they can reap great results when it comes to dealing with organised crime. I say again that we need to make sure that our police are resourced properly so that they are trained properly to know when it is appropriate to use this power and when it is not. We have a lot of trust in our police and they do a great job but there is potential for great abuse if this legislation does not have the proper safeguards put around it and it is not funded properly. 
Sandra Goudie 
: If she can’t understand the word “specious” how would she understand evidence? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Sandra Goudie that I know what evidence is. Seriously oh my God— 
Chris Hipkins 
: There’s plenty of evidence on you Sandra! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know. Sandra Goudie might actually want to listen because although she seems to think that this is some kind of big joke the fact is that we are greatly extending the powers of surveillance that the police are allowed to use when they are dealing with people who are involved in a criminal organisation. There are people in this country who want to know that parliamentarians take this seriously that this is not just something they do so that they can go out and say: “Rah rah! We’re really tough on law and order.” whilst at the same time putting into place a lot of policies that will undermine law and order in this country and that do not do anything about helping people into jobs and lifting children out of poverty. They want to know we are dealing with the causes of crime which is just as important as dealing with people once they are criminals—in fact it is more important. I think that people would prefer that we did not have criminals in this country rather than just having tougher laws to deal with the ones we already have. I urge the Government to take that part of the equation seriously as well. 
I reiterate because I do not think that the Government is listening—I know that the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee has made it clear that she thinks this is funny and a bit of a joke—that the public of New Zealand wants to know that these decisions and policies are being based on evidence internationally and domestically and that they will work. We believe that we are giving the police some useful tools here but we say to the Government— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh she does! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I said that earlier if Mrs Goudie was listening. I know that she cannot listen and talk at the same time so why does she not try listening for a bit instead of talking? 
Sandra Goudie 
: You’re so contradictory in your comments. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: So contradictory? We are not allowed to talk about the safeguards that need to be put around these extensions of power. We are not allowed to say that the Government needs to fund our police properly and that we support giving extra powers to the police but when our police are undermined by their police cars being taken away by their funding being cut— 
Sandra Goudie 
: The only people undermining the police are her and her colleagues. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am undermining the police by saying that they need to be resourced properly? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Absolutely when she’s being specious with the facts. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am being “specious with the facts” and undermining the police by saying that I think they should be resourced properly! I think that sums up that member. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have to say that the exchange between my colleague Moana Mackey and Sandra Goudie was interesting. For those who do not know Sandra Goudie is actually the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee and was charged with shepherding the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill through the process of reporting back to this House. I say to Ms Goudie that this is actually very serious legislation. That is the last time I will bother addressing that member in a speech because it is a waste of time. 
I want to raise a very serious issue. In terms of the resourcing issues that other colleagues have talked about an issue that I think is of great concern certainly to the Police Association and that will go to the heart of how this bill is implemented is how the police protect themselves in respect of dealing with gang members and organised crime. The evidence that Ms Mackey and others speak of and that some on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at is very very clear in terms of the violence that is put upon our communities family members and others especially by gangs and organised crime. Yet for the first time in history to my knowledge firearms training for the police force is being rationed. An allegation was put up by the Minister of Police that the police have always reviewed firearms training and that reviews occurred under our Government or whatever. That is true because the police are independent and they are charged with reviewing their own operational requirements. But in 9 years of a Labour Government no requirement was put on the police to ration firearms training. 
We are not talking about some sort of gung-ho attitude here; we are talking about incidents such as the tragedy in Napier when Senior Constable Len Snee was killed and two other officers were critically wounded. The first responder was not the armed offenders squad; it was a Youth Aid officer. In that case—and it is very germane to this bill—it was not organised crime although there were organised crime connections. We now know a lot of drug cultivation and drug selling was going on but there was no intelligence that that day would be a problem for the police. There was no intelligence inside the police. That is not a comment on them; it simply was not anticipated. No one knew. There was no evidence. There was no one from the public to say that something strange was going on at this person’s residence. There was no evidence in respect of firearms use. It was a routine drug warrant. The first responder was a Youth Aid officer and then we had a tragedy. So when it comes to resourcing if the Minister of Police Judith Collins wanted to she could communicate very very clearly to the Commissioner of Police that the pressure is off in terms of resources. She could communicate that he is not required to cut cars to ration firearms training or to find $21 million in the Police vote because this Government says it is committed to implementing this and other law enforcement legislation. The Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice could pick up the phone and say to Commissioner Broad that it is OK and that he is exempt from the razor gang requirements that are going through Government agencies because they believe that if they require him to protect our community there is a requirement on them to allow police officers to have the tools to protect themselves. 
There is a lot of hot air about this bill. We support the bill but I am concerned about the man or woman in the blue uniform. We know from our communities that there is an expectation from people wearing the blue uniform. It does not matter if that person is a police educator driving a desk a front-line police officer a Youth Aid officer or whatever. When it hits the fan our communities assume that if a police officer is wearing the blue uniform he or she will have the skills to intervene at any time and at any level at least as first responders until specialists like the armed offenders squad and others can come to finish the job as it were. The problem we will have implementing this legislation is that there will be police officers—people in the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) and all sorts of folk—who will have their firearms training rationed or who will not get firearms training at all and will not renew their skills every year or every second year as they are required to. My challenge to the Minister of Justice is to guarantee that when a man or a woman in a police uniform is going around dealing with people who are involved in organised crime and gang violence they will not be required to use firearms because they will not have the training to execute that job. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Local Government Act 2002 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This is a very short part of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and it amends the Local Government Act 2002. Section 216(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 currently provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if the court is satisfied that the property is occupied or regularly used by known or probable offenders. Section 216(b) provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if a fence structure or vegetation is either facilitating or contributing to the concealment avoidance or commission of crime or is intended to injure a person. Part 2 proposes that an additional ground for the District Court to make a removal order is if it is satisfied that a fence structure or vegetation may reasonably be regarded as intimidating. This proposal will provide the police with an additional tool to have fortifications pulled down on properties used by known or probable offenders but it also acknowledges the impact of gang forts on their direct neighbourhood. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Anything that causes local government to act expeditiously and aid the cause of the local community wanting to rid its neighbourhoods and suburbs of this walking criminalised cancer known as gangs ought to be supported. I am no fan of much of what local government has done in relation to the Building Act—an area that I have some experience in. I found local government to be sluggish. The place was riddled with building inspectors who found things to justify their jobs but little to justify delivering the service. This is why when I had the brief opportunity to promote a bill as a part of former Prime Minister Helen Clark’s team it was rapidly embraced by members on the opposite side of the Chamber. I filled a void. Those members came with great promise but precious little results. But that matter is for another time. It is for the historians to write up the great things that the Helen Clark Government did which will grow in stature as time moves on. The gangs unfortunately grow while we are distracted. 
When New Zealanders move into a suburb or a neighbourhood they create a home for their kiddies. They start to invest time and energy in schools and they look to beautify the localities where they live. Then all of a sudden a plague of locusts—or as the Maori say a tatarakihi—descends upon the area and just as in biblical times the locusts sucked out the livelihood of the people by destroying the crops these people begin to crop. They move into an area and choose dwellings or neighbourhoods where the trees fences or other accoutrements give them the privacy to carry on their criminality. Ordinary Kiwis do not know much about gangs but they know when they are working in “Strugglers’ Gully”. When their TV car kid’s bike or other taongas that they have amassed over a bit of time from dough that has been saved to actually afford those things start to get ripped off they want those people out of their faces. That sort of behaviour not only lessens the value and the safety of their property but most important it lessens the security of where they live. So if the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill is to empower local government by allowing the court to remove gang fortifications then we should all support it. 
Of course this is an obligation on the courts. We can imagine that District Court judges not unlike their senior colleagues in the High Court will be preyed upon by a different form of locust known as the legal profession. Legal professionals go out of their way—unwisely in my view—to represent many of these gang characters. They try to allow them to escape the full reach of the law when they have been peddling drugs and ruining the lives of young people. To illustrate my point in Kaitaia the gangs that I am predominantly concerned about hurt their own the most. I read the local newspaper and gagged through an article to do with my senior National Party colleague John Carter but that is another story. Then I found that the Tribesmen gang—if ever there was destruction of a proud word and the notion of a tribe there it is—are now using dope marijuana cannabis to reward juvenile criminality. Boys aged 10 11 12 and 13—around that tender age—are running away from the whanau etc. and being rewarded with marijuana if they go out and steal things. The people providing it belong to the gang. So when the parents go and find out who the hell is giving their young fella dope they are confronted by a fortification. They are confronted by the intimidating presence of that gang culture. It could be someone who is ripe for a heart attack. In fact I hope that everyone who is involved in Tribesmen criminality has heart attacks by the end of this week. They will get not one sliver of sympathy from me. They are taking young dislocated boys and giving them dope so they will go around Kaitaia and other parts of the north and tahae—rip things off. That is the role model that they are growing into. It will give my neighbour Wayne Brown something more useful to do: after he has stopped irking most of the local ratepayers he can start assaulting with the full force of the law the gangs. He is likely to grow in our Maori estimation. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Part 2 is a practical measure. Labour supports it. I know that my colleague Clare Curran a Dunedin member of Parliament recently has had representations from a local school I believe where down the road quite literally there is a gang headquarters. I have not seen it myself but I am told that it is relatively fortified—or if it is not that it will be. These structures put a level of intimidation upon communities. 
There are those in this place who say that gangs form part of the culture and fabric of our country. I think Dr Sharples has been heard to say that from time to time. I tend to disagree respectfully with him. I think there are basic community norms. We are not talking about the height of pot plants what colour we can paint our house whether we can wash our car out the front or have a barbeque or park. We are talking about a high degree of intimidation. Gangs set up in communities and often as in the Dunedin example not far from schools. As my colleague Shane Jones has said they set up there for quite deliberate nefarious reasons—so that they can prey on communities particularly the young and entice them as he said with dope and other things. 
So suddenly a quiet community which is law abiding and includes a local school has some sort of great edifice that has been fortified far in excess of what we would expect for a bank police station or in some respects an army base. Those fortifications are generally ugly—ugly in an aesthetic way and ugly in terms of what goes on inside and around them. They become magnets for other activity sometimes from rival gangs as we know because we saw a year or so ago in Wanganui what can happen and it happens in other places. Reprisals and turf wars take place. Who is sitting nearby next door or three doors down a block away or three blocks away? It is communities and often local schools. 
We think Part 2 is a very practical measure. Their eminences in the court the judges as Shane Jones said will have all sorts of interesting arguments presented to them to err on the side of being conservative and not to provide the means with which we can rip tear and destroy these fortifications. I think part of destroying them is exposing what is going on inside and around those headquarters. Indeed that may provide some motivation for the gangs to move on. Sadly it will be to another community but if this measure goes through—and I assume it will—there will be universal pressure to deal with gang headquarters. We support the part. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendment to Sentencing Act 2002 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 creates a new aggravating factor for consideration at sentencing. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill originally proposed that the courts take into account that the offender committed the offence wholly or partly because of his or her participation in an organised criminal group or involvement in any form of organised criminal association as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That was amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee so that the court can take into account the nature and extent of any connection between the offending and the offender’s participation in an organised criminal group or involvement in any other form of organised criminal association as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This amendment removes the potentially onerous requirement on the prosecution to prove the motivations of an offender. Although Section 9(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act allows any aggravating or mitigating factor not specified in the Act to be taken into account it is appropriate that gang and organised criminal connections be made a statutory factor to ensure that these are taken into account in all relevant cases. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I thought I would make another very moderate contribution on the scourge known as gang criminal culture in my part of Aotearoa known as Tai Tokerau. Of course I can see unfortunately the burden upon the judge when this new provision in the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill finally washes up and laps at his or her magisterial feet. Lawyers unfortunately are no doubt going to test these notions of both association and connection. It is unavoidable unfortunately that when we do change law it takes a while for jurisprudence to emerge. But if we strip away all the verbiage we see that at the guts of the issue is the question of whether this is a way of testing people’s motives and getting them to justify how they have acquired their lucre or why they are doing what they are doing in association with obvious gang offenders etc. 
If the provision actually simplifies the task of the police and of those of us who are other civic leaders in being able to amplify the dangers of being indifferent to or indulgent about gang culture then it will be a very useful provision. Admittedly a test will be required for judging at what point a person is fatally involved in a criminal organisation. I see no other way unfortunately for the various lawyers to say that no doubt at great cost although Dame Margaret Bazley has a great deal to say about that. She fortunately is going to focus on the lawyers some but not all of whom are ill-equipped to stand before the bench unlike the majority of we parliamentarians as we stand before Mr Chairperson but that is another matter. So I think that this is a small provision that is very useful. 
But as I said let us not get away from the underlying problem. We must seize every device and seize every opportunity to prevent the normalisation of gang culture and of gang membership so that more New Zealanders shun those families and those people who want to maintain that culture. If God forbid there was an element that came to Aotearoa with that Middle Eastern style of deep animus that shows itself in wanton violence etc. we would shun that as a part of our tolerant society. But it is sad that growing year by year there is a hardened element. I fear over a longer period of time the attitudes of Kiwis towards this gang thing—given that we have been through indulgence we have been through indifference we have been through aspiration we have been through anger and we are going now in some cases into fury. What will happen in areas such as where I come from is that people slowly but surely will continue to take the law into their own hands because they are genuinely frightened and scared of those people. I already said earlier that that fright is a massive weapon in the hands of gang criminals; having people frightened is at least 80 percent of the way. It might be said as it often is by Dr Sharples and his colleagues that this is hyperbole and rhetoric that does not actually advance the cause of understanding the underlying reasons for gang criminality and helping people move on. The only place I want them to move on to is a new wing at Ngawha prison. 
I am not interested one iota in normalising or enabling people to think—under the cloak of Maori culture and by using a few Maori words—that somehow we are going to weaken our resolve to marginalise those people and to have them face the full cost of their criminality. It is a very divisive issue. For those of us who are in the Maori world it takes up a large part of our time. In Parliament we do not stay just in any world. We do not necessarily stay in a Pakeha world or a Maori world; we are there for all New Zealanders. But the place I come from in the North is a hugely strong Maori area and it has a different culture. It has a different political culture. But as lonely as it is and although this approach of supporting legislation like this bill and supporting the ability of the police to be more penetrative and perhaps even more unforgiving does cause us to be assailed in the Maori world as being anti-Maori I think this provision is very important. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Labour supports this provision. I think the Minister made a good point when he noted that it changes the burden on the prosecution to prove motivation in respect of an offender. We know from current jurisprudence that from time to time that has been a very onerous requirement on the prosecution. Of course as Mr Jones has said the people involved in those sorts of offences and their legal counsellors will find very interesting and sophisticated ways to try to circumvent the court processes and try to prove that their motivation is other than how a prosecutor would argue it. 
Not being a lawyer myself I will not go from there into the intricacies of that argument. Suffice to say as other colleagues have that if there are other devices like this that can be used to get to and deal with organised crimes and criminal gangs then they should be supported and implemented. Again I simply raise the question of resourcing not so much in respect of the police in this issue but more in respect of the Crown prosecutors and the justice budget—those who are charged with resourcing the prosecutors to implement this bill. Again we would like some reassurance that resources will be available to implement what I think is a positive provision within this bill. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I refer to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill which amends the Sentencing Act 2002. I will continue on from some of the things that Mr Jones said. Largely the focus of this bill in respect of gangs and organised crime has been on the larger gangs like Black Power and other such gangs. One factor that has not really been taken into consideration is what we call in Auckland at least the “ABC” gangs which are many of our youth gangs. They often name themselves after the street they live on. Say they live on Smith Drive; they would then call themselves the Smith Drive Boys or whatever. 
One thing we appreciate about this bill is the fact that as Mr Jones said it prevents the normalisation of gang culture. Many of the “ABC” youth gangs initially do not have the same intentions as some of the larger more established gangs but the issue with those smaller “ABC” gangs is that they often base their structure and what they intend to do on American gang culture. They are enticed by it and see it as something they can identify with and then they go ahead and set up their own gangs. The other issue that comes into play with the “ABC” gangs is that they are often preyed on by much larger gangs and by much older gang members and people in general who use those youth who are just setting out in the gang lifestyle to do a lot of the groundwork in respect of selling their drugs and committing what can start as small crimes but can end up as something quite serious. 
Labour supports this legislation. We support preventing the normalisation of gang culture. The more that we can do to take power away from gangs the better it is for our youth. We need to take any opportunity possible to ensure that the gang culture does not become an avenue for our youth to go down that it does not become attractive to them and that it is no longer a possibility that they can get involved. I think it is very important to mention this issue relating to youth gangs—perhaps not in relation to the larger more institutionalised gangs that we know of which have been around for many years—that continue to emerge and plague the communities in which they are set. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou i tenei ra. I am aware that time is moving on and I will take only a brief call. I find myself stuck with the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I tend to agree with many of the statements made by my colleague Shane Jones because of the loss of two lives in Murupara in my electorate. A young boy Jordan Herewini from Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tawhiuau was killed earlier this year. Another young man Kaine Lewis was killed about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Again he was involved in a gang confrontation in Murupara. These deaths resulted in a hikoi through the town. 
If members do not know Murupara it is a rural community way out in the middle of the bush. Once upon a time it was a thriving community. The vast majority of the people who live there are Maori. At this point in time many of them are unemployed. Basically two gangs are involved in that town right now. The first is the Tribesmen which has become established there. For all intents and purposes that gang is made up of many people from the iwi of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare. The Mongrel Mob has also moved into town. The two altercations that resulted in the deaths of those two boys came out of gang confrontations and the use of colours which is being discussed today. Having been associated with the young boy Jordan—we had travelled together on various trips—his death really hit home to me and it certainly made me feel really angry in respect of the way that gang culture has developed in Aotearoa. 
In reflecting on this bill I wonder whether we will ever get rid of the whole notion of gangs in Aotearoa but I tend to believe that we will not because overseas experience overseas tells us so. No matter what strategies have been employed thus far throughout the world it seems that there still remains a culture of “ganghood” if you like and that is the difficulty. No matter what we try to do with gang members—lock them up and throw away the key or work with them—there still remains the whole notion of gang culture. Yet there have been some examples where working with them has produced positive results. Not that I am the expert on gangs but I think back to the work that Sir Robert Muldoon sort of started and that others have picked up in terms of moving towards employment schemes and so on. 
The strange thing about this experience is that in Murupara the people decided to take the bull by the horns and come back to our own tikanga. I am talking only about this particular situation not other gangs. I am talking only about these two gangs which we might call Maori gangs. They have basically called a rahui which is a prohibition on violence in their town. It seems to be taking off and working. It means that there is a lot of dialogue and a lot of talk between the people involved. 
The Maori Party has been talking a lot about this issue. In particular we have been saying that we have to do something but we ask what the something is that would produce the best results against the context of the fact that gangs will stay with us. Sure some measures might happen to be on the side but one of the things we are absolutely confident about is the need for us to empower communities to allow them to get on and deal with the issues within their own environment. 
Since the time that the rahui has been imposed it has even got to the point that Ngati Manawa have basically banned patches from their marae. I am not exactly sure of all the circumstances but the following example could be a real situation. Imagine that a gang member has died in Wellington and his family say that they want his body to go back to Murupara for burial but the people back in Murupara say no. They say that he cannot come back. They say that if he chose that life then he should stay down in Wellington. He cannot go back and be buried amongst his people in Murupara. The Murupara community will not even allow him to go to their marae. If his body was to go back to Murupara first the family needs to find a place for him to lie and second the family need to have the people there agree that he can lie in the same urupa the same cemetery as all the ancestors. That is happening right now today. If it is not today then it was yesterday; I have spoken to the people about it. That situation is the sort of thing that can happen. 
I am caught with the whole notion of having to do something but at the end having discussed the issue in our caucus we struggle with the notion of simply keeping on locking those people up. It might satisfy our minds right now but we are looking for some other solutions on top of that. There is no doubt that those who commit those crimes should serve the time; I have no problem with that. But we have to do something about rehabilitation to try to get these people back into society. If it comes at a hard cost like not being allowed to go back to be buried amongst one’s people then that is a big call. 
Mr Jones will know that not being allowed to be buried amongst one’s own people is a very very big call. In fact not even being allowed to go on to one’s marae to grieve over one’s relations is a big call. Just 2 weeks ago there was a tangi in Murupara for a kuia who was about 90 years old. Her children are teachers. As soon as the rahui came in and Ngati Manawa banned the patches the Tribesmen could not go on to their marae. It got a little bit dicey there I am told but in the end the gang members respected it. Further they tried to go down to the urupa to bury her and women stood on the road. Kuia and koroua stood on the road and said that they were to get the patches off or else they would not be going in there. They could choose one or the other and take their leave. 
Serious efforts are being made on the part of our communities to take back our communities and I use Murupara as just one example. The hope would be that the notion of using our own tikanga spreads. I do not know whether it would work in Kaitaia Kaikohe or elsewhere but I am confident based on what has happened in Murupara that we can change the mindset. 
While this bill is before us I want the House to understand that our vote is about looking at other solutions. Although we do not support this particular bill as such we understand the reasons for it but we also want to look at the bigger picture. The solution might come not just from the law and order field or the justice field; it might come from the bigger picture. I wanted to raise those points just in case other speakers from the Maori Party have not yet put that view. It will be a part of the picture painted with our vote later on in the other stages. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I feel privileged—and I say this without a trace of sarcasm or insincerity—to have just heard that speech by Te Ururoa Flavell. It was a fantastic speech. I am aware of the case that occurred a couple of weeks ago but I was not aware of yesterday’s case that he referred to. I say at the outset that I do not claim to be an expert on Maoritanga; it would be absolutely arrogant and ignorant of me to do so. But I know a little bit about it. What struck me about the case 2 weeks ago—and I am very sorry to have to point this out to my colleague—was that on the previous day it was revealed that his co-leader Dr Pita Sharples had met with gang leaders in part to find out whether they were getting enough entitlements from the social welfare system. The next day the kuia whom Te Ururoa just referred to stood up and said that if gang members were going to dress like that they should go away. I imagine the words might have been a bit stronger than that. Ordinary Maori people recognise those scum for what they are: scum and criminals. I think that speech was fantastic and obviously that attitude towards gang members is a part of the solution to this problem. 
It has been said by Te Ururoa and others that gangs will always be with us and we just have to give up and accept that in some way. Not so! Not so! Dr Jennifer Walsh a criminologist was here to give evidence on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill earlier this year. I rang her the other day; we stayed in close contact. I just happened to say we do not hear as much as we used to about drive-by gang shootings in South Los Angeles and she said they almost never happen now. I asked why that was and she said it was because the gang leaders were all in jail—they were locked up. So the issue of gangs can be tackled. Yes a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach is needed but the first step is to take the brave step that those kuia did on that marae in the Bay of Plenty two weeks ago and to have a clear understanding that the gangs are criminal organisations that will not be tolerated. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for providing me with the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I really enjoyed hearing my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell speak about the Murupara experience but for me it reveals a deep ambiguity about where those Maori politicians in this Chamber stand in relation to gangs. 
I agree with a community that binds together and seeks to censure or exclude criminals—because that is what the gangs are. Members should stop calling them “our people”. They are not our people. Our people do not go to jail for killing teenage boys. Our people do not go to jail for raping and for selling P and celebrating that as a mark of distinction and success. They are not our people. In fact they are not people. We have a word for that kind of thing in Maori. It is “taurekareka”. They are the slaves that before Christianity would have been dispatched without a sliver of a doubt—because that is how they are treating those teenagers in Murupara. 
If communities believe that by relying exclusively on those proud noble traditions that define us as Maori such as rahui we will penetrate that fog of criminality I have news for them. Those people will understand only one thing: ringa kaha the full force of the law. It will offend a number of us in this Chamber to think that we as New Zealanders will have to embrace that level of harshness but if we do not those of us who are condemned to live with those taurekarekas have to worry when our daughters our sons our mokos and our families go about their lawful duties and activities. Will they fall prey to those locusts? 
So yes there is a small glimmer of hope in Murupara. I was at a tangi where I heard a Mr Goldsmith of Murupara an elder who lived and worked with my Ngapuhi relations in South Auckland. He explained very vividly the dilemma. How can they continue to live in Murupara without full access or recourse to the police? They do not want to take the law into their own hands. He gave a very good account. 
I say to every marae and every Maori community that if they are not prepared to shun those people they will infiltrate their communities and ruin their lives. It may not happen in the more leafy suburbs of Auckland although Paul Holmes can give an account that would suggest something slightly different. Those of us who live in the provinces and see how those people live on a regular basis should mark my words. We need to take a very staunch approach to them and stop regarding them as our people. To me that not only corrupts the notion that we as Maori want to celebrate kinship but it provides them with a new level of cover and camouflage. 
Members of the Maori Party must step away from the moral ambiguity they have over this. They will not support this bill. I say: “Shame on them!” They should not come to this Chamber and give us lectures about how kaumatua and kuia are showing courage in the face of killers—because within those gangs are the killers of those teenage children—when they do not have the boldness or courage to support this bill. That is why I hope that the moral ambiguity the Maori Party has is fatal in a political sense. Kia ora tatau. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I say that these are fine speeches but I am trying to connect them to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It’s gangs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I know that. I have shown a great degree of tolerance and leniency in every part of the bill but I ask members to address Part 3 at this stage in the debate. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I commend you Mr Chairperson on your tolerance and on the way in which I think you have let this debate flow somewhat more widely than being simply on Part 3 which deals with aggravating factors at sentencing. Items have of course been brought to the debate that I think require answers. Mr Jones Mr Flavell and Mr Garrett I think have made points that are relevant as we deal holistically with the insidious nature of gangs. 
I am taking a short call to address as my colleague Mr Jones did Mr Flavell’s speech. It was full of emotion and quite rightly so. Although he talked about the aggravating factors that had occurred in Murupara where communities had been put upon and where fatalities had occurred I must say in addressing what he said that he told the Chamber that he would not be supporting this bill—and I assume this part Part 3 which deals with aggravating factors. Mr Flavell is essentially saying that it is OK for those on the marae to lead the charge as he rightly pointed out. But he is also saying I think and as Mr Garrett alluded to that it is OK for his leader to meet with gangs and somehow put gang leaders on a platform. There has been a lot of debate about that of course in the community: is it a good thing or is it a bad thing to see them eye to eye and to spend $6500 of taxpayers’ money doing it? It is OK of course to have gangs expunged from the marae and shunned from it and to have those good people in our communities take that fight to the gangs but the Maori Party is not prepared to support this legislation and Part 3 particularly and in supporting this legislation to support their own communities—the kaumatua the kuia and the others who are out there on the front line as Mr Flavell quite rightly points out doing their bit. They do not have to spend $6500 of taxpayers’ money doing it but they are telling people to get off the marae. My colleague Shane Jones leant across and said to me that in terms of expunging gangs from the marae up in his part of the world that was tried 20 years ago yet we are no further ahead. 
I say to the Maori Party that I would like a reason why it will not support this bill why it will not support Part 3 and why that party thinks it is appropriate to posture here in the Chamber and leave the fight back home out there. This issue is cross-cultural. This is not just a Maori problem; there are predominantly white gangs. We can have a look at the Christchurch  
Press 
 this morning and read about them in the  
Dominion Post 
. This is not about culture. Like Mr Jones whether they be brown white or any other colour or creed I do not consider members of gangs “our people” our citizenry or part of our community. They are thugs murderers and rapists; they are those who do immense harm to our community. So I would be grateful if at least for the Maori Party’s own constituency Mr Flavell could get up and tell us why the kuia the kaumatua and our communities are left to take the battle against the gangs back in the home patch and on the marae and why hang on the Maori Party which purports to represent all Maori—I think wrongly because that is ridiculous—will not stand up and support a bill that I think has most if not all parties’ support to crack down on the insidious nature of gang activity. 
I mean how many young people have to be killed young women raped or young people put into a life of crime and enticed by drugs alcohol and the other things that are peddled by these gangs? What will it take for the Maori Party to get the message right and consistent instead of giving the strong message in here but the weak message out there? That Maori Party leader cannot meet with gangs have lunch with them spend six and a half grand on them and then go around telling everyone that it was a great cultural experience and part of giving the message to gangs. That happened in June and Mr Garrett and other members have spoken of the fatalities that have happened since then. The gang activity has rolled on. 
I believe we should not give gangs a platform of equal status to anyone—not just to politicians but to anyone in our community—because in doing so it is recognised that somehow and in some way gangs are legitimate. Whether gangs be white Maori Pacific Island Asian or whatever their activities are insidious they are not part of our culture or community and they should never be recognised. I invite the Maori Party to respond. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is great to take a call on the title of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I understand that there was some debate on the title when the bill was before the Law and Order Committee. There was some confusion amongst certain members of the committee about the fact that although gangs that offend are one type of organised criminal group as the term is used in section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 organised crime is indeed a wider concept. 
The bill has application to organised criminal groups including gangs but the legislation is drafted with sufficient breadth to capture white-collar corporate fraudsters and indeed any group of three or more people with a specified common unlawful criminal objective. Any person who participates in or with such a group will be criminally liable and will face a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. 
The title of the bill also recognises the strong link between gangs and organised crime in this country. For example just under 75 percent of the clandestine drug laboratories discovered by police in 2007 were identified as being linked to recognised criminal gangs. 
This bill was part of the Government’s first 100 days and this has been a very busy Government under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key. It is my desire that this bill be brought into force this year in order to provide police with greater tools to combat gangs and organised crime in New Zealand. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will not take too much of the Committee’s time over what is a pretty simple debate on the title clause of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I think the title is germane. The only question I would raise with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice Nathan Guy who has failed throughout the Committee stage to address this question at all is one of resources. I ask whether this legislation should be called the “Gangs and Organised Crime (But Do the Police Have the Resources to Do It?) Bill”. Equally one could ask the Maori Party whether it has dropped the ball on this legislation. As I said in my speech a few moments ago I fail to see how anyone can preach in this place about “taking the fight” out to the communities then sell out the communities by saying it is up to them to get the gangs off the marae and out of the square and to take the patches off the gangs without backing the communities through legislation. The question before the Maori Party is why it is voting against this legislation. 
The Associate Minister makes a good point in that the debate has centred around gangs. They are the most visible if you will element of organised crime in our communities. They wear the patches and are pretty naked in terms of their criminal ambition but we know that there are criminals who wear expensive suits. There are criminals who shun any disinfectant in terms of the light of the law that might be put upon them. They do not want the profile; they want to get on with their activities. In fact I am told by some law enforcement officers that those criminals deal to anybody who might go off in a maverick way and commit violence. They deal to them quite heavily because they do not want the profile. They do not want the police taking any notice of them. They want to appear to be low profile and unthreatening. They do not have the huge gang fortifications. In some places I am told they live in some of the most posh suburbs of New Zealand. They do not want law enforcement having its eyes on them. There are tools within this legislation that will give the police and law enforcement eyes or ears on those criminals in terms of surveillance. 
It is worth noting as others have that organised crime is not confined just to what we might see when Television New Zealand does the “smash bash and crash” exposé as it does from time to time when something tragic happens because it is gang stuff. What we do not hear about because it does not have the graphic violence that can be splashed on the 6 o’clock news is the gang member or organised criminal in the suit who works behind the scenes but who is equally insidious because he or she is peddling drugs in a more sophisticated way. Those criminals do not have barbed wire up on the front fence. They may live in the leafy suburbs and we may not know exactly who they are but they are as insidious and despicable as anyone who wears a physical patch and tattoos whether they be white brown or any other colour or creed and who goes around in a physically menacing way and is visible around our communities. So we support this title. We hope the bill will be backed up by appropriate resources. 
We again ask why the Maori Party waves the white flag of surrender in here leaving it up to the folks back home to lead the charge against organised crime and does not support a bill that gives those communities the tools through law enforcement they need to back the kaumatua kuia and the organisations that are standing up and saying “Taihoa. We do not want these individuals here.” The question is why it is a case of lion in here and lamb out there. Why will the Maori Party not stand up and support this bill? Is it because the Maori Party has some sort of bizarre view as Mr Flavell has said and Mr Jones pointed out that these gang members and organised criminals are somehow “our people.”? Like hell they are. They are not our people and they should be run out of town. They should be run out of town by the Parliament. We should not leave it to the kaumatua kuia and others to do our bidding for us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just make a comment here. I have been extremely tolerant. This is the debate on the title and commencement. The member went well beyond that and in a way he has incited responses. But this is the title and commencement debate. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to debate the title and commencement. I had two shots and I have had two responses from two Labour members who have asked for a response. I want to make some comments in respect of the terminology—I definitely want to do that—but I want the chance to respond if I could and I will leave it at that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I gave some tolerance to members on the Labour side of Chamber; I have no option but to give the member some tolerance. But I will conclude the debate on those matters and any subsequent efforts will be on title and commencement. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kei te pai. Thank you very much Mr Chair. Firstly I will speak with regard to the terminology. If we ask most New Zealanders about the word “gang” the notion that would come to the mind of most New Zealanders would be that of Black Power the Mongrel Mob maybe some bikie gangs people on motorcycles and that is about it. Carmel Sepuloni raised the issue of colours and after talking with some people in this particular area I say that those people do not seem to be classed as gangs in a sense. So I want to check with the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy about what he said a little bit earlier by raising the point about the definition of gangs how far and how wide that particular definition goes. Mr Cosgrove has raised the point of whether white collar crime fits into the notion of gangs and there might be some catches. It might fit under the other part of the title of the bill—“organised crime” and so be it. But I make the point that the connotation of “gangs” is around the notion of Maori gangs or those that let us say affiliate to those Maori gangs. That is the first point. 
Mr Cosgrove raised the notion of the cost in finding solutions. I raise the point again that I had talked about at least one community taking an opportunity and that I supported them on that particular notion. That is what the Maori Party says. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Six and a half thousand bucks! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I will come to the $6500 shortly. If there was support to allow those communities to get on with those solutions then we would be happy because that at least is dealing with the problem and will get away from going to the next part which is the $6500. Mr Cosgrove talks about the cost to the taxpayer yet the end result of this bill will be to lock up more people no doubt; therefore there is a contradiction in what he is talking about in that regard. 
The third point I would make is that already now in law there are opportunities for the police to move in on gangs. We know that because that is exactly what happened in a number of scenarios that people will be well aware of. Sure this bill might harden up the legislation and sure it extends certain terms but the law as it stands at the moment is able to deal with those issues. I respond by saying that that is one line. The law is already there that can take care of those issues so what do we do to deal with the situation afterwards? We are just breeding more and more and more of it. 
The Maori Party approach is that we need to look at alternatives. That is not to say that we should not throw them into jail; I told the Chamber before that those who do the crime should do the time. There is no doubt about that. We do not have a problem with that. But we are saying that we should look at other solutions. At least one community has put its hands up over the issue and we hope that that spreads. It is not to say that Murupara has all the answers. It does not but at least it is right for people there. Other places will have different solutions. The point about back-up too is exactly right. We hope that rather than put $6000 or whatever into sending a person to jail we put $6000 on issues of rehabilitation. That would be helpful; that would be really helpful. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the member I say to members that my tolerance has been— 
Hon Member 
: Exhausted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: —exhausted and I will terminate the speech of any member not speaking now on the title and commencement. I say to members who want to continue this debate that this is a fine debate. The third reading is forthwith. I ask members to bear that in mind. If Mr Jones wants to make a contribution it must be on title and commencement. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7 which states “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” I do not want to challenge your ruling because I think you have done very well in providing some latitude for members in the debate. I just want to ensure that members are actually given the opportunity in this to summarise comments and to respond to comments that have been made through the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member is actually challenging me but in a gentle way and I am going to stand firm on what I have said. It is title and commencement from now on. I think we have got to the stage where both sides have been put and we are having a third reading forthwith. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for observing some latitude; it was an impassioned issue. I would also like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. Both he and I are entitled to have our views recorded in the Chamber and I respect the direction that he is coming from. I want that to be known because those of us who share common roots need to be of a common mind. 
This is the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill but I cannot resist the option of leaving the member with the feeling that the bill ought to be renamed. It ought to be renamed the “Maori Party Talks the Politics but Does Not Walk the Politics Bill”. The title reveals that the bill is not just about an ethnic problem; the problem as we are warned is how we respond as a legislature to organisations. The title of the bill contains the word “organised”; that requires a sophisticated response. We are also required to deal with the word “gangs”. Gang members want to have rights but not obligations and that is probably where we differ from them. Unfortunately I am unlikely to persuade a suitable number of people in the Chamber that the bill should have a new title. Therefore as Labour is supporting the bill we will tolerate the bill going forward with its current name although we know that probably it could have been given a far more fitting moniker given the contributions of some members of the Chamber. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill the Local Government Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper51. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Crimes Amendment Bill 
Local Government Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Local Government Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. These bills are an important step towards addressing the serious problem of organised crime. They increase the range and effectiveness of the tools available to police for investigating and disrupting organised criminal activity and for prosecuting and penalising those involved. As these bills represent another of this Government’s initiative within its very busy first 100 days I am especially proud to see them passing into law today. 
Gangs and organised criminal groups are heavily involved in violent drug-related and property crime in New Zealand. They are also involved in more entrepreneurial types of offending. A significant proportion of the importation manufacture and supply of illicit drugs in this country can be attributed to organised criminal groups. At a local level inter-gang violence and fortified premises intimidate communities right across New Zealand. Indeed I experienced that as I was growing up in Horowhenua. Clamping down on gangs is part of the Government’s priority to improve public safety. 
The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill has now pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 51 been divided into three bills amending the Crimes Act 1961 the Local Government Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002. 
The Crimes Amendment Bill provides the police with a broader and more effective range of tools for intercepting the criminal activities of organised criminal groups. The bill allows police to apply for an interception warrant to investigate participation in an organised criminal group which is an offence under Section 98A of the Crimes Act. It doubles the maximum penalty for participation in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment. 
The bill clarifies the evidential requirements to prove that offence with the aim of securing more successful prosecutions of those who participate in an organised criminal group. It expands police surveillance powers in respect of gang communications by lowering the general threshold for a specified offence for interception warrant purposes from 10 years’ imprisonment to 7 years’ imprisonment. This will enable police to better investigate a wider range of organised criminal activity. 
The Crimes Act will also be amended through recommendations made by the Law and Order Committee. These include clarifying that people who contribute to the illegal activities of an organised criminal group from overseas will not escape prosecution under section 98A and increasing the range of offences that if undertaken or planned by a group qualifies that group as criminal. 
The Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) makes participation in organised criminal groups or other criminal association an aggravating factor at sentencing. I would like to especially thank members of the Law and Order Committee led by Sandra Goudie for their particular attention to this provision by removing the potentially onerous requirement on the prosecution to prove the motivation of an offender. 
The Local Government Amendment Bill enables the police and territorial authorities to seek a removal order against gang structures that are intimidating in nature. The combined effort of these measures is to give police a wider array of tools to combat the problem we have with gangs and organised criminal activity in New Zealand. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As we have said throughout this debate the Labour Opposition will support the legislation. We believe that the provisions of the legislation will go some way to combating gangs and organised crime and limiting their activities in New Zealand. We do note though that if National had wanted to act far more swiftly it could have actually picked up the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which had gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee and sat on the Table of this House during the interregnum. The Government could have picked up that bill—it was a Labour Government bill—and dealt with those issues in a far more efficient way than sitting under urgency as we do today. 
I raise a couple of points that we have raised throughout the debate. The first is that we support any measures to crack down on the insidious nature of gangs because we know about the violence they put upon communities and the intimidation they put upon people especially young people and the infection and disease they spread in the form of pedalling drugs preying on young people using them as drones and effectively destroying people’s lives for profit and personal gain. Of course we support this legislation. Equally those not so visible gangs—whose members as I said before wear suits rather than patches do not have tattoos and live in some of the leafier suburbs around New Zealand—have to be focused on with the same amount of vim and vigour as the more visible elements like the Mongrel Mob Black Power and those white gangs throughout New Zealand— 
David Garrett 
: Hell’s Angels. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Hell’s Angels the Tribesmen and others. 
The issue I will focus on is this: although we support the legislation and it will rattle through the House and the Governor-General will put his signature on it the rubber will then hit the road. Then it is up to agencies like the police to implement the legislation—to put it into practice and to use the powers that Parliament has given it. For those powers to be used effectively and for this legislation to implemented appropriately and for it to have the positive effect on our communities—and negative effect on the gangs—that this Parliament would want there is a need for something called resources monetary resources. I find it difficult: we have done customs legislation and there is the war on P—and we have asked the Customs Service and the police to do more in those areas—but the resources have not followed. 
Again we have law and order legislation as good and positive as it is but the resources are not flowing. We are asking our police to put themselves in greater danger. We are asking our police to step up to the plate and do more yet we know that there is a requirement from the Minister of Police and her Cabinet—in the John Key Government—to take $21 million out of the police budget. Yet the Minister has the audacity to stand up here and deny that that cut is happening. It is like denying that daylight follows dark as it were. This is actually happening and as evidence of that 340 police cars have gone from the fleet. Parliament was told that front-line vehicles would not go—one would think police were sitting around in unmarked Holdens and the police station car parks were awash with cars that had never done a patrol in their lives. This is simply not true. We know that highway patrol cars have gone we know that front-line vehicles have gone. Youth Aid which often deals with the consequences of where gangs have moved in and impacted on young people is gone. 
We now know that Canterbury has lost 32 cars or 10 percent of its vehicle fleet and today there is a grand announcement that it has gained resources in the form of four bicycles—four bicycles. This is true. It came from a press statement put out and trumpeted by the Minister. So we have lost 32 police cars. In Kaiapoi the Youth Aid officer’s car is gone. In Rangiora the community police officer’s car is gone. Thirty other vehicles have gone from the Canterbury policing district but it has gained four bicycles! Although we agree with visibility and having police out in the community I just wonder about the gang members as the policeman cycles up to the gang headquarters to knock on the door and say “Hang on there’s some bad stuff going around here.” As the gang members rip out the back door of the gang headquarters and jump into their vehicles I wonder how that policeman will cope as he cycles after them on his penny farthing or something like that. I do not know. Although we may make light of it it is a very serious issue. 
Secondly we now know that for the first time in history—and this is very serious and very dangerous—because of this Government’s requirement to cut money out of the police budget firearms training to our police force will be rationed. There will be officers in our police force in the blue uniform and in plain clothes who now do not receive the mandatory ongoing training because they are deemed to somehow not be front-line officers. If that logic is correct then it could affect a Youth Aid officer knocking on the door of gang members or the parents of gang members who were being administered to by a Youth Aid officer. It could have affected the constable in the Len Snee tragedy in Napier who was a Youth Aid officer. No notice was given and no warnings were sounded because there was no evidence that there would be a problem in Napier. The first responder was a Youth Aid officer and we know the consequences of that. Len Snee was gunned down and two other officers were critically wounded. It could have been even worse than the tragedy it was. 
If staff knock on the door of a house and gang members are there or organised crime activity is going on and those in the house want to protect their patch or what they are doing and there is no hint of violence there is no hint of tragic circumstances or no hint of firearms being presented a tragedy could happen. The Minister of Justice will never guarantee that it cannot happen. If that firearms training and those resources are not provided then who is impacted on who dies? Well it is likely to be a police officer God forbid and/or it is likely to be members of the community whom that police officer is sworn to protect and who will whether man or woman do everything to protect the community. But if for the first time in history the police do not have the training if they do not have the resources and if they do not have the firearms capability to deal with that even though the community expectation is that if they wear that uniform they can save members of the community and protect them there is a gap between the rhetoric in this legislation and the community expectation and the political expectation that Government members have put on it. 
Labour supports the legislation but we have some real concerns about the protection of our police force in that its members will not be adequately resourced to protect themselves or the community that they serve when they implement the tools that have been given to them in respect of organised crime and gangs because we know that gangs and organised criminals do not adhere to the protocols. They do not say that because the police are on bicycles they will only bike and do the crime on bikes. No they do not. That might seem a bit spurious or silly but it is a fact that they will use any means they can to circumvent the law. 
The other point I make comes back to what has transpired at the tail end of this debate. We had a very eloquent speech from Mr Flavell on behalf of the Maori Party and I say that with respect because like Mr Garrett I think he made some very very solid points in that speech talking about his own experience and his community experience. But then we got to the nub of it. The Maori Party seems to think that it is OK to meet with gang leaders and spend $6500 having lunch with them—and that is not $6500 to lock them up; it is to meet with them—and that it is OK to have the kaumatua and the kuia in our communities deal with them but it is not OK to support this legislation and give those communities and the police that reside in those communities the weaponry and the tools they need to deal with this. 
What is the alibi for that stance which I cannot understand? I think Mr Jones may be able to counsel me but I think it is in respect of trying to say that these gang members are part of our people our community and our culture. Well this issue is cross-cultural. When somebody gets raped or murdered or preyed upon by organised crime or gangs it is not about culture; it is about insidious crime at its basic level. I do not care what culture people are. That should never be recognised. Members of gangs or organised criminals who have committed those crimes should never be put on an equal footing with people in our communities politicians or anybody else. They should be run out of town. But it should not be left to our communities to run these people out of town and deal with them; Parliament is set up to give our communities through the police and other law enforcement agencies the tools and weapons they need to do it for them. 
I say to Mr Flavell that a great thing is happening in his community with his elders. It is a great thing but those elders have the respect and the right to be backed by Parliament and he should change his vote. He should support this legislation because one cannot be a lion in here and a lamb out there. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill which has now been divided into three separate bills as the Minister said to amend the Crimes Act 1961 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 2002. I thank members on the Opposition benches for their passionate heartfelt speeches against what can only be described as a group of thugs who wreak havoc on our society. Whatever we can do as a Parliament to bring these thugs to heel so be it. That is the reason why I support this legislation. 
But I was reminded of one simple thing when I listened to the passionate speeches from the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and it is that they are honourable gentlemen which means that for 9 years they were in Government; for 9 years we had a Labour Government. It was quite interesting to listen to them launch their attack on the Maori Party. Our colleagues in the Maori Party said that they talk tough but they do not actually do anything; the rubber does not hit the road. Well after 9 long years of a Labour Government we are at this moment right now addressing this issue. I have to ask the question. I know that the Hon Shane Jones has a strong political career ahead of him and I know that some time in the future probably four or five Parliaments away he will be back in Government and that the  
Hansard 
 record will still be there. It will be interesting to know what they may do in respect of law and order when their time comes again. 
But in the debate in the House today we are dealing with this group of people and as the Minister said it is not necessarily Maori who wear patches. They are worn by all sorts of people. Some of these people wear suits but they are just as insidious. As one who represents the electorate of Taranaki - King Country which has 17 small towns right across it with very low socio-economics—places like Kawhia Te Anga Kinohaku and Bennydale where socio-economics are very very low—one knows the havoc these individuals cause the type of activity they get involved in and the damage it does to the community. So anything we can do in Parliament that will assist our law officers that will assist in the investigations and that will assist in any way at all to bring these people to heel we should do with the utmost vigour that we can apply to it. 
The issue of resourcing is an interesting debate. There is a finite amount that we can put into any particular social issue at any one time. What I resent most of all about the constant reference to resourcing of the police or any other type of resourcing is that under 9 years of Labour we had the best economic times that we have experienced in a generation. What happened during that time? We squandered that opportunity on a scale that this country has never experienced. That is exactly what happened. So when it came to funding police cars when it came to funding law and order when it came to funding our courts—the whole arm—the third and very important leg of Government what happened under 9 years of Labour? We saw decline. We never saw the growth that we should have seen. We did not see the opportunities that this great little country had. We saw them squandered. We saw industries that could be double the size they are now taxed into non-existence. 
We saw the Australians thrash us in the commercial world; they absolutely thrashed us. The mantra we constantly hear about Australia having minerals and digging them up is absolute nonsense. This country has more minerals per capita than Australia. We have more opportunity than Australia because of our abundance in agriculture. We are better than our Australian counterparts in every single way in terms of our opportunities in the commercial world going forward. I tell Mr Jones that that growth would fund police cars and fund the law and order and social standards that he would like to see. Those kinds of things are important to New Zealanders. 
We are debating in the third reading of this legislation today the issues the Government confronts concerning the way to deal with this insidious group of individuals who come from all backgrounds all walks of life all social groups and all cultural groups. They come into our society from overseas and from within New Zealand. The proposals put forward by the Law and Order Committee—a good committee with good cross-party support most of the time—enhance the legislation and I can see nothing but good coming from its passing and receiving the Royal assent in the near future. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. This has been a spirited discussion. The opportunity was afforded us during the Committee stage as we considered the provisions of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to range quite widely. That ignited various exchanges that actually brought honour to the Chamber. It was not a tepid set of exchanges where well-rehearsed lines were trotted out. Of course that pattern was not followed by Shane Ardern the previous speaker. He lapsed into a set of very hackneyed phrases inversely related to the truth and then would have had us believe that the gangs he had in mind are the people currently fossicking around the conservation estate on the West Coast sniffing coal gas and wearing their high-visibility vests. Fortunately at the very end of the speech he recalled what he was told to do by Mr Tremain the chief Government whip which was to talk about the legislation before Parliament. It was a rare sensation for that particular member. 
The bills focus on whether the machinery of the State is adequate to curb the criminality that we know exists within the gang environment. We always have to be mindful that for every additional power of investigation or seizure that we attach to the police we have to be very confident that the bulwark of the judiciary is up to the task because at the end of the day after the police have carried out their investigations they have to lay down the information in front of a judge. That judge has to have the confidence and not so much the professionalism but the wisdom to test in his or her own mind whether we are going too far in our zest to rid ourselves of this excessive criminality in so far as drugs are concerned. We know that certain levels of criminal behaviour will never ever be completely swiped away whether it is driving on the wrong side of the road or being dangerous while drunk and carrying on like that. But there is a big duty on the judiciary. 
I come back to some of the elements that were taken up during the Committee stage. I challenged Mr Flavell on the wisdom of regarding gang members as being “our people”. At a personal level I find that expression almost offensive because I think that when we belong to a people we are willing to embrace duties and obligations. I cannot detect any sign of that willingness within the gang culture that we are trying to break here. When I speak of the gang culture I mean the shadowy forces that import drugs spreading around their filthy lucre in a way that might avoid detection as well as the deluded young teenagers wandering around with smelly soiled bandanas. Both groups share a common problem: an unwillingness to take on board the burden of an obligation. We cannot manage a civil society nor have the quality of life that we in this House want to continue to promote in our communities unless families are confident that the people who live around them are obliged to observe a certain level or threshold of decency honesty fairness and respect. 
How do we as a Parliament using legislation like this further entrench recognition of that obligation and our desire to embrace it? Naturally those of us who have raised children and who are still raising children try to entrench it in the way in which we send our kids to school teach them their table manners and teach them the ritenga and tikanga of how one treats one’s brothers and sisters one’s parents one’s tupuna and one’s friends and neighbours. But this legislation is designed to deal with people who obviously either did not have that experience of upbringing or had it but realised that it is far too cumbersome to maintain if what they want out of life is a quick buck at someone else’s expense. 
It then falls back to us. Mr Flavell made the very good point that I as a Maori MP cannot repudiate that the jails are overflowing with our young men. Although we have a different approach in relation to how staunch we should be in terms of our antagonism towards gangs his point is beyond cavil: we as a society are watching that tidemark grow higher and higher. It is a New Zealand problem but it is a particularly Maori difficulty to deal with as a Maori MP. Obviously the focus has to be on what we are doing in our communities to ensure that we can help our children. These children may not be our blood relatives but they will bloody us with their crimes if we are not able to cause them to change their ways. 
That is probably one of the unspoken lessons of today: as impassioned as someone like me gets about the excessive levels of criminality we must never overlook the rangatahi and the potential of the darling eyes belonging to the kohungahunga—the young girls and the young boys—and their mothers. I would be the first to state—based on personal experience and possibly a provincial upbringing moderated by a stint overseas and study—that I take a pretty hard line about these things because I get very very emotional when I look at the squandered potential in the young faces I am talking about. 
There were a number of references during this morning’s set of speeches to questions about what communities can do. Members asked whether communities can be staunch and whether we as parliamentarians will be able to support the police to stand with communities. I salute the community leaders from Murupara who have taken a very very strong stance after the death of two teenagers. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and anguish of the close family members as they watched the lives of those two young teenagers snuffed out knowing that it was worthless. There was no virtue there was no justification and there was nothing that we could say that represented a progressive modern celebratory attitude towards life in terms of what we saw go down for those two boys. I give full marks to the kaumatua and the kuia. 
We as parliamentarians have a slightly larger burden to bear than the kuia and the kaumatua on the marae which is what I was saying to Mr Flavell earlier. We have a privilege while we are here as MPs that is occasionally undervalued. When we speak in this House we are able to point out which societal norms ought to be upheld and we have the chance to state on behalf of the communities that we come from that we recoil from the type of lifestyle conduct hatred hostility and animus that is associated with the gang way of life. E Te Ururoa mehemea e whai tuara ana wera kaumatua wera kuia ki te whakaparahako i nga kenge horekau wa ratou pu maripi taiaha engari ko te aroha o te ngakau me te kaha o te arero he aha oti te take te mahi penaka ai koutou i roto i tenei Whare? 
[ 
Te Ururoa if those elders and elderly womenfolk had the fortitude to stand up to those gangs without guns knives or taiaha but with the love of the heart and the might of eloquence why are you collectively not taking that stance in this House? 
] 
If it was good enough for those people without arms or weapons but with only the strength of character and hearts and the strength of verbal skill to step up to the plate and stare down those gangs then it is good enough for our colleagues from the Maori Party to abandon their ambiguous stance in relation to gangs and to stop the indulgence and the indifference. Kia ora tatou. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to explain in brief why the Green Party will continue to oppose the Crimes Amendment Bill the Local Government Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3). The Green Party has no love at all for the criminal activities of gangs. These are organisations that rob young people of their souls and of their futures let alone the victims of their many crimes. 
Since at least the 1960s pretty well every Government has come into power with a promise of being tough on gangs. The approach has been: “Let us get harder and harder and let us increase the powers of the State against gangs and wind them up further and further.” That approach has completely failed to deal with the problem not only in New Zealand but also in those countries that have adopted the same approach. 
David Garrett 
: Wrong! 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: I am aware that David Garrett from the ACT Party is likely to speak next and I believe that he sincerely believes that this legislation will provide the police and other authorities with powers that will assist in curbing the problems associated with criminal gangs. But I am aware that other parties National and Labour in particular will be voting for this legislation and I do not believe that the members of those parties believe it will help. Instead those parties are playing to the gallery. These measures are entirely tokenistic and those parties are supporting the legislation out of a belief that the public seeks simplistic answers to these complex problems. Rather than suppressing these problems I believe that the main impacts of the legislation will be to feed the sense of alienation and grievance upon which criminal gangs thrive. Just as the war on terror breeds more terrorists this legislation will strengthen the hand of the gangs. 
What would we do? The Green Party supports the types of solutions that my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell spoke about in the House today. Complex problems almost always require complex answers and the answers here are for this House and for this Government to support the actions of communities strengthen the hand of communities in dealing with these problems and at the same time take serious and effective action on those social and economic circumstances that drive young people into the hands of the gangs in the first place. 
Finally I want to pick up on a comment of Clayton Cosgrove in this third reading debate. He suggested that this suite of bills will deal with not just so-called Maori gangs. I do not believe for one moment that Clayton Cosgrove was speaking without his tongue very firmly in his cheek. I do not believe that this House will see these powers used against for example those organised criminals behind several of the finance company collapses that we have seen or any of those other white-collar criminal conspiracies that would meet the definition here. This suite of bills is intended for a particular kind of gang and that is the only kind of gang that we will see them used against. This legislation is reprehensible because it is window dressing it is more tokenism and it is more talk of being tough on crime without a willingness to address the factors that fuel crime. The Green Party will continue to oppose this legislation. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 As the last speaker predicted not surprisingly I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the three bills that have come out of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I will start by respectfully differing slightly from my colleague Shane Ardern who used the word “thugs” which I also used in earlier speeches in the House on the original bill. That is an accurate word but a better word would be “outlaws”. These people are outlaws in the literal sense of that word. They shun the law they shun ordinary people and they make a gesture to ordinary people that was used by my generation and has now altered to an American version. 
I was talking to a judge of my acquaintance on a plane the other day. He told me about the evidence in a trial he had conducted of bugged conversations in which the gang members concerned laughed on the phone about how they were not going to work like the dupes out there in society and about how they would all be millionaires by the end of the year. They have contempt for everyone up there in here and outside this building. Gang members are outlaws. They are not our people whether they be brown white or whatever colour they may be and to make the claim that they are is simply silly and naive. 
This legislation brings in a number of measures that are long overdue. The previous Government had 9 years in which to do something about the gang problem in this country and Mr Hague was correct when he said that for 20 years or probably 30 years Governments have talked about being tough on gangs but have never done very much about that. This National-led Government has not even had 12 months in office and it has done plenty. We have given Wanganui the power to say “No more” to the gangs who terrorise people there by their simple appearance. Again I say to anyone who is silly and naive enough—and there are some in our party I have to say—to say gang members are only wearing their clothing and we should wait until they commit a crime that he or she should go to Wanganui and review the footage I have seen of a vicious beating that occurred at the local Work and Income office. That beating occurred just because two scum who were wearing different patches happened to encounter each other and under their ridiculous and deadly code that is what they were obliged to do. Clothing can and does directly lead to violence. 
ACT’s “three strikes” policy as part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will lock away those who do the greatest harm to society. These people are proud of their actions and proud to be members of the gangs with whom many of them associate. As I said in my speech earlier today in California the gang problem is very very much reduced. Anyone who is listening to this debate will recall reading about drive-by shootings in South Los Angeles. We are more likely to read about a drive-by shooting in Palmerston North now and the reason is that the gang leaders under the “three strikes” law in California are all in jail. That is why violent crime there has dropped by 62 percent since 1994. 
In an ideal world we would outlaw the gangs. I mentioned in my first reading speech that non-association laws have been passed and enforced in Germany against Fascist parties and in Ireland against the IRA. But apparently doing that will not work here because it is against people’s human rights. Forget the victims! It is more important to some members in this House to protect the rights of those whom we could only charitably and theoretically refer to as being human. I will say again more carefully what I said outside the House: the human rights that matter to me and to the members of our party are those of victims and potential victims. Those people’s human rights are more important than the right of scum to strut about whether they be wearing a Mongrel Mob patch or a laundered patch if they are Hell’s Angels. 
In the meantime if we cannot outlaw the gangs what we can do is to increase the jail time for these thugs these outlaws and keep the victims and potential victims amongst us safer for longer. This legislation doubles the maximum sentence for a conviction for involvement in organised criminal activity from 5 years to 10 years and that is long overdue. Why did someone not think of doing that earlier? Well people did but it is only now with a new Government that it is happening. 
Those who say that locking up criminals for longer periods is not the answer should try to tell that to the family of Fitzgerald Risati the Samoan choirboy I referred to in my second reading speech—and yes that is what he was; he was a choirboy—who was killed by Charlie Karaka because he looked like the guy who had stolen his gang patch earlier in the day. Being dumb in itself is not a crime but we are dealing with stupid dangerous people with idiotic dangerous customs that often result in senseless outcomes like the killing of Fitz Risati. Charlie Karaka’s gang like all the others has a code that if a member loses the gang patch that member must find and punish and if necessary kill the guy who took it. It does not matter whether the gang member gets it wrong as happened in that case. That is why an innocent man who was out celebrating his 24th birthday was killed in cold blood. 
To think there are some people here who say that the answer is to reason with these people! Gang members are as easy to reason with as the gangs that disguise themselves in nice clothes and hide in nice neighbourhoods as Mr Cosgrove referred to peddling P to their customers. The Hell’s Angels are still outlaws only they look and smell nicer than some other gangs. They still need to be dealt with not reasoned with. 
Some members in this House think that the answer is to fly gang leaders at taxpayers’ expense to a hui to ask them to please be nicer and stop hurting people to congratulate them on keeping their heads down a bit and also to ask them whether they are receiving all of their entitlements from the social welfare system. I say to Dr Sharples that if that approach worked then Rob Muldoon would have solved the gang problem 25 years ago. What we got from that approach were fences that we could put up for $5000 today but that we paid $100000 for. That is what happened as a result of Rob Muldoon saying we should talk to the Mongrel Mob and Black Power reason with them and give them jobs. Mr Muldoon did not solve the problem; instead it has escalated into a crisis only marginally less significant than the economic one that that gentleman left us with in 1984. 
Dr Sharples whom I respect and other members must realise that for the P sellers hurting people is their livelihood. They are not going to just stop doing that. Group hugs will not make them less antisocial; giving them work schemes will not make them less antisocial. Gangs are not legitimate organisations. ACT knows this. The people of New Zealand know this. We are proud to support any legislation that further reinforces that reality. 
Finally I will say again how impressed I was with the eloquent speech made by my colleague to my left Te Ururoa Flavell. The Maori Party unless its members have changed their minds in the last hour or so will vote against the bill. I do not want to go too far into the reasons for that but it seems to me that the Maori Party members are torn for cultural reasons as to just what to do. From the little that I know about Maori culture—and it is a little—I have some understanding of their dilemma. But the Greens have no such excuse. When I came to this place I learnt that the term for them was “Watermelon Greens”—green on the outside red on the inside. The situation is actually worse than that. The Greens are criminal sympathisers; that is what they are. They have voted against every single law and order bill in this Parliament—every single one. Mr Locke tried to claim the other day that the Greens had opposed a couple of laws because they are opposed to imprisonment as a response to offending. Superficially that is fair enough and it is not an uncommon view. The problem is that those particular bills did not carry an offence provision providing for imprisonment. So I say “Shame on the Green Party! Shame on the criminal sympathisers!”. ACT is happy to support these bills. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. In order to put my comments in some sort of context I just wanted to advise the House that today is an extremely important day for Aotearoa. For those who do not know on this day in 1835 He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni—the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand—was signed. The declaration bears the signature of 52 rangatira and is commonly perceived as the document that demonstrated British recognition of an independent Maori nation. Indeed that declaration in 1835 has become the symbol for many Maori of an assertion of autonomous rights or mana motuhake. 
Within the context of such a profound event I am pleased to bring to the House a very recent example of mana motuhake as it relates to the legislation from the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Late last evening I was sent the resolutions agreed to by consensus at a hui held at Te Rangatahi Marae in Murupara exactly 1 week ago. The hui was held by a community that had had enough of living in fear of the brutal violence and murders that had been going on there. They wanted it to stop. Their key message is that they seek to unite to fight the violence not the gangs believing that actually it is the gangs that can stop this violence. 
The first recommendation endorses the decision of all iwi at that hui—namely Ngati Whare Tuhoe Ngati Haku Patuheuheu Tuwharetoa Te Whakatohea Te Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Awa—individually and collectively to publicly endorse the rahui to ban gang violence in the entire rohe. The other motion read that all who are members of the iwi amongst the Tribesmen and Mongrel Mob will take every step possible to ensure that gang members comply with that rahui declare an immediate truce a ceasefire and sign up to a peace pact in the presence of the iwi concerned on Rangatahi Marae within the next fortnight. 
I raised the concept of the rahui throughout the Committee stage of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill as I think it is an excellent example of communities being empowered to determine their own solutions. I talked about the practical application of this rahui as it was expressed at a local tangihanga where a number of kuia stood out and placed themselves in the extremely distressing position of preventing their own kin their own whanau members from attending a tangi as a result of a gang confrontation. There is probably nothing more profound in Te Ao Maori than being removed from the process of allowing whanau to grieve at the side of their loved ones and to pay their final respects. That is cutting; it is really hard for that to happen. 
We are talking about initiatives with extreme and severe consequences for Maori communities. These are bold and courageous moves and I fully commend those iwi for their initiative in this respect. So how does what is happening in Murupara deal with the types of amendments and proposals being entrenched in law today? I want to say for the record that the Maori Party is proud of our reputation for confronting violence and understanding how best to address these issues of huge moral significance for the development of our communities. I say to Mr Jones that there is no moral ambiguity at all when it comes to issues of lawlessness and injustice but there is moral ambiguity in the very notion of targeting one group of the population over and above all others and targeting a range of enforcement tools and penalties to respond to that group. 
Our concern has always been about the retributive nature of this legislation and its narrow focus on gangs and not the wider context of organised crime such as corporate fraud and international criminal networks. The Maori Party has continually advocated that there are more effective restorative ways to deal with gangs and their offending than by enforcement suppression and imprisonment. 
Mr Cosgrove made constant references to meetings with gangs—funny that! The meeting with my colleague Dr Sharples that was referred to actually builds on approaches that other Governments have introduced from both sides of the House. So let us be clear: everybody has had a turn. 
One of the more effective approaches was that taken in 1981. The committee on gangs acknowledged the social causes of gangs with a Community Education Initiative Scheme established in 1981 and the Group Employment Liaison Scheme the following year. The schemes sought to reduce youth gang recruitment through responding positively to the needs of underachieving students who had difficulty moving from school to employment. It also provided children and young people with constructive recreational and sporting activities outside of school. The main goal of the Group Employment Liaison Scheme programme was to encourage disadvantaged groups including gangs into various Government-funded schemes. 
In 1987 the Committee of Inquiry into Violent Offending concluded that many of the schemes “had positive results in reducing the offending and anti-social behaviour of those who participated in them”. As for the rest of the hostile rhetoric espoused by Mr Cosgrove this morning that supporting social justice efforts is akin to throwing up the white flag in defeat perhaps he might benefit from talking with some of his colleagues about their involvement in working with gangs. He might for instance talk with Mr Parekura Horomia about the initiative supported under his leadership of the community-led employment group; or to Mr Chauvel perhaps about his recent discussions with gang members in Farmer Crescent. 
There is nothing wrong with talking with communities and learning from the local people about solutions that work on the ground. This is the heartfelt call from the Maori Party. Rather than simply locking up gangs and throwing away the key we need to respond on the basis of a long-term goal rather than of the emotions of short-term hysterics. If we are to invest in the long-term health and well-being of our nation we need to acknowledge I say to Mr Cosgrove that we cannot just kick gangs out of town and lock the city gates. Gang members come from families. They have children their children have children and they go to schools. They go down to the shopping centre. So we must have creative courage to think of intergenerational solutions. 
We know that different strategies with regard to gangs produce very different results. In essence there are two schools of thought. One is elimination through enforcement—for example the Los Angeles approach. The second one is ensuring public safety through gang and community engagement—namely the New York approach. In Los Angeles the strategy of suppression and punishment has led to a huge increase in the number of gangs and gang crimes. The policy has resulted in thousands of young people killed in gang conflicts. Billions have been spent on policing and surveillance and the databases and the long prison terms. Spending on gangs has far outpaced spending on preventive programmes or community development. 
What is the great outcome of such a massive enforcement programme? Zip—very little. Los Angeles is home to six times the number of gangs and at least double the members while across the United States in New York City a strategy of community development educational attainment opportunities and urban renewal has led to a decrease in gangs to a point where the total gang population is estimated to be around 500 people. Investment in job training mentoring after-school activities and recreational programmes has made significant dents in gang violence. We are calling for investment in communities to restore balance to the debate not just to overload the prison cells with yet another punitive approach. We are calling for an even-handed approach to policing and justice a balance between enforcement and restoration. 
Despite the talk in principle the practice as enforced in this legislation has been the overwhelmingly prioritisation of enforcement. We are too hasty to call for the rule book to slam down laws and enforcement to punish and to sentence without understanding that the solution might be as simple as a work scheme or in supporting communities to determine their own approaches such as that put forward by Murupara. 
The Maori Party recognises that one of the keys to dignity and respect and the reduction of reoffending has to do with the right to work. We want to encourage that. Instead of locking away the problem the Maori Party calls for this House to face its fears—to provide opportunities for communities and individuals to address confrontational behaviour and to focus on solutions. It would be really helpful sometimes if some of the people who talk about gangs and our gang problem could go and talk with those people go and walk the streets with those people who have to tangi for their mate. Then they would know about some of the issues and have a little bit more of a closer connection. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am proud to speak to the gangs and organised crime legislation particularly as the bills go through their last stage before they are enacted. I acknowledge and thank the members of the Law and Order Committee. They worked to progress this bill in a timely manner and I thank them for their contribution and the work they did in this regard. 
The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill—which has now been divided into three bills—is a small bill but it packs a mighty punch. People throughout the country spoke loud and clear about the need for change and the need to address law and order issues. But at the same time we are addressing many of those other issues referred to by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell. He is quite right—it is a two-pronged approach. This legislation is just one of the steps we are taking to give the police the tools to deal with the current criminal issues in relation to gangs. 
National listened and this legislation is one of the many changes we have made to keep people safe in their homes and on the streets. This legislation is gang-buster legislation and whether the gangs wear leather jackets bandanas or white collars—and I want to emphasis the white-collar aspect; I will make reference to that again shortly—it will deal with gangs across the spectrum. 
So what does the legislation do? It is about interception warrants for police lower thresholds for a specified offence for interception warrants reduced evidential burden to prove participation in an organised criminal group increased penalties removal orders and criminal association as an aggravating factor at sentencing. These are the tools that are the arsenal of this gang-buster bill. Police need those tools. They need that support. 
If we look back in history we see that we had the bookies in the 1940s and 1950s we had cannabis in the 1960s and the 1970s and we also had heroin in the 1970s and the 1980s. Now we have methamphetamine otherwise known as P. As the face of criminal offending has changed so too has the face of gangs. Gangs now exist to make money and exert power over others and that is with several thousand patched gang members and many more associates. Opposing gangs will even get together to further their primary interest—that is their business interests—for making money and exerting that dominance over others using violence fear and intimidation. 
Gangs have shown that they are not above committing murder. Members of the House can tell us firsthand of incidents where gangs have shown that murder is an activity that they are not above indulging in. Gangs can be as innovative and crafty as anyone else. They keep up to speed with technological changes and use those changes to best effect. 
There is a growing blurring of the lines between what we all know as gangs—gangs whose members wear hoodies with leathers tattoos bandanas and the like—and a much a sleeker well-dressed business-savvy professional who is fully comfortable in a white collar. Gangs have accountants. They have lawyers. In some cases they even have media advisers. Gangs will partner with legitimate business such as finance transport private security entertainment real estate and the like all the while running their real business of violence extortion drug dealing and money-laundering. If people get in the way they will deal to them as has been said quite clearly in this House. 
Gangs now operate with a new level of sophistication and involvement in communities in order to give the appearance that they are harmless and to show that they are groups with a strong community spirit. Well other members might like to get lulled into thinking that but the next minute the gangs will be dealing out the back door to one of their kids. Then what do members say to that? There is nothing they would like more than being able to get our kids hooked on P. That is totally devastating to our communities. We all know how bad that it is and it could not get any worse. So we have no tolerance of that in terms of what we can do to provide police with the tools to deal to it. 
I ask members to consider a gang called the Killer Beez. It has its own hip-hop record label called Colourway Records. What does it do? It makes music videos—recruitment advertisements for gangs thinly disguised as music videos that are played on mainstream TV. Do we like that? Do we think that is a good thing? Do we think that is great? They have websites. They use Facebook and they have branded franchises. This is what gangs today have. They have become a little more sophisticated than what we knew of the gangs in the 1950s 1960s 1970s and 1980s. They are much more technologically aware than they used to be. 
Gangs indulge in violence and intimidation and in creating their own brand of misery with methamphetamine while they are stuffing their back pockets and their bank balances and building up their assets. Well we are going to deal to them through their assets. We will take their assets and their money every time we catch them and convict them for criminal offending. We will use that money to make sure we deal to other gangs for dealing in that same area of criminal activity. That is covered in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which was also a great step in the right direction. 
Let us hit them where it hurts and that is in the pocket. Let us give the police the tools to pick them up. That is what this legislation will do. It will give police the tools to delve further into gangs and into people associated with gangs so that they cannot escape that oversight. We have only to look to see how easy it is for gangs to lure our young people. I think that this is where the other actions we have taken in other portfolios across the whole of the Government are addressing the concerns raised by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell. 
This legislation along with many other changes deals with gangs as announced by the Prime Minister John Key and championed by Judith Collins the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. We will take gangs’ assets we will take their money and we will bust their trade. We could not do anything better than that. This legislation is gang-buster legislation. We will hit them where it hurts—in the pocket. 
I am delighted that this legislation about gangs and organised crime is another step in the right direction for dealing to gangs their associates and the criminal activity they indulge in which threatens our communities and our young people and makes life a misery for many many families. I am delighted to be able to progress this legislation. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise and speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill the Local Government Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3). One thing that has come to light is that across this House I do not think that any party would disagree that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetuated by gangs and organised crime. I think that is one thing we can all agree on. There are some things that have been raised by other members across the House that I will address. Something we share is wanting to see the crimes committed by those gangs and by organised crime diminish but I guess our views about how that can happen differ across the House as do our views on whether this legislation will be effective in helping to do that. 
We just heard from Sandra Goudie who addressed something that was said by Maori Party members. She said that the Government is addressing the issues identified by the Maori Party. I think some of the issues that Maori Party members raised concerned the actual causes of crimes and the reasons why people get involved in gangs in the first place. I do not believe that the National Government is addressing that and I think that is very serious. It is something that the Government continues to ignore. It is all about punitive measures; it is all about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Although we support this legislation we do not support the narrow focus that the National Government continues to take. At the end of the day there will be victims of the crimes that are committed but the perpetrators of the crimes will not be stopped from perpetrating them if the Government does not put something in place at the top of the cliff. That is one of the issues that has been raised and I believe that it is a serious issue which the National Government needs to address. 
Earlier on Mr Garrett basically said that the punitive measures to punish criminals are the most important thing in regard to gaining justice for the victims and that that is the most important issue. But that is not the most important issue. The most important issue is actually making sure that crimes are not committed in the first place so that we do not have those victims. Unfortunately that is something that the ACT Party continues to overlook. 
We also had Mr Ardern earlier asking at the beginning of his speech what the previous Labour Government had done for 9 long years. That member knows that the previous Labour Government had legislation similar to this legislation before the Law and Order Committee when this National Government came to power. Had the National Government genuinely wanted to expedite this measure at a faster pace perhaps even within the period of its 100 days of action all that the Minister of Justice needed to do was to support Labour’s legislation and possibly if the Government had wanted to amend it. But instead of doing that for the sake of political point-scoring the Government canned that altogether and started again so that it could take ownership over all this legislation. At the end of the day Labour is supportive of the legislation. We already had it in a select committee; it was something that we were already addressing. So for Mr Ardern to say that the previous Labour Government did nothing over the 9 years that it was in Government is absolute rubbish actually. 
One thing we have been discussing that has come up across the course of this very robust debate on this legislation is the types of gangs that we are looking at. The gangs that I am very interested in—because I think that we need to differentiate between some of the gangs and the organised crime that is taking place—are the youth gangs out there. The Labour Government was very good at compiling evidence about things that it wanted to put into place before it decided on the legislation it might put through. A report that I recently looked at was commissioned by the Labour Government and put out by the Ministry of Social Development. It looked at youth gangs. It was a research report called  
From Wannabes to Youth Offenders: Youth Gangs in Counties Manukau 
. If we are to understand this issue and put forward legislation that actually works it is important that we have the evidence base to work from. I find it interesting because there has been much debate over whether those gang members are “our people” and the horrendous scenarios and situations that those gang members are putting people through. I find what is happening with our youth gangs interesting. 
Shane Jones mentioned earlier—and this is one of the reasons why I think it is very important that the House supports this legislation—that one of the purposes of the legislation and one of the things it does is prevent the normalisation of gang culture and gang membership. If we are going to deal with some of the issues that have arisen with our youth who have been getting involved with youth gangs then we have to prevent the normalisation of gangs by saying that that is not acceptable. When we look at the report that was put out by the Ministry of Social Development we see that it puts youth gangs into different categories. The wannabes are those who want to be associated with a gang and who are not really committing much crime but it is a kind of identity for them to be part of that gang. The “territorial gangs” are those who protect their patch. Often we call them the ABC gangs. I said earlier that sometimes if they live on for example Smith Drive then they would be called something like the Smith Drive Boys. We call them the ABC gangs. Then there are the ones who are entering into the more serious areas and those are called the “criminal youth gangs”. The issue with the “wannabes” and “territorials” gangs is that most of their members will end up leaving those gangs unscathed without a criminal record and with it being a passing phase in their lives. But we can compare being part of a gang to marijuana being a gateway drug resulting in an avenue to try a harder substance. I think that those gangs are gateway gangs; that is the issue. 
Young people start off in a wannabe gang but some go on to much more criminally minded gangs or perhaps to the criminal youth gangs. The research shows us that there is an affiliation between the youth gangs and some of the more established gangs. The research shows that the Killer Beez who are seen as a criminal youth gang are connected to the Tribesmen; the Black Power Youth are connected to Black Power; the Juvanyle Crip Boys are connected to Black Power; and the Bloods are connected to Black Power the Mongrel Mob and the King Cobras. The issue is as I said before that we need to prevent the normalisation of gang membership and gang culture. This legislation to a large extent does some of that. 
Labour supports the legislation; it is something that we were trying to put through ourselves. But this Government decided that the legislation was more about political point-scoring by taking ownership of the legislation and putting out there that it had nothing to do with Labour and that Labour did nothing for law and order over the previous 9 years. That is the perception that the National Government wants to put out there. It wants to put the perception out there that this side of the House does not care about victims and does not care about law and order. I find that very hard to swallow because it is very difficult for members on this side to listen to members opposite and hear them say that we have no social conscience whatsoever that we do not care about law and order and that we do not care about victims. I say from this side of the House that the one thing we all share across this House is that we care about law and order we care about victims of crime and we all want to do something to make sure that we can lessen the effects of what is happening cut down on crimes being committed and protect ordinary everyday New Zealanders out there from having some of those crimes committed against them. That is largely what I wanted to talk about. 
Labour supports this legislation but I think it is important that it is noted that Labour was doing something in respect of this matter. It was the National Government that decided to point-score instead of doing anything else. I want to acknowledge that one of the main reasons it is important that we support this bill is that it prevents the normalisation of gang culture and gang membership. As Shane Jones said it is important for our rangatahi. We know as Maori and Pacific people that those getting involved in the youth gangs are Maori and Pacific youth. We want to protect them. We want them to realise that this is not the type of activity that they should be involved in. We want to take the power away from the gangs to recruit those young people and that is why we support this bill. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I commend Carmel Sepuloni the previous speaker for her comments regarding the commitment not to see the perpetuation of gang culture and not to see gang culture become normalised in our society. Perhaps she has a stronger conviction than her leader who last year said: “We are targeting not gangs per se but their criminal activities. Anyone in New Zealand has the right to come together in a group and call or label themselves whatever they will—that is not the issue.” I think that the acquiescence that comment suggests is one of the reasons why New Zealanders on 8 November last year decided they wanted to have a National Government. It is not a matter of walking softly amongst these issues; it is a matter of having some very strong convictions about it. We understand that the previous Government was going to do a stocktake on the level of organised criminal activity but we need to understand that stocktakes do not address the issue where it counts. 
We need to understand that in New Zealand we have a war on P—not just a war on P but a war on the perpetuators of that drugged infusion into the minds and lives of New Zealanders and particularly of young New Zealanders. The Police Association says that the gang environment in New Zealand has changed. Let me read a comment that the Police Association made in its submission to the Law and Order Committee: “The New Zealand gang environment is now much more complex and serious. The ‘old’ face of gangs still exists especially in provincial and rural areas … But the old gangs are also now engaged in true organised crime. They are dealing higher value drugs such as methamphetamine and coordinated supply and distribution syndicates have replaced many of the old inter-gang rivalries.” There is a certain amount of cooperation amongst gangs in our society regarding the drug trade as gangs select prepare and distribute patches—not those on their backs but geographical areas in our cities that belong to certain groups. 
The submission goes on: “Modern gangs are organised with one aim—to make money. Cash flows and illegally-funded lifestyles are now at levels gang members in the 1980s could not even have dreamed of: the methamphetamine trade is currently estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion a year in New Zealand of which Association members estimate at least 75% is controlled by gangs. To put that in perspective that is double the annual value of New Zealand’s entire wine exports.” Wine is a trade in which we are world leaders. What a tragedy that New Zealand is a world leader in the trading of methamphetamine. 
The political positions we have heard in the House today are varied. The Green Party reviewed the series of amendments to various Acts and called them window dressing. The Maori Party looked for other solutions. Labour suggested a stocktake on the level of organised crime although we do appreciate that party’s support for this legislation. We are at war. It is an insidious war; it is clandestine. It destroys the lives of people on the front line like Sergeant Don Wilkinson. He was a casualty of that war. 
National has drawn the line by using legislation to put more power in the hands of police local authorities and the judiciary. The solution that we propose is to face up to the issues and to have the political will and leadership to address those issues strongly in our society. We cannot propose soft options when the people we are dealing with have no respect or regard for any authority and when they will not engage in reasonableness because their intent is to take our money and to destroy our society. If someone gets in the road of their intentions as the Hon Shane Jones so well articulated they will kill that person. This is what we face in our nation. 
It is important to realise that many of our communities are terribly inflicted with the plague of criminality that comes through gangs and drugs. One community in Porirua has stated that it has had a serious gang problem since the early 1970s when the Mongrel Mob and their associates moved into their community and began recruiting support from amongst the youth of the area. How many heartbroken mothers and fathers in our nation have seen their young people full of potential ability dreams and intelligence get drawn in by the lure of inclusion and identity and by the prospect of working through some echelon and coming into some easy money? How many have seen their young people drawn into those gangs? The community in Porirua said that “The gang has established fortified headquarters which have long been the focal point of rapes murders and a vast array of other serious criminal offending. The gang’s central philosophy is a commitment to antisocial and criminal behaviour.” These are not my comments; they are the comments of New Zealanders who have experienced the presence of a gang with its criminal activity in their community. They went on to say that the gang “is involved in most of the drug dealing in our community and it exists as an imminent and ever-present threat to those who live in our city. The significant financial returns gained from crime and drug dealing make it an attractive option for disaffected youth in our community.” 
Although we understand the benefit of having law like this legislation in place it does not address the cause of the problem. But it will make belonging to a gang that is based on criminal activity not only a breach of the law but also increasingly difficult and unattractive in order to dilute the power of gangs in our communities. The solution that society is looking for is accountability. We want to see responsibility come into people’s choices so we see today that there will be an increased penalty for associating in a group of people with the intent of committing criminal activity. The sentence time will rise from 5 years to 10 years. 
We know there are major issues in New Zealand. We know that over the decades there has been the enculturation of the presence of gangs in New Zealand but we should never accept that gangs are part of the Kiwi way of life. We must never lose our ground and be intimidated simply by their presence. We know that the issue for many gang members is a lack of education which leads to failure and causes gang options to become more attractive. We need to address that issue and to be multi-faceted in all of our attempts to build a healthy and good society. We know that young people search for identity and that if they are rejected by others they will quickly cling to those who give them some form of affirmation. There is much that needs to be addressed in the parenting of our young people in New Zealand. We know that many members of gangs are victims themselves who get involved in the perpetuation of further victimisation. Although all these issues are understandable the outcomes are never acceptable nor should they be excusable. 
As I come to a close I say that I believe that the National Government has grasped the nettle in having the political courage and leadership to address the hard issues in our society. I commend this legislation to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The rhetoric is easy and I can do “hard on crime” just as well as any other member in the House. Gangs are insidious. They prey on people and they intimidate bully and break the law. That is the rhetoric and I agree with it—I do. I do not have any time for gangs or gang members. But when listening to members opposite one would think that once the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill is passed we will all march arm in arm to a happier future and gangs will disappear overnight. The fortifications will go the gang members will all be locked up and everything will be wonderful. If it was that easy it would have happened by now. 
Although Government members said that we had 9 years of a Labour Government where nothing happened I point out that we had 9 years of a National Government before that 4 years of a Labour Government before that and 9 years of a National Government before that. If we go back and read what Rob Muldoon said about gangs in the 1970s we probably would not find that much difference in the rhetoric that came out of the National Party then as comes out of it today. The rhetoric is the easy bit; the solutions are the hard bit. We on the Labour side of the House support this bill because it gives the police some more powers. But we are realistic. We know that it does not mean gangs will just disappear overnight or that somehow all gang-related crime will vanish because it will not. Sandra Goudie called it the “Gang-buster Bill”. It is not. It is another set of tools in the arsenal for the police but it is not a magic bullet or an instant solution. 
I will pick up a couple of the comments that Te Ururoa Flavell made. I agreed with quite a lot of what he said in the Committee stage and in his third reading speech. However there were a few things that I did not agree with him on. I did not agree with him when he said that the gangs were part of the solution to stopping violence. I absolutely disagree with that. The gangs are often the problem. They are not the solution. 
Mr Flavell talked about Farmer Crescent in Pomare and I am disappointed that Maori Party members have had little to say about the actions of their National Government colleagues there. The Government is not evicting the gang members from their State houses in Pomare; it is evicting the women and children. That will do nothing to stem the gang-related problems in that community. All that will do is punish the innocent victims. I am surprised that Te Ururoa Flavell raised that matter in this House given the Maori Party’s shameful silence on the actions of the National Government against that community which will do nothing to stem gang-related problems in that community. All it is doing is picking on the victims. I think that if Maori Party members want to raise that matter in this House they should at least have the courage of their convictions to stand up and say that they condemn the actions of the National Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot imply that a member or a party in the House lacks courage. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Coming back to the points I raised earlier in this debate the Labour Party said at the last election that we would have a commission of inquiry into gangs and sophisticated crime and I absolutely agree with that. As I have already said whatever we do the solutions are not easy. It is the rhetoric that is easy. In order to come up with solutions that work we need to look at the evidence of what works not only here but also around the world. We need to get people to talk about it. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world and this bill increases the number of people who will be locked up and the amount of time they will be locked up for. That may make us all feel better but we are doing more of the same and that means we will be getting more of the same. We need to take a look at the evidence of what works if we are really serious about cracking down on gang-related crime. We need to go right back to the beginning. We need to go right back to day one because those gang members were not born wanting to be that way. They were not born gang members and they were not born wanting to be criminals. I ask members what happened along the way that has made them what they are now. 
I tell members that if they go to Rimutaka Prison they will see that 30-plus percent of people there have some sort of gang-related affiliation. I can tell members the common characteristics of people in the Rimutaka Prison. First of all most of them cannot read and write. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s why we have a literacy programme going! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They cannot read and write and I will tell the member what else: most of them come from low socioeconomic areas. The gap between the rich and the poor in New Zealand is continuing to grow—it grew under Labour and it continues to grow under National. If we want to choke off the supply of gang members and gang recruits then we have to do something about poverty in this country. The fact is that gangs prey on the poor and the desperate and that is where they get their new members from. 
If we want to be really tough about gangs we need to go back to day one to when those kids are first born. We need to ask what it is that compels them to get into gangs in the first place. Gang members who are already in the gangs are picking on the easy targets: the poor kids the kids who cannot read and write and—yes tragically—the kids who themselves have been victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. They are the ones who are more likely to end up in gangs so let us go after that situation as the root cause of the problem. This legislation adds some useful things for the police. It gives them some useful new powers but it will not solve gang-related crime. If we are really serious about gang-related crime we need to go back to the cause. 
For this legislation to be effective it needs to be adequately resourced. As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said it is all very well to give police extra powers but when the Government is cutting 340 police cars out of the police force and cutting firearms training I ask how the police will have the resources or the skills in the case of firearms training to adequately deal with these types of issues. The sum of $21 million has been cut from the police budget under National’s “tough-on-crime Budget”. It can pass all the laws it likes but if it does not give the police the resources to implement them then those laws are pretty meaningless. 
It is a contrast to the National Party’s pre-election rhetoric which was tough on crime. National said it was going to put extra police on the beat and it was going to make sure they were properly resourced yet in its very first Budget it stripped $21 million out of the police budget. To highlight what that means in Christchurch where more than 30 cars have been cut out of the police’s vehicle fleet the National Government gave the police there four bicycles to replace those 30 cars. In Christchurch Mr Brownlee’s home town his Government has taken away 30 police cars and given the police four bicycles. So when the police go round to the gang fortifications to insist that gang members take them down they will go there on their bicycles. As the gang members get in their cars and speed away the police will pedal as fast as they possibly can to try to catch the gang members in Mr Brownlee’s home town of Christchurch. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. If the Government is serious about getting tough on crime it should make sure the police have the resources they need to enforce the laws that it is passing. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 John Key’s National-led Government is principled pragmatic and inclusive. During last year’s election campaign we made promises about what we would do should we be privileged to form the Government. We have that privilege and we are keeping our promises. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Questions to Ministers 
Education—Support Staff 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “Let’s have teachers taking less of a pay rise so it can be put toward education support staff”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I think it is worth noting that the comment was made by the Prime Minister in a circumstance where he was being— 
Hon Member 
: Who is the Prime Minister today? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am answering on behalf of the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Is this a point of order or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. The Hon David Cunliffe will be a little careful. He not only interjected loudly during a point of order but has continued to interject while I am on my feet. I accept that the member apologises for that. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just so the member can relax I was delayed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that a point of order was being raised by the Hon Bill English. I have accepted a point of order and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Bill English 
: I was delayed by answering questions from the media in relation to an issue the member raised yesterday in the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think it is a fair point and we have raised it a number of times. I do not want to use the word “ambush” but sometimes it is very difficult to meet the obligations of talking to the media and being in the House on time. I was in the House about 7 minutes before question time began and I had passed Mr English who was in discussion with the media at that time. It is not as though there was not an attempt to get here. That is why I was answering initially. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not strictly a point of order at all. I must make it very clear to Ministers that this House takes absolute priority. Talking to the media is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be late if Ministers wish to be able to answer their own questions. I would like the Government to sort out who is answering this question. It has been asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister and I will call whoever wishes to take the call. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot remove yourself from the circumstances entirely because you are in charge of the parliamentary complex. It is unreasonable to suggest that a Minister being held up by the media on his way to the House is not your concern. I raised a matter which I think we need to sort out over a period of time by way of an explanation of why I was answering for the Prime Minister today. I suggest that the way forward might be to invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. Let me make it very clear: as I observe what goes on outside the Chamber as members seek to come to this Parliament there is absolutely no physical barrier to members coming here. If they choose to continue to talk to the media that is their decision. It is also equally the Government’s decision as to who answers any question. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Maybe to ensure that members have not forgotten the question he asked I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it Rick? Is it Darren? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the person who was going to answer the question would shut up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not tolerate any more of this at all. I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition to ask his question but if he does that again he will lose it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he stand by his statement “Let’s have teachers taking less of a pay rise so it can be put toward education support staff”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and the Prime Minister also pointed out that these staff who are regarded as being low paid find themselves in that position after 9 years under Labour where teachers had significant pay increases and education support staff did not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Prime Minister advising teachers to take a cut in their real incomes when he has been absolutely silent about chief executives taking huge bonuses while laying off their workers often without any redundancy payments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the member is referring to chief executives in the public sector I can absolutely assure him that the bonuses and pay rates of the chief executives are entirely due to the actions of the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he agree with the statement made by his Minister of Finance that workers in the public sector should have zero wage increases for 5 years—a comment that the Minister of Finance made while accepting a huge increase in his own housing allowance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No because the Minister of Finance did not say that. What the Minister of Finance said was that because of the extravagance of the previous Government we have to contain Government spending and that public services should not expect new money for the next 3 to 5 years. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister expecting ordinary hard-working Kiwis to take cuts to their incomes through imposing demands on State-owned enterprises to increase their dividends thus increasing power prices so that the Government could take another half a billion dollars a year in those dividends out of the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I say that the question is getting a fair way away from the primary question but if the Hon Bill English feels capable of answering it that is fine. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a bit rich coming from Labour which when in Government extracted record dividends from State-owned enterprises along with consistently record power price increases. In fact under Labour power prices went up at something like 6 or 7 percent a year for the last 4 or 5 years. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that the letter from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to the State-owned enterprises in order to get a better return for the Government and therefore push power prices up was right or wrong? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should not confuse price with performance. These organisations have suffered for the last 10 years under the Labour Government. They became fat and lazy and we have had to sort out their performance. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come to a little order. I have called Te Ururoa Flavell and I would appreciate it if he were shown some courtesy. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. What is being done to invest in key support staff such as those focused on improving levels of literacy and numeracy which is one of the Maori Party policy priorities attached to the confidence and supply agreement with National? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government supports the view of the Maori Party that we should focus on literacy and numeracy and on improving the levels of achievement among our children. In that respect the Government has committed about $36 million over the next few years to assist schools in delivering national standards and most important in assisting those children who need more help in order to achieve at adequate levels. 
Recession—Position of New Zealand Economy 
2.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on how the New Zealand economy is placed coming out of the recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 New Zealand is reasonably well placed coming out of the recession after we inherited an economy that had been mismanaged for the last 9 years by the Labour Government. Both business and consumer confidence have risen significantly in recent months. We have yet to see whether real economic activity follows this improvement in the leading indicators. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What factors account for the lift in confidence? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think one of the significant factors is having a Government that stays focused on the big picture of lifting economic performance and providing New Zealanders with jobs. Many New Zealanders have lost their jobs or are worried about losing them. We are taking every step that we can to ensure there is investment and employment so that people can have secure jobs. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How credible is the consumer confidence survey? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The most recent consumer confidence survey was the ANZ-Roy Morgan survey. I understand that when it rings up to ask people their opinion it actually says where the inquiry is from unlike the Labour Party’s pollsters. Clearly that survey did not use Rick Barker’s volunteers who apparently have now been totally disowned by the current leadership. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Why has the Minister decided that the best way to deal with the fiscal problem he faces is to simply take on $40 billion of debt over the next 4 years and heaven knows how much thereafter? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is taking a balanced approach to dealing with the Government’s very significant fiscal problems. We are borrowing money because we believe that throughout the recession it is better to maintain entitlements and public services and to keep the economy ticking over. But we are now taking steps to make sure that public debt does not grow out of control. 
John Boscawen 
: Can the Minister explain how the continued ownership of KiwiRail Television New Zealand Learning Media and the telecommunications company Orcon will lead to the future prosperity of New Zealand rather than the disposal of those liabilities and the paying off of debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made an undertaking to maintain the ownership of all significant current Government assets. However there is a huge clean-up job to do with regard to those assets because under the previous Government there were too many political appointments to boards and they lost their focus on financial performance. We are going through the process of fixing them. 
Finance Minister—“In Plain English” Promotion 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In which capacity did he make the statements on the TVNZ 7 “in plain 
English” promotional video—as Minister of Finance or as Bill English in his private capacity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am a bit more modest than that member and I have to say that if I were not the Minister of Finance I would not have been on the programme. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he confirm that he or his office corrected inaccuracies in the script; if so what were those inaccuracies what was corrected and by whom? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: My understanding is that the journalists involved were taking what they regarded as abstract economic concepts and trying to turn them into plain English. I am advised that they got some of it wrong so the scripts were checked for economic accuracy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Smile at the camera; you might be discovered! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member might be in the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the House would just settle down I ask the Hon David Cunliffe to ask his supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the real Minister of Finance stand by his statement that the advertisement looked “quite good” or will he concede that it was not a good look for a shareholding Minister to take hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising from a State broadcaster? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All decisions about putting together the promotion and the use of it are being made by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) as I understand it. That is the normal relationship that politicians have with TVNZ. It could of course have chosen that member to front it but it did not. It could have chosen Mr Goff to front it but it did not. I think the reasons are pretty obvious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe—[ 
Interruption 
] I have called the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] Would the members please show some courtesy to their own front-bench colleague. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is he satisfied that he avoided any perception of a conflict of interest as required by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 after previously abusing TVNZ management over unfavourable double-dipping coverage only to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising shortly after? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a ridiculous allegation. Of course I am satisfied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 4; Metiria Turei. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister think— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called question No. 4. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker I ask for a supplementary question on question No. 3. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I looked around the Chamber and I could see no one seeking the call so I called question No. 4. Maybe the member thought I was going on too fast so I will come back to him. But I make the point that if members wish to ask supplementary questions they must seek the call. I cannot read their minds and I had gone on to question No. 4. But I will come back to a supplementary question from the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] Please I have called the honourable member. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he think it is a good look that he is continually embroiled in controversies over his personal judgment when he should be focused on making life better for ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I reassure that member that the amount of time I spend on the controversies generated by the Labour Party would be about 0.5 percent of my time and the rest of the time I am focused on serious issues like the 45 people who lost their jobs in my electorate today. Those people are getting my full attention; that party is not getting my full attention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 4; Metiria Turei. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Government members that they have expressed their views with their applause and I ask them to please not continue to interject because we have gone on to the next issue. I have called Metiria Turei. 
United Nations Human Development Report—New Zealand Results 
4.  
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is her response to New Zealand’s inequality ranking in the United Nations Development Programme’s  
Human Development Report 2009 
? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I agree with one of the report’s findings—that people will move to better-off countries. That is why we are following an economic programme that is designed to narrow the income gap with Australia. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave at this early stage to table the  
United Nations 
Human Development Report 2009 
 which was published by the United Nations Development Programme on 16 October 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that  
Social Report 2009 
 published by her Ministry of Social Development uses the same measure as that of the United Nations Development Programme report to compare New Zealand’s inequality score with other countries and notes that New Zealand ranks 23rd out of 30 OECD countries for inequality? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I am also aware of is the report that has just come through today— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will resume her seat. The Minister may be aware of all sorts of things but she has actually just been asked a question that related very directly to the primary question. The Minister being “also aware” of something else was not what she was questioned about. Where a member asks a question absolutely directly related to the primary question and although the Minister may be intending to get to that matter her answer should indicate that she is answering the question and not going on to something else. The Minister started: “I am also aware of” something else. That cannot be the way to start answering that perfectly fair question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I was heading toward discussing the OECD rankings in the social report that the member brought up. I am also aware that the report that was in the original question has New Zealand ranked at 20 out of 182 countries. That was the answer to the member’s question. She had a question about a certain ranking within an OECD report. The original had us ranked 20th for inequality out of 182 countries. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table table M from the  
United Nations Human Development Report 
 which while listing New Zealand in the table at No. 20 when using the Gini index for inequality clearly shows New Zealand is ranked sixth worst for inequality. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that table from the named document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that point of order which was a reasonable one and went as quickly as someone could to the tabling of the document there was an interjection from the Leader of the House which was loud. My view Mr Speaker is that you had drawn the line on that behaviour earlier in the day and your ruling should be consistent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was concentrating so much on what the honourable member Metiria Turei was saying that I did not even notice the interjection. But I would ask the member Gerry Brownlee to cease from interjection when a point of order is being heard. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Has she discussed with her Cabinet colleagues the findings of British researchers Wilkinson and Pickett authors of  
The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better 
 that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them the well-off as well as the poor? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she concerned that the same research shows teenage birth rates and infant mortality are higher in more unequal countries with New Zealand above the average; if so what is the Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that reported by the United Nations Development Programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government is certainly concerned about teenage birth rates and the support that we put around teenage parents. A programme of work is going on around that at the moment. It includes focus groups for teen parents and a range of other initiatives. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she think her policy of cuts to the training incentive allowance which prevents people on low incomes from accessing further education to increase their earning power will increase or decrease the gap between rich and poor in Aotearoa New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not agree that those changes will prevent people from going on to further education. What they are doing is putting resources into those people who are going to Level 3 or higher so I do not agree. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does she think that her Government’s policy of tax cuts for high-income earners will increase or decrease the gap between rich and poor in Aotearoa New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I saw tax incentives and tax cuts for all New Zealanders which I know are being spent wisely and which those people desperately need. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister think that salary increases for chief executives at the same time as there are wage freezes for ordinary workers at State-owned enterprises like Television New Zealand will increase or decrease the gap between the rich and the poor in Aotearoa New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am not responsible for salary increases for chief executives. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to table a section of the  
Social Report 2009 
 pertaining to income and equality in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that portion of the document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to table a graph showing that teenage birth rates are higher in more unequal countries with New Zealand above the average. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the graph from that same document? 
Metiria Turei 
: The graph was published in a book called  
The Spirit Level 
 in 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that page from the document  
The Spirit Level 
. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to table a graph showing that infant mortality is higher in more unequal countries with Aotearoa New Zealand above the average published in  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph from the book  
The 
Spirit Level.  
Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a graph showing that more people are in prisons in more unequal societies with New Zealand above the average published in  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph from  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a graph showing that people suffer from mental illness in more unequal societies with New Zealand above the average published in  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph from  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a graph showing that more adults are obese and more children are overweight in more unequal countries published in  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph from  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. Is there any objection? Did I hear objection? There is objection. 
Metiria Turei 
: Finally I seek leave to table a graph showing the educational outcomes are lower and educational performance is lower in more unequal countries. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph. I take it that it is from  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. Leave is sought to table that graph from the book  
The 
Spirit Level 
 2009. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Accident Compensation—Investment in Programmes 
5.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement “The board is saying we need to invest in cost-effective programmes for injury prevention and not just in any old programmes.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I do. This was in response to a question about the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board’s decision to discontinue t’ai chi an older person’s exercise programme started under the previous Government that cost millions. A recent return on investment calculation shows for each dollar spent there is a return of only 77c. Section 263 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act passed by Labour requires that levy money can be spent only on programmes that result in a reduction in levies and this does not meet the legal test. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does he view the research from the University of British Columbia which found that for every dollar invested in the New Zealand falls prevention programme $2 was saved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If that were true then perhaps having had the programme going for 6 years I would not as Minister for ACC be facing losses of billions of dollars in the accident compensation scheme. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Is the Minister aware of any policy initiatives aimed at reducing costs that had the opposite effect for the scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. In 2004 Cabinet approved a free physiotherapy policy on the basis that it would cost $9 million per year but save money by improving rehabilitation rates. The policy is actually costing an extra $66 million per year. There are no signs of any improvements in rehabilitation rates. In fact in 2004 rehabilitation rates have been in decline. I note that Labour’s spokesperson on accident compensation David Parker has acknowledged that the policy was a mistake but it has cost the levy payers $244 million. The architect of that failed policy was Ruth Dyson. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he advise ACC that it is flawed accounting for it to say that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme it gets only a 77c return and that the reason the corporation’s advice to him differs from the research from the University of British Columbia is that the corporation is not including either the cost or the savings to Vote Health or to individuals? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would ask that member to reflect because she and her Government passed section 263 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which states that levy money can be spent only on programmes that result in a reduction in accident compensation levies and this does not meet the legal test passed by that member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I struggled a little with the question that was asked of the Minister and with the answer the Minister has been giving interesting though it might be. I invite the Hon Ruth Dyson to ask her question again—she will not lose a supplementary question—just to make sure that the House is getting an answer to it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he advise ACC that it is flawed accounting for it to say that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme it gets only a 77c return and that the reason ACC’s advice to him differs from the research from the University of British Columbia is that ACC does not count either the cost or the savings to Vote Health and to individuals? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My answer is that the very Act that that member passed requires that the ACC board can take into account only savings to levy payers. That is the law that members opposite passed. This is a decision that has been made by the ACC board under an Act passed by those members. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why does he say that he knows better than academics better than researchers and better than physiotherapists like Jacqui Bath who have proven the benefit of the falls prevention programme and who know that scrapping this programme will shift huge costs and pain on to Vote Health and to individuals and their families? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite claimed in her question that I had made the decision. I had not. The decision has been made by the ACC board. Members opposite are the same members who last week were complaining that I was interfering in the board’s decisions. They should make up their minds. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: If the corporation is going to fund exercise programmes on the basis that they are good for people’s health why would it not also fund bowls croquet walking groups golf rest home Olympics and all sorts of other activities that are good for old people’s physical well-being? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member makes a very good point. If ACC is going to fund t’ai chi what else is it going to fund? The truth is that there are all sorts of activities. My colleague the Minister of Health is a keen cyclist and it keeps him fit and beautiful. Does that mean the Government should fund his cycling? If we are going to fund every single activity that does some good there is no end to what ACC would fund. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the University of British Columbia research showing that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme New Zealand saves $2. 
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. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report from ACC about the disastrous policy of free physio as it was advanced by that member which has cost ACC— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient description. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is not granted. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table an email from Jacqui Bath to the  
Nine to Noon 
 programme expressing dismay at ACC’s decision to cut the falls prevention programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Environment Canterbury—Ministerial Investigation 
6.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will he use his powers under section 24A of the Resource Management Act 1991 to investigate the poor performance of Environment Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Today I have announced a formal investigation into Environment Canterbury under section 24A and in parallel with action by my colleague the Minister of Local Government. Environment Canterbury performed 84th out of 84 councils in processing resource consents and has not performed well in developing plans for managing Canterbury’s natural resources. The Government has received strong submissions from Canterbury MPs and mayors including the member for intervention. The powers have previously not been used but are necessary to get Environment Canterbury back on track. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What consultation has the Minister undertaken with Environment Canterbury regarding the intervention and what has been its response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Back in June I wrote to the eight worst-performing councils in respect of non-compliance with the Resource Management Act. I received a constructive response from Environment Canterbury and met with it to further discuss these issues. I along with my colleague Rodney Hide met again yesterday with the chair and the chief executive of Environment Canterbury to consult on the terms of reference for the investigation. I am encouraged that it has welcomed the review accepts that it has problems and is committed to working with the Government to put things right at Environment Canterbury. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Will this review consider the disestablishment of the regional council or the removal of some its current resource management functions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. I would be happy to table the terms of reference. This Government is committed to working with Environment Canterbury to ensure that it is able to meet its statutory and important functions under both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. 
Amy Adams 
: What submissions has the Minister received from other Canterbury councils on problems with Environment Canterbury and has he considered their perspective in the terms of reference for this investigation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister of Local Government and I received a letter on 18 September from Canterbury mayors concerning pressure points between them and Environment Canterbury. Mr Hide and I have subsequently met with the Canterbury mayors. The Canterbury mayors’ concerns are reflected in the Minister of Local Government asking the Department of Internal Affairs to conduct a non-statutory assessment of the council to look at the wider issues. We are looking forward to receiving the review report in February next year. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does he agree with David Carter that irrigating the Canterbury Plains is a significant issue and that there was “more to infrastructure than just Auckland roads”; and how will this review simplify the process of water allocation which is an issue obviously vexing MPs in the National Party with associations with Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is this Government’s view that irrigation and water management are huge strategic issues for Canterbury. The problems within Environment Canterbury have been a barrier and a problem in developing proper plans for the management of water resources from both an environmental and a development perspective. It is our view that Environment Canterbury getting its act together is an important part of enabling Canterbury to get the very best from those important natural resources. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What advice has the Minister for the Environment given him on the performance of other local authorities and is he taking any action in respect of other councils to improve delivery of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Ministry for the Environment survey on local government performance identified eight councils that were performing poorly. I wrote to those councils requesting that they identify what they were going to do to improve their performance. Following these responses the Ministry for the Environment has recommended that in addition to investigating Environment Canterbury I also investigate the Far North District Council under section 24A of the Resource Management Act. Today I notified the Far North District Council of that decision. I note that that investigation is constrained to the Resource Management Act issues and does not involve a more formal review of the Local Government Act functions which are the responsibility of Rodney Hide. 
John Boscawen 
: In terms of his working with his colleague the Hon Rodney Hide on this investigation how are the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment coordinating efforts to ensure that Environment Canterbury lifts its game? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rodney Hide and I have been working closely on this issue as have our officials. The investigation is a joint effort covering both the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act functions. The Minister of Local Government and I share a view that this council is underperforming and is holding Canterbury back. We consider that interventions such as this undertaking as well as the broader reforms that the Minister of Local Government is advancing are needed to lift the performance of this important sector. 
ACC Minister—Statements 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by all his statements on ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that proposes a $500 fee increase for motorbikes and is this in accordance with the accident compensation scheme’s principle of fairness? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The proposal for the increase in motorcycle levies is one made by the Accident Compensation Corporation board. The board then comes back after a process of public consultation with recommendations to the Minister which I expect to receive in December. Then they will go to Cabinet for a final decision. I do think the increases that are being proposed by the board are quite steep and I was taken aback by the scale of those increases. I also have to say I was taken aback by just how expensive motorcycle accidents are for New Zealand. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that drivers of cars with a higher safety rating could pay lower accident compensation levies while most Kiwis who cannot afford the latest and safest cars pay more? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly the operative word is “could” and then the member has put his own interpretation on it. Let me make plain that it is my view that we need to provide—and it is in the bill I introduced to the House yesterday—stronger financial incentives for both employers and motorists to display safer behaviour. I make no apologies about this Government wanting to improve safety and using incentives and no-claim bonuses as instruments for improving safety. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister received any reports of statements on accident compensation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it would be helpful—there was a fair bit of noise going on—if Michael Woodhouse would repeat the question. I ask the House to be a little quieter when a member is asking a question from the backbenches. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister received any reports of statements on accident compensation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. Mr Goff said yesterday: “It was just not good enough that sexual abuse claimants had to show a mental illness to be eligible for ACC support.” That is surprising because Labour’s 2001 Act requires just that in section 27. It is not good enough that Mr Goff is misleading the public of New Zealand. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister pleased— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table section 27 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which was passed by the previous Government and requires just that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order but I am again troubled by leave being sort to table something that is freely available to members of the House. I will be dealing with this matter in the future. I did not put leave for a Labour member yesterday when I thought the document was readily available to the House. To be even-handed I am not going to put that leave either. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I think that the Minister should be able to make that point of order. The House is free to decline leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled as Speaker. The member will resume his seat. The Minister sought leave to table some legislation that is freely available to all members of the House. There is absolutely no value in terms of adding information for members of this House in leave being sought for that purpose. I did not put leave for a Labour member who sought leave yesterday to table an answer to a written question and I am not going to put this leave today. As I say I will be dealing with the matter more fully in the future. I am not going to put leave today for a member seeking leave to table a piece of legislation that is freely available to members of this House. 
Hon David Parker 
: When the Speaker comes down with that formal— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon David Parker 
: Yes it is—sorry Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I urge the Speaker to consider the knock-on effect that that will have if the Speaker takes a particular course of action. We have seen today that Metiria Turei acting within the Standing Orders was able to table a long list of documents which delayed the House more than your letting the House flow with short points of order that sometimes have political connotations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may recollect that the member Metiria Turei sought leave if I recollect correctly to table the entire document. That leave was denied by the House. She then sought leave to table graphs from—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I beg your pardon. They were from a different document. I beg your pardon; I am not correct on that. I hear what the member says but the information that Metiria Turei was seeking leave to table was information that members would not automatically have available to them— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’ve got the book here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One member has the book but the information was something that could inform the House. The Standing Order does not provide for the leave process to be used to make political points. Previous Speakers have pointed out that it does not provide for that and it will not be used for that purpose in the future. It is to provide information that is not normally available to members of the House. Does the Hon David Parker have a further supplementary question? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for adding to something that you have ruled on but my reading of those rulings from previous Speakers was that they were recommending to the House—that they were if you like editorialising rather than refusing members’ right to seek leave. I think that is something quite important. The right to seek the leave of the House to do anything is something pretty well established right through the Westminster tradition. If one looks back to  
Erskine May 
 if one goes to the British House of Commons one sees that unless there is a specific Standing Order that forbids the seeking of leave in a particular area my view is that the Speaker has an obligation to put the leave. I do not think that is right; I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member makes. There is a specific Standing Order that was recently introduced to cover the tabling of documents. It is Standing Order 368. There is also Standing Order 2 which gives the Speaker responsibility to handle questions that arise as to the interpretation or application of a Standing Order. That is up to the Speaker. I will be making some rulings in respect of the application of Standing Order 368. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just looked at Standing Order 200; it relates to select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No Standing Order 2. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister pleased with the decrease in workplace accidents in 2007 and 2008 as announced by Statistics New Zealand today or will he be spinning it to assert mismanagement of accident compensation by the previous Government to justify cuts to accident compensation cover and to justify privatisation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Of course. Every member of this House would be pleased with any reduction in accidents. The reality is— 
Hon David Parker 
: Where’s the case for privatisation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member asks where the case is for choice in competition—I think that is the term he should use. You see for every single issue—it does not matter whether it is any sort of issue or whether it is my colleague Anne Tolley or me—the only word Labour knows in opposition is “privatisation” which is not on the Government’s agenda. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What other reports has the Minister received of inaccurate statements on accident compensation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yesterday a press release claimed that the Government’s accident compensation reform bill repealed provisions in the scheme to provide assistance for superannuitants and for those who suffered a mental injury at work. Both these statements are wrong. There is no change in the bill to those provisions. Mr Parker should apologise for unnecessarily causing concern and unease to New Zealanders. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a release from Statistics New Zealand showing a decline in work-related injury claims in 2007 and 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Benefits Invalids and Sickness—Management 
8.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has she received on the management of sickness and invalids benefits? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Auditor-General has released a report that looks at changes attempted by the Labour Government. These changes were supposed to actively help and encourage sickness and invalids beneficiaries back into work. The report says that Labour simply did not do enough. Clearly Labour did not with the increase we saw in invalids benefits and sickness benefits under the previous Government. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What recommendations did the Auditor-General’s report make? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The report confirms that the changes we committed to before the election are firmly heading in the right direction. The recommendations focused on improving the determination of eligibility providing more comprehensive case management and extending the monitoring and evaluation as National campaigned for. 
Hon Annette King 
: Where in the audit report does it state that the case management of sickness and invalids beneficiaries is a failed programme as she claimed last week; and is it not true that the audit report actually said: “The Ministry … has a challenging task in managing large numbers of … beneficiaries” and encouraged the department “to build on the progress that it has made so far.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The numbers speak for themselves. Since 1999 there has been a 73.9 percent increase in those on the sickness benefit and a 65.9 percent increase of those on the invalids benefit. Unlike Labour we have high expectations for those people. We think we can help get them back into work and that is what we will do. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the changes she claims her Government has made “are … heading in the right direction” why are sickness benefit and invalids benefit numbers soaring to the highest level we have seen in 5 years? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Those changes are to be introduced via legislation next year. At the moment we are still operating on the obviously failing policies of the previous Government and we see that the mechanisms that are implemented through Work and Income are not working. We will actually be making changes that mean positives for those who are on those benefits. 
Television New Zealand—Cost of Advertisement for  
Spotlight on the Economy 
9.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What reports if any has he received from the board of TVNZ on the estimated market value of the airtime for the advertisement featuring the Hon Bill English promoting TVNZ 7’s  
Spotlight on the Economy 
 series that is being run 130 times on TV One 2 6 and 7? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: He has not received any reports and does not expect to receive any. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the processes at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) that have seen airtime valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars given over to the “in plain English” promotion involving the State broadcaster’s shareholding Minister? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is he satisfied that TVNZ news managers were not consulted during the internal vetting of the “in plain English” promo given today’s  
Dominion Post 
 reports that news staff expressed “strong concerns” about the promotion. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister of Broadcasting does not involve himself in the internal workings of any broadcast agency in this country. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister aware of any proposals by TVNZ to extend its new-found interest in promoting politicians in difficulties and will we soon be seeing a helicopter view of education with 135 trailers for “Plain Tolley” and “ACC Cuts Made Simple” promoting “Plain Smith”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He has no idea what the programming future might hold for TVNZ but I suggest that if the member wishes to advance those ideas he talks to the broadcaster directly himself. They seem very good ideas to me. 
Aged Residential Care—Improvements 
10.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received in relation to improving residential care for the aged? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There has been mounting public concern about poor care in rest homes for the elderly and the Government has taken steps to address it. We have injected an extra $18 million in this year’s Budget to improve nursing quality and supervision in rest homes and from 1 January next year we are launching a new spot auditing regime for aged residential care whereby rest homes will not know when the auditors are coming. We are currently in the middle of a 2-month pilot of the tool to do that and I understand that it is going very well. We will be making adjustments in the run-up to 1 January. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other decisions have been made in order to improve care for the elderly? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The elderly and their families need to have greater confidence in the monitoring of residential care services and to have an opportunity to understand the various results of audits. That is why the Government has for the first time required a summary of the various audits of rest homes to be made available on the Ministry of Health website. The summary has an easy-to-read colour coding ranging from blue which means a very good performance through the spectrum to red and the red means significant action is needed to achieve the required levels of performance. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from his colleague Nick Smith who has just slashed a programme to prevent over-80s from falling whether they choose to live at home or in a rest home? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware of those reports having read some of them in the news media. I have to say having sat through question time today I think the decisions and announcements that are being made are entirely defendable and make sense. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Party when it said in its policy statement  
He Aha Te Mea Nui? 
 that the aged-care workforce is underpaid understaffed and too often does not receive the training it requires in order to deliver the best care and what will he be doing to address these concerns? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is no doubt that many of the people who work in the aged-care sector think of themselves as being underpaid. It is very hard work and that is one of the reasons why the Government has increased the subsidy for the provision of aged residential care by 5 percent this year. 
Rest and Meal Breaks—Proposed Legislative Change 
11.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What has happened since compulsory rest and meal breaks for employees came into effect this year which has led to her proposing changes to that legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 From complaints received by the Minister it has become clear if it was not already that not everyone has a cup of tea at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. and stops for lunch precisely at 1 p.m. except possibly Parliament when it is in urgency and on most occasions the courts. The changes are aimed at ensuring flexibility in the workplace by allowing employers and employees to time their breaks in a way that does not disrupt their work. The Government does not believe it should restrict the rights of employees to ask their employer if they can skip afternoon tea and go home a little earlier than usual in order to pick up their children from sports practice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am sorry but because of the interjections I could not hear that. Would the member—and of course it is one law for all of us— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the member to repeat his question because it was hard to hear it. I ask members to be a little quieter please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister asserting that the legislation requires breaks to be taken for tea at 10 a.m. and lunch at 1 p.m.? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What the Minister is asserting is that the current legislation has unnecessary inflexibility. The proposal aims to restore flexibility to the workplace. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did the Minister vote for the legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: She and the National Party voted for the legislation at the first reading and indeed I spoke on it in the first reading and said it should go to a select committee because it raised important issues that needed to be looked at. We voted against the legislation in the Committee stage because there were some concerns about flexibility but in the overall mix we voted for it at the third reading. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What a shambles! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I cannot see where the shambles was in doing that and then seeking to improve the legislation when the opportunity arose. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister assure the House that she will not move to foreshorten the length of the select committee process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can say that the bill that was passed last year went through a select committee process which was very thorough. The current bill is in the nature of a tidying-up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes it is a point of order. It was a very specific question seeking an assurance that the Minister would not move to foreshorten the select committee process. An assurance was not given. No answer was given to that question; there was a repetition of what happened last year. There was reference to this legislation being tidied up but the actual question was not addressed. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I will try to help the member. The issue is what “foreshorten” means. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has made it clear that he was not sure what the member meant in his question by asking about the process being foreshortened. If the member wants to—[ 
Interruption 
] If it will assist the House to get the information I invite the member to reword his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that she will not move as part of the referral motion to a select committee that the bill have a shortened period for the report back? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am no expert in parliamentary procedure but I would have thought that was a matter for the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again that was a very specific question about whether the Minister would move a motion. That motion is not a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Minister. The Minister makes a decision on that motion. How the House votes is a matter for the House to decide but is there an assurance that the Government will not move to cut workers out of their rightful— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable in a point of order. It would seem that what is happening here is that a hypothetical question is being asked about what the Minister may or may not do. The Minister has pointed out in answering the question that finally that is a matter for the House. That is as I understand it a fair answer to the question. If the Minister believes that helpful information can be added to assist the House I am happy for the Minister to do that but he would need to do that now if he wishes to do so. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that under the circumstances given that it is a hypothetical question I cannot insist on a clearer answer than that. The Minister answered the question by saying it was a matter for the House at the end of the day and that is a fair answer to the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I fear the member is about to litigate the quality of an answer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know that I am sailing slightly close to the wind. It is not a matter though for the House as to whether a Minister moves something; that is something for a Minister to do. A Minister must at the end of the first reading of the bill which is currently sitting on the Table and will soon be up for its first reading move a motion. The movement of that is not a matter for the House and the detail as to whether there is a short select committee process is something for the Minister to include in the motion not for the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take the matter any further I say my dilemma is that it is a hypothetical question. When a Minister moves that motion at the end of the first reading the Minister will not necessarily spell out the report-back time at all; the Minister will spell out the committee to which the bill is to be referred. This is a hypothetical question because the Minister is not required to specify that matter when the motion is moved so I believe that I cannot force the Minister to answer it in that kind of detail. The Minister has in my view given an adequate answer by pointing out that at the end of the day that is a matter for the House. 
Government Procurement—Reform 
12.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to achieve better value for money in Government procurement? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In June this year the Government launched a 4-year Government procurement reform agenda. The major reform is the establishment of new centres of expertise. These will be specialist teams to negotiate all Government contracts particularly where Government agencies duplicate their spending decisions. In other jurisdictions an all-of-Government approach to procurement has returned on average between 5 and 10 percent savings. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are the aims of the Government procurement reform agenda? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a number of aims to the Government procurement reform agenda including cost savings the building of procurement capability and capacity enhancing the opportunity for New Zealand businesses to participate in Government procurement and improving governance oversight and of course accountability as well. New centres of expertise will be focused mainly on driving cost savings in the first year but in the future will also support procurement capability to build and manage supplier relationships across the key purchase areas for Government expenditure. 
Voting 
Correction—Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third time was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 108 Noes 14. 
Crimes Amendment Bill 
Local Government Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 John Key’s National-led Government is principled pragmatic and inclusive. During last year’s election campaign we made promises about what we would do should we be privileged to form the Government. 
Hon Member 
: And we made them in our own name. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: That is a very good point. We have that privilege and we are keeping our promises. We are working—a concept alien to others in the House—to find a solution to multiple challenges that have accumulated after years and years of ineptitude from an administration bereft of ideas where creativity was a distant dream and the concept of action a barely recoverable memory from a cobwebbed cerebral closet where the default position was inaction apart from the occasional languid wave from a legislative limp wrist a limp wrist on a leaden hand a leaden hand that stifled innovation and fresh thinking and formed a cloying embrace from a nanny seduced by the conviction that consideration of process equated action. 
Not surprising after year after year of this muddled mugwumpery when National formed a Government we found there was much to do. There was much to do in all portfolios and much to do in law and order. 
National’s principled pragmatic approach which is focused on finding solutions has led to a comprehensive quiver of measures to fight the scourge of crime gangs and drugs. Measures to date include the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the Sentencing Act and they are supported by the Search and Surveillance Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. A significant weapon in the quiver is the gangs and organised crime legislation. It is thoughtful legislation. 
We do not have a magic wand and we cannot change things overnight but we are committed to making a difference. Gangs are a complex problem that requires reshaping of the mesh in a number of areas and at different levels. This legislation will hit participation in gangs allow police to gain intelligence on gang activities by increased surveillance and remove the ability of gangs to cower and hide behind high walls and fortifications. I commend the legislation to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Local Government Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bills read a third time. 
Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for this bill to have its Committee of the whole House stage heard as one debate across all parts of the bill with one question at the conclusion of this stage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. 
In Committee 
Preamble clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 and 2 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to have the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill debated as one question in the Committee stage. I also briefly acknowledge the contribution of the current Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. The fact that he decided to remain in support of the bill is quite significant. Having said that I think that most of the acknowledgment needs to go to the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia who took responsibility for this major project outside the Treaty settlements process and agreed to have these longstanding issues with Te Arawa and the Crown resolved. To that end the Maori Affairs Committee also did a very very good job in ensuring that this bill was subjected to considerable scrutiny. It ensured that everyone with an interest in the bill had the opportunity to make submissions and have their say. 
The transfer of such assets is quite significant but the assets have been held in Crown ownership for many decades. As a result the shape of the bill required to transfer these assets is quite technical given that the assets were held under the Reserves Act 1977. Because of that we find a lot of technical recommendations and technical language and discussion around the transfer. We also have to acknowledge that for some considerable period of time the iwi of Te Arawa have constantly protested to the Crown for a lot of their assets or taonga that were removed by consecutive Governments to be not only reinstated but also acknowledged in law. This is seen to be a proper move. 
To that end my contribution to this part of the debate will be around the bill’s history and the decision of the previous Labour-led Government to do the right thing and have these assets transferred back to their rightful owners. Having said that I declare that I have a vested interest in this particular bill and I will let other members sitting across the Chamber make their own declarations in terms of their interests in it. 
Once again I congratulate the current Minister of Maori Affairs on having the fortitude to support this bill. I understand that he has submitted Supplementary Order Paper 82 to the Committee but members on this side of the Chamber are not concerned about the implications of that Supplementary Order Paper because we understand that it is a necessary move—as I said before it is a technical move—to clarify the transfer and the manner in which the reserves will be held. 
We also need to acknowledge the commitment of the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust. In the first instance it will be responsible for the management of the assets that are to be transferred. I have no doubt that it will fulfil all the obligations that are required of it even though the bill refers to it in only a very very—I would not say ambiguous—low-key manner. Its role in terms of the ongoing management and eventual subdivision of these assets should it decide to do that will be a huge undertaking. I am sure that those who have a beneficial interest entitlement in the transfer of the assets will be watching those decisions very closely and also the debate on the lead-up to the decisions. 
As I said the Committee is dealing with the bill as one debate across all parts. It is not often we do that but today it is a very good move. Members on this side are very happy with the outcome of the entire process. 
I acknowledge the contribution of the previous Minister of Maori Affairs under the previous Labour-led Government— 
Paul Quinn 
: Who was that? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
:—and the current Minister of Maori Affairs and all the support that this bill had on the Maori Affairs Committee including from those members who continue to interject in the Committee stage although they made no substantial contribution to the consideration of this bill in the select committee. I say that the Government has a new head of wisdom in the member for Tauranga Simon Bridges and I am sure that with his track record he will lead them in the right direction. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I will take an early call just to explain the relationship between the parties involved in the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. First of all I say I agree with the previous speaker Mr Mita Ririnui that it is good to take the bill through its remaining stages as one debate. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: The honourable! 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I agree with the very Hon Mita Ririnui. Two of the three reserves that are being vested through this bill the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve were originally part of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu Treaty settlement. It was decided that Ngati Whakaue should also receive these reserves. In order to allow that process to occur it was decided to remove the land from any Treaty settlement. 
The return of the land to the iwi is part of the ongoing initiative to strengthen the relationships between central North Island iwi and the Crown. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve were originally offered to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa as part of its Treaty settlement as it represented the collective interests of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The Waitangi Tribunal recommended that Ngati Whakaue should be included given its interests in the Whakarewarewa Valley land. Ngati Whakaue was not affiliated to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa so an agreement was reached with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa to take the two reserves out of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu settlement and together with the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve vest all three reserves in a joint trust. 
That is the background to the bill that we have before us. In order for Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa to fulfil its responsibilities to its affiliate members it asked that the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve still be vested in it through the affiliate Te Arawa legislation and then immediately on-vested in the joint trust. The agreement of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa was thus required for the vesting deed in this bill. So the issue of these reserves has had a long journey. It is no longer part of a claim but is now simply part of this vesting bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. This bill brings together a number of parcels of Maori land that had been under Crown control for a number of years and it consolidates the land as it rightfully should into Maori ownership. 
As my colleague Mita Ririnui did I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Pita Sharples as well as the previous Labour Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia. They have progressed the bill through to the Committee stage. I acknowledge the other members of the Maori Affairs Committee led by Tau Henare and also Paul Quinn and Simon Bridges. I also acknowledge these tribes that are involved: Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. As Mita Ririnui said this is a technical bill. It has involved a lot of discussion and talk in getting it to the Committee stage. It is a pleasure that we are almost at the point of finalising this bill and moving it into law. 
For me it is really important that not only the parcels of land we are talking about in Rotorua but also all Maori parcels of land that have been in disparate ownership are brought together so that they can be of use to their rightful owners. As I said in my second reading speech it is important to bring this closure so that those tribes can make progress and move forward for the benefit of their people. It is also important to note that the lease of the land to Te Puia will remain in reserve status. That piece of land has significance to all of New Zealand. It is a wonderful tourist attraction and it is a showcase for Maori talent. In particular there is a weaving institute a Maori carving school and the adjacent geysers. 
Again I acknowledge all the work that has been done to bring this bill to where we are at for the benefit of those tribes that we have spoken about. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
:  
E tika ana ki te mihi atu i a koutou i tae ake ki te tautoko otira i a koutou nga mea pakeke o Te Arawa whanui. Tena koutou. 
[ 
It is appropriate that I acknowledge you the elders of Te Arawa at large who have arrived in support. Greetings to you. 
] 
Most that has needed to be said has already been said by my two colleagues. I commend the Minister of Maori Affairs for continuing with the journey and ensuring that Te Arawa people and those iwi and hapu involved reach the point they want to reach. Certainly the fee simple estate is something those people will relish. It is nothing new; this has been a long long argument and disagreement with the Crown and putting it to rest in this fashion is most encouraging. There are issues around the arts and culture establishment Te Puia but what needs to be commended is the way in which these have been taken forward. There were early tensions. There still is some tension if we are honest about it but that is for the people to fix up and put right. 
The joint trust that has been established for the purpose of administering these lands is something that will have a lot of influence—that is influence that the people did not have before. Some things related to the Conservation Act and those issues deemed to involve the periphery of the lakes and the forestry are in a category where they cannot be put asunder but—members should make no bones about it—this bill will give the trust and the organisation the right to determine and define what happens for their people. That is something that has been long lost. The village has always been in Maori ownership but it is certainly important to ensure that the people have the right to have their say and that they are not overrun by antiquated laws invoked by the local authority and the Crown. 
The bill of course represents more than a simple land transfer from the Crown to Maori. Subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 the wider motivation for the Crown and iwi negotiators included an agreement to vest the fee simple estate in those reserved lands outside the Treaty settlement process as the Minister himself said. By so doing the mana of the land of the people of Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao will be recognised with a stronger relationship which can be continued and built on. 
I especially want to mention Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa who made a choice to mediate and to be in the first instance the iwi to whom these lands were unloaded but the lands will go on immediately. There is not much more that I can say about that but it is certainly encouraging. I commend the present Minister of Maori Affairs for taking the bill through and I thank the previous Minister of Maori Affairs very much! Kia ora tatou. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 82 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Preamble clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill be now read a third time 
. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Tena koutou e nga uri o Te Arawa waka kua hara mai nei ki te tautoko i te whakaturetanga o te pire nei. Na reira nau mai hara mai ra koutou. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy and to us all in the House. Greetings to you descendants of the Te Arawa canoe who have come in support of the passing of this bill into law. And so welcome welcome. 
] 
This bill gives effect to the deed entered into by Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa trustees and the Crown to transfer the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and the koromatua o Ngati Wahiao. 
We often say: “Ko Papatuanuku te matua o te tangata.” That literally means: “The land is the parent of the human race.” Our love for our whenua is likened to the love we have for our mothers. At birth our whenua is returned to her; at death we are reunited with her soil. Therefore it is only fitting to reflect on two who have so recently returned to the soils of their whenua. I am referring to Arapeta Tahana the former chair of Te Arawa Lakes Trust board and Sir Howard Morrison of Ngati Whakaue. The legacy of these two leaders will continue to be felt in this bill and it is only right that we honour their vision and their unique contributions as we mark this historic third reading today. Haere ra korua otira nga mate katoa o Te Arawa waka o te motu whanui. Moe mai ra koutou i nga manaakitanga o te wahi ngaro. 
[ 
Farewell indeed to you two and to all of the deaths of the Te Arawa canoe and of the nation at large. Sleep there in the care of the place of the departed. 
] 
I say from the outset that at the heart of this bill is a special connection to the land: mana whenua. As we know mana over whenua can come to people through succession through the spilling of blood to cement relationships even through the spirit of generosity or as a sincere act of compassion or aroha. Then there are the courts but we do not want to go there. The Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill reflects a unique milestone in that all parties have agreed to initiate a process after the bill becomes law that will allow iwi to determine the allocation of mana whenua interests in the land. The bill itself does not specify how this process should occur. It is a matter for iwi and hapu parties to determine and the process will be undertaken in accordance with tikanga. A key principle we have respected is that mandate and management issues are always the domain of iwi and hapu to sort out in accordance with their tikanga. 
I place on record from the outset my heartfelt appreciation of everyone who has travelled here today to witness this distinctive agreement to transfer these special lands to the iwi of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Ngati Whakaue. Reaching the third reading of this bill has required considerable dedication to the task from all of the parties involved. I acknowledge the commitment of Ngati Whakaue. The bill has benefited from the leadership of Pihopa Kingi and the trustees of the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust: Malcolm Short Alec Wilson and also Rawiri Rangitauira. I acknowledge too their dedication in wanting to exercise the tribal responsibility to uphold the expression of manaakitanga to others across the rohe. I thank the representatives of Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue—Kiri Mitchell George and Eddie Mutu Anaru Te Amo and Hamuera Mitchell—for their patience while they endured the process of passing the bill into law. I thank the representatives of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao—Anaru Rangiheuea Rangipuawhe Maika and John Maaka—for their role in allowing what was once perceived as an impasse in the Treaty settlement process to become a bridge to unity between the iwi and hapu. I mihi too to Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao who have advocated so passionately over the ever-enduring concerns of participation representation and involvement. 
If the House will permit I will spend some time on an issue raised frequently at the Maori Affairs Committee and in numerous representations to me. We understand how the issue of land cuts to the very heart of the people. This is recognised in the bill which allows for a mana whenua determination process to take place after enactment. This process will allow the iwi an opportunity to sit together and determine who will have the final ownership of which pieces of land. As with the central North Island forest lands this will be done through agreements mediation or if required adjudication. I am optimistic that in the case of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao the process of the four koromatua whakapapa lines will be a foundation of the mana whenua discussion and they will determine their pathway forward at their own pace and under their own process. Furthermore I am pleased that facilitated discussion provided a guide for that process to happen. 
Implementation of this bill must be in the domain of iwi. It is not for elected representatives of Government to determine how that process plays out. That is the realm of tino rangatiratanga. Some have said we should let the courts decide. I have preferred to leave that to the people. It was the processes and the decisions of the courts that resulted in iwi losing their lands in the first place. There is a history of problems with judicial involvement and determinations over the land that failed to resolve contested rights and led to the alienation of lands to the Crown. I acknowledge the efforts of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa—Eru George Rawiri Te Whare and the iwi leadership within their realms—in seeing this bill come through to fruition and we recognise their commitment to working through a process that will respect the roles and responsibilities of mana whenua. I have received written communication from the chairman of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Eru George that all the respective claimant groups will be actively involved in the process of moving forward. I understand that a hui-a-iwi will be held in the Wahiao whare in Whakarewarewa Village this Saturday to elect a fourth trustee for Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to the joint trust. This will make a total of four trustees for Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and four trustees for Ngati Whakaue which is represented by the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust and Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue. I understand that anyone from Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao can participate in the hui-a-iwi which will elect a fourth trustee for Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao following their own process. 
I thank everyone who got us to this point recognising that although there were difficulties to resolve the final formula nevertheless and the process of dissent through koromatua could be the positive mechanism to move forward. I remain confident that all iwi and mana whenua interests in the reserves will be able to participate in the arrangements for their management and allocation in the future. I address the people of Te Arawa who are gathered here today. Ka nui taku hari koa kua eke tatou ki tenei ra e whakahoki nei i te mana o enei whenua ki nga uri o nga kaumatua hai whenua tuturu mo koutou mo ake tonu atu. 
[ 
There is much joy within me that we have arrived at this day whereby the autonomy of these lands is returned to the descendants of the old people thereby ensuring that the lands remain yours for ever. 
] 
This bill is straightforward in its intent. It deals with the technical processes required to transfer ownership of the three reserves in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Valley to the iwi of the area. However behind the bill as I have alluded to lies a plethora of complex issues related to the Treaty settlement process iwi relationships on the ground and Crown-Maori relationships. We acknowledge that the bill represents a compromise by all involved in respect of the greater interests of the iwi. I was always aware that issues of fairness and justice would prevail in considering issues of ownership. To address concerns I instigated a facilitation process to assure parties that the process was fair and inclusive of all. I acknowledge the assistance of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell and the guidance of John Clarke in these discussions. 
There is one other matter outstanding—that is the aspiration of Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to own the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute Te Puia which is commonly referred to as the jewel in the crown of New Zealand tourism. Now that we have transferred the lands on which this institute sits to iwi it is surely time to continue discussions on this matter. Finally I say that I join with the people of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Ngati Whakaue in marking this historic occasion of the return of their treasured land. Tena koutou. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira hei tuatahi maku. Te Arawa waka na koutou ra i haere tawhiti mai i runga ano i te karanga i karangahia na e koutou i oti ai te huarahi i para nei e koutou mai i nga ra ki muri a tae noa mai ki tenei haora. Tena hoki koutou i te ahuatanga o a tatou mate huhua. E kore taea te wareware tena tangata teitei ra a Tauhauata me taku tuakana i hinga nei i te wiki kua pahemo ake a Arapeta. Koia tetahi na i tautohetohengia ki te Karauna kia tika ai te whakaaro o te Karauna kia tika te hoki mai o nga taonga a Te Arawa na te Karauna i riro i nga ra kua taha ake nei. No reira na runga i tena tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
Indeed the first thing for me to do is extend greetings to you the canoe of Te Arawa who have travelled here from a distance on a call made by you to bring to a conclusion the path that you set out on in days gone to this hour. I greet you also in respect of our many deaths. Howard that person of immense stature will not be forgotten and neither will my elder kindred Albert who passed away just recently. He was one who persisted with the Crown to get its thinking right and to ensure that the treasures it took from Te Arawa in former times are rightfully returned. So on that I acknowledge you three times over 
.] 
I take the opportunity to acknowledge in the House today the representatives of Te Arawa. It is important that I do that because for them this has been a very long journey a journey that has been very difficult for them. Although the third reading is usually about the legislation before us I want to take this opportunity to speak about the people who brought it to us and brought about this opportunity to return to the people of Te Arawa their ancient taonga. 
As we have heard from the Minister of Maori Affairs the bill in itself is quite complex. I thank him for highlighting the complexities of this particular bill and for acknowledging the difficulties in the process particularly for those representatives of Te Arawa. I do not intend to take a long call because I think this time is their time to hear from as many people in this House as possible. 
I make mention of those who have passed on and there have been many throughout this process. But in recent weeks and recent days it is important that I acknowledge the passing of the son of Te Arawa Sir Howard Morrison and the legacy he left to his descendents and to future generations of Te Arawa. 
I also acknowledge his efforts in ensuring that Maori are recognised on the international stage. That is no small achievement. When we take a look at the bottom of the Pacific Basin see a little iwi called iwi Maori and see what he did for our presence particularly in arts and culture throughout the world and for many of those who followed after him we see that it was quite a significant achievement. There is not much I can say about this very very important person except that he was one of those who believed that the assets of Te Arawa should be returned sooner rather than later. 
I also want to acknowledge the passing of a very good friend my tuakana from Ngati Pikiao and of many other iwi of Te Arawa who passed away recently Arapeta Tahana. He was a former chair of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board the chair of Poutiri Trust the Maori health provider network and also the chair of many land trusts throughout Te Arawa. His passing was certainly a big loss to us. Although he is not mentioned in this legislation I take this opportunity to mention him in this debate. 
We acknowledge today the representatives of Te Arawa and in particular the journey they have been on for not just decades but very many generations. I am sure that those who started out on this incredible journey—some would say it is an impossible journey—are today resting in peace finally. 
Once again I acknowledge the contribution made by the current Minister of Maori Affairs to the completion of the very very important project or transfer should I say. I also acknowledge the former Minister of Maori Affairs and his Cabinet colleagues who thought it was very very important that the Labour-led Government during its time did the right thing by the people of Te Arawa and gave back their taonga outside of the Treaty settlement process. As we say although we do have a Treaty settlement process some matters can be resolved outside of that simply because it is the proper thing to do. 
Once again I congratulate—this is probably the last time I will do so during this discussion—the representatives of Te Arawa; and they are here. I heard the Minister of Maori Affairs mention many names of those in Te Arawa who rightly should be acknowledged but the people I want to acknowledge are here in the gallery today. They are the ones who took responsibility for leading Te Arawa down this pathway. They are the ones who have been severely criticised. They are the ones who have been intimidated in their own rohe. They are also the ones who said that they would not walk away from this because not only have past generations transferred this responsibility to them but future generations expect them to complete it now rather than later. Ki nga pakeke koroua kuia tuakana tuahine mai i te rohe o Te Arawa mai i Maketu ki te Tonga tenei na te mihi ake ki a koutou na koutou nei i whakaoti tenei kaupapa whakahirahira i mahue ake nei i wa tatou tupuna i te wa i a ratou. No reira na runga i tena tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To the elders male and female older kin and sisters of the region of Te Arawa from Maketu to the south I acknowledge you. You have completed this great legacy left and created by our ancestors when they were alive. So because of that I salute you all. Well done. 
] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 A kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Te Arawa waka tena koutou. A tena koutou me o koutou whawhai mo o koutou whenua i roto i te rohe potae o Te Arawa. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker and greetings to you the canoe of Te Arawa. I acknowledge your battles over your lands in the region of Te Arawa. So greetings to you all. 
] 
I will not take too long. The Minister Pita Sharples and the speaker before me Mita Ririnui have outlined what is not very complex: they have got their land back. But I want to concentrate on an issue that needs some thought put into it. Although the Minister of Maori Affairs is right in saying that we should not intervene in what is to put it in my South Auckland words a whanau scrap it is sort of the easy way out. We were elected here to make some of the hard decisions to see whether we could find a way through. 
On one hand I am very happy that a wrong has been righted that whenua has been returned but on the other hand I am disappointed that there is a group of people who are and should be part of the bill and who are and should be part of the celebration of the return of whenua but have somehow found themselves to be outside. We can argue until the cows come home as to who is right; the sad thing is that there is a group of people outside of this who feel aggrieved. Letters have been flying back and forth as the case is these days. One of those letters to the Minister of Maori Affairs assures the other side that some way down the track there will definitely be a coming together. All I can say is that I am hopeful that that will take place. 
I cannot bring myself to say Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao but I can bring myself to say Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao and this is no disrespect to Te Arawa waka in general. It is because I am one of those who believes in this vision of development. We are not in a time warp. We are not based in 1840. Something and some things may have developed since then if given the opportunity to develop. I know that in my own homeland there was some feeling on those tracks. 
I want to read some paragraphs from the report of the Maori Affairs Committee to the House which I think are very very important: “Some submitters requested that Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao not be coupled together and be represented separately. They felt that their mana whenua and rangatiratanga status over the Whakarewarewa Valley land were quite separate. The reference to the Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao affiliate of Te Pumautanga is well established and has been accepted by the Crown throughout the various mandating processes managed by the Kaihautu Executive Council and Te Pumautanga since 2003. 
In addition the bill provides for an on-vesting of the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve from Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust established under the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008 to the joint trust. The trust deed establishing the joint trust sets out the Beneficial Entitlement Determination Procedure and provides for the possible transfer of some or all of those lands following the determination. This mana whenua determination procedure allows the reserve land to be vested separately in the three hapu of Ngati Wahiao and the iwi of Tuhourangi in the future. 
While the bill could be amended to reflect a decoupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao this would properly address the concerns of submitters and would affect the underlying relationships between the Crown and Te Pumautanga and between Te Pumautanga and its affiliates. 
An amendment to the trust deed to allow decoupling would require a unanimous resolution of the trustees a general meeting of the beneficiaries to approve the trustees’ resolution and an approval resolution passed by a majority of each of Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao present at that meeting. We do not consider it appropriate to use legislation to provide for separate representation in relation to the bill because the decision of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to form a single affiliate of the joint trust Te Pumautanga was made by iwi members through a mandating process.” 
In conclusion I can say only that at the meeting on the weekend there is a golden opportunity for people to stand and deliver to deliver to everybody including those who find themselves on the outside. That opportunity must be taken on the weekend; if not I am fearful that the opportunity will be lost for a while. We have done all that we can and I think the House has done a pretty good job— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: A very good job. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —a very good job given the tools that we had— 
Paul Quinn 
: The cards we were dealt. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and given the cards we were dealt. But there is the ace in the hole and the ace in the hole is the meeting on the weekend. I am not trying to say how to run that meeting or even the decision— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: But you’re going to anyway. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
:—but as my colleague said I will anyway. The decision on the weekend must include a Ngati Wahiao representative. I am sure a lot of people have come to that determination as well. I can see some people rustling around thinking “How dare you.” I have been there before and I will be there again. I am not trying to make controversy out of this but it is a fact that when we are faced with these issues there will always be people on the outside who for whatever reason find themselves on the outside. We should be big enough and bold enough to include them as part of the whole instead of seeing them as some sort of group knocking on the door from the outside. At the end of the day they are all Te Arawa people and they are all after the same thing. It is about a bit of representation and it is about mana and it is about ensuring that the return of land is done expeditiously and without too much of a problem. 
Again I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia the last Government this Government and also those at home in Te Arawa as well. I think it is important to recognise that what we do although it may not affect us personally does affect the people at home. No reira Te Arawa tena koutou. Tena ano koutou i roto i nga whawhaitanga mo o koutou whenua. Kia ora. 
[ 
So congratulations Te Arawa. You were wonderful as well in the battle for your lands. Well done. 
] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Otira hei timatanga me mihi atu ahau ki enei matua o te ao Maori mai i a Arawa waka kua tatu mai ki roto i tenei Whare. E kara e Anaru tena koe. Tena koe me to iwi o te hia ranei roa wenei take e whakataratara ana i a koutou katahi ka whakapaua te kaha na kua tutuki. Te rahi o nga take i whakaritea hei whai ma koutou. No reira tena koutou. E kare e Rawiri i te tuatahi taku kitenga atu i a koe te wa i tutaki tahi ai ahau a koe he tamariki koe. I naianei kua pae mai te tohoraha ki uta kua rite koe ki tetahi o nga kaumatua hinahina te matenga ngoikore te tinana engari tu tonu ana koe. Na reira tena koe. E kara e Rangi nga mihi nunui ki a koutou. Taku hoa e Hamu koutou katoa wahine ma tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
So as a beginning I must acknowledge these father figures of Maoridom from the canoe of Te Arawa who have arrived here in this House. Friend Andrew greetings to you and your people. How long and irritable these issues must have been for you! But through the efforts expended it has been accomplished. The issues you had to consider were enormous. But well done. Friend David you were a young person when we first met but with the whale coming to the beach you are now much like one of the elders: hair on the head is grey and body is listless but you remain staunch. Greetings to you. To you as well Rangi the friend. To Hamu my old mate and to all of you and the womenfolk much greetings. 
] 
I briefly say that I acknowledge the leading elders of Te Arawa who are here today and their supporters as we witness the passage of this piece of legislation. We on this side of the House probably could have done more over 9 years to expedite the process of settling claims but because it is an area that neither of the large parties should find room for dissension on we stand shoulder to shoulder with our Maori colleagues in particular and indeed with the Minister and all the Parliamentarians who are supportive of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. That is so that we can expedite the passage of this part of our nation’s history and go forward turning the ihu of the waka to a new horizon. 
Mr Tau Henare made reference to some unfinished business in relation to the ascertainment and determination of entitlement in these reserves but the word that is used in the legislation is “may” not “must”. I think that any iwi looking at determination carving up and ascertaining interests and entitlement need look no further than the many millions of dollars and the many years that exhausted Maoridom through the Fisheries Commission allocation process. I ask the people of Te Arawa to please be very certain that the value and profit they might achieve through having an allocation is worth the inevitable rancour tension and legal fees. But it is of course up to them as to how that might happen. The land will remain as a reserve and although there is an ambition to take on the role of running the Maori Arts and Crafts Institute otherwise known as Te Puia such ventures should not be entered into wistfully. They will require a great deal of skill an appetite for debt and an understanding of working capital and markets which are too rarely seen in Te Ao Maori. 
This is a large day of celebration for us as MPs but the larger tasks rest with the stewards of the people. They now need to take this endowment forward and generate a perpetual flow of goods and services to create a dividend to keep the people together. As I have said before in this House grievances could always cause people by and large to work together in the face of a common adversary. But once the whale was landed katahi ka marara nga whanaunga. [ 
then the relatives scattered about. 
] 
Along with the Minister I am sure that Dr Cullen would share the sentiments put forward by speakers on this side of the House. Each settlement that is completed represents a chance for the next chapter of our nation’s development and for those who have come today from Rotorua with the shadow of Sir Howard Morrison’s and Arapeta Tahana’s recent passing perhaps the baton is changing to a new generation. That generation will have to show the skills honed of its time. Those skills will not show the same attributes or expertise that earlier generations had. We wish for Te Arawa not only great luck but also the confidence to rely on the new generation’s skills and expertise. 
We look forward to visiting the reserves in the future and to seeing harmony and prosperity. When that day arrives all I will say is this: Arawa e Anaru ki te puta matou o roto o Te Tai Tokerau maua ko taku tuakana a Tau Henare ki kona katahi nga gumdiggers ka mihi atu ki nga kairuku kapa. Na reira tena koutou tena tatou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Arawa and Andrew should we my elder kin Tau Henare and I of the north appear there we gumdiggers will then acknowledge you penny divers. Greetings to you us and everyone. 
] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora tatau katoa e hui nei i roto i tenei Whare te Whare Paremata. Koutou kua hara mai i te kainga tena koutou. Kua korerohia te ahuatanga o nga mate o te kainga ko Ta Hauata tera ko Arapeta tera. No reira waiho ake ma te motu raua e tangi. Ka mutu ko Frank tera me te hunga noa atu kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Waiho ratou kia moe. Ko tatau nga uri nga tamariki nga urupa o ratau ma haere mai me te ahuatanga o nga mate; tena koutou nau mai hara mai ki te Whare Paremata. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker and greetings to us all seated here in this House of Parliament. To you who have come from home greetings. The deaths at home have been referred to—namely those of Sir Howard and Albert. The nation will mourn their passing. I mention Frank’s death here as well as a host of others who are lost from view. Allow them to rest there. To us—the descendants the children the charnel house of departed ones—welcome with our deaths in mind and welcome to the House of Parliament. 
] 
A day when we get land back for our people is a day of celebration and a time to be remembered because it does not happen too often. However the settlement process is moving us in that direction. Thank goodness for that! The land brings us mana; our mana is our land. I acknowledge the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia for his initiative in putting this bill forward prior to the election with the help of Dr Cullen and also the Hon Mita Ririnui who I am sure was behind the scenes promoting this particular bill. I acknowledge them all and all their efforts to move this particular bill forward to enable land to come back in this case to the people at home. 
While I am standing I also want to acknowledge Mr John Clarke Jonathan Easthope Tom White and Dr John Tamahori who were involved with me in a process I will outline shortly. But I wanted first to acknowledge all the work that was done from our team. I thought we did pretty well—not quite there but pretty well. 
As the Minister has outlined today is an awesome day for Ngati Whakaue for those involved with the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Tuhourangi and nga koromatua o Ngati Wahiao. Of course the bill has some beginnings in the Pumautanga bill and we need to acknowledge that someone had the foresight to make sure that it got in there to ensure that it got captured I suppose in the net of settlements. Even though it is not purely a settlement it at least got in on the table. So I acknowledge those who were able to set that out. 
There is no doubt that from the very beginnings of this bill even back to the discussions around the Te Arawa Lakes bill as well as the Te Pumautanga bill one particularly important issue has been raised by submitters during the select committee process and as the Minister outlined in a number of submissions to him. It has actually resulted in issues of protest and I understand that there is a protest on as we sit here today. The issue is to do with the whole notion about finding a space for those of what could be loosely termed the kaumatua of Ngati Wahiao. 
That was signalled throughout the select committee process; it is not new. The Minister heard the discussions and those members on the Maori Affairs Committee last year as well as this year heard about that concern. So it is not new; I am not talking out of shop. To deal with that concern the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples sent Mr John Clarke a member of the Waitangi Tribunal and me to go and see whether we could facilitate a process to bring the parties together. It was under and against the background of some personal flack and also some votes of no confidence—I suppose we could put it that way—that we went up. I am pleased to say that we were able to engage the parties. 
The key issue there—with no disrespect to those involved with Ngati Whakaue because no discussion came through the select committee—seemed to be finding a space for Ngati Wahiao on two parts: first Wahiao on a holding trust which will get the asset once it has passed over to Pumautanga; and second finding a space for those groups to determine that issue of mana whenua. How will the land once it has gone back be divvied up? 
The great thing was that those parties agreed at least to come to the table so I acknowledge them in the first instance because it could have been seen as a little bit of interference. Happily enough though they did come to the table and we were able to engage over a period of about 3 to 4 months. 
It was great—and I will talk only about the issues of the facilitation process I was involved with—that certain principles were accepted. Firstly it was accepted by all the parties involved that the land should go back to Tuhourangi Ngati Huarere Ngati Tukiterangi and Ngati Hinganoa. It was really clear that everyone knew that they were the landowners. That is important. Secondly it was agreed to have a new register because of course the registering of people to be able to vote in the processes for whatever reason was an issue. 
It was also agreed that the registry would be based on whakapapa. It was agreed to have check-offs of those whakapapa such that any two or four koeke o te kainga could sign off the process. It was great that there was an acknowledgment of whakapapa being a part of the process and that people were also agreeing to check-offs. 
It was agreed that there would be a hui a-iwi at Wahiao to work out one of the trustees—because there are four associated with let us say the Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao group as well as Ngati Whakaue. So again there was a commitment and acknowledgment of that; the Minister has just talked about that as did the Hon Tau Henare. That hui is to take place this weekend. That is great. 
The next question was how we would find four people to negotiate on behalf of Tuhourangi Hinganoa Tukiterangi and Huarere. The answer was easy enough: get a new register. Of course the thought was that Te Puni Kokiri might assist in facilitation of that great new register and those people can get involved. The next question was how they would vote. One group said and theirs was the first problem—one person one vote. The other group said it should be multiple votes—if we put down three whakapapa lines we should have three votes. 
We got to that point and asked how we should decide. That was easy—the answer was to take it back to the people. Let the people decide. So the thought was to call another hui; all of those who are registered could come together have a korero and whatever was the outcome of that hui that is it. In other words if the hui decides one person for one vote that is it. If they decide to have multiple votes koi ra the process could carry on. That was agreed to in a sense. 
The next stage having got all that sorted with the help of Te Puni Kokiri other independent facilitators and so on was to call for nominations and get on and vote. Those koromatua and hapu will have their own voice to be able to negotiate their pieces of land. That was important. Why? Because all the parties said right from the very start that that was important. So that was all achieved and as I say I thank all of those involved. 
We went to the select committee and advised that we were there—we had an agreement. The select committee considered that request. Indeed the select committee reported: “We are aware that a facilitation process has been used during 2009 to seek assurance that Ngati Wahiao may participate in the structures set up to receive the Whakarewarewa Valley lands (the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust) and that Ngati Wahiao are appropriately represented in the Beneficial Entitlement Determination Procedure that will follow from the enactment of the bill.” 
The report continues: “We understand that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao trustees on the joint trust and the members of Ngati Wahiao who have engaged in the facilitation process have discussed the details of a process to elect four representatives one of each from three Ngati Wahiao hapu and the iwi of Tuhourangi who will discuss mana whenua entitlements under the Beneficial Entitlement Determination Process with Ngati Whakaue. We understand that the details of the voting process will be decided at a hui-a-iwi by the people of Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao.” 
So the select committee process happened. The committee reported back to the Minister and basically the bill was able to advance on those agreements. As I say it is always something to celebrate when land comes back to the people. Having achieved this process of setting out how we might determine this land’s coming back to the people the Minister is absolutely convinced and assured that the process we have talked about is something that will stand the people in good stead in respect of determining the process. 
In closing I say that my only hope is that in having given some time to that we do get the land back to the right people. I have outlined the background because most people may not necessarily know the full background over a period of discussions. The good thing about it is that it will now be resting on the record of this Parliament as a record of history. We can say: “He mana ano to te kupu.”; that what people say is actually their bond their word. 
The goal in terms of my role and that of Mr John Clarke I am sure was always honourable. It was to facilitate the bringing together of a people. Whether or not people believe that that is what I say. My only hope is that having set that high goal—and what followed was a process that certainly had integrity and honesty to it—in the end we tried our very best to facilitate that process and we have reported to the Minister accordingly. 
The Minister believes that that process will be followed to ensure that that land does go back to those people who belong to that land. As he said mana whenua is a very very important concept amongst our people. I hope as I am sure he does that in the end our process will set the scene and mean the bringing together again of our people at home such that we get rid of protest get rid of litigation and finally make sure that the land falls back to the descendents of those who belong to that land. No reira koi nei te mihi atu ki a tatau katoa i tae mai i tenei rangi. Huri noa i to tatau Whare tena koutou. Kia ora tatau. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I join with the previous speakers in welcoming members from Te Arawa. I turn to say hello to and acknowledge my Uncle Anaru Rangiheuea Rawiri Te Whare and Hamuera Mitchell and to acknowledge kuia and kaumatua: tena koutou katoa. 
I think it is important firstly to pick up on something a previous speaker Shane Jones said. He said there is no doubt that both sides of the House are very keen on and particularly committed to going forward to resolve Treaty grievances as expeditiously as possible. In that vein the current Minister is working very hard to do just that. 
In terms of this particular settlement I think it is important to canvas where the bill was at when this Parliament began because it provides and puts into perspective the contribution from my friend and colleague in the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell. When the 48th Parliament convened this bill was before the select committee which was about to hear submissions. The big issue for which Te Ururoa has provided the outcome was the issue of mana whenua. This issue taxed the select committee and proved challenging mainly because given that the trust deed had already been approved and signed sealed and delivered if the new Parliament was to try to encompass the issues that arose during the course of the Maori Affairs Committee in a formal process it would mean that the Government would have to go back and quite simply renegotiate the arrangement. Because we did not think that that was the best course of action as we have just heard it was felt a better way of advancing the issue was to try to allow the Minister time to try to resolve the matter. 
The outcome of that task is what we have just heard from the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell. I think it is important the record note that the understanding the select committee received at the end of that consultation process was that in respect of the agreement—the gentlemen’s agreement a handshake—there will be a process relating to what is termed in the documentation as the beneficial entitlement determination procedure and all the parties have agreed that the whakapapa will be determined by four koroua who are well versed in these issues and who as it was reported to the select committee have been named. From this point on the process will start as I understand it this weekend. 
So it is really against that background and the comfort that the select committee was given around that process that the committee was happy to allow the bill to come to the floor of Parliament for its second reading and Committee stage and now to the third reading. It is therefore with great pleasure that I join members on both sides of the House to recommend that this bill move swiftly to receive the Royal assent so that the beneficiaries are able to get on with the task and the challenge that now face them in taking responsibility for their own land and their own assets. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tena koutou e te Whare. It is good that I take what will be a very short call because I was not present at the select committee hearings. But having listened to other speakers and contributors to this debate I accept that there are issues between the relevant iwi and hapu that will live on potentially past this bill. That should not in my view and in the view of everyone who has spoken in this House obscure what is otherwise a very positive day of celebration in the passing of this bill into law. The bill gives effect to the deed signed between the Crown and iwi in relation to the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve. 
I will very briefly make some acknowledgments and talk about what the bill does. I think it is important that we acknowledge the representatives of iwi who are here today and that we recognise and acknowledge as well that this bill puts into law an agreement that was inspired and initiated by iwi leaders. They brought their proposal to the Crown and asked that the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve land on transfer from the Te Arawa settlement legislation together with the adjacent Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve be vested in a joint trust of the iwi partners. As I have said the bill transfers ownership of three areas of reserve land. The fee simple for these lands will be vested in a Whakarewarewa joint trust. The reserves have the status of recreation reserves and are at present administered by the Ministry of Tourism under the Reserves Act 1977. 
The lands are home to the renowned Pohutu Geyser they accommodate Te Puia formerly known as the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute and they are situated around the Whakarewarewa Village. The Whakarewarewa reserve land is very well known to many New Zealanders who are not necessarily part of the relevant iwi and to those who may be watching this on television. It is an important historical cultural and spiritual part of our nation. 
This is a positive bill. It is a day for celebration. With those few comments I conclude. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e Te Mana Whakawa otira huri noa i to tatou Whare tena tatou katoa. E tu ana ahau i te whakaiti i te honore hoki ki te mihi atu ki a Te Arawa waka i to mai nei i tenei ra i runga i tenei kaupapa o te pire whakamana o Te Whakarewarewa me te Roto a Tamaheke. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Indeed greetings to all of us throughout the House. It is with humility and honour at the same time that I rise to extend salutations to the canoe of Te Arawa which has drawn here today for the passing of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. So greetings to you collectively and to us all. 
] 
I should also like to acknowledge the passing of Sir Howard Morrison whose tangi I was privileged to participate in. I pay tribute to the farewell that Ngati Whakaue and Te Arawa whanui paid him in the celebration of his life to the manaakitanga extended to those of us who went on to the marae and to the elegance and respect that was obvious in all that was done in farewelling not only a son of Te Arawa but also a son of Aotearoa New Zealand. I am sorry that I was not able to get to the passing of but I pay my respects to Arapeta Tahana as well. 
Coming back to the purpose of our gathering here today I will take a short call and congratulate both Ministers who have been responsible for seeing through the passage of this legislation. To the former Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia I commend him for the work that he did during the last administration and I particularly congratulate the current Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples on picking up this bill and ensuring that it could pass through all its stages together with the support of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. 
It is not an easy task to see through legislation that was started in one administration and passed through to the next and which is characterised by some ruffled waters. Nevertheless I acknowledge that ministerial leadership and also the support of many officials and some in particular who go through the piki and the heke of all the challenges of sewing together ministerial instructions arbitrary select committee questions the people with whom they have been working and with most difficulty keeping the State sector on course and behind what needs to be done. So I also acknowledge and congratulate the officials. I also congratulate the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare and the members both those opposite and on this side of the House who have together seen through the last stages of this legislation. 
It has been remarked on already by colleagues on both sides of the House that this legislation is not a Treaty settlement. I think that is both remarkable and positive because it is important to recognise that the relationship between the Crown and iwi is not simply about Treaty grievances but it can also be about rectifying relationships of a much more general nature and the restoration of lands that properly belong with their original owners. So it is appropriate that we acknowledge this as a milestone in an ever-increasing relationship between the Crown and iwi and that both the Crown and iwi benefit from the strengthening of that relationship. 
The challenge that is before us as a result of the passing of this bill into law is the management of relationships. Ironically those between the Crown and iwi are relatively easy because as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones remarked earlier it is sometimes much easier to combine against an adversary than it is to work on the relationships within and between those most familiar and intimate to us. There are important relationships within and between Te Arawa. Those of Whakaue Tuhourangi and Wahiao are represented in this bill. It is easy to develop a habit of blaming external parties and it is much harder to look within and to work on internal relationships but it is so much more worthwhile and so valuable. 
Governments come and go but our whakapapa our relationships with one another endure and go on into succeeding generations. That common whakapapa those common traditions and those common his and her-stories are the ones that we have to keep alive and honour not only in the rhetoric that trips so easily from our lips but also in the actions of today so that we may secure those relationships for future generations. 
That future must be characterised by all those concepts that our rhetoric so easily articulates: whanaungatanga kaitiakitanga mana mana whenua manaakitanga and of course kotahitanga. The challenge is to ensure that the decisions of today can be elaborated and developed for real and meaningful opportunities for all kin of the three iwi and that in developing managing and governing that whenua and those taonga it is done in ways that strengthen the links between those iwi so that their descendants can together go forward to a stronger future. I wish Whakaue Tuhourangi and Wahiao the rich blessings of their whenua and a generous practice of their tino rangatiratanga. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time. 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee that the committee present its final report on or before 2 March 2010 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 Government is committed to delivering growth in order to ensure prosperity for all New Zealanders. Part of delivering on this commitment is ensuring a fair and competitive business environment. To this end the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter announced in September the Government’s decision to introduce a bill to amend the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 in order to replace the current regulated price formula for raw milk. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act provided the authorisation that permitted the merger of the New Zealand Dairy Board Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd and the New Zealand Dairy Group to form the Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd. 
The Act promotes the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand and it does that by regulating the activities of Fonterra thereby ensuring that the market for dairy goods and services is contestable. The contestability is achieved by a suite of pro-competitive measures which include permitting the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations that compel Fonterra to supply up to 5 percent of its raw milk to independent processors at a regulated price. Raw milk is the milk collected from the farms before it undergoes any processing. The Minister may also specify the price the method for determining the price and other items and conditions. 
The Act is also the empowering legislation for the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations which we seek to amend with this new bill. The review of the raw milk regulations in 2008 identified that Fonterra was forced to sell the raw milk at a price much less than what it paid farmers for the supply of the raw milk due to the formula being used. That was never the intent of the regulations. This bill proposes to replace the current regulated price formula for raw milk with the Fonterra farm-gate milk price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids for the 2010-11 dairy season. The Fonterra farm-gate price is the milk component of the Fonterra payout and represents the average price Fonterra pays its farmers for raw milk across the season. The 10c margin addresses the fact that independent processors can access a square or uniform milk supply rather than a seasonal supply—a much more desirable result for all parties. Given that the uniform supply is considerably more valuable to processors than a seasonal one the Government considers it fair that the regulations permit a margin to reflect just that. 
The price change addresses the immediate underpricing of raw milk. The change is needed to ensure that independent dairy processors that buy raw milk under the regulations pay the same price for raw milk that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of that raw milk. The price change also provides independent dairy processors with the right economic incentives to source raw milk directly from farmers where practicable rather than under the regulations. This better promotes the objective of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—that is to create a contestable market for farmers’ raw milk and to ensure that the market operates efficiently and fairly. 
To achieve this price change the Act must be amended to allow the Fonterra farm-gate price to be incorporated in regulations through reference to an external document. In this case it is the report of Fonterra’s annual accounts as contained in its annual report for the respective season. The bill introduces a provision to allow external documents to be incorporated by reference in any regulations made under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. An option would provide for a more efficient method of pricing and allocation of raw milk amongst competing processors’ demands and is one possible long-term solution to a regulated milk price. The bill permits the introduction of an option for the raw milk by regulation and includes provisions for the Minister of Agriculture to specify the details of how such an option might function. The amendment future-proofs the Act by allowing the Minister of Agriculture to introduce an option in the future for amending regulations rather than further amending the Act. Since the Minister of Agriculture announced his intention to introduce this bill he has received strong support for it from the primary sector at both the processor and farmer level; no one should be surprised by that. 
The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to inform the House that the review of the raw milk regulations in 2008 also identified considerable industry uncertainty regarding the end of Fonterra’s regulatory obligations to supply raw milk to independent processors. Currently the relevant regulations will expire once a certain amount of competition for farmers’ raw milk has been reached in each of the North and South Islands. However there is no mechanism available to industry participants for assessing when this obligation might cease and no provisions for a phase-down or phase-out period. The Minister of Agriculture has announced his intention to conduct a consultation process on this issue to commence in this calendar year. 
On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter I commend this bill to the House but I add that it is very much a progressive bill and part of the Government’s overall programme to lift the economic performance of this country. There is no doubt that dairying is a significant contributor to the country’s export receipts and people can rest assured that the opportunity to encourage growth in this industry at any level lies behind this particular bill. 
I know that the Labour Opposition is likely to oppose this legislation because it will lead to a lot more competition for the milk that is produced at the farm gate. Ultimately I think that will lead to better prices for farmers. It will lead to the sort of investment that we have seen from the Open Country Cheese Co. and from Synlait and that we know is planned by others around the country. It will facilitate the sort of stand-alone opportunities taken by farmers who supported their own cooperative on the West Coast where they have had good prices for their product over a period of years. 
In the end New Zealand needs to be able to sell more produce overseas if we are to start getting the lift in export performance that we want. This enabling legislation will mean that there can be more creative thinking about the sorts of products that may be derived from raw milk. As many people in the House will know a raft of things can be developed further manufactured or enhanced from raw milk. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What’s this joker talking about? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member opposite asks whether I know what I am talking about. I tell him that I do know what I am talking about. The quality of New Zealand milk is served a great testament by one look at him! He once described sheep as “nothing more than smelly sods.” I will not refer to him in such a way but I will say that the fleece on his head looks as if it could contribute to New Zealand’s export receipts in a way that would be quite substantial. 
With those comments I conclude my remarks. This is a very good bill it is a progressive bill and it is the sort of bill that people can expect to see more of from the National Government as we free up the economy and as we free up those entrepreneurs in it who are committed to making our targets of better incomes for New Zealanders a reality. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I will not take too long to speak on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill other than to say that Labour will support it. This is an evolution of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act that was passed under a Labour Government and it is a natural evolution following a review that was carried out by the previous Labour Government to move forward on some of the problems identified in the supply of milk into the domestic market. 
One thing I will say is that this bill should have been in the House some time ago. The National Government has seen fit to privatise the prison system and to do many other things before it moved on this vital area of economic growth for the country. The Government let the dairy industry remain in a period of uncertainty until it finally introduced this bill. I say shame on the Government and on the Minister of Agriculture for not having this bill in the House within the first 100 days. None the less Labour will support the legislation. 
Mr Brownlee has outlined what the bill does. It makes some technical changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. It allows ultimately for an auction system to be put in place. The previous Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton had conducted the review and put to Cabinet a recommendation for an auction system. That would have proceeded but the National Government of course sat on its hands and discovered in June of this year that there was insufficient time to put such a system in place. So the Government has had to introduce this new legislation into the House. 
I think the bill is fair. It addresses the concerns that farmers have had for some time in the industry that independent processors were getting cheap milk—that is milk that was collected by Fonterra tankers and delivered to independent processors at a cost less than the cost of the production transporting and coordination. At the same time Fonterra had to build I guess for the possibility of taking all that milk processing it and turning it into something. So there was a potential cost there that was not taken into account in the original formula for working out the cost of milk. I think officials should take note that in the original Act they miscalculated a number of things. Their thoughts that there would be no major processors in this country competing with Fonterra have been proved wrong. There are now a number of potential processors such as Russian companies Synlait—and no doubt Ruth Richardson will sell that off to the Singaporeans or to anyone who will pay her a price—and other processors as well. 
I ask however what bill will be before this House next and that is a very important question. This legislation is a natural development of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act; the next bill about capital restructuring dare I suggest will be far more important. I hope that the National Government will pay more attention to that next bill than it has done to this one because this issue should have been addressed back in January. The uncertainty has meant that an auction system cannot be put in place and an auction system is the only fair way of long-term price establishment for raw milk. In the interim the raw milk price which is the price that farmers receive up and down the country for their raw milk less the value-added component that will be paid through their milk cheque payment is that price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids. That is a small premium to allow for the uncertainty that Fonterra faces as it has to collect the milk and manage its distribution through the independent processors. 
There were some genuine concerns from businesses like Cadbury’s and other high-value dairy industry processors that were seeing the potential competition—competition that would mean they would not be able to access the volumes of milk they required for the certainty of their businesses. But we have now moved to a situation where up to 600 million litres of milk can be collected by Fonterra tankers and delivered to independent processors. That is a privilege I suggest for those independent processors in both setting up and running their businesses but they will pay 10c over and above the raw milk price. 
Labour will support the legislation but we issue a warning to the Government that it should show more respect for the dairy industry and process legislation in a more timely fashion. It will also have to pay careful attention to the next bill that no doubt will be before this House on the issue of capital restructuring. Thank you. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Dairy Industry (Restructuring Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Amendment Bill. But before I speak in accordance with the Standing Orders I need to declare that I am a supplying shareholder of Fonterra the largest company that this legislation affects. 
I will give a little history to the background of this bill as did the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Acting Minister of Agriculture in his opening comments. This regulation came about as a result of much concern about the merger of the New Zealand Dairy Board Kiwi Cooperative Dairies Ltd and the New Zealand Dairy Group which brought together one entity that was going to control at that time about 96 percent of all milk production in New Zealand. The Commerce Commission had major concerns about what would happen if small competitors in the industry tried to set up and Fonterra used its size to price milk in such a way that those competing interests would not get access to milk. That is basically the background to why the regulation was put in place in the first place. 
What does this legislation do? It requires Fonterra to make available 600 million litres of its milk—of the milk of the shareholders of Fonterra who now number about 10000 farmers up and down New Zealand—to its competitors the small companies that compete with it at the price that is regulated. That on the surface sounds pretty heavy-handed but the genesis of the idea was to allow for those small competing companies to get started. Over time small companies have started up—a number of them have been mentioned—and there are now a large number of small companies in New Zealand. Some of them that compete with Fonterra are not so small and they have been able to get access to prescribed litreages of that total of 600 million litres of raw milk. Also over time it has been discovered that the price the regulated framework prescribed was less than what Fonterra was having to pay its farmer-shareholders at the farm gate. So the proposal—the compromise if you like—that has been reached is a sound step forward. 
The farm-gate price plus 10c takes into account recognition of the fact that milk is not produced for 365 days a year in a uniform way; in fact production is very seasonal. If we look at grass growth graphs we can see that grass grows at a much higher rate in November than it does in July. In fact in Taranaki in September we were growing 100 kilograms of dry matter per hectare a day which is a record growth rate I understand for the area. Grass does not grow evenly therefore milk cannot be produced evenly. There are the so-called shoulders which are the periods in the season when milk production is less than it is at other times in the season. For that reason the processing side of the industry invests a lot of money in stainless steel—in plants separators cheese-processing facilities tankers and that type of stuff—to cater for peak milk. There is a lot more capital required for peak milk times than there is for the shoulder parts of the season or the lower producing times of the season. 
The 10c premium is in recognition of the fact that not all prices are even and not all production is even. I think it is a reasonable stab; I suspect it is still on the low side but I think it is a reasonable compromise. Fonterra is happy with that. Competing companies are grizzling about the fact that they have to pay a bit more but by and large to my understanding they are reasonably comfortable with it. It does reflect the investment that Fonterra has made in the substantial capital required there. 
There is a larger issue coming and the Acting Minister touched on it—that is when is a small competing start-up company no longer a small competing start-up company? Some of these companies have been operating now for some time; in fact some were operating before Fonterra was. So at what point should they no longer have access to milk that is arguably still subsidised by the large company Fonterra? The philosophical debate will go on for ever and members are well aware of it about whether one company in New Zealand should be the dominant force and what percentage of the industry should belong to other companies. That debate in my view has been totally debunked over the time that I have been in this Parliament in the sense that if we talk to any of the other primary industries or to any other export and manufacturing industries the one thing they all say to us is that having a dominant or large presence in the markets where we compete is the No. 1 driving factor to price back in New Zealand. Because of Fonterra’s single focus on international markets and the structure that has allowed that to happen we are very competitive internationally in the dairy industry—hence the growth in the dairy industry. 
I have listened recently to commentators talk about how Fonterra has been a poor performer but a 5.8 percent growth year on year since the company was formed makes it difficult for me to understand what they mean by that especially when I compare Fonterra with other companies such as Carter Holt Harvey for example or any type of company members want to mention in New Zealand that is dealing primarily in the export of products that have to be developed from raw commodities that have a perishable life. We can take any companies—we can go through all the rest of the primary industries—and we can name the lot but none of them competes with that level of growth. Those who suggest that Fonterra or the dairy industry should emulate the structures that some of those other companies employ need to look at what has actually been the end result of Fonterra and its single marketing structure which has allowed that company to export to 150 countries around the world and to have as I said those kinds of growth rates. 
This legislation about the restructuring of raw milk pricing methods is fundamental to that concept because if we decide that the company should be broken up that the industry should fragment or that we should have 15 20 40 or even 50 percent of whatever figure we pick of the total amount of milk produced in New Zealand go to companies other than Fonterra then we are actually suggesting that that single focus on international markets is not the endgame. That is the ultimate thing. Of course all of these debates come about when we start talking about the further capital required for developing markets such as China where there is huge opportunity with which New Zealand has a free-trade agreement and where the dairy industry has a strong presence and will continue to have a strong and growing presence. 
So there is a debate and there must be a balance in what will be the best in terms of how the industry can develop going forward where it will secure its capital and how many competing small companies there are in New Zealand. Surely it is healthy to have some small competing companies in New Zealand; I agree with that concept. Certainly some of the innovation that comes out of our small companies is healthy. But to suggest that Fonterra should be broken up or in some way fragmented or that its dominance in the market place is unhealthy is very much a bury-the-head-in-the sand approach that does not look at the history of the other organisations and companies primary producers or exporters that have adopted that approach. In fact all of the other industries that I am aware of are trying to emulate a more focused market structure internationally. Obviously there is a lot of debate about size in the meat industry and about how that industry and various other industries can achieve Fonterra’s kind of single-focus marketing. You know they are looking to Fonterra for leadership. 
I am happy to support this bill. I know it is a step forward. I look forward with some enthusiasm to the next round of debate. Certainly this is a good move for the Government and for New Zealand today. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Damien O’Conner mentioned this bill came about through a review of the dairy industry. That review was conducted under a Labour Government and it identified three key issues that needed to be addressed. Firstly the current wholesale price of the regulated pricing formula systematically underpriced regulated raw milk to independent processors. Secondly there was no system for managing the excess demand for regulated raw milk by independent processors. Thirdly there was unmanaged transition risk associated with the ending of the statutory obligation on Fonterra to supply regulated raw milk. There needed to be an addressing of these issues. 
One of the ways in which that was proposed was to introduce an auction process for raw milk in the 2010-2011 season. Unfortunately although this review was done in 2008 the bill has not entered the House until the end of 2009. That means that the auction process will not be ready for the season as envisaged. The interim solution being proposed in this bill is to amend the regulated price to the Fonterra farm-gate milk price and add a price adjustment of 10c a kilogram to the price of milksolids. That seems a reasonable suggestion given that the auction process will not be in place in time. That will remove the irritant to farmers of underpricing milk to independent milk processors in the time it takes for the auction price to come into being. The principle underlying this bill is also to ensure that adequate competition is maintained without favouring one group over another. I think it is very important that we acknowledge that independent processors can take New Zealand milk and turn it into high-value products. This part of the scheme should be maintained and we need to acknowledge the value that these independent processors are able to bring. 
Applying science and innovation to our primary product is where New Zealand’s real benefit comes from. Of course we can continue to ship large amounts of raw milksolids abroad as we do and it is the major component of our exports and our income in our dairy industry. Over time I suggest that countries like Chile and China may well be big markets for our products but they will also be major producers of such products. Indeed we are sending our scientists over to Chile and China to help them develop their dairy industries. They will become not only consumers but also competitive producers of dairy products. Our ability to stay ahead is therefore very much dependent on how we use our brains our science and our innovation in the production of our dairy industry. As Rutherford once stated: “We haven’t got the money so we’ve got to think!”. He was dead right. We are rich in natural resources but we need to apply our brains to keep us ahead. That will enable us to remain economically viable. 
The importance of small processing companies is in contrast to Fonterra itself. Although I do not disagree with my colleague across the House Shane Ardern about Fonterra and the need to ensure that it maintains its market place we have to note that Fonterra receives 92 percent of New Zealand’s milk. However its investment to add value has not been particularly successful in Fonterra’s case. Last year its bumper price was a $7.90 per kilogram payout but only 31c of that was value-added. Fonterra is a great exporter of ingredients that go overseas. These then get turned into products that are sold at higher value by other companies abroad. That needs to change. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 noted: “The need to lift Fonterra’s products beyond bulk cheese blocks and milk powder has never been more urgent. Last year the company cited opportunities in medical nutrition cheese slices for McDonald’s worldwide pizza toppings in 30 countries and pharmaceutical grade protein among others. Eight years ago when Fonterra was founded these were the sort of sophisticated products envisaged. The medical and pharmaceutical uses chimed well with the Labour Government’s “knowledge wave” of its early days. Now they are close to the heart of a new Prime Minister with ambitions to lift the country’s economy to a higher level of value.” These were the promises that we wanted from Fonterra but we are not yet getting there. 
I argue that our ability to add real value to New Zealand is also our ability to ask Fonterra to consider not just what it gets over the farm gate—and this comes back to the question of its shareholders—but also what real value it can add to the New Zealand economy. It is for that reason that I find the Government’s decision to ditch the Fast Forward scheme so reprehensible. Putting up as the Labour Government did $700 million for research and development funding seemed a pretty good deal and that was going to be matched with private funding that would enable certainty in innovation and in the abilities of our scientists to know where they were going. It would have built partnerships between the private sector and public sector—as we have seen in the case of Fonterra so desperately needed—and encouraged innovation. Unfortunately it was ditched. In its place the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership is a rather cheap and nasty alternative. It offers only a fraction of the advantages that the Fast Forward scheme did. It shows that this Government knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. 
Interestingly enough just to add to that general theme we recently had a situation where the chief executive officer of AgResearch in Hamilton Andrew West was bemoaning that he had to send his scientists to places like Chile to help those countries with their farming industries in order to generate the 9 percent return that this Government insists on. I have absolutely no problems with a Crown research institute being able to wash its own face to in a sense not cost the taxpayer money. Under the previous Labour Government although we set the figure at 9 percent anything that was produced by the Crown research institutes was turned back and put into research not as this Government is doing put into the deep dark recesses of the consolidated account. I believe that this Government does not understand that every $1 invested in a Crown research institute could lead to $10 or $100 return by our New Zealand farmers. Instead it is focusing on the 9 percent return that the Crown research institutes are producing—a rather short-sighted policy. 
In conclusion we support this bill in its first reading. We believe that it addresses some of the anomalies and the difficulties that are apparent and were highlighted in the review that the Labour Government conducted in 2008 and for that reason we support this bill in its first reading. Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the referral of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill through to the select committee and there we will have a bit more of a look at it. The Green Party I think has an interesting relationship with Fonterra. On the one hand the Greens have been extremely critical of Fonterra’s performance in terms of its environmental impacts. Although some of the programmes that Fonterra has been running have been good overall we know that the intensification of agriculture has been driving the deterioration in water quality in our lowland rivers and now in our groundwater. That intensification is a major problem. On the other hand the Green Party also has tremendous sympathy for the cooperative structure of Fonterra. The Green Party is a big supporter of cooperative structures. We think that a producer cooperative is actually a very good model and it is most extraordinary that the largest enterprise in the New Zealand economy is in fact a producer cooperative. That is completely at odds with the laissez faire ideology that has dominated New Zealand since the mid-1980s. Fonterra has proven that the laissez faire neo-liberal ideology is wrong time and time again. 
It has been interesting for us to watch as National has attacked Fonterra time and again. Currently we see the attack on Fonterra from Open Country Cheese. That company threatens the New Zealand ownership of the dairy industry. The idea of Open Country Cheese and of a series of other companies like it is to break into the New Zealand dairy production sector and break up Fonterra. The reason that the Greens have a problem with this is that aside from the fact that Open Country Cheese is basically the “National Party Inc.”—Wyatt Creech and John Luxton were involved in setting up the company—we think that it undermines the cooperative structure whereby the producers own the industry. We are big supporters of the producers owning the industry in the dairy sector; that is tremendously important. Open Country Cheese also threatens the New Zealand ownership of the dairy sector. The cooperative structure of Fonterra means that it is very difficult for foreigners to take advantage of our almost non-existent foreign ownership laws in order to get control of one of our most important sectors. The Greens support the role of Fonterra in protecting a critical part of the New Zealand economy. 
So although we have some disagreements with Fonterra particularly around water-quality issues and agricultural intensification we are interested to make sure that this bill and other bills like it do not fundamentally threaten the cooperative structure of our dairy industry. That is why we will follow the submissions to the select committee. The cooperative structure of the industry is one of the key ways to protect New Zealand ownership. It has also been one of the key ways that we have built the dairy sector into such a productive sector of our economy. If we had not continued to support the cooperative structure and if we had just allowed a laissez faire approach to be taken which has been the ideology of both National and Labour Governments for much of the last couple of decades then we simply would not have a cooperative like Fonterra today. We would have a bunch of competing foreign-owned corporations that would not be adding much to the New Zealand economy whatsoever. The Wyatt Creech model which the National Government supports—Open Country Cheese—has been in conflict with Fonterra. It has been interesting to watch that and particularly to watch the latest labour relations episode up north. Of course lots of the local farmers had tremendous sympathy with the workers at Open Country Cheese. Local farmers have no sympathy for the Open Country Cheese corporation because it fundamentally threatens the cooperative structure of the industry. Most dairy farmers who are part of the cooperative understand that Open Country Cheese is part of the problem and have no sympathy for it whatsoever even though the National Party is in donkey deep with Open Country Cheese. 
One of the other things that I think has been quite interesting about Fonterra has been the growth of the organic milk sector. Some players that are independent of Fonterra have played an interesting role but we have also seen Fonterra play an important role in the development of the organic milk sector and in the increase in production out of organic milk. There is still a really long way to go and we certainly do not want this bill to threaten that but so far Fonterra has played a significant role in the emergence of the organic milk sector. We think that it could play a much bigger role than it does currently and we look forward to seeing Fonterra embrace the organic sector even more but none the less it has played a really important role. 
For those reasons and with those brief introductory comments I will leave it there. The only other thing I would say as the bill touches on the issue of water quality and Fonterra’s role in the agricultural sector is that it has been quite worrying to watch the Government going after water conservation orders attacking Fish and Game New Zealand and now attacking Environment Canterbury as an attempt to protect dirty dairying. The Government is basically acting in the best interests of the big irrigators rather than standing alongside the other parts of the industry. Lots of farmers inside Fonterra care deeply about water quality and are trying to do something about it to improve it whereas the Government is purely on the side of the irrigators and is trying to break water conservation orders trying to break Fish and Game New Zealand and now trying to break Environment Canterbury because it dares to stand up against the irrigators and dirty dairying. 
I think that most of the shareholders of Fonterra would like the Government to actually protect our clean green reputation which in the long run will be one of the key ways that we add value to dairy produce. By having a brand of integrity a brand that respects animal welfare and a brand that respects environmental performance as well as labour standards in the long run the value added by the dairy sector will be much higher than if New Zealand milk products are not seen as a brand of integrity. We will not have a brand of integrity if the Government of the day backs dirty dairying instead of clean dairying which is of course the policy of the current Government. In the long run that will undermine New Zealand’s image of being “100% pure and clean and green”. To me it seems quite important to support those elements in Fonterra who have a genuine interest in cleaning up the dairy sector and making sure that in the long run we have a brand of integrity with clean and green milk products coming out of New Zealand. Fonterra can play a key role in that. So the Greens will be looking at the submissions on this bill as they come into the select committee and we will be watching the issue closely. We will support the referral of the bill to the select committee. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise very briefly on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Amendment Bill. 
When I arrived in this place I was told many things as new MPs are. One of those things was in relation to the Greens—that with Dr Norman it all comes back to water and with the other one it all comes back to trees. We have just seen a wonderful example of that. I despair for the radio audience at home and I see in relation to the live audience that most of them have more sense than to be in here on such a nice day listening to us rabbit on at length about something that needs very little said. 
The bill promotes competition and gives farmers a choice about whom to sell their milk to. That is a very good idea and we support it and I do not intend to take up any more of the House’s time. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. Over the course of this urgency we have dealt with issues relating to DNA and identity the impact of gangs and organised crime and most recently the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. I want to say that those are very important issues for the Maori Party. They are issues that obviously strike at our heart as a people. In the space of one brief morning we have traversed issues relating to our whenua to the exercise of kaitiakitanga the relationships experienced by mana whenua the protection of whakapapa and the pursuit of whanau ora. In the context of these hefty matters of State it is somewhat humbling to now rise to make a contribution to this debate about the price of raw milk! 
The bill sets in place as I understand it a process to make new regulations for the auctioning of raw milk at a regulated price to independent processors. The thinking behind the legislation is to ensure that excess demand for regulated raw milk is managed efficiently. There will be a fair and efficient price and industry uncertainty will be removed. 
So what relevance does that have to the Maori Party and even more so to the constituents of Waiariki? Well we know that Maori are the largest natural grouping of pastoral farmers in Aotearoa. We farm an area of some 720000 hectares worth an estimated $7.5 billion. If that is not compelling enough Maori dairy owners own an estimated 100 million shares in Fonterra so roughly one in 12 Fonterra shares is sourced to Maori. The level of complexity and sophistication of the Maori farming business sector is such that some 19 of the 23 corporations in the Waiariki Maori Land Court district—that is 83 percent—have engaged a consultant. Further research found that every member of the Te Arawa Dairy Group a collection of Maori dairy incorporations and trusts employed a farm management consultant or other technical adviser. So what are we doing here today? We hope we will make those farmers’ jobs easier by introducing some consistency to the regulations around raw milk prices. 
There is much more than just putting up the price of milk at stake here. Looking at the 2006 census we see there were some 1323 Maori— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speak from the heart man. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —I am trying—dairy cattle farmers and another 372 Maori dairy cattle farm workers. I pulled these statistics out particularly for Mr Darren Hughes. In essence the bill permits the current regulated wholesale milk price to be replaced with the Fonterra farm-gate milk price. On top of that a price adjustment of 10c per kilogram of milk solids will be introduced from the 2010-11 dairy season and I am sure that will rock the socks off Mr Hughes again. Up to this point the wholesale raw milk price has underpriced regulated raw milk I tell Mr Hughes by between 10 and 35 cents per kilogram of milk solids. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s not right. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: OK. If that does not sound like much it adds up to a difference in price of between $5 million and $17 million per year. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Aue! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Ai taukiri e. Consultation was undertaken throughout the industry over the last 2 years and apparently there was widespread concern about Fonterra’s ability to manipulate the price of regulated milk. I am told that more consultation over the future of the regulated milk supply is planned by the end of next year. 
At this point the Maori Party is happy to let this bill go on to the select committee and mooove on— 
Hon Member 
: That was an ad lib. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Just let it mooove on— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Don’t milk it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —I never would—particularly so that people can have a say and not bleat on too much as it moves through the House and share their knowledge and wisdom about this particular bill which we hope will be able to progress rather rapidly. Kia ora tatou. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the first reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I think it is worth acknowledging some of the other speakers who have spoken before us and addressed some of these statements. This bill is hugely important to the nation’s economy and needs to be seen in the light that it deserves to be seen in. 
It is interesting to go back to the first Labour speaker Damien O’Connor who accused the Government of sitting on its hands. I would accuse the previous Labour Government of disregarding farmers because that member came into the House only due to the retirement of another member. That is where farming is measured in the minds of the Labour Party. Farmers are so far down the party list that they do not make it into the House unless somebody retires. From that point of view I think it is a bit lame and limp to accuse the Government of sitting on its hands when Labour did nothing to promote farming in its 9 long years in Government. 
Another point that is worth making is that Fonterra has been wearing this inequity for 7 years and the best that Labour could do when in Government was to just do a report. It has effectively been left up to a John Key - National-led Government to do something about it. Those are two points that I would like to make and put back to Labour—that it has sold farmers down the drain. 
With regard to the second speaker who spoke about primary growth partnerships we are very positive about that initiative. It will put $140 million per year into research and development and I am sure that it will satisfy the thirst of Andy West if Andy would only stay on the same verandah for more than 5 minutes. 
I turn to the comments from the Greens. They were advocating support for the cooperative model one minute then bashing up farming for every other reason in the next. I point out that it was Fonterra that initiated the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. It has been hugely successful and is something that we want to celebrate. At this time I also take the opportunity to acknowledge Barbara Stuart on the release of her book  
My Valley My River: The Rai Area  
and the efforts of Landcare Trust especially in my own electorate of Kaikoura and in the Rai Valley where it has done tremendous work in making sure that it develops best practice and improves on it. 
I will touch on the cooperative model for a moment. Having come from the meat industry I look at it with a high level of admiration. I have given it a lot of thought and in my mind the single answer for why there is a high level of cooperation within the dairy industry is that it is dealing with such a perishable product. If the industry did not cooperate within 4 days the product would be history. If we stop and think about the meat and wool industries we see that the meat industry shipped its first shipment of frozen meat from Port Chalmers in 1882 and it took months to get to its market and then it was sold. Meat is not as perishable as milk. When we look at wool we see that it is not uncommon for farmers to sit on their wool when prices are low. Today we are seeing a brave attempt by the Minister of Agriculture to work towards a position where we can lock in some gains for producers so that they do cooperate. 
I will now move on to the bill because it is very important. To give some context Fonterra is 90 percent of the industry but that is 90 percent with conditions. I sometimes lament the watchful eye of the Commerce Commission when it tries to make sure that all the competition rules are in place. When Fonterra was formed it had to pick up all the milk supplies. That meant that it had to pick up the milk supplies over in Takaka way out there in Golden Bay. It had to pick up milk in places where it was not economically viable. 
Shane Ardern 
: And paid the same price. 
COLIN KING 
: As my learned friend Shane Ardern mentions Fonterra had to pay the same price. There is no level playing field for Fonterra. 
When we look at it in the context of competition we can see competition sprouting up in the areas where there is low apple production and fewer opportunities. The second Labour speaker also mentioned that we are not seeing innovation. I say to that member and to the rest of the Opposition that we are certainly not seeing innovation from the competition. In actual fact if you look at the commercial disciplines around being successful you produce the cheapest simplest product— 
Grant Robertson 
: I’m sure the Speaker doesn’t. 
COLIN KING 
:—and I was not referring to you Mr Speaker. I apologise. We go about making a product as efficiently and as cheaply as possible and we do not take risks in adding value. If we look at where the value is being added we see the innovative way that Fonterra has been able to market its products into 140 to 150 other countries overcoming trade tariffs and overcoming tariff barriers of up to 70 percent. I think it is cruel to an extreme to point the finger at Fonterra and say it is not innovative. If there is one fault with Fonterra it is that it has become too good too soon. As my friend Shane Ardern mentioned it has had year-on-year growth of 5.8 percent. If our economy had risen to that level we would be back to where we should be aiming—in the top half of the OECD. 
We have 600 million litres of milk available. That is quite interesting because the way the restructuring Act of 2001 was worded the Minister of Agriculture may require a new cooperative which was Fonterra to supply up to 5 percent of its New Zealand milk supply to independent processors at a regulated price. So that is what we are actually talking about. It is all very good but we are right on that threshold already. 
This bill will be referred to the Primary Production Committee which we will be ably chaired by my learned friend Shane Ardern from Taranaki - King Country and it will be dealt with in a very professional manner. We will deal with it in such a way that there is the best outcome possible for Fonterra because we are very very proud of Fonterra. It has the critical mass it has an international brand and on that basis we can celebrate it internationally. It is the only international company in this land mass of some 4.5 million people and is a shining light of direction to many of our much older pastoral sector industries such as the meat industry and the dairy industry. 
It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House and I look forward to the opportunity of casting our eye over it at the select committee. Thank you very much. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. Agriculture is the life blood of this country and should never be forgotten. Whenever agriculture takes a setback the effect is felt right throughout the rest of New Zealand over a period of time. The cities feel the very negative effect of the setbacks that happen in agriculture. I do not think people in our cities understand enough the importance of agriculture to our economy. 
In agriculture dairy has its rightful place. Fonterra is an outstanding example of an industry that has taken itself to the international stage and has been one of the leading performers. The dairy farmers of Fonterra work pretty hard. It is a hard life but it is a good life. They are prepared to do the hard yards and if people understood what they actually did on the farm they would probably have a much greater appreciation of the time and effort that goes into our milk industry. Why should the dairy farmers of Fonterra put all that effort in just for the results of that hard work to go into somebody else’s pocket? It is great to see the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill going through this process to make sure it is much fairer and more equitable for the farmers who are doing the hard graft to produce that milk and that they can do so with the least interference. There should be as minimal interference as possible in the industry while also making sure that it is fair and equitable. 
It came to my attention that Mr Anderton did not consider the arrangements that were in place as a subsidy. That clearly shows that he does not fully understand the issues. On the flip side the Greens considered that it was a subsidy and liked it because it was. That is typical of the Greens. They want what others have got or they expect others to pay for what they want. That is the typical Greens scenario. I also point out that Fonterra supplies organic milk. In actual fact Fonterra is the biggest supplier of organic milk. So instead of bagging it all the time maybe it is about time the Greens gave it some bouquets and told it what a great job it is doing in terms of organic milk. Fonterra is actually calling for more suppliers of organic milk. However it is up to farmers to choose whether they want to take up the opportunity to provide organic milk or continue with the standard milk supply. Over time the market demand might change which might change the minds of farmers. It is quite clear that in the United States the market demand for organics is on the increase. There are ever-growing market opportunities for organic products. 
One of the continuing problems for the agricultural sector is the on-farm costs. They are the costs that keep building year on year. The worst of those on-farm costs is rates—council rates. Everybody thinks they can clip the ticket whenever a farmer purchases something or has to pay for something. Everybody has the till out and they are clipping the ticket for as much as they can get out of the farming sector. At some point that has to change. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Sorry to interrupt the member. The noise level is too loud. I am having difficulty hearing the member. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: At least in the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill we are getting somewhere and stepping in the right direction. I am delighted that National is taking this initiative. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge some of the speakers who have gone before. I could not quite follow the logic of the Green Party speaker and his assertions—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I was keen to try—over the cooperative model. 
Just for the record the export dairy industry was initially founded in the 1800s by an immigrant to Taranaki from China a Mr Chew Chong. He bought fungus from Taranaki farmers which was sent overseas for bird’s nest soup and that sort of thing. On occasions he also bought dairy products and in particular salted butter. He was a speculative individual and an enterprising person. He sent a barrel of salted butter to the UK and had it immediately sent back again to New Zealand to check the quality. It returned in perfect condition and that started the beginning of export products to the UK from the dairy industry. However unfortunately for Mr Chong as his business grew—I think he was at Eltham—the industry developed into some proprietary production companies and some cooperatives a referendum was held and the industry determined to establish itself as a cooperative industry. That has been repeated I think twice since then. It is not an accident that dairy farmers work in a cooperative. It was a deliberate considered intention. 
Also price management is not new to the dairy industry. Indeed when I was involved in that particular industry I well recall there were limits. I think my colleagues here will be able to help me out. I think any price for a new season could be only 10 percent above the price of the previous season and it could be only 5 percent below the price of the previous season. [ 
Interruption 
] An equalisator was not necessarily in economic terms the best way to run an industry because what happened I think it was in the 1980s was that the Dairy Board carried a full year’s value of cash equivalent so that it could pay farmers out on that basis. But I would have thought Labour would be singing more joyfully about the whole thing even though it has been very good in supporting it because Labour Governments of the past have certainly been fundamental to the development and growth of the dairy industry and Labour should be able to share in the parliamentary pride. I think it was 1936 when the Labour Government responded to industry calls for assistance and introduced a minimum price for milkfat of—I do not know someone might be able to help me again—I think it was a shilling a pound. Again it provided stability. It provided certainty. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Amendment Bill does the same thing. We are enacting procedures that have a historical part to play in the industry. The dairy industry is a very very strong part of the New Zealand economy. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Say it again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I certainly will say it again. The dairy industry is a very very strong part of the New Zealand economy. 
Shane Ardern 
: How strong? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is extraordinarily strong. 
The National-led Government is committed to delivering growth to ensure prosperity for all New Zealanders. Part of this commitment is ensuring a fair and competitive business environment. The bill provides that for the farming and dairy sectors. The interesting thing is—and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House will forgive me and indulge me— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We’re always forgiving the member! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am sure they will indulge me if I point out that I have not heard any comments from that side of the House on the real value of independent cooperatives operating within New Zealand. The second-largest dairy company in New Zealand is the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. It declined to join with Fonterra and it has had a very successful time since the amalgamation and it will continue to do so. It works in harmony with the rest of the industry. 
Shane Ardern 
: Plus the local member. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you. It would be wrong of me as the local member not to mention the excellent efforts made by Westland and by Tatua Co-operative Dairy Co. which I think would be the third-largest company in New Zealand. It has been known for a very very long time for the way in which it has developed. I think it started with frozen creams and aerosol creams. There is certainly no lack of initiative no lack of enterprise and no lack of good management within the New Zealand dairy industry. 
I will just finish by acknowledging the contribution that you Mr Deputy Speaker have made to the dairy industry in a previous career. It was a time that I shared with you at the Dairy Board and I would like to acknowledge the time we had together. [ 
Interruption 
] No it was not a load of bull. I was involved not only in artificial breeding but also in dairy products themselves. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That the Primary Production Committee consider the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 2 March 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet 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 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. 
Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill be now read a second time 
. The Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill proposes three main amendments. The first is to allow for trade in securities and other products to be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial sector. The second is to align the regulation and exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets and to provide that a person approved by the operator of an authorised futures exchange is an authorised futures dealer. The third is to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units. 
The Commerce Committee made a number of useful changes to ensure that the legislation better achieves those objectives. The definition of “insolvency” was deleted and replaced with a new definition relating to when a participant becomes subject to an insolvency event on the date and time when an insolvency officer is appointed in respect of the participant. It is critical that the moment at which a participant becomes subject to an insolvency event is clear since new section 156S removes the finality protection in respect of a participant’s settlements 24 hours after the participant becomes subject to a specified insolvency event. 
Several amendments were also made to avoid potential problems in the event that a participant in a settlement transaction was declared insolvent while the settlement was only partly completed. The bill provides that the finality protection extends for 24 hours after the commencement of an insolvency to complete any settlement that was already in progress. In addition a further amendment means that an insolvent participant could regain finality protection if his or her transactions were duly authorised by the relevant insolvency officer appointed upon insolvency. Additional changes of a technical nature were made to ensure effective alignment between the bill and other relevant legislation including the Companies Act 1993 the Insolvency Act 2006 and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006. For example the amendments clarify which legislation applies to netting under the rules of a designated system and to netted balances as defined by the Companies Act and the Insolvency Act. This means that for any transactions subject to netting under the rules of a designated settlement system the general setting-off provisions in section 310 of the Companies Act or section 254 of the Insolvency Act would apply to the resulting balance and any transactions between the parties that were not netted. 
The intention of the bill is that those provisions prevail over the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act in regard to settlements made in accordance with the rules of a designated settlement system. The bill as it stands maintains various penalties for offences relating to a designated settlement system ranging from fines and imprisonment to revocation of designation. One change was made to bring the maximum fine for a body corporate into line with other jurisdictions. A number of changes were also made to the matters to be considered by regulators. New sections were inserted to expressly include the adequacy of a settlement system. Financial resources are among the factors that may be considered by the regulators in deciding whether to grant vary or revoke a designation. In the light of recent financial market failures this addition is a worthwhile precaution in conjunction with the existing general reference to considering the capability and capacity of the system operators. Another factor that regulators may consider in decisions regarding a designation is the impact on participant creditors of specifying that a settlement systems operator’s interest in property transferred to the operator by a participant or in which the participant has granted a security interest to the operator has priority over security interests in the property under new section 103A of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999. 
The final change I note is the change to the period within which the joint regulators the Reserve Bank and the Securities Commission could disallow a proposed amendment to the rules of a designated settlement system which is to be reduced from 40 working days to 20 working days. Should the regulators not disallow an amendment a provision was also made to enable them to notify the contact person of the designated settlement system and to allow the amendment to come into effect earlier than the end of the 20 working days. 
I want to record my appreciation of the participation of many members of the financial sector through the select committee process along with the work of the officials and indeed the Commerce Committee itself. It did some fantastic work. I appreciate that other parties in the House are keen to see this bill progress as part of an overarching commitment to building a sound and effective regulatory environment. I commend the bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statement 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. E mihi nui ana au ki a koutou e nga iwi tatou katoa o tenei wahi te Whare Paremata. Tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
I acknowledge you immensely people—all of us of this place Parliament House. Greetings to you all. 
] 
It is 10 years minus a month since I first entered this place. This is a short time compared with the contribution of lifers like Helen Clark and Michael Cullen whose valedictories we heard so recently. Little did I realise then that I would be next. Although 10 years is not much compared with the time served by many members in this House it is long enough in the scale of a lifetime. Over the 4 months following my loss of the Green co-leadership election in May it became clear to me that my heart was no longer really in this job and that it was time for me to move on despite the fact that so much remains to be done. 
I never expected to become an MP. Some members may remember the run-up to the 1999 election when Nandor Tanczos and I were on the receiving end of some fairly vicious attacks. I will never forget Helen Clark standing up publicly for me at that time in the media. Nor will I forget the Green Party for having the courage to support putting both Nandor and me in high places on the party list despite our backgrounds in radical and street politics and despite lots of criminal convictions in my case; I will not speak for Nandor. I tried to repay the confidence shown by my party by doing the best job that I could every day of my time here even in the period since I lost a portion of my usually innate hope and enthusiasm earlier this year. 
I know that it is an enormous privilege to be elected as a member of Parliament and to be paid a high salary to represent the parties and voters that put us here. I have always taken this privilege very seriously remaining acutely aware that many hundreds of thousands of people in this country are living on wages or benefits way below what it costs to maintain even a remotely quality standard of living. Every time that MPs’ salaries have been lifted it has been deeply embarrassing that there is no mechanism whereby for example our pay could go up only if the minimum wage was to be lifted to certain levels at the same time. 
We all have an obligation in this House to do the best job we can. I think most of us here take that pretty seriously no matter which party we are from. It continues to sadden me that so many people particularly in the world out there of the blogs and talkback so casually dismiss we New Zealand MPs as being corrupt lazy or incompetent or all those things simultaneously. Although there are and have been a few exceptions and I have noted a few in my time here I believe that most MPs put their hearts into the job to the best of their ability. Those citizens who so easily condemn us would do well I think to contemplate what it would be like if we did not have a parliamentary democracy in this country but were subject to governance through the machete and the gun as still happens sadly in so many other parts of the world. What we hold here is very precious. 
In the last few weeks people have kept asking me what I think I have achieved in this place. Although I think it is far more appropriate for others to pass judgment on this I will just make a few comments. First I think there is no question that my member’s bill amending section 59 of the Crimes Act and removing the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction is the most significant thing that I have been able to accomplish here and it will be what I go down for in history whether I like it or not. I am deeply grateful that with huge support from non-governmental organisations outside Parliament and from 113 MPs inside we were able in 2007 to pass a law that now means children are entitled to the same legal protection that we adults enjoy. I also commend John Key and the National Government for sticking to their principles on this issue in the face of huge pressure from the proponents of the recent referendum the results of which were deeply flawed as a result of the confused proposition on which it was based. 
I realise that the section 59 controversy is an issue that has not gone away. The debate is not over and many New Zealanders continue to believe sadly that a parent’s right to physically discipline his or her child supersedes a child’s right to grow up free from violence. However it is my firm belief—and research is beginning to demonstrate this—that ever since the child discipline debate began seriously there has been a steady and growing change in thinking on this issue with more and more people coming to believe that bringing up children without violence is better not only for the children and babies involved but also for families communities and society as a whole. One day I believe that people will look back and wonder why on earth our country tore itself apart over whether there should be a legal defence for assaulting children. Meanwhile there is a job for all of us to do in working for a society in which all children and young people are treated as being worthy of innate respect rather than as being the property of their parents. 
Last week I was in a car-parking building in Auckland when a young woman approached me tentatively in that way that most members will know when strangers come up and are not quite sure who we are or whether they want to talk to us. She said: “Oh you’re that lady”. I stopped expecting her to say something positive or negative about section 59 and then she went on to say: “Oh you’re that lady who got us proper wages. I took my school out on that demo we had in support of your bill.” That was a lovely moment knowing that for some people that is what I will be remembered for. I sincerely hope that no Government will in future turn back the clock on the youth minimum wage. 
I also welcome the support that came from every single party in this House for my member’s bill extending the time that some mothers can keep their babies with them in prison. I hope that this small but significant reform will help underpin further much-needed changes in the way that we deal with mothers and children who are caught up in the prison system. 
I had a brief brush with Government too in my one-term tenure as spokesperson on Buy Kiwi Made. Jeanette Fitzsimons and I shared the unique constitutional innovation of being Government spokespeople under the previous Government. Although of course the experience did not come near to the genuine participation in Cabinet to which both of us aspired I learnt a little more of the inner workings of Government—perhaps I will not go into that here—and I was honoured to do what I could to help nurture New Zealand manufacturing a sector of our economy that deserves a lot more recognition and support than it often gets. 
Finally I think the achievement that counts the most for me is that from the perspective of my own personal and political core values and those of the Green Party I have never sold out. Before I went to Parliament I talked with a number of close friends and colleagues and asked them to let me know right away if they ever saw me forgetting where I came from or whose side I was on. They promised to let me know if I deviated and if that ever happened then I knew I would either have to change my position or leave. Happily neither Parliament nor the Green Party has ever put me in the position of having to make that kind of choice. 
I will now return to the Parliament of the streets and I leave behind nine colleagues to carry forward our collective kaupapa as strongly and as clearly as I have always endeavoured to do. Kia ora. 
The moment has come when I must make a few acknowledgments with apologies to the many people whom I will not be able to mention due to a lack of time. First and foremost I pay tribute to Jeanette Fitzsimons and the late Rod Donald for their inspirational leadership of our first generation of Green MPs and for their personal support for me especially in those early years before there was much acceptance of the fact that I might actually be up to this job. I also thank all my fellow Green MPs over the years and Green Party members for their support and friendship and for the fact that I think we were the first political party in Parliament ever to send MPs to officially take part in demonstrations overseas when Nandor Tanczos and I represented the Green Party at the World Economic Forum actions in Melbourne in 2000. 
I also thank former Speaker Jonathan Hunt for the kindly mentoring role that he took with me in my early years here. I acknowledge not only Jonathan but also Dr Paul Hutchison and David Parker for the friendships we formed on that rather memorable Speaker’s tour—those are other stories that I will not tell here. 
Looking up at the gallery today I am touched by how many people are here from the various community church and union organisations that I have worked with in the last 10 years. I would have achieved nothing in this place without the close working relationships that I have had with those people and with other key people in sector groups across all my multifarious portfolios. From the beneficiary advocacy groups I particularly thank people like Kaye Brereton Tony McGurk Quentin Jukes Graham Howell and Paul Blair for the way in which they have kept in touch with me and have supported and advised me on how best to take the struggle for jobs and a living wage forward in this place of power. 
Of the non-governmental organisation representatives involved in the huge task of amending section 59 of the Crimes Act I particularly acknowledge today Beth Wood Mike Coleman Ian Hassall Deborah Morris Travers Robert Ludbrooke Sonya Hogan Murray Edridge and there are so many more of them. The reasonable force defence was removed only because of their hard work and commitment over many years. The children of our country thank all of them. 
I also acknowledge all my union friends including the late Luci Highfield for their support and encouragement in our collective endeavours to defend and improve wages and conditions for the working people of this country. From the racing portfolio—and I do not even know how many people knew I had the racing portfolio—I will just make a special mention of Dr Murray Blue of the Stratford Racing Club in Taranaki. He has always stood ready to assist with sound advice and a deep commitment to the welfare and well-being of the small clubs that make up the backbone of racing in the industry’s neglected heartlands. 
I also acknowledge the many friends I have made across this House—again I cannot mention all of them—from people like Katherine Rich Chester Borrows and Simon Power in National who became unusual allies at times—eh Chester—to the many Labour Party people and there are so many of them I cannot name them; the Maori Party friends; and even members of other parties like ACT. I hope that the genuine friendships I have with some of those members will continue long after I leave this place. 
I must take a moment to also mention the amazing staff who work to support us in our jobs here from all the executive assistants who have worked with me over the years the out-of-Parliament staff in Auckland and the Wellington-based Green staff here in the office through to the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff select committee officials security guards and messengers library staff and so many others without whom none of our work would get done. 
Finally I will take a moment to return to politics. There is a Leonard Cohen song that many members will know—being of my generation—that starts “They sentenced me to 20 years of boredom for trying to change the system from within”. That song has been a bit of a theme tune for me in the last 10 years but I have to say that the 10 years I have spent in the maw of the system have not been at all boring. However I am really looking forward to returning to politics on the outside. 
We are living in a time of economic and environmental crisis. There appears to be no real willingness from either Labour-led Governments or National-led Governments to take real leadership on issues like dealing with the impacts of climate change or seriously reducing the deepening gap between rich and poor. Until we are prepared to take a long hard look at our economic system at how it works and in whose interests it operates we are all on a hiding to nowhere. Capitalism is not providing the answers that we need in order to find a way forward and some of us at least must be brave enough to seek out viable democratic and peaceful alternatives. 
People elected to Parliament are expected to lead but doing the same things that do not work over and over again is not leading. Unless we are willing to challenge the status quo to examine power relationships and inequality and to do something about addressing core issues nothing will change for the better for those who have the least or for the natural world our species is so bent on destroying. There will be no safe and secure future as long as we have a system that supports and encourages inequality rather than seriously addresses the causes of poverty. Anyone who thinks that we are not heading for an economic crash is I think quite deluded. We had a big warning we pretended for a moment that we would deal with it and then we kept doing the same things all over again believing in the meanwhile all that nonsense about green shoots. 
If people in communities learning institutions marae and workplaces around the country want things to change structurally for the better we will need to be committed to working for change ourselves without expecting politicians to do it for us or to come up with all the answers. The chances are that politicians will not take the leadership needed not unless they are really pressed. I am going back out into the world determined to contribute what I can to raising people’s awareness of the power that we hold in our hands if we really do want to change the world and to help as best I can with the never-ending task of working to help to make our country a better place for all of us to live in not just some of us. 
Once again I thank all my family my friends my colleagues and my comrades for their love and support over the last 10 years. I look forward to continuing our collective mahi in the days months and years ahead. Kia ora koutou. 
Waiata 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are about 2 minutes away from the dinner break and the House is clearly a little distracted from its current business. Accordingly I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner break at this point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5:58 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill is designed to help facilitate trading in emissions units through the development of carbon markets. It will apply regardless of whether the units are issued by the New Zealand Government via international protocols or by other Governments. The bill allows for a broadening of how an emissions unit is defined—this is very important given that carbon trading is still in its infancy particularly in this part of the world. The bill also provides a basis for establishing the legal title to emissions units much like the title surrounding for example tradable shares. Participants in the carbon trading system—which is voluntary—who wish to become designated and then maintain that status must ensure that their operating rules meet certain standards including international standards and those of the joint regulators the Reserve Bank and the Securities Commission. This provision concerning joint regulation is the result of a change recommended by the Commerce Committee. 
This bill would help—but is no means vital—to set up and implement the emissions trading scheme. The bill was before the House last year because it was introduced by the previous Labour Government in September 2008 but since then we have had a change of Government and seen a drastic shift in policy surrounding climate change and emissions trading. It has not been a shift to the country’s benefit. Because of this Government’s lack of direction on climate change we have missed out on—but could have had—a world-leading carbon market. That could have placed us at the forefront of environmental and climate change policy and reinforced our place as a role model in the international community. However the Government’s lack of direction on climate change has limited the possibility of our making any gains on the environmental and emissions trading front. We have seen dithering from this Government in the areas of climate change policy and emissions trading. 
To begin with the Government’s delaying of the emissions trading scheme has already caused our emerging carbon markets to grind to a halt. The forestry sector has suffered hugely from this due to a documented lack of international investment. Foresters remain unsure of whether to sell their credits trade them or just sit on them—assuming they took an allocation of credits when the allocation became available. The dithering over forestry combined with the repeal of the preference for renewable electricity generation the removal of the biofuels obligation the replacement of the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy—for which there is still no alternative—and the confusion in generation policy caused by the confusion evinced by the Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee over the existence or not of the 90 percent renewables target has left New Zealand well down the order when it comes to climate change initiatives. So this bill is important and needs to be brought forward quickly in order to allow us to salvage what we can out of the carbon trading space. It is a real shame that it was not brought forward much more quickly. This is just another example of how this Government is mucking around in the important area of climate change. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Nine long years. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I welcome Ms Shanks back from Europe. I am sure she would have heard much criticism of New Zealand’s backsliding when she was there. This bill provides us with yet more evidence of that backsliding. I do not know what the Government thinks that it will get by way of a welcome at Copenhagen—[ 
Interruption 
]—apart from the “Fossil of the Year” award perhaps as my colleague Moana Mackey just said. It certainly will not be a warm welcome and it certainly will not accord with the Government’s wish to get policy concessions in important areas like forestry and land use. That is certain given the reputation we seem to have garnered in the last year of not taking this area seriously. 
The other disappointment is that this bill has not been given higher priority on the Order Paper—even though the House I might add has been under urgency for the last 6 parliamentary weeks. This is a concern because the bill should have been treated with more urgency. It is one of the few in the urgency motion that actually merits its place. The Government is intending to ram through an undermined emissions trading scheme yet it is dragging its feet on implementing the necessary regulatory framework to create a sound environment for the emissions trading scheme to operate in—namely this bill. If the Government’s attitude to consultation over the emissions trading scheme—which has been to avoid consultation and democracy as we have seen over the last couple of weeks in the select committee—is carried over to bills such as this one which supports an emissions trading scheme then we should be seriously worried that in setting up such a framework stakeholders may not be able to have as much input as would be desirable and beneficial. 
We are fortunate that the financial sector has been helpful in making submissions on this legislation to the Commerce Committee which is so ably chaired by my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel. I hope that it will continue to make that sort of constructive input because the Government’s attitude to input so far really does not offer much encouragement. If the passing of this bill had been expedited and there had not been the dilly-dallying over climate change policy that we have seen over the last year New Zealand would by now have a leading carbon registry. National could have taken up the previous Labour Government’s initiative on the emissions trading scheme and pushed through supporting legislation such as this. 
Let us look at what this has cost us apart from the forestry example I gave earlier. TZ1 could have been the prototype of an international carbon registry. It could have given us a huge competitive advantage given where we were moving in climate change policy and our geographical advantage. Mr Lotu-Iiga knows about this because he has experience in this sector. Given our time zone it could have been of great advantage to us to have a leading international carbon registry. But now that has been sold to overseas interests. Perhaps the outcome reflects the Government’s lack of confidence in managing things or perhaps it reveals more worryingly the fact that it really does not care about implementing sound climate change policy. The tragic truth is that it is probably a bit of both. 
Labour will continue to support the progress of this bill through the House but with reservations in regard to the Government’s treatment of it and the issues that surround it. We reflect with regret on the consequences I have outlined—the loss of a chance to be an outstanding and forward-thinking international citizen and the loss of the opportunity through TZ1 to be a global leader in carbon registries. It is important to record here and now that the blame for those two issues lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the National Government supported on this shameful occasion by the Maori Party. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power and also the chair of the Commerce Committee and the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel who introduced this bill in September 2008. The Commerce Committee of which I am a member received and considered 12 submissions and reported on 22 June this year on the bill. 
The bill is designed to align New Zealand’s clearing and settlement system with international best practice. It is also designed to facilitate trading in futures and emissions units. Firstly it provides that trades in securities and other products can be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial markets. Secondly it aligns the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both the securities and futures markets. Thirdly it allows market participants who are approved by an authorised futures exchange to be deemed to be authorised to deal in futures contracts. Finally it clarifies the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. 
The bill provides settlement systems operating in New Zealand with the option of applying for designation. Designation provides additional legal protections to support the integrity of the system in the case of a participant’s insolvency or default. Specifically it provides the operators of a designated settlement system with priority under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999. At present New Zealand’s legislation provides for the designation of payment systems under Part VC of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. As has been stated by the two previous speakers the bill aligns the regulation of exchanges that are seeking to operate in both the securities and futures markets. The Securities Markets Act 1988 currently provides one process for registering a securities exchange and a separate process for authorising a futures exchange. The bill amends the Securities Markets Act so that an exchange registered under Part 2B of that Act may be registered either in respect of securities markets or futures markets only or in respect of both securities markets and futures markets. The choice is open to those who are seeking such registration. 
The bill also provides that market participants who have been approved by an authorised futures exchange under its operating rules are authorised to deal in futures contracts on any futures markets operated by the authorised futures exchange. That does not affect the ability of the Securities Commission to authorise futures dealers more generally but codifies the existing class authorisations granted by the Securities Commission and makes them available to any authorised futures exchange. 
The previous speaker touched on emissions units and I want to comment briefly on them. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is doing good work on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. But this bill clarifies the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. This applies as Mr Chauvel has stated to both units issued as part of a statutory scheme and units issued in the voluntary market. It does take into account the Kyoto Protocol. It gives effect to the policy through technical amendments to existing legislation. For example the bill clarifies that emissions units will be treated like other forms of property under the Securities Act 1978. As a result trading in emissions units will not need to meet the requirements of the regulatory regime for offers of securities or the relevant provisions of the Securities Markets Act until they are part of an investment scheme. 
I was a member of the Commerce Committee which sat and listened to submissions on the bill. The key recommendation from the committee to replace the definition of insolvency with a new definition of “becomes subject to an insolvency event”. This is critical because it is the moment at which a participant becomes subject to an insolvency event and it is much clearer. The committee proposed several amendments to avoid potential problems in the event that a participant in a settlement transaction became subject to an insolvency event while the settlement was only partly completed. Although such a situation is unlikely it is wise to close any gap in the difference in timing between those two events especially in the current global financial climate. The bill as introduced provides that the finality protection extends until the earlier of 24 hours after the commencement of the insolvency or the time when the designated settlement systems contact person has notice or ought to have notice of the insolvency. The committee’s recommendation that finality protection would extend for 24 hours after the commencement of insolvency is regardless of when the contact person has such notice. This would remove any uncertainty over the receipt of notice while maintaining a 24-hour window after the commencement of an insolvency in which to complete any settlements that were already in progress. 
I will now touch on penalties. The bill proposes various penalties for offences relating to designated settlement systems ranging from fines and imprisonment to the revocation of designation. It was submitted that the revocation of designation was the only necessary and effective penalty. But the committee concluded that a range of penalties is more appropriate as revocation is an extreme measure under any circumstance. Without lesser penalties minor or even moderate offences that did not warrant revocation might go unpunished and that would inevitably undermine the system. There is also a need for penalties against individuals as the committee believes the possibility of employees being held personally accountable would greatly increase the incentive to comply. After comparing those penalties with penalties in other jurisdictions the committee proposed one change to the level of penalty for corporate bodies. It recommended that the maximum fine for a body corporate should be reduced from $1 million to $750000 bringing it into line with fines in other jurisdictions. 
I have given a summary of the key issues that were involved within the committee in bringing this bill to its second reading and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to stand and take a call on the second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. I acknowledge the work that was done by the Commerce Committee on this bill. 
Todd McClay 
: A very orange speech. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Mr McClay. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was the Minister who brought this legislation into Parliament. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has said this bill has a very complicated title and is technical in its substance but it is very important. It helps us to facilitate trading in emissions units through the development of carbon markets. As has been said it does so regardless of whether those units are issued by the New Zealand Government or issued internationally. 
I am also pleased to see the broadening of the definition of “emissions units” which allows for the innovation and development of what will inevitably happen in a carbon-trading market that is in its infancy. The bill provides the basis for establishing a legal title for emissions units which will be important as we move forward and as carbon markets become far more important both domestically and around the world. The system is voluntary and those who want to become part of it become designated and to maintain that status must ensure that they meet certain rules and standards. Although this bill is obviously very important to the emissions trading scheme that scheme does not rely on it for its implementation. 
I come back to some comments that were made by my colleague Charles Chauvel. This bill was introduced into the House last year. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in June and has languished on the Order Paper while other legislation which in all honesty would be deemed to be far less important was progressed through the House. The fact that the Government has allowed this bill to languish is an indication of how seriously it takes emissions trading schemes. This is a very important bill for our international credibility and I think the Government did this while being well aware that it was going to dither and faff around on emissions trading so there really was no reason— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How do you spell that? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is f-a-f-f. It is a technical term. It is a word Mr Gilmore did not invent which is hard to believe! I come back to the bill. I endorse the comments my colleague Charles Chauvel made. I am currently a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which is looking at the legislation to amend Labour’s emissions trading scheme. That legislation is being pushed through with unnecessary haste after no action since this Government came into power. 
The committee members are in the position that we do not have time to do the work that we are meant to do as a service to this House and as elected members of Parliament. We do not have time to consider departmental reports and revision-tracked legislation. I have never been on a select committee that has been under such ridiculous time pressure—ridiculous. When that committee reports back and members of the public can see what went on at that committee and see what members may or may not have done to try to get more time I think it will be quite clear that this Government does not take emissions trading seriously at all. I say that with great regret because there are missed opportunities as a result of this legislation and the emissions trading scheme being delayed. 
One missed opportunity was the chance to have a world-leading carbon registry based here in New Zealand. It was from an organisation that wanted to look for a country that was in the time zone New Zealand is in. It wanted a country on the opposite side of the world so that when people in that organisation were asleep New Zealand was awake. It would have been a 24-hour service. That organisation looked and it found a country that was not the first in the world to have an emissions trading scheme but it was certainly taking it seriously and putting in place a scheme that had environmental and economic credibility. It was a country that would have been perfect for establishing a carbon—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Dr Mapp to wake up. OK clearly my speech is as enthralling as that. His colleague might like to wake him up. 
We had the opportunity to have a carbon registry in New Zealand that would be world leading. It would have provided jobs and wealth to New Zealand and we lost it. We lost it because of this Government’s actions on the emissions trading scheme. The Government should be ashamed of that. Labour supports this legislation. We brought this legislation into the House. We brought it in at the time when we had a functioning emissions trading scheme and the possibility of having an active carbon market in New Zealand. That has been shot to bits by this Government. People in the forestry sector do not know where they are. They do not know whether to get the credits and they do not know whether they can sell them or sit on them. They do not know what to do because no one knows. We do not have any certainty around this emissions trading scheme. 
The only certainty we have is that generations of New Zealand taxpayers will be paying billions of dollars—billions of dollars—to prop up the heaviest emitters in New Zealand. That is not fair and it should not be happening. 
Hon David Parker 
: What’s the subsidy per employee? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The subsidy per employee at Rio Tinto interestingly enough is about $200000 a year. It is $200000 per employee per year and subsidies are going to Rio Tinto. It might have been cheaper if that employer had— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: The member needs to get a calculator and learn some literacy and numeracy lessons so she can actually count. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That employer would probably just want the $200000 because I bet that the employees are not being paid $200000. Mr Gilmore is going very red in the face at the moment now. I realise that he was instrumental in setting up the Kyoto Protocol and we need to show him respect for doing that. In fact I think he defined the terms “global warming” and “climate change” and I bow before his greater knowledge. I look forward to his speech when he will regale us with the way that he has worked largely in this area and has developed a system around the world. 
But the fact is that the scheme we have now has no economic credibility and no environmental credibility. We are setting up a carbon registry system that we will not even be able to use properly because we have legislation that will not work. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to outline a few points behind the Green Party’s decision to support the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill at its second reading as we did at its first reading. 
First of all I state that the Green Party shares absolutely Labour’s critique of the Government’s climate change policies but we note that the regulatory framework that this bill sets up will be necessary for the development of a viable emissions trading scheme and carbon trading market in the future. Who knows? Possibly even the groundswell of public opinion and indeed the international opprobrium that the Government will encounter in Copenhagen may be sufficient to change this Government’s policies on climate change and we may find the regulatory framework to be of use sooner than we thought. 
In general I will make about four points. The first is that it is important that New Zealand’s regulation of settlements is brought up to date and is in line with world best practice. The Green Party supports the bill from that perspective. Secondly the bill goes a long way towards clarifying how settlements are made and the mechanisms for resolving issues when disputes arise. That is very important in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and it will give participants a lot more certainty on how they manage their risk. Thirdly clarifying who carries the risk at what stage of a transaction is vital if our stock market is to function competitively. We support the bill for that reason also. There is inherent risk in the Reserve Bank being both a regulator and a participant. The Commerce Committee has made some adjustments and it has retained the Commerce Commission as a co-regulator. That may well address the issue adequately but we must remain vigilant and monitor that particular aspect. 
In finishing—I did say that this would be a short call—I am struck by the contrast between the debate we are having on this bill and the speech the House heard from my friend and colleague Sue Bradford immediately prior to the dinner break. I remind the House that Sue spoke about the warning we have been given over I guess the last 18 months of a collapse in the global economy that is inherent in the way it is structured. That economy has acted as a huge imposition on the real economy. When we examine the factors that have been implicated in the warning that we have been given by the crisis that we have faced over the last 18 months we see that the speculative economy has played a very great role. It is clear from most of the world’s Governments and international organisations that part of the formula for remedying that problem is to have greater regulation of the speculative economy. Members of this House would be familiar with the Green Party’s policy of trying to redirect investment away from the speculative economy and into the real economy and aware of our proposals for various measures to achieve that: transaction taxes a capital gains tax and limitations on losses that could be attributed to loss attributing qualifying companies. All of those measures will be important. Fundamental regulatory change to the way that we handle the speculative economy will be necessary. 
In some ways the adjustments that we are making to the regulatory framework today seem like tidying up rather than rearranging the deckchairs on the  
Titanic 
. A much greater reform of that framework will be required and the Green Party remains committed to holding the House to that obligation. But that said the changes the bill makes to the regulatory framework are necessary and the Green Party will continue to support this bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call and speak in favour of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill this evening. This bill was first brought into Parliament in September last year by Lianne Dalziel who was then the Minister of Commerce. The current Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power is now in charge of it for its second reading and its Committee of the whole House stage. 
This bill addresses three areas. The first is to do with settlement systems. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 is amended to provide for the designation of systems that clear and settle products not just payments. The second area is futures. The Securities Markets Act 1988 is amended to align the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets and to provide that market participants approved by an authorised futures exchange are deemed to be authorised to deal in future contracts. The third area is emissions units. The Securities Act 1978 the Securities Markets Act 1988 and the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 are amended in order to clarify the legal treatment of emissions units. 
This bill had some quite complex issues attached to it so I take this opportunity to thank the officials. They gave us some fantastic advice and kept on simplifying these complex issues so that we understood them properly and understood the impact that this legislation will have on the sector. I also thank the submitters who made some very complex detailed submissions to the Commerce Committee. I acknowledge the NZX for its submission; it was very detailed and very informative for the committee. Our officials used that submission a lot when we were formulating decisions as to what changes we would make to this bill before it was brought back to the House. So I take this opportunity to thank officials for their work. 
In 2007 the New Zealand Exchange requested that the Government urgently provide legislation to support an upgrade of its existing clearing and settlement system and the expansion of its exchange-traded products to include futures and emissions units. In response Cabinet approved the introduction of this bill which we saw at the end of last year. A robust market mechanism is necessary to facilitate improved risk management and functioning of New Zealand’s capital markets to develop the products that exist in the market including preserving the ability for businesses and to develop carbon and other derivatives and over-the-counter markets that offer a regulated and authorised clearance of settlements function. If we are serious about getting our economy going we must be serious about the capital markets as well. 
I would like to talk particularly to the emissions units part of the bill. The bill clarifies the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emission units. This applies both to units issued as part of a statutory scheme such as the Kyoto Protocol and to units issued in the voluntary market. It gives effect to this policy through technical amendments to existing legislation. For example the bill clarifies that the emissions units are to be treated like other forms of property in the Securities Act 1978. As a result trading in emissions units will not need to meet the requirements of the regulatory regime for offers of securities or the relevant provisions of the Securities Markets Act unless they are part of an investment scheme. The bill also amends the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 to enable persons to take possession of and security interests over both statutory and voluntary emissions units. 
The select committee made some recommendations in relation to the definition of “emissions units”. It recommended that clauses 27 33 and 36—covering the definition of “emissions units” to be inserted into the Securities Act the Securities Markets Act and the Personal Properties Act—be amended to include units in accordance with any enactment of a jurisdiction within another country or any international treaty or protocol. That is very important. These clauses should also be amended to include the storage of greenhouse gases in the definition. The carbon market is still quite new so the definition of “emissions units” should be broadened to allow for the evolution of this market and the changes that we will see in the future. This might involve technological developments in the way carbon is managed and stored and developments in the sources of carbon credits. Regarding sources for example the committee noted that “increasingly carbon credits are being issued by state or local governments under international treaties and protocols and through legal or contractual arrangements in addition to being issued by central governments.” The definition specified in the bill needs to be wide enough to cover all potential sources of credits so that this bill stays relevant for a period of time. 
The bill is designed to align New Zealand’s clearing and settlement system with international best practice and to facilitate trading in futures and emissions units. It provides that trades in securities and other products can be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial sector. It aligns the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets and provides that market participants in approved and authorised futures exchange are deemed to be authorised to deal in all these future contracts. This bill clarifies the regulatory treatment of the emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. That is just one part of the changes that we made in this bill. I will leave my colleagues to expand on the other two parts. It is my pleasure to support this bill tonight. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker on the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill Katrina Shanks. I thought her contribution was thoughtful and useful in terms of the way in which carbon markets could evolve. I agreed with the comments she made. 
I think it is probably timely to reflect on why we are creating carbon units in New Zealand. The world has to reduce carbon emissions if we are to avoid some of the catastrophic changes that are predicted by many scientists to occur if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere. We have changes in temperature rising sea levels changes in patterns of food production acidification of oceans loss of reefs and loss of species in the sea that produce calcium for shells—they will not be able to produce that calcium because of higher levels of acidity in the ocean. These are very serious matters. The theory that lies between the creation of carbon rights and emissions pricing is that we need to create an economic incentive for the businesses that produce the goods we all consume so that businesses are encouraged to produce goods and services for us to buy that do not cause carbon emissions and to make it more profitable for them to produce a different product where those carbon emissions are absent. 
We do that by charging emitters for the cost of their emissions. We put a price on carbon dioxide methane and other greenhouse gas emissions and that price is avoided by those who produce goods and services in a way that does not produce carbon dioxide and other emissions. So those emitters that are going down the clean route have a price advantage compared with those that are producing carbon emissions and then suffering a price disadvantage. In that way we bring forward renewable electricity instead of coal-fired electricity. We change lots of little decisions in society. It becomes cheaper to run a light car so an aluminium car becomes more viable compared with a heavier steel car because the aluminium car uses less fossil fuel and therefore has lower carbon emissions. All of these complex pricing decisions which we will never notice happen because we price emissions. This bill sets up some of the regulatory framework to make sure that those carbon obligations can be dealt with in commerce in the way that other securities can so this bill is worthy. 
The bill was introduced by the previous Government over a year ago and it has taken a year for this Government to get it back from the Commerce Committee which is a bit long. Why did the New Zealand Exchange as the previous speaker said come to the Government with a sense of urgency a year and a half ago to get this legislation progressed? The answer to that is that at that time there was an opportunity for New Zealand to lead in this way given that emissions pricing was clearly on the way in New Zealand and around the world. Given that that was going to happen our stock exchange figured that it might as well take advantage of the commercial opportunities that arose in any way that it could. It spent quite a bit of money on developing a business plan to take advantage of the fact that New Zealand was leading in this arena so that it could take advantage of the service industry opportunities that would arise from New Zealand being at the forefront of developing this new market. 
That did not mean that New Zealand was going to slay the economic interests of emitters. We were not going to cause aluminium smelters to shut down or farming to go broke. We were not going to cause the steel mill to go broke or anything like that. But we were going to start pricing emissions because since the start of 2008 New Zealand has already had to face the cost for increasing emissions. It was important that that reality was reflected in the economy and that we sent the signal to emitters in New Zealand to stop producing increases in emissions at a cost to the country. We do that by making them pay for some of their emissions. 
Unfortunately in the last year since we have had a change in Government the impetus has been lost. Nowhere is this clearer than in respect of what has happened with the New Zealand Exchange. It has now effectively abandoned its efforts to be a leader in this field. It has given up on the business opportunity that had arisen as a consequence of the previous Government’s actions. That has had a real economic effect on New Zealand: instead of New Zealand having an additional profit centre as a consequence of our leadership in this area New Zealand has a Government saying that somehow we should not lead in this area despite the enormity of the environmental challenge. It says that we should just sit back and be a follower of the rest of the world. One of the prices of being a follower rather than a leader is that we cede the economic opportunities of being the advanced guard in running the related service industries for other jurisdictions. Instead of New Zealand having that economic opportunity it is falling instead to other countries around the world including Australia. It is with sadness that I reflect on the fact that although this bill is still necessary it does not provide the point of advantage it would have had for the New Zealand Exchange and the service industry because New Zealand has lost both its moral authority in this area and the business advantage it accrued from the fact that the previous Government was treating these issues responsibly. 
I do not think there is much more to say than that. Fewer units will be traded than would have been the case because of course the softening of the emissions trading scheme on major emitters is such that billions of dollars of units will now be paid for by taxpayers over the years rather than by emitters. They will have to buy fewer emissions units in the market therefore there is less of a need for this bill than would otherwise have been the case. That is another reason why the business opportunity will not be as great for the service industry. With those comments I say that the Labour Party is happy to support the bill but I feel that it is sad that the business opportunities that surrounded the service industry have been lost to New Zealand because of the short-sighted measures the National Government has taken. Thank you. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. I believe that our Government has brought changes to the emissions trading scheme because we are seeking to bring a better balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. We felt that the advantages that the previous speaker the Hon David Parker spoke of would bring very strong disadvantages to other sectors of our community so we believe that our more measured approach is far more sustainable. 
This bill which was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel towards the end of last year was reinstated in the 49th Parliament in December because it is essential legislation particularly with regard to emissions trading in the global sense. Putting regulation in place for that to happen is very important. The member in charge of this bill is the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Commerce. It returned from the Commerce Committee in June this year. 
There are a number of issues that this bill addresses. It is a very complex bill. Most New Zealanders probably will not understand it but people in the foreign exchange securities and futures area of work and interest will be very interested in this bill. One of the areas that was discussed in the select committee was the choice of a regulator for designated settlement systems. Several submissions questioned the efficiency of appointing joint regulators for the designation of settlement systems. However we recommend the joint regulator model be retained because it is effective without compromising administrative efficiency. 
We considered these two potential models of regulator: the Reserve Bank of New Zealand as a sole regulator with a duty to consult with the Securities Commission and the Securities Commission and the Reserve Bank as joint regulators. It has been suggested that the oversight of settlement systems is primarily a matter of prudential regulation and as such the Reserve Bank is best placed to perform that role. However the settlement of transactions per se is primarily a regulatory matter for the Securities Commission. Thus both the Securities Commission and the Reserve Bank have a legitimate interest in the operation of settlement systems in the financial sector. To provide for a sole regulator with a duty to consult the bill would need to be amended to provide protocols around the duty to consult the other party its role in the process and the extent to which the views of the other party need to be taken into account. That would be less flexible than providing for joint regulators that may coordinate internally and more seamlessly. 
The assessment of an application for designation is a complex task. The work of preparing guidelines in assessing an application is split between two regulators under the joint regulator model. Such work can be allocated according to the expertise of the agency and its particular interest in settlement systems. In this regard the joint regulator model is underpinned by provisions in the bill that allow the joint regulators to share information and have regard to and rely upon any relevant information work or matters held or produced by the other joint regulator. There are expected to be only a handful of applications for designation during the life of the legislation. Potential opportunities for both the applicants and the regulators to refine procedures and reduce costs over time are therefore low. One application will likely come from the Reserve Bank in its role as operator of Austraclear. As a joint regulator the Securities Commission can be a witness to the separation between the Reserve Bank’s role of settlement system regulator and operator. The joint regulator model does not require applicants and designated settlement systems to duplicate effort across two regulators. The applicants are able to choose which regulator to lodge their application with. 
As I mentioned this is a complex bill and a complex matter. I thank the officials who have put in a tremendous amount of work in preparing a bill that has this level of importance for securities settlements and emissions trading in our country. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. This bill is designed to align New Zealand’s clearing and settlement system with international best practice and to facilitate trading in futures and emissions units. The bill contains various technical amendments to existing legislation and Katrina Shanks listed the three Acts that are being amended. The bill is designed to facilitate the development of markets for emission units. 
The Hon Nathan Guy Sam Lotu-Iiga and Katrina Shanks have already outlined in some detail the inner workings of this particular bill. I do not wish to repeat what they said other than that I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials who diligently attended the Commerce Committee of which I am a member. In particular I thank submitters to that committee because although there were not a large number of them they brought a lot of expertise. However I have to say that in respect of some of them I could not help thinking that they were there out of self-interest. I also acknowledge the work of the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
I would like to spend the bulk of my speech responding to the comments of Charles Chauvel and David Parker. They used this opportunity to open up the debate to the whole wider issue of the emissions trading scheme. I cannot leave some of the comments of Mr Parker and Mr Chauvel unchallenged. However let me start by saying that certainly in one respect I totally agree with Mr Chauvel. I think it is a disgrace that the legislation to amend the emissions trading scheme is being rushed through this Parliament with such undue haste. It is the role of Parliament to question and investigate the work of the executive and the bills it puts up. Submissions closed on the amendments to the emissions trading scheme on 13 October and the Finance and Expenditure Committee is due to report back by 15 November. In the space of just a month we have to analyse some 380 submissions hear the views of the officials listen to the recommendations and debate those recommendations. 
As a matter of public record certainly in the early stage there were a number of submitters who had less than 24 hours’ notice. Labour members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee regularly asked the submitters to the committee when they had received the advice that they were required to attend. Some of them had been given 12 hours’ notice some even 15 hours’ notice. I think the record was probably 4 hours’ notice. One gentleman took a phone call at 4 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon and was before the committee at 8 p.m. that evening. 
I raise those points because I think the bill to amend the emissions trading scheme is being done in undue haste. Why is that? We all know that New Zealand is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and the world community is looking to extend the protocol at the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen. It seems that New Zealand is hell-bent on pushing through its amendments to the scheme before that Copenhagen meeting. But those amendments are based in substantial part on the proposed scheme for Australia. I say “proposed scheme” because the scheme is not legislated for in Australia; it has not been passed. The United States does not have emissions trading legislation. 
Earlier this afternoon Mr Phil Goff in seeking to embarrass the Government made a point about an increase in power prices. He accused the National Government of pushing up power prices. Well nothing will do more to push up power prices which will result in subsidies and huge massive profits than the emissions trading scheme. As Mr Parker said in his speech earlier the emissions trading scheme seeks to put a price on carbon. It seeks to increase the price of energy and therefore every single New Zealander will pay a higher price for electricity. It is already legislated for; the scheme is there. It currently takes effect on 1 January next year. The National Government’s solution is to delay its introduction and to reduce somewhat the costs for the first 2½ years but we will all pay a higher price for electricity. 
But it is worse than that. The generators that generate electricity from hydro sources and from other renewable sources will get windfall profits. So TrustPower which owns a suite of hydro dams and is a company in private ownership along with Genesis and the Meridian Energy which are both companies that are State-owned enterprises and also have a suite of hydro generation and renewable electricity will all have windfall profits. The emissions trading scheme the one that is currently on the books and the one that is in the process of being amended will result in a higher price of electricity. Those generators of electricity that generate at a hydro dam or through a geothermal field will not pay that price of carbon. They will receive a higher price for their electricity and they will make windfall profits. 
The Green Party member commented on Sue Bradford’s valedictory statement made this afternoon when Sue Bradford talked about wanting to be known for more than the amendments to section 59 of the Crimes Act. She referred in part to her desire to reduce the deepening gap between rich and poor. I suggest that nothing will do more to make that gap wider than raising the price of the most basic commodity—electricity. 
I wish this were just an issue of looking to protect the environment—we have signed the Kyoto Protocol—but it is not. We heard from a number of submitters who have forestry interests. In particular we heard from Te Arawa Group Holdings which is owned by a number of iwi who own in excess of some 30000 hectares of central North Island forest. This forest is capable of being converted into pastoral farm for dairying to create wealth and employment for New Zealanders. But Te Arawa Group Holdings is not able to convert that forestry into pastoral land to create wealth for New Zealanders. To do so would require the company to surrender some 800 emissions units at a current market price of $25 a unit or $20000 a hectare. Te Arawa Group Holdings estimated that the cost to it of the current emissions trading scheme on the books is some $600 million. What will the National Government’s amendments to the scheme do? They will increase that cost by a further $30 million. So Te Arawa Group Holdings was up for a cost of $600 million but it will now cost $630 million. 
It would not be so bad if Te Arawa Group Holdings were in a position where it could chop the trees down on the land that was good for dairy conversion and replant those trees on other land. The company would like to do that; it has offered to do that. New Zealand has much terrain that is mountainous and is not suitable for pastoral and intensive farming. The company would like to replant those trees so that in time those trees in their new location would sequester as much carbon as they do right now. Under the terms of the treaty that we signed up to the company cannot do that. If it chops those trees down it is up for a charge of $20000 a hectare. 
I understand that New Zealand is going into the Copenhagen round in the hope of negotiating an offset so that Te Arawa Group Holdings and others—like Wairakei Pastoral—can replace those forests on other land. But there is no guarantee that they will be able to. It is quite likely that many billions of dollars will be taken from Maori in terms of a diminution in the value of land that they have been given for Treaty settlements. Why the rush on this bill? In 5 weeks’ time we will know the outcome of the Copenhagen round. Why the rush? I say to Sue Bradford that she has every right to be concerned about the deepening gap between rich and poor. New Zealand is not a rich country. We are a heavily indebted country yet those 30000 hectares in the central North Island could be converted to dairying and could earn overseas exchange for New Zealand but we have signed up to a treaty that denies those people and others like them the opportunity to do that. 
I could go on to talk about the fact that although amendments are being made to allow an offset or allow a phase-in period—Mr Chauvel was very keen on his scheme—it would put New Zealand industry at a massive disadvantage and would cause huge additional costs and job losses. Thank you. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will talk a little bit about the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. It represents another step along the way of our putting in place a sustainable emissions trading scheme. This bill concerns emissions units and futures trading. 
I will also fisk a bit. A bit of fisking was going on in prior speeches particularly from the other side of the House. We heard from Mr Chauvel that we are in danger of becoming the fossil in Copenhagen. Well under his Government’s emissions trading scheme the only thing in danger of becoming a fossil was the New Zealand economy. Thousands of New Zealanders would have been put out of work and for what? So that Labour could go to some international convention somewhere and say: “Look at us; aren’t we so clever?”. Well we thought this through a bit more and we think that jobs are important. In the worst recession that this country has had for over 60 years we think that helping industry through the transition of introducing an emissions trading scheme is incredibly important. That is a good thing to do. People who have jobs in trade-exposed industries will thank us but I tell members that they will not be thanking Labour. 
This bill along with our other emissions trading bill—the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill; the greater parent bill—is a good step in the right direction. It clarifies the regulatory treatment in support of and develops the market for emissions trading and that is a good thing. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister for Biosecurity) 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in early September and although no public submissions were received by the closing date of 22 September the committee has done a thorough job in examining whether the bill will achieve its purpose and has recommended it should be passed with some amendments. 
Before I outline those amendments to the House the Hon David Carter the Minister for Biosecurity wished to thank the committee for its work. The committee’s meetings have been notable for the sense of common purpose with which members from both sides of the House have come together to review this bill. The Minister appreciates their involvement including that of the Green Party which attended the committee meetings in a non-voting capacity. Every member of the committee shared the main aim of ensuring that our biosecurity systems are soundly based and deliver a high level of protection to this country. That protection goes beyond recognising the importance of agriculture to our economy. Improving biosecurity protection also safeguards our health—the health of human beings and the unique plants and animals that feature in New Zealand’s environment. 
In fact the committee’s concern about ensuring high levels of biosecurity protection extended beyond the measures outlined in this bill. In its commentary as reported to the House the committee has noted that more needs to be done to manage biosecurity at international airports. I agree. The scope of this bill affects only a small and very specific part of biosecurity law. Let me make it clear that this short bill is about increasing the penalties for international passengers who offend against the law either by mistake or by carelessness when they are asked to declare whether they are carrying any risky items such as food. As the Minister for Biosecurity stated to the House during the first reading of this bill it is only one part of a package of measures to improve biosecurity at the border. Many of the changes under way are operational issues so they do not need any law change to make them happen. 
It might be helpful for the House if I briefly go over that ground again. The Government has consistently stressed a need for the Public Service to constantly re-evaluate the way it does things and to be innovative in improving the quality of its services. In biosecurity as in so many other areas it makes sense to focus effort in the areas where risk is higher. This bill will support moves to improve our handling of the risks posed by international travellers coming to this country. 
In the future arriving passengers will be profiled and our efforts will be directed primarily at those who are considered to be high risk. Low-risk passengers will be allowed to pass through with less scrutiny but they will still receive attention and will be subject to the higher penalties that this bill enables. The better targeting of biosecurity risk at the borders is not just about risk-profiling work; it includes a whole package of measures including better targeting of and translated publicity material and closer cooperation between border agencies both in New Zealand and Australia including information sharing between our two countries. 
There is no doubt that the great majority of international travellers are happy to comply with the law once they are properly informed. Targeting communications to specific groups of people will help that message get through in the most effective way. We will make travel much less restrictive for low-risk trans-Tasman passengers who comply but those people who fail to comply with the requirements will be hit with the stick of higher penalties. 
The committee has been rigorous in examining this bill and the range of improvements to biosecurity risk targeting that lie behind it. I am pleased to note that there was no objection to increasing the penalties for travellers who carelessly make an incorrect declaration about some of the goods that they are carrying. In fact the committee felt that the bill did not go far enough. In its original form the bill would have increased the maximum penalty on court conviction for this offence from $400 to $800 but the committee felt that a higher penalty was called for and recommended that the upper limit be raised to $1000 to more accurately reflect the serious harm that could be done to our economy environment or human health as a result of biosecurity breaches. I am sure that figure will ratchet up over the years as there is a need to ensure that court fines keep pace with rising costs and therefore the pernicious aspect of the penalty on those who choose to offend will also rise. 
The committee also carefully examined a number of other points in the bill. As originally drafted the bill was to take effect through a separate Order in Council. It was drafted in that way because the bill moves the existing infringement offence out of the Biosecurity Act into regulations. That means supporting regulations must come into force at the same time as the amendments are made to the Act otherwise there would be a gap after the infringement scheme had been removed and before it was re-enacted by the new regulations. 
When the bill was passed by the Regulations Review Committee the committee recommended fixed commencement dates. As a result the bill has been reported back to the House with amendments so that it will come into force no later than 12 months after the Royal assent. It can still be brought into force earlier through an Order in Council if all operational details such as printing and distributing the new infringement forms and pre-printed publicity material are ready to go before the 12 months are up. 
The committee has also recommended a change to the wording of one clause in the bill for the sake of clarity. Clause 8 is about setting the regulations I have already referred to. At present two offences under the Act may be dealt with by issuing an infringement fee or instant fine. When passed the bill will make it possible to extend the scope of the infringement scheme to apply to other offences. The committee has recommended a change to the wording to clarify that the infringement scheme can be applied only to offences already set out in the Act just in case someone was under the impression that entirely new offences could be created arbitrarily without the scrutiny of Parliament. I think that is a sensible move although I would say that quite without the scrutiny of Parliament there are any number of people who wish ill in this regard who are quite capable of devising new offences themselves. 
In any event I thank the Primary Production Committee on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity and I thank the Regulations Review Committee for its work. I am confident that the bill being reported back to the House is stronger for the committees’ considerations.  
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. It is as the Minister Gerry Brownlee says one more step in trying to uphold the highest standards of biosecurity for people and goods coming into this country. It is in fact a bigger stick to wave around at the people who come across our borders. The Primary Production Committee in its wisdom has endorsed that. In fact it made a move in the direction of increasing the size of the stick by saying that the maximum penalty could be up to $1000 whereas the bill originally recommended $800. That acknowledges the importance of the issue. 
However I put on the record that the Government’s making this change at the same time as it is cutting the biosecurity budget raises concerns for the Opposition. It is important that we uphold the highest standards. It is important that we indicate to people who knowingly or unknowingly bring into this country unwanted goods or organisms that they will be penalised and that that penalty is appropriate. It is important that we make sure we give the appropriate warnings to those people; the bill has been amended to make sure that we can print the correct material in order to align it with the incoming regulations and the enforcement of the Act. That is great; again that was due to the wisdom of the select committee. But we have to make sure that we warn people in a way that is clear and that can be understood. I put on record the fact that many of the forms are confusing for people coming into New Zealand particularly those for whom English is a second language. So in supporting the passage through the House of this bill which is a larger stick I say there is an obligation on the Government to make sure that the information supplied to people before they hop on the plane while they are on the plane and before they pass through our borders is clearly understood and that they understand they will be caught prosecuted and fined for bringing into this country illegal or unwanted goods and organisms. 
Many of those organisms threaten our biological economy. I read a statement from Federated Farmers that pointed out that should foot-and-mouth disease ever come into this country it would cost our economy $6 billion in the first year. Those potential harms to our economy are significant. That is why we have to have legislation like this. 
I refer the House again to the collective wisdom of the select committee Government members included. It said in the report back in this bill that there is some concern as the committee remains unconvinced that sufficient work is being done in regard to biosecurity risk profiling at airports. The Prime Minister’s enthusiasm as Minister of Tourism has to be welcomed for encouraging as many Australians into New Zealand as possible but in lowering the barriers we cannot risk compromising our biosecurity status. The select committee pointed to problems that still have to be resolved prior to implementing the changes allowing easier passage for Australians into this country. 
Labour supports the bill. We urge all Government members to read the report back from the select committee. We expect the Government to get on and address the points raised by the committee. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 The Government enthusiastically supports the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. There was a lot of discussion about it in the Primary Production Committee as the previous two speakers have alluded to. The issue that was of concern to the select committee was that in the interests of streamlining our borders with Australia in particular but also of streamlining our borders full stop there is an element of risk. It is always a debating point about how much risk is too much and how much is not enough. The debate on that point took place with some enthusiasm and the issues that concerned the committee that are still unresolved are those regarding the digital transfer of images from Australia to New Zealand. 
The proposal under this bill is that in streamlining the processing of a business person who flies from Australia say from Sydney to Auckland in the morning and then flies back in the afternoon carrying nothing more than a briefcase that traveller should be exposed to exactly the same X-ray scrutiny as someone who is travelling from further afield or who had been away from home for longer. The rationale is that that person could have an apple in his or her briefcase that carries fruit fly or the like which could have a devastating effect on New Zealand. The proposal is of course that his or her briefcase will be X-rayed in Australia and the image will be transferred to New Zealand for investigation for inspection prior to the traveller arriving in New Zealand. That sounds as though it is perfectly rational with modern technology. But there are some property rights issues about who owns that image and whether our biosecurity personnel and customs personnel will have access to it. Those issues have to be resolved. 
The moving of the regulatory powers with regard to penalties from the legislation to regulations seems very sensible in the sense that we do not know until we have tried using a penalty whether it has the desired effect. Our instant fine until now has been $200. Most people will acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker Damien O’Connor that the potential risk to our biodiversity and our economy through something like fruit fly or foot-and-mouth disease are not worth contemplating in the sense that it would bring New Zealand’s economy back to Third World status in a very short time. So at one level we have to be very vigilant about how we handle these things and at another level we have to be practical about ensuring the free flow of people in and out of our country. Clearly a $200 fine has not been a strong-enough deterrent. When we look at the extent of biosecurity incursions over the last few years we see that in fact in a year 8 tonnes of meat—a big truckload—was intercepted at our borders either in people’s personal hand luggage or on their person. That was 8 tonnes of meat! 
We have to ask these questions: how would foot-and-mouth get into New Zealand and how much risk should we take? We know that people tried to import that meat into New Zealand illegally because we intercepted it. That means that our biosecurity staff are doing a superb job and they deserve a bouquet for that. But we also know because of their own research that as much as 10 percent of illegal imports get through. Allowing that level of risk can only be described as creating the potential for there to be a devastating effect on our economy. We are looking very closely at what can be done to enhance our surveillance—at the amount that gets through and the amount that does not get through—and at the penalties that we should put in place to prevent illegal imports from happening or to deter people from trying to make them. 
The issues around the $200 instant fine have been well debated. There was some argument—and probably with some credibility; it is very hard to say but we will know over time—about whether if the fine is increased to $400 or to a higher amount people would then make the call to pay the instant fine on the spot or would decide to take it to the next level. People are allowed 14 days in which to pay the instant fine and if they do not they go though a court process. The argument put up against imposing too high an instant fine is that too many people will take matters to the next level and at that point it would become a huge cost not only to the State but also to the court system—that it would become a fairly complicated process. It was argued that despite the fact that people could potentially end up with a criminal record they would still argue the toss particularly over what could be described as a minor offence like having an apple in a briefcase which could bring in fruit fly and take it to the next level. So the committee looked at whether the earliest penalty or the minimum penalty that could be imposed at the border was high enough. At $800 it decided no and that the amount should be lifted to $1000 in order to act as a greater deterrent. 
I am pleased to say that the Government has accepted those recommendations. There was a unanimous vote in the select committee and that was almost the case in the House I hasten to add which is an unusual set of circumstances in the parliamentary process. Clearly the bill has the will of the majority and I look forward to its passage. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak and make a contribution on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. When I listened to the speech of the chairman of the Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern I got a sense that this bill does not convey what he was trying to convey in his speech. He was trying to convey the sense that the Government was doing something but the reality is that I do not get that sense at all. There was a lack of ambition in the rhetoric that we just heard. When we look at the bill we see that it only talks about increasing the penalty from $400 to $1000 for the poor soul who comes through our borders who perhaps may speak a different language and not be able to fully understand English. That is what this bill is about. It is a shame that although he talked about what we could have done as a country that is not what the bill does. 
As the member for Mangere where Auckland Airport is located—we call that place the gateway to New Zealand the gateway where New Zealand touches the rest of the world—I know that biosecurity is important to the constituents there. It is about protecting our borders and being able to ensure that our economy our environment and human health get the best resources in order to ensure that they are protected. I follow my colleague the Hon Damien O’Conner in saying that Labour supports this bill. It is not the kind of work we ought to be doing in order to secure our borders. The sad thing is— 
Shane Ardern 
: There’s more to come. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Let us just wait and see. Biosecurity is important in order to protect our border and our interests. It is particularly important in this day and age because of the growing international relationships we now have as we sign up—first under Labour and now under this Government—to a lot of trading agreements with our major trading partners. It is also important because we are seeing a lot of interaction between New Zealand and other countries around this world and of course more recently continual climate change. 
The sad thing about this whole bill is that we are tinkering around the edges but at the same time the Government has cut $2 million from the biosecurity budget and 56 people have lost their jobs. The kind of work we are talking about in biosecurity is labour-intensive. We need people on the ground. We need people to be monitoring our systems. We need people to engage with similar countries and to share intelligence before biosecurity risks arrive at our borders. Then we need people to conduct the work that needs to be done after these things have come through our borders. That will be particularly important as we get closer to 2011 when we expect about 60000-plus people to come through our borders. 
The other sad thing is that we are spending a lot of time talking about this when the more important thing we should be talking about is job security. Obviously the sacking of 56 people means that that is not a priority for this Government. We need to talk about why this Government will be raising accident compensation levies for motorcyclists. I do not know whether other members have received emails from a range of people across this country who are very very unhappy about that. We need to be talking about why this Government has cut 80 percent of the funding that goes into adult and community education and in particular education that is needed as we build the skills base of our population as we head into the future. When we come out of this recession it will be important that we have a skilled workforce that is prepared to take up future opportunities. 
I do not want to prolong this debate because as Labour members have said it is a shame that this bill has been introduced at this time. It is minor tinkering. We support the bill but we should be doing a lot more than what this bill entails. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supported the Biosecurity Amendment Bill in its first reading and will continue to support it in its second reading. 
Biosecurity seems to have four different phases. One is prevention of biosecurity risks occurring in the first place; the second is detection of those risks typically at or around the border; the third is stamping out incursions where they have got through our detection process; and the fourth is mitigation where the incursion cannot be stamped out and we are instead looking to ameliorate the worst effects. It is obvious that just as in my field of health where we look at exactly those same phases in trying to intervene in a person’s disease progression our emphasis must be on the first phase—on prevention. So we do everything that we can to prevent the biosecurity risk in the first place; if that fails we then throw as much resource as we possibly can into the detection process. 
This bill deals largely with the detection process but the Government believes that the increased fines that the bill provides are an important element in the prevention process. It is really those first two phases of the biosecurity process that I want to focus on tonight. 
In relation to prevention of biosecurity risks I begin by giving praise to MAF Biosecurity. I had the privilege of being able to join the Primary Production Committee—and I thank Shane Ardern and the members of the committee for the opportunity to do so—during the consideration of this bill. During that time we heard from MAF Biosecurity about the processes it uses to educate travellers about biosecurity risks. I was impressed by the lengths to which MAF Biosecurity is going in that regard. 
Travellers coming into the country are just one aspect of the biosecurity risk that we face. There is a very much larger risk that we face around goods and freight coming into the country through shipping containers and shipping holds. It is much more difficult to prevent biosecurity risks in that regard because many of the operators have commercial incentives to skimp on the processes that might be used to reduce or eliminate biosecurity risks to this country. 
I point out the unnecessary risk we often pose to ourselves by our needless importation of goods into this country. I have spoken in the House several times about our importation of palm kernel. It is a classic example of a product that we have absolutely no need to import into New Zealand. The biosecurity risks that we import with that product are substantial. I have spoken in the House as has Damien O’Connor about the risks in relation to insect infestations of palm kernel shipments that arrive here. I have also spoken about the risk of foot-and-mouth disease from palm kernel. We are importing this stuff from a region of the world where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. The stuff is coming into the country and being fed out and farmers are reporting soil contamination. That soil contamination can occur only after the point in the process where the palm kernel is exposed to heat. In other words the contamination is occurring after the only process that might have done something about foot-and-mouth disease. We know that foot-and-mouth disease is viable in soil and water for extended periods of time. This is a massive risk that we are taking and we are taking it entirely needlessly. 
This is the kind of madness that can result in particular from free-trade agreements. I raise the topic because it is timely. We have just signed another free-trade agreement with Malaysia which is incidentally a country in which foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. Free-trade agreements encourage the import of goods to contribute to a consumption-led economy the very kind of economy we do not need; the kneecapping of local industries—in the case of palm kernel the grain farmers of New Zealand who are suffering very badly as a result of this trade—and the taking of entirely unnecessary biosecurity risks. In the prevention phase there is a whole bunch of risks that we are taking that we do not need to take. 
In relation to detection these increased fines are effectively a trade-off that the Minister for Biosecurity proposes. They are proposed as a disincentive for travellers to bring in with them biosecurity risks on the basis that travellers will pay closer attention to their luggage and weed out those risks. We are making this trade-off because the Prime Minister wants the travelling time from Australia to New Zealand to be 8 minutes shorter. The goal is the saving of 8 minutes on a trip of multiple hours. For that we are sacrificing our approach of universal screening to one that is based on risk profiling. 
I want to raise in the House some figures that the Primary Production Committee heard from MAF Biosecurity about that issue. I hesitate before doing so to point out that the select committee itself as Shane Ardern has noted and I thank him for that has indicated to this House that it is not convinced by the risk-profiling approach. More work needs to be done on that and the select committee is absolutely right. MAF Biosecurity found in its trial of the risk-profiling approach that those passengers who were deemed to be low risk and went through the low-risk trial lane nonetheless yielded some 51 items of biosecurity risk. So out of the 1186 seizures of biosecurity risks most of them were from passengers deemed high risk but 51 came from passengers deemed low risk. If we screened only those passengers deemed to be high risk those 51 risk items would have entered New Zealand. Of those 51 items—I will not run through the whole analysis—some 17 of them for example were fruit fly host material. Well I have spoken in the House before in my first reading speech about the catastrophic impact of a fruit fly infestation in the Bay of Plenty in just the first year. 
Another 18 of those 51 risks were around footwear that had not been properly cleaned. What is the risk around improperly cleaned footwear? Well it is the importation of soil which can contain pathogens. I have spoken about the risk of foot-and-mouth disease from soil but also in the news in this last week or so I have talked about the risk to our iconic kauri species from another soil-based pathogen. 
These are risks that the Government proposes to take in return for saving 8 minutes. I have spoken in the public domain in the last week about the Government being asleep at the wheel on biosecurity. The Minister for Biosecurity has accused me of being alarmist. Well I am alarmed. I am alarmed at the risk and so should this House be and all New Zealanders. This is a massive risk; we do not need to take it. The Green Party will support the bill. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the second reading debate on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. I would like to start by saying that it is a bit rich when the Opposition talks about the Government sitting on its hands and cutting the budget when over the 9 years that members opposite were in Government there were 333 incursions. We had the painted apple moth didymo the varroa bee mite and  
Didendum 
 to name a few. To be honest if we were going to get foot-and-mouth disease we would have got it under that Labour Government. If we were going to get bovine spongiform encephalopathy we would have got it under that Government. It is a bit rich and probably an indication that Labour members are out of touch with the farming community when the backbenchers parrot away about things they do not know much about. They just read off a sheet of paper with no real passion or anything like that. 
I tell the shadow spokesperson for agriculture and biosecurity that it was very interesting to research the reduction in the biosecurity budget. It actually related to two particular programmes of eradication. One programme which related to the red fire ant from the Whirinaki area has come to an end. It has been declared successful as of 4 p.m. on Wednesday 22 April 2009. The second programme is close to eradicating the southern salt marsh mosquito which was found in a number of salt marshes around New Zealand but is holding on in one area down in Marlborough at the mouth of the Wairau. The outcome is looking very good but the programme will carry on for another 12 months when traps will be checked to make sure that that mosquito is eradicated. 
I congratulate MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Those two eradication programmes and costs within the budget are no longer required. I put that on the record so that the erroneous comments on the other side of the House are put into context. They were two individual programmes that have been successful unlike a lot of the failures made by members opposite when in Government. 
We stop and think about the varroa bee mite when we look at the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. Procrastination by the previous Labour Government allowed the varroa bee mite to get down in the South Island and there was no coordination whatever under that Government. We can see why those members are in Opposition which is where they should be. 
But back to the bill. It is always good to see the Primary Production Committee working collegially. There are a couple of things that the two main parties in this country do agree on; one is trade and the other is biosecurity. It is on record now that we want to see a lot more rigour in resolving the tension that exists between tourism and our primary sector export industries. 
When we look at the issue in context we see that New Zealanders and Australians do very well. They are the lowest offenders. But 4700 infringement notices were handed out which makes this bill very very relevant. Of those notices 1361 were given to New Zealanders. It is important that we toughen up the procedures. Giving people 14 days’ leeway to pay their $400 instant fine is very reasonable. The select committee was informed that setting a fine at $200 led to a compliance percent rate in the high 90s. However if memory serves me correctly a person who featured on  
Border Patrol 
 the other night held out for the maximum number of days before paying the fine. That is why the select committee was of the view that a $1000 fine was quite reasonable and appropriate. That is not the whole cost—there are court and conviction costs—so the $1000 figure needs to be seen in that light. 
Let us look at the cost of some of the incursions that have happened. Didymo is projected to cost this country $285 million and the varroa bee mite which has decimated clover legumes in the South Island is projected to cost $300 million. In the long term those costs affect our pastoral industries. 
This bill is particularly tight and is targeted at ports and points of first arrival—ports being both airports and seaports such as those in Auckland where international cruise liners come in. We can never understate the importance of this issue. Although I become agitated at some of the piousness and self-righteousness that emanates from the other side of the House we cannot let our guard down. Thousands upon thousands of farmers risk incredible amounts of investment. To ensure that the Government does its bit we must reinforce our biosecurity laws. I have great pleasure in recommending this bill to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As other speakers have said Labour supports the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. First of all I will comment on the reference by the previous speaker Colin King to I assume Su’a William Sio. Mr King criticised him for being a backbencher and not a farmer and therefore for supposedly knowing nothing about biosecurity. That is a bit like saying one needs to be a tree in order to understand forests. Su’a William Sio’s point was that he was passionate about biosecurity and that he lived in an electorate that was the gateway to Auckland. As a result of that he said this bill did not go far enough and he wanted it to go further. I totally agree with him on those points. 
This bill as has been mentioned by a number of speakers increases the maximum fine. I think that will serve as a deterrent against people bringing in goods that could risk New Zealand’s biosecurity. But I think there is a point at which a deterrent could actually become a liability in terms of its transaction costs as Shane Ardern mentioned. I agree with him on that. I think to the credit of the Primary Production Committee that it has got the balance pretty much right in this bill. All the changes to the bill make good sense. 
I will reinforce another of the points that Su’a William Sio mentioned as well: the point about language. We have people from about 180 ethnic groups coming into the Auckland region and obviously speaking many many different languages. We need to get across to those people the biosecurity protection rules and deterrents and in order to communicate with them it is very important to write as clearly and as simply as possible and in a language that they can understand. It is all very well fining them and deterring them afterwards but if they did not understand the rules when they first came in then it is somewhat too late to fine them for breaching the rules. 
Labour believes that having an effective biosecurity regime is vital in order to protect New Zealand’s interests. But obviously that is not just about increasing the fines and penalties. As my colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned the Government at the same time as it is trying to increase biosecurity by increasing the penalties for biosecurity breaches is also cutting $2 million from the biosecurity budget and cutting 56 front-line jobs. That seems to me to be a backwards step. I think that the whole point of the discussion about the front line which comes through in our discussions on the police the public health system or on whatever else it may be is an important one. But although the Government says it is supports front-line jobs and is cutting administrative staff the cutting of administrative staff means that front-line staff will have to do administrative work. That defeats the purpose of the goals of biosecurity law and order etc. 
I remember living out in west Auckland so I remind the House of the plague of the painted apple moth when it came into New Zealand probably by means of a container imported from Australia and of the millions of dollars that we had to spend on aerial spraying in order to get rid of that pest. It is much better to have a policy of deterrence as the Green Party was mentioning than to try to pick up the pieces and repair the damage later on. 
I do not want to talk any further on this bill. We have broad agreement on it in the House. I think the bill is incredibly important for the New Zealand economy. The Reserve Bank mentioned for example that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand—and Kevin Hague also mentioned this—would be devastating. The bank put the cost of an outbreak at about $10 billion. That would be a devastating loss for New Zealand. Mr Hague also mentioned the palm kernel imports which this Government continues to allow into the country even though at least 50 known pests are associated with that product. It would be a smart idea not to bring palm kernel in as a food for livestock and instead to use the alternative foods that we have here in New Zealand. That would be good for the economy and good for biosecurity as well. I will stop there but once again I commend the select committee for coming to an agreement on this bill and I also commend our front-line biosecurity staff—those who are left—for their efforts to defend New Zealand’s best interests. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. It is fantastic that we are actually moving pretty quickly to raise the fines for people who bring in any foreign goods or food goods into New Zealand and who cross our borders with items they should not have on their person or in their baggage. I think the bill is fantastic. In actual fact I am probably more of the tendency to put up those fines even further. I think it is fantastic that we are now getting through this process. 
This legislation cannot come soon enough. The sooner we enact this bill and start imposing realistic fines on people for bringing unwanted goods into our country and threatening our biosecurity the better. I think that the select committee has done a great job across the House to progress this bill and I say “Well done!” to everybody. The legislation cannot come soon enough. Let us hit offenders in the pockets so that they know they cannot keep contravening our biosecurity rules. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 8.45 p.m. (Wednesday)